UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Dec > Dec 28

Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:09:04 -0500
Archived: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:06:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

>From: Ray Dickenson<r.dickenson.nul>
>Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:10:57 -0000
>Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration

>>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:41:21 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Journal Of Scientific Exploration


>>Good ideas need positive and negative feedback to be developed
>>further, and bad ideas need it so they can die a timely death.
>>The rating system I proposed earlier would offer some feedback,
>>and perhaps comments could also be allowed after each article
>>similar to YouTube comments. These would need to be moderated,
>>of course, to weed out the detritus.

>Hi William,

>All you've said is of course very desirable - yet the human
>condition puts a block on it.

>[Which was why I'd snipped those various provisos]

>What you and many others want is a broadcast / publishing system
>with enough formality - guaranteed responses by selected persons
>- to assure you of a qualified audience.

I guess I wanted a way to increase the size of the group of
"selected persons" so it would be much bigger than the one or
two reviewers we have in the present system. But also, this
group would not act as a gateway. The article would be published
no matter what the consensus opinion of the raters.

>But along comes the human condition - as expressed in the Bell
>Curve maybe? I.e. probably many less than 1% of an audience will
>have the background knowledge _and_ prepared mental state to
>appreciate any breakthrough idea - in any discipline.

This may unfortunately be true, but the system could accommodate
such outliers. The ratings of such articles may not reflect
their true worth, but they would still be there in the archive
for those able to appreciate them.

>And that prepared and maybe genius-level person is probably the
>least likely to belong to formal science `chat-groups', to want
>to pass judgement on others' ideas, or even to read the proposed
>breakthrough idea. [They're too busy or obsessed - being a

no argument here

>The ones most likely to read (and disappove of) the idea are the
>vast majority who can't understand it, or those few whose
>(professional) prestige will be dented by someone else changing
>the status quo.

Unless there are technical obstacles such as obscure
mathematics, I think the majority of educated people would
attempt to understand new ways of looking at the world. The
present system can block novel ideas so they do not see the
light of day.

I do agree that there are various reasons why people in the same
field would reject a new idea. For example, I believe it's true
that psychologists are the most negative toward paranormal
explanations of psychic phenomena.


>Ray D

>BTW1 - a small experiment to affirm that `human condition':
>Think of a simple and economical improvement to municipal or
>national practise and suggest it, in writing, to the
>authorities. If you get any reply it will almost certainly be a
>list of reasons why "it can't / shouldn't be done".

This strikes close to home for me. I recently presented
arguments to my city council representative why the city should
stop adding fluoride to the water supply. There was no answer,
so I sent it again. She simply refused to acknowledge receipt of
the email. Ha, another rejection to add to the list.

>BTW2 - a quibble - "bad ideas" don't always or even often die a
>timely death. Just look at history and politics (and fashion).

True, but that may be because the people in power with the bad
ideas also control the presentation and evaluation of new ideas.

At the very least, we should promote the "just publish yourself
and let the audience evaluate it" approach that you seemed to
agree with earlier. This possibility already exists in places
already mentioned, and maybe it is the best we can do.

The viXra archive is still quite small for now, so it's possible
to browse through the whole thing and scan the abstracts to find
something of interest. But when the archive gets much bigger,
that approach will become too time-consuming. Each contributor
chooses a classification for the article, so one can look in a
subset at a time. Contributors can also request a new
classification for their articles.

UFO Digest is similar in that it also lets the contributor
choose from a list of general classifications, and more than one
classification is not possible. I don't think new
classifications can be requested.

Perhaps one solution is to allow both contributors and readers
to choose classifications and/or multiple descriptive keywords
from a defined list. Then if a contributor wished to describe an
article using a keyword not yet in the existing list, it is
added to the list. Readers would always enter into a search
engine multiple keywords chosen from the current list.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com