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> >To:<post.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 ><snip> >>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 >genius.] 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. >Cheers >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. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp