DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: CNPS Structured Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 211--------------------------------------------------
REVIEW PROCESS
By: Admin Date: June 9, 2017, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 9, 2017 10:00 AM
<Bruce
_" I " means "improbable". I said I'd rate all his ideas as
improbable because his fundamentals were improbable. Therefore,
all the concepts that use them are on shaky ground. As for
explanations, the long papers I attached provides my
explanations.
_I don't understand why you said, "I figured the I ratings are
the main ones for theorists to consider for improving their
theories." I would expect you to focus on the " P (probable) "
ratings. My reasoning for this is, we have to assume we are
looking at a new theory (P.U.T. in this case) because it breaks
new ground. Ground breaking papers are often total nonsense.
That's what we want to rule out. BUT, if there are some good
ideas in there, I would expect reviewers to rate them P.
_The point I was trying to make to you was that just having
people create a ratings list doesn't capture enough detail to
guide a facilitator to commit other people's effort to review a
paper. Below, you said something that is more in keeping with
this point. You said, "what I and two others agreed are probably
the main essential ideas of P.U.T." That is, some people (let's
say you and the other two for this case) who the society
believes are sound thinkers, pick out some promising concepts
and guide a number of members to review them in depth. The
result of that review would be one of your papers. However, it
would also have other outcomes related to the structured
approach:
The result paper would be published by CNPS
The paper would be indexed with associations to Mathis,
P.U.T. , and the topics selected for review in the paper like:
photons, Time etc.
Entries for Mathis and P.U.T. would be added to the general
CNPS physics index along with citations to Mathis' work.
_The major goals here are: a. the study effort that would be
done for the paper never has to be done again; and b. other
scientists will easily find it doing an index search on Mathis,
P.U.T. or any of the key topics addressed in the review.
_The only comment I'd add about the 5-part plan is that it would
be a guideline for any new research we do that generates raw
data.
Fri 6/9 2:23PM
>Bruce
_You said: "Ground breaking papers are often total nonsense.
That's what we want to rule out. BUT, if there are some good
ideas in there, I would expect reviewers to rate them P."
_That makes sense. CNPS would want to know what gets rated P.
Theorists would want to know what gets rated I in order to know
better hot to improve their theories. So I was using theorists'
perspective, while you were using CNPS' perspective. Right?
_You said: "some people ... who the society believes are sound
thinkers, pick out some promising concepts and guide a number of
members to review them in depth. The result of that review would
be one of your papers ... [and] other outcomes"
_Should I look for such thinkers to serve as fellow reviewers? I
guess you won't mind if I look for them. Right?
_Below, I've reduced the list of essential elements of P.U.T. to
those that most interest me. Would you like to just briefly look
them over and say if any of them seem possibly true? I ask,
because I'm interested in what you may know that may disprove
any of them, and because it may help me learn a good review
process. Si?
_ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS of P.U.T. with DEFINITIONS
. Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a
multiple thereof
. which is detected as visible light, or so-called
electromagnetic radiation;
. also, the building block of subatomic particles (all matter
in the universe)
. Spin: the rotation of a photon, or any subatomic particle [or
any atom or ion]
. Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational
forces
. Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon surface
spins
. Heat: infrared photons
. Charge: photon pressure (equivalent to mass), ie emission of
photons from subatomic particles (neutrons emit very little)
. Atomic Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule
that emits little photon radiation
. Electron: smallest subatomic particle, too large to reach the
speed of light;
. in atoms it "orbits" the pole of a proton and neutralizes
(partly blocks) charge
. Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge
. Neutron: a nearly neutral subatomic particle;
. free neutrons decay because of lesser emission which exposes
them to ambient field photon collisions
. Alpha: alpha particle having two each of protons, neutrons
and electrons;
. it forms the core of larger atoms, either single or up to
five combined
. Carousel: opposing pair/s of protons in one equatorial plane
around the polar axis of [an atomic] nucleus
. Math, Physics & Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations
for the microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and
photons, zero mass of photons, flawed logic, etc
#Post#: 217--------------------------------------------------
Re: CNPS General Discussion
By: Admin Date: September 26, 2017, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum next steps
Saturday, August 5, 2017 9:09 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Hi Lloyd,
_The board has just finished gathering notes together. There is
a lot to think through and discuss - 5 pages to be exact. So,
major decisions are away off. It will take at least a month,
given all board members are volunteers. I think I have enough
understanding of the issues to take action. I've also been
officially put on the board. So, let's move ahead with what we
can. I'll discuss this in the Special Projects section below.
_Someone else asked me if the email posts could automatically be
displayed on the Forum. I don't know how to do that. But I also
think it's a bad idea. As we move to more productive Forum
discussions, MOST of the email posts would have to be deleted as
trash. It's better to work to bring over responsible members who
agree to tighter conduct rules. I'll put your name on my email
removal list if you want. Let me know. It will still take awhile
to be effective.
_I looked at all the posts related to Critical Wikis in the
Forum. All of them seemed very preliminary - almost like scratch
sheets. But you've collected information for each which is where
the process has to start. Let's address this further by talking
about a special project.
_The Special Projects section of the CNPS planning notes is
included below. These are all suggestions for efforts CNPS could
work on AS A GROUP in the coming year. So far, CNPS has not
figured out HOW to work as a group. As I said, CNPS has a lot to
discuss. What I'd like you and I to do is pick ONE project that
we will work together on right away as an example to the other
directors of how I think we can employ the Structured Discussion
process. The "ONE" project I'm referring to is NOT on the list
below. It's one of the projects you have already started that
you have a personal interest in.
_Let's say, for example, you pick the 3.3.3 Scientific Method
project. What we would do, is, include sections that address
items 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11 and 4.12 from the Special
Projects list. Since all of those for all of science would still
be much to big a job, we could aim all the parts at a specific
physics issue, like item 4.4 from the list. That would also pull
in 4.2 and 4.3.
_You can also pick one of your other interests instead. But none
of those came up during the conference, nor have they had much
interest. The nearest matches were Expansion Tectonics and
Positron / Electron aethers, both big topics at the conference.
Of course, you can also pick a new topic to try.
_My objective in listing all these alternatives is for you to
see that I want to support something you have a strong personal
interest. This comes from my major drive with the board. CNPS,
as a society, has to deliver VALUE to its members. I want to use
our interaction to demonstrate how this can be done.
_4. Special Projects
_The purpose of special projects is that they have specific
goals and an organized process that people can get in on and
benefit from.
_4.1 Detailed Library and keyword subject index of member
papers
The CNPS library has 13,000+ items. Unless these are organized
for easy and understandable access, people will not take the
time to “wade” through them. Most items have titles that are not
descriptive of their contents. Detailed indexing is needed.
· Indexing should be done by the authors for their own
papers against published guidelines.
· This effort should earn awards: e.g. Those that index
their papers go to the top of the list.
_4.2 GPS paper based on Ron Hatch’s work – title: “GPS
corrections to Special Relativity”
Ron’s work provides paradigm shifting experimental results for
the speed of light. A large effort, tied to CNPS, should be
started to push this into social awareness.
_4.3 Do focused promotions of “breakthrough” ideas from the
conference
· Musa showed how a bipolar aether can explain gravity,
using only electrostatics.
· Bruce stumbled on a way to eliminate one of the S.I.
fundamental units (distance or time). Unzieker offered to “look”
at it.
· Bruce found a new paradox for SR – the “c-speed” paradox.
Lori Gardi also found a similar phenomenon, both of which show
SR is an instrument calibration error problem.
_4.4 A focused push on Special Relativity
The study of email interactions by members showed that SR
constituted more than 80% of all discussions. We should focus SR
to pull members into the Forum.
· Find summaries of SR proof experiments.
· Find summaries that show where society thinks SR has been
used – Mercury orbit etc.
· Review and find challenges for each. Base this on the
Sapere Aude index (which Gertrud will help with). Update and
promote that index.
· Publish a major “SR Update paper”
_4.5 Attack the LANGUAGE problem!
During the conference, it was very clear that members do NOT
talk the same language, because they don’t share the same
definitions of words. This is a critical problem to solve.
· One element would be setting up a Critical Thinker
Glossary. Each term would be supported by a published Critical
Wiki.
· Tear apart the misleading terminology of terms used in
particle physics.
_4.6 Attack the “shut up and do the math” problem!
Many members are very competent manipulating equations. But many
of those are not as good understanding how the variables in the
equations apply to reality. An effort to convert them would
improve intermember communication.
_4.7 Experimental Evidence Review
· List the experimental evidence that society believes
“proves” major theories: Michelson-Morley, Eddington etc.
Organize and present the now known errors.
· Focus on helping people identify Pseudo Science ::: “not
subject to tangible proof”
_4.8 Develop scientific tests that will break the logjams of
entrenched theories
Members have suggestions for each of these and more.
· Speed of light
· Aether / Gravity: develop a test to determine the
mechanism – fields, particles
_4.9 Debates! Use a new Structured Communication approach
· Duncan Shaw suggested staging debates to resolve
incompatible theories. Conventional debate models, as an
approach, have collapsed with the collapse of modern democracy.
Structured Communication provides a solution. This new form of
debate can be used as a verbal alternative to Structured
Communication in the Forum. The goal is not to find a winner,
but to assemble a comprehensive review of a topic. If there is
enough knowledge to reach a conclusion, then a “winner” would be
found.
_4.10 Science Court!
· This would be a variation of Duncan’s Debates. Using a new
Structured Communication approach, it would NOT be aimed at
reaching a verdict but be more like a Congressional hearing to:
gather information and organize information. Critical thinkers
would be welcome. Mainstream voices could present like anyone
else, but would not be shown any presumed merit.
_4.11 Implement the Critical Wikipedia
· One approach under investigation is to make a Critical
Wikipedia page a goal for Structured Discussions in the Forum.
This would apply to every scientific term discussed there.
_4.12 Start Peer Review
· We are going to need reviewers for many things. Let’s
start the search for people who can do this well, and reward
them for doing so.
Bruce
__On Aug 4, 2017, at 3:39 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce. Is work with the Conference finished yet?
_I guess I mentioned that Gertrud said she didn't want to write
on the forum. She also didn't reply to my request to ask her and
her team questions.
_Someone put me back on the email string, which is okay so far.
It seems to me it might be feasible and helpful to have the
email messages automatically displayed on the forum in your
first section, from where they could later be moved to a more
appropriate section. What do you think?
_Is the Wiki coming along okay to your satisfaction?
- Good Day. Lloyd
---
Re: Debates
Saturday, September 2, 2017 7:34 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Lloyd,
_David is not moving very quickly deciding on action. He was
focused on setting up the conference for next year. That is now
done. It will be at UConn. In any case, there is no need to
wait. Just start moving ahead with your ideas. Getting James to
annotate the questions is a big help. I'll push David to let me
start a real organization newsletter. That's the proper way to
tell members about the ET effort. But you should definitely post
to the email string.
_Bruce
On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:00 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce. You said:
_B: I think you can start your first debate right in the Forum
using your role as facilitator. For example, In the Tasks &
Request for Volunteers, number 1.4 is Organize focused
discussions related to the "open" questions with a goal of
finding answers. Add a new item in the Open Assignments list:
4.2 Hold debates on specific open questions. Then assign
yourself as the Team Leader.
_L: James Maxlow told me a couple days ago that he's working on
answering all 22 questions about ET, so I expect to see his
answers on the forum soon. He asked if it's okay to include
pictures and I said yes. I also expect that I'll still have at
least one or two open questions after he posts his answers.
_The other open questions are regarding the other geological
theories. I don't know if CNPS members will be interested in
helping find answers to those questions, but I guess I can ask.
- Good Day. Lloyd
Re: Debates
Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:03 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Lloyd,
_This is outstanding work on your part. I'm including David
deHilster on this reply because this can have significant impact
on CNPS growth.
_You've asked a lot of questions. Let me take them one at a
time. (matched to reference numbers added below)
_Back in mid August, we hadn't fully organized the Expansion
Tectonics Structured Forum yet. You were already working on
Surge Tectonics. So that is what they were responding to. I've
set the 6.0 Forum category up to handle as many subjects as
users show interest in.
_There is a LOT to read "between the lines" here. Dr. Choi,
based only on your contact, evidently forwarded your ideas to
many of their "editorial" members. That's a big deal.
Furthermore, most of them replied positively. To me, this is an
important example of how we can grow CNPS. I'm also noting, it
is not because they found the CNPS website. It happened because
we reached out to a specialty.
_So this is where we need David's input. How do we bring them
in? For example, we could ask one member of NCGT to join CNPS
as the primary interface. Hopefully, it will lead to others
joining voluntarily. To start their involvement, I've created a
Forum user category called "Guest Scholar". They essentially
have temporary read/write forum privileges. Other NCGT members
can join the forum as "Guests", but they can only read.
_I always believed that creating a Critical Wiki "feature" at
CNPS could become a major draw for members. David has done a lot
to establish a foundation for this. But a lot of work is needed
to make it more usable. With this new expression of interest
from outside, it may be the trigger we need to start a "formal"
CNPS project. The key is lining up the manpower to do it. But
this outside interest could be the catalyst.
_They want to know more about us! This, again, suggests a new
approach to how we do outreach. We can tell them to just look
through our website. But, most people won't do that because it
covers too broad an area. But, having a person like you, with
your background, make a one-on-one contact opened the door to
make an introduction. Again, I want to get David's perspective
on this. For me, we should not just reply with anything simple
like our mission statement or goals. This needs to be targeted
towards what NCGT readers are interested in. It would actually
be presented in a way that is a "ghost article" that NCGT could
publish in their journal as an editorial or special interest
piece showing how CNPS resources can help their effort.
_My plan for the Forum in this regard is simple. We would
generate as many Wikis as effort comes forward to produce.
That's the draw from their group. NCGT, being a journal, may not
have the skills to generate Wikis. We have the skills - they
have the writers. We just need to pull it together and give both
organizations notoriety for it.
_We are already starting to explore debates / discussions in the
Forum using my new Structured approach. Their participation will
help. But, we need to use the new approach or the outcome will
just go into the Internet Landfill. We have to stop that.
_Both, plus more options as well. There should be as many papers
and Wikis as the members provide energy to produce. Each paper
will focus on some narrow issue. In those papers, they will
briefly reference all the theories they drew from. So, there
will be a pyramid of both papers and Wikis: A few general
references at the top spreading to larger numbers at levels
below as more specific subjects are addressed. What will help
launch this is getting enough annotation on the papers already
cataloged in the CNPS library so they can become the basis for
the new Wikis.
_David has recently pulled part of the Wiki format process
together. Specifically, he has covered the composition part.
What is still missing is guidance on the pyramid approach. That
will be new. In brief, it will show how a large group of papers
and Wikis come together as a system. For example, there would be
a major organizing Wiki for Global Tectonics, that briefly talks
about all the major theories (this is the table you have
started). It would point to organizing Wikis for each individual
theory. Those, in turn, would point to additional Wikis for
parts of the theory. We do not have a process description in
place to point anyone to yet. In the mean time, just focus on
one Wiki at a time.
_As for the debates, use the etherpad discussions and emails we
have had as guidance. Remember, this is an experiment to find
out which ideas work best.
_Use the answers he gives to support your earlier discussions
for ST. But I think you need to narrow down your interest. You
are also getting a lot of support from James Maxlow. Don't
shortchange him. It may be better to focus NCGT on ET until the
first few papers and Wikis are produced so we have something
tangible to show for all the effort that is being generated. To
date, category 6.2 has posted 24 threads; 70 replies; and 1364
views. You and I have sent 175+ emails. Using the methods I
developed for the email analysis, I estimate that the Expansion
Tectonics forum effort has now drawn over 225 hours of effort
from our members! Let's keep focusing to get a paper and Wiki
out of this soon!
_Bruce
__On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:19 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_Hi Bruce.
_On August 15, Dr. Choi, who edits the NCGT (New Concepts in
Global Tectonics) journal, replied to me regarding the CNPS
Special Project as follows.
_{1} "We received feedbacks from editorial members. Most of them
are willing to join. All of them are world-class experts in
their own field, who proposed their own ideas with sound data.
Naturally more subjects must be included in addition to surge
tectonics. Surge tectonics appeared more than 20 years ago, and
during the period many new data have appeared - some require
revisions and adjustments, which must be reflected in the Wiki.
_{2} "Please let us know more in detail in what format the Wiki
will be published, and what and how we need to prepare.
_{3} "We want to know more about you. Please introduce yourself
to our editorial members.
_{4} I guess Dr. Choi may have had the impression that all of
the theories involved in this project would receive Wiki
entries. Is there any reason they should not have such entries
there? It seems worthwhile to me.
_{5} Anyway, I think several of the other NCGT editors are
interested in debates or discussions.
_{6} Will the theories in the project all be mentioned in the
final paper of this project? Or will each theory have its own
entry in the Wiki?
_{7} Do you have an answer to what format the Wiki will be
published in? Should I just give them a link to the CNPS Wiki?
_{8} For them to prepare for the debates/discussions, will they
just need to ask questions about other theories and answer other
people's questions about theirs?
_{9} I just now told him about my progress on the Special
Project and asked him if he could fill out the remaining ST
claims for 5 Earth features. I hope to answer his questions
soon.
- Good Day. Lloyd
Re: 6.0 Forum
Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:39 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi" <bnappi@A3RI.org>
_Lloyd,
_I think I understand your overall idea, but there are factors
you aren't considering. The major one is the scope of the
facilitation problem. To do justice to each of these
subsections, we would need a separate facilitator for each one.
You couldn't possibly facilitate all of them. This is why I kept
trying to get you to pick one, just to work out the details. To
fulfill just ET, here are the tasks I still think need to be
accomplished:
_A comprehensive, annotated bibliography still needs to be
collected. The goal is to provide a complete foundation for the
theory with no loose ends.
_A comparison table / discussion is needed to frame ET within
the other theories. The goal is, when major papers are written,
they can start from a defined place in the tectonic map that
makes it clear what their pros and cons are, in relation to all
the others. This is important because it FOCUSES all the
following efforts.
_Let me elaborate on this a little more. The major problem
plaguing ALL of science is chaos in our discussions! This is
what my papers have been talking about. The tectonic discussions
are no different. Until we get a map that tells everyone: a.
these are the theories; b. this is what makes them distinct; c.
these are their strong points; d. these are their weak points,
the discussions will turn into landfill chaos, just like the
email string. Since the conference, there have been over 1600
emails! - ALL lost to CNPS progress! Think about the stats I
provided just on 6.2 ET: "To date, category 6.2 has posted 24
threads; 70 replies; and 1364 views. You and I have sent 175+
emails. Using the methods I developed for the email analysis, I
estimate that the Expansion Tectonics forum effort has now drawn
over 225 hours of effort from our members!" WHAT HAVE WE, AND
YOU SPECIFICALLY AS FACILITATOR, GOT TO SHOW FOR IT! What have
you achieved for the 225 hours you have facilitated so far!
_If we try to cover all of this, we will get nothing in the end.
The comparison table goal is to narrow down our selection of
critical issues that NEED TO BE SOLVED. A critical issue is one
that, if solved, make major headway, + or - for a theory.
_Selection of one or two CRITICAL ISSUES.
_Focused discussion / debate / summary papers / analysis on the
critical issues.
_Wiki's and papers!
_The reason I have been pushing ET is it has some major
advantages going for it: James Maxlow just gave the
conference's keynote on this; he's a world class scientist /
expert on it, he will help us with it; and we have you to
facilitate it. Until we find all of those credentials for the
any of the other theories, they just need to stay back burner.
In your list, you present some new names: Farrar, Choi. If they
would be willing to join CNPS and become major contributors to a
forum discussion, then we could expand your facilitator role (as
long as we can get other "junior" facilitators to help you.) We
need these key assets identified and committed FIRST before we
launch the other topics, not after.
_Bruce
Re: Forum 6 & Wikis
Saturday, September 9, 2017 2:51 PM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Lloyd,
_{1} The problem with establishing a section 6.0 is that it
would imply there was an overarching coordination of all the
tectonic discussions. As I said, that is too much scope for any
one person.
_{2} As for Wikis being "works in process", while they will be,
we don't want to set them up to appear that way. Eventually, we
will publish Wikis for both the overall field of Tectonics, and
each of the subtopics. But, each wiki has to appear to
knowledgeably capture a snapshot of sound thinking.
_For example, the target conventional Wiki for the overall field
is
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonics
. This is a disaster.
So, the goal of our "Critical Wiki" will be to reference the
existing wiki as the "mainstream" viewpoint, and then tear it
apart. To maintain credibility, we don't want to pitch it as an
index of half-baked ideas. We want to present it as a reference
document of "ongoing" research. These are two very different
approaches. Your table would be the main structure for this
Wiki. But, to be clear, this Critical Wiki would not be
associated in any way with forum discussions. It will not be put
together on the fly where the public will see the discussion and
give an take behind it.
_The "work in process" is what the forum is for. That is what
the facilitator is supposed to coordinate.
_As for drawing members to CNPS, a wiki is not a good way to do
it. That has to be driven by an advertising approach, which
displays a large number of wikis. We are not ready to do that,
and don't anticipate being ready for at least a year. So much
editing is needed.
_The wikis are open to the public. So is the forum - for
reading. So, that's already built in. As for public involvement,
that's what my articles talk about. Uncontrolled public access
to the internet is being "shut down". While the conventional
Wikipedia is still "open to the public", a lot of rules have
been added to control access. Every new member has to now go
through 6 months of moderation. The Critical Wikis are NOT
accessible for public editing. The process for developing them
will go through the Forum. The Forum is also access controlled.
While I agree with your point of "excitement" for many to access
science in progress, the collapse of language and dialog
throughout society - which also applies to 70% of the people on
the email string - has limited what can be done. As you know,
CNPS already has a Youtube channel, plus a weekly live video
meeting. Both are largely failures. Why? Neither are generating
involvement of many members or drawing new members. Why? That's
what my articles are about.
_{3} Your approach has been discussed and rejected. There are
very few members capable of producing an acceptable Wiki. Those
that are will be asked to be editors. What ANY member can do is
write their own blog, publish their own bio on the site, and
make their own YouTube videos (for now). All the parts of your
next sentence will be done: providing formats, providing
guidance for acceptance, and passing judgement on submissions.
_{4} Yes, you are making good headway. But we are a long way
from a Wiki page. Go back and look at your own "facilitator
guidelines" on the coordination page. If you think you have
enough for a Wiki, I'll help you get it started. But the process
will not be open for public viewing. You should only focus on
one or two Wikis to start with - i.e. maybe the 6.0 wiki and a
6.2 wiki, for example.
_{5} We must have a very different concept of what it means to
"annotate" a bibliography. In its most simple form, the
annotation is a collection of "keywords" that describe the
topics the citation provides substantial material about. Each
keyword would have a page number for the section of the document
where that topic is best addressed. To give you an idea of a
"full annotation", for two of my books, the annotation has over
1600 keywords! Typically, there would be dozens or hundreds per
book or paper. Give me an example of any citation that you think
this has been done for? You may be thinking of the TOPIC sort
for member papers. This isn't even a start. The board is trying
to figure out how we even do it.
_{6} What do you mean by "The comparison table is basically
complete." The only thing I can find on the forum is something
called "Comparative Geology Special Project", and "Main Claims
of Each Theory"; both are in "soft delete" - i.e. not visible to
readers. You have just run a poll on it. You were correct in
titling it a project. This is a good start, but much more to do.
When it is done, that would be a good Wiki.
_{7} This paragraph captures more of the complexity of the tasks
ahead. You said, "but the authors and supporters, not
facilitators, should do most of the work." That's true. But
what you didn't say was, 'it is the facilitators roll to tell
the members, specifically, what tasks they need to do and
somehow get them to do that.' This observation explains why the
forum is not proceeding faster than it is. CNPS is, essentially,
a VOLUNTEER operation. No one, including the board and
executives, are paid for any effort. This is where something
else you said comes in, "access to science in progress would be
kind of exciting for many readers". That's the approach you need
to count on to draw in support. You said the debates would do
that. Why are you changing your viewpoint?
_{8} The idea of "focus groups" is good, but not new. We have
them already, all over the place. The Board of Directors acts a
one group. All the people at the conference were another. But
you also already have that ability in your hands. Every
facilitator should consider all the readers of their forum as a
"targeted focus group". That's what leadership and facilitation
are about. Every time you run a poll, that's what it's about.
I've been asked to restart the CNPS newsletter. As soon as I get
the final tools to do it, every newsletter will turn the whole
membership into a focus group.
_Bruce
Re: Re-organizing
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:45 PM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Lloyd,
_Good review. Comments embedded.
_Bruce
__On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:43 PM, lloyd kinder wrote:
_L: Hi Bruce.
ORGANIZING. I spent the day yesterday reviewing our emails since
early August. I posted the gist of them just for reference at
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=259
. I'm
trying to reorganize everything, especially your many requests,
so I can understand it all more clearly & decide how to act on
it.
_Q&A. Instead of organizing Q&A like you want, a simple solution
for helping readers find what they want is to let volunteers
help readers do searches on the forums or in Wikis. To
accomplish the Q&A organizing you want seems like it would
require many people doing extremely long hours of very boring
work. There's no end to questions that readers will have, which
means the organizing work would never end.
_B2: I must not be communicating my goals well enough on this.
The Q&A organization I envision should be simple to manage. So,
we need to find out how we are seeing it differently. Here is a
summary of what I am proposing. It is being described as though
the process has been set up and is running:
One or more pages (but not too many) are set up in the
structured section as a Q&A SUMMARY. The entries are ordered by
question. The questions are grouped by similarity. Answers
provided by posts to the discussion, for any question, are
summarized and edited into the page right under their
appropriate question.
The facilitator needs to read and understand (if possible)
ALL the posts made to the related forum topic.
Each post can classified into one of the following 3
categories:
It addresses an existing question.
It poses a new question.
It is something administrative, irrelevant, nonsense or
off topic.
If it addresses an existing question, AND it provides useful
information, a very brief description of the point it makes
should be added to the answer section under the question it
addresses. Each addition includes a title, time and date code so
the source post can be found.
If it poses a new question, the facilitator needs to decide
whether the question is appropriate for the discussion. If so,
add a brief summary of the new question into the Q&A. If not,
there are a number of responses that can be taken:
Ignore it.
Delete it.
Tell the poster to post it somewhere else.
Ask the poster to clarify it.
So, I don't see where the long hours of work come in. As for
getting volunteers to do searches, I don't think we would find
any. That would clearly be boring work.
_OTHER FORUM TOPICS.
_B: There are other topics which have much larger member
interest than ET. So, I think the best approach we can take is
for me to set those up with the ideas I've been presenting to
you. Viewing the results of different styles will give us
evidence for how well they work. Try to keep a journal of what
you try, and design the processes to produce some measurable
metrics.
_L: I've started importing discussion of Franklin's Poselectron
Sea theory etc to 5.3.5 Gravity section.
_B2: Why are you changing your focus from ET? If you want more
people to post to ET, we have to do some marketing. But, if you
feel the workload in ET is already to heavy, why are others
needed? If you have a good workload going in ET, you should
already by formulating publishable papers and Wikis. What am I
missing?
_L: PUBLIC ACCESS.
_B: The wikis are open to the public. So is the forum - for
reading. So, that's already built in.
_L: I just checked and the forums are not accessible to the
public. PS, I believe my Wiki idea was not half-baked.
_B2: Why do you say the forums are not accessible to the public?
Yes, people have to register as guests, but anyone can do that
and read the forum, without having to join CNPS.
_L: DEBATES.
_B: "Access to science in progress would be kind of exciting for
many readers".
_That's the approach you need to count on to draw in support.
You said the debates would do that. Why are you changing your
viewpoint?
_L: The people I've contacted don't seem to want to join the
CNPS forums, maybe partly because they can't see what it's like
before registering. Also, when I talked about debates before, I
usually meant discussions, which are much easier to carry out
and get good info from and are probably more efficient.
_B2: It's important to be clear on each point you are making.
Anyone can "see what the forum is like" before becoming a CNPS
member. They can't read the forum unless they register as a
guest. But it does not require them to submit any sensitive
information; there is no charge; and registering does not commit
them to anything. They don't get advertising or anything. If
they want to participate in discussion, they do have to join -
except for special cases. If there is a person with well
established contributions to the topic, and their posts to
discussions elsewhere prove they don't act like trolls, we can
give them temporary access.
_L: ANNOTATION. What you call an annotated bibliography seems to
be what I normally call an index. Have you checked it out to see
how long it would take to do that? The most efficient method
seems to be to make material searchable on the forums and in the
Wikis.
_B2: The material on the forums and Wikis is searchable. The
problem with that is, every time a person searches for some term
that has already been searched before, it is a duplication of
effort. The current goal is to get authors to annotate their own
publications. The reward they get for that is inclusion on a
list of annotated publications. It will quickly become clear
that such publications get far more attention.
_L: COORDINATION.
_B: The "work in process" is what the forum is for. That is what
the facilitator is supposed to coordinate.
_L: I've been focused on the Q&A and Comparison Table and
promoting Discussions etc. So I haven't gotten to the
Coordinating yet. Maybe I will after getting this all organized
today or so.
_B2: You have enough in the comparison table for now. It can be
expanded later. Once we find out why the Q&A is taking so much
effort, and change that, you should have the time for
coordination.
- Good Day. Lloyd
Re: CNPS Progress - Forum
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:12 AM
From: "Bruce Nappi"
_Lloyd,
_While you replied to David with an offer to help with the
website ( and thanks for that), your email was mostly about the
forum geology effort. Let me answer those questions.
_CNPS still needs to formulate a concept for how to work with
NCGT. From my viewpoint, CNPS has 2 goals: new members; getting
key insights for ongoing forum discussions. In return, we would
be providing NCGT with potential: new readers; new articles. The
key is how to promote this.
_NCGT does not have members. It only has readers and editors.
The CNPS Forum can not be opened to the public because it would
be trashed by mainstream Trolls. So, the CNPS Forum has to
remain open for "public" read-only, and interaction by CNPS
members. The "trade" of value that I was thinking about could
be: giving a handful of NCGT editors and special scientists
temporary "visiting scholar" privileges on the forum. They are
essentially equal to member permissions but under a separate
group name (visiting scholars for example) so we can easily keep
track of them. These scholars would be directed to support an
ongoing forum discussion. Right now, Expansion Tectonics is the
only major geology discussion. They could bring new ideas into
that discussion, but only as critiques or support of ET. A item
of value for them, related to other geology theories, would be
an endorsement of their cooperation in the Newsletter. That
might get them some readers. But adding new topics to the forum
would totally be based on CNPS member requests.
_And to make my overall goal for the forum clear, it is to DO
REAL SCIENCE. It's not just idle chatter like the email string,
that get's lost in the internet landfill. The goal I'm trying to
reach is: 1. make new discoveries; 2. publish them in multiple
papers with CNPS member names as authors, and CNPS credit as the
sponsor, coordinator; 3. publish related Wikis; 4. create
related videos (etc. supporting Davids new push).
_So the only collaboration I can think of outside the ideas
listed above would be some kind of discount deals. For example,
CNPS members get 10% off NCGT publications, and NCGT readers get
10% off CNPS membership - something like that. But this is a
totally emotional sell because of the low cost of both
periodicals and CNPS membership. What ideas do you have for
"close collaboration"? As I said, we can give NCGT and its new
theories exposure in the Newsletter and the 1. Small forums
sandbox. But any major push in the forum depends on CNPS member
interest.
_Bruce
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page