CNPS Structured Discussion > CNPS Structured Discussion

CNPS General Discussion

(1/3) > >>

Request New Forum Section
(from 9. CNPS Work Groups › CNPS Forum)
(04-19-2017, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 04-19-2017, 10:48 AM by Lloyd Kinder.)
I'd like to have a new forum section on Major Unexplained Science Facts & Alternative Models.

As an example, a major unexplained fact is that sedimentary rock strata are mostly separated over large areas into 3 major types, sandstone, claystone & limestone. Mainstream theory claims that the strata were deposited slowly over thousands and millions of years. But that would mean that over large areas only one type of sediment was deposited for many thousands of years, followed by many thousands of years of another type of sediment, etc. A better explanation is that the strata were separated during major flooding over very short time spans. (This would lead to the issue of radiometric dating, but there is a better explanation for that as well.)

Some other brief examples relate to universe expansion, black holes, quasars, neutron stars, science math, gravity, star and planet and galaxy formation etc, magnetic fields, chemistry, biology etc.

My idea is just to list everything briefly, including brief arguments, like with the first example above, and provide links to the best, more thorough discussions elsewhere, preferably in the CNPS Wiki.

Each unexplained fact could be given a name and listed alphabetically as well as by topic hierarchy.


LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
(April 22 ca 10:30 AM)
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(See Sample Wiki thread.)


Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
[Prior note to Bruce:] I wanted to start working on a CNPS Wiki Outline, but I can't find anywhere on the CNPS forum, so I started doing it on my private forum at .

Here's my rephrasing of your suggestions for the CNPS structured forum, to be followed by my comments.
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and Wikis.
- Each would have multiple identified authors, comments, and possibly subjections.
- So the Wikis and papers would look like conventional academic material.
- Wiki members have a choice to create a Wiki in conventional Wiki format
or do it using my Word template then give it to a Wiki editor
LK Forum Request:
1. Name Major Science Flaws
2. & briefly describe the Flaws
3. & briefly describe the most promising alternative theories or facts
- For #1 have a separate thread for each significant flaw
- Compose a list of flaws
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
- Post each submitter’s name with their submissions- Edit & post flaws alongside proposed alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located threads.
ba. "Topic" - discussion (for unedited input, only lightly moderated);
bb. "Topic" - external inputs (for edited questions, challenges, clarifications and other stimulus to stimulate scientific discussion, containing only one or few posts);
bc. "Topic" - summary and coordination (for edited summaries to steer the discussion, with sections like:
what is the current point being discussed;
what are people hung up on;
what needs to be discussed;
what accomplishments have been made so far;
special assignments etc.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your “coordination” post. - Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts:
Questions ( ? ),
Ideas ( lightbulb),
pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
- See the user guide I made for the MAP that shows all his features.
- Add in new heading functions as appropriate:
Lines just as general outline headings: e.g. “Physics – General Principles”;
Subheadings: e.g. “What have others said about this?” or “This is what the discussion has concluded so far on this point”

My comments: I'm willing to experiment with that idea, if you or we can get at least 2 or 3 people involved in trying it out. It seems a bit complicated and it's not clear what the payoff would be. I'm wanting to work on listing major science flaws and maybe asking others to contribute to the list, because the payoff would seem to be correcting major flaws and making them well-known and contributing to science progress, assuming a popular website can be developed.

Aether Lattice Holes Theory
LST: I started reading your LST yesterday & it seems a little promising. I don't understand how dislocations would have mass etc, but I'm open-minded. So far, LST doesn't seem likely to explain how atoms could spin. I favor the idea that electrons and neutrons are connected to protons and the whole atom has to be balanced in order to spin. And unbalanced atoms fly apart, which is radioactivity. I haven't read enough to see if you covered radioactivity etc.

A day or two ago I mentioned some of my work with Sociocracy, CNVC etc. Then synchronicity hit. One of the members of the group chat in 2006 from Sri Lanka emailed me last night saying he uses NVC in his social work and he wants to learn more by taking a class in Denmark in June. He said he's working with leaders of his country to try to prevent more war there, after the 25 year war that ended a few years ago. He said he lost many friends and relatives in the war. Your democracy proposal might be something they could benefit a lot from. It seems like it would work well, but have you considered how to persuade anyone to adopt it in the first place? Most people who run for public office seem to be mainly interested in how they can benefit just themselves and seldom seem much concerned about improving conditions for the public. CELDF seems to have some experience with the persuasion part by actually having gotten a number of communities to adopt some of their suggestions for local ordinances. I think CELDF also is trying to work with other countries too, so I guess I should contact them about my Sri Lanka friend. Should I also give him suggestions from you?

TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32, D_Archer, dd6, Elder, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, Grey Cloud, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness, Kuldebar, Melusine, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees, Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin, saul, seasmith, Solar, Sparky, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman, Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn

Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed
Scientific bias prevents scientific progress
Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse

CIA World Factbook


PDR Health



Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

China to launch own encyclopaedia to rival Wikipedia

Hi Bruce.
Regarding Skype, my computer no longer has enough space for it. If you'd like live discussion, we could use a chat room, such as at
That way we'd also have a record of the discussion. If that's okay with you, when would you like to try it?

BN re Specific Issue/s
You said the next step is to focus on a specific issue that is promising for making progress: either join a popular discussion, or seek to attract people to an issue.

I wrote a letter to the editor of NCGT (New Concepts in Global Tectonics) Journal about Catastrophism a few days ago and it was accepted for publication in their next quarterly issue in June. The editor said what I wrote is important and original. More specifically the topic was what can explain the fact that sedimentary rock strata are separated into individual rock types, i.e. sandstones, claystones and limestones, over large areas. I argued that it's highly improbable that slow erosion and minor flooding could have deposited only one sediment type for thousands of years over large areas, e.g. sand, followed by thousands of years of only one other type, e.g. clay, etc. I suggested that only flooding, as by megatsunamis, could separate sediment types, and that tidal forces and impacts could account for megatsunamis.

I posted more details in a new thread at

Would you care to pursue that topic?

If you are able to contact CNPS members, I could help you write up a message to send them inviting them to join the discussion on the forum.

I'd also like to have the discussion on a couple of other forums and then I'd post useful comments onto the CNPS forum.

What do you think?

I'm also willing to work with other topics. It might be feasible to work on two or more topics at the same time. Do you have other topics to suggest? I have a list of topics, but I haven't found where I posted them yet.


Today, Bruce said:
I only suggested Skype because it has such good sound quality. Regular phone would be fine as well. Good time to talk is between 4:30 - 8:00p. I need to set a time so I can steer other activities around it. Tonight or any night this week are currently open.

Catastrophism Topic
I'm not strong on tectonic issues. So, I don't think I'd be helpful there. There is a large following on Expansion Tectonics. So, a way to find people for your ideas is to post a request on that forum. A second way is to compose an article for the monthly newsletter that goes to all the members. If you aren't getting the newsletter, send a note directly to David de Hilster and tell him. I only found out about the news letter last month, and I've been a member for over a year. Check the newsletter for style and length of the article. Third, there is a blog on the main website. That's also a way to reach a lot of members. That said, I never read them because I don't have time.

As for you comment on sedimentary rock strata, I thought the answer to your question was resolved a long time ago. It would have been one of the first to be addressed. Without a good answer, the whole field of sediment geology would not have come together. From what I remember, large thickness, uniform content layers can only form in large bodies of water. The rivers feeding that body of water deliver a mix of sediments in which the largest particle size depends on the flow rate of the rivers close to the body of water. Buoyancy and currents in the large body of water then act as separators.

I have a few toys called sand art that demonstrate the principle well. The one shown here is from  $11.00   When you flip the frame, the sand separates into clear layers. But a lot of sedimentary rock is conglomerate. To make your point, I think you'd have to first do some literature analysis on the history of this topic. If you found it was not well answered, I'd start with an announcement of that fact, based on your analysis.

LK's List of Topics
I found a post of yours that has a lot of topics. Is this the one you were looking for?  If so, you can't find it because I removed it from active until we sorted out the CNPS Wiki issue. I thought I told you that awhile back. If not, I apologize. But I would have still broken this post into separate posts. If I was going to do that, I would have asked you to do it. And that is still a good plan:

A. Don't post on the Wiki until CNPS settles down on it.
B. If you want to post on Plans to Improve the Scientific Method, do that under 3.3 Philosophy of Science. I put a new forum in there for you: The Scientific Method.
C. Your list of Major Scientific Fields is actually the foundation for my outline numbering. What deviates from that right now is the history of CNPS member interest in the past. If the forum takes hold, it will eventually include all the fields you listed. Right now, many have no interest or are included under other headings.
D. The list of facts and flaws is one of the issues I wanted to talk to you about directly.

"The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS Wiki for Science Improvement."
(See my CNPS Wiki thread)


Hi Bruce. I'm trying to keep track of our discussion at

I don't know if you registered for that forum, but you don't need to now. I didn't realize previously that the board wasn't accessible to the public. But now I'm pretty sure it is, since I changed the setting.

You said my "list of facts and flaws is one of the issues [you] wanted to talk to [me] about directly." I prefer not to use the phone, unless necessary, so let me know if you think it's necessary. Otherwise, I'm willing to discuss that here or in the chat room. I'm in the Central Time zone.

You said you found my List of Topics post. I also have it copied at but yes, that's the same one.

Thanks for the new forum for The Scientific Method.

For the Catastrophism topic, I plan, as you suggest, to contact the Expansion Tectonics forum and also "compose an article for the monthly newsletter" and ask David about getting it and I'll check out the blog. I also plan to bring up the issue on 2 other forums. I'll try to start tomorrow, Monday.


May 8, 9AM

rather than test my structured approach on the CNPS Forum, let do a test right here on FUNDAY where you have complete control of it. Let me summarize the approach specifically for this effort: (I will use the heading terminology from FUNDAY)

    Start out by renaming General Category CNPS Wiki to  CNPS Structured Discussion
    Under that Category, create 2 new Subjects: CNPS - Summary and Coordination, CNPS - External Inputs. Lock them for Admin editing only. If you can order them at the top of the subject list, that is best.
    Rename DISCUSSION, to CNPS - General Discussion.
    Eliminate CNPS WIKI OUTLINE as a subject and put that post in the General Discussion.
    Create a post for the CNPS - Summary and Coordination subject titled: FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION. This is where you provide "play by play" guidance about what is going on and where attention is needed. It is essentially telling readers what is going on and how to jump into the discussion. There will be a separate paragraph for each of the subjects listed in the next task. When you complete a review for the next task, come back to this post and create a paragraph for it.
    Now you're ready to start Facilitating the discussion. Start reading the posts from the earliest date. The first one is the CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post on April 22. This is the post with 4 subjects in it. So, your next task is to create a Post for the Summary and Coordination subject. Title this Post: SUBJECTS UNDER DISCUSSION. This will NOT be a one time post. You will go back and edit this post over and over. The content of the post will essentially be an outline of the subjects you find in all the posts. So, after reading the CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post from the general discussion string, you would create the following outline: (note the structure list is in alphabetical order. As new posts raise new topics, edit the list.)

    Science - Facts: { I don't know how to describe your goal for this. But put that here. }
    Science - Flaws: For what specific scientific topics or issues do critical thinkers believe the mainstream presents a wrong conclusion. What is a reference that presents a critical thinking challenge.
    Science - Structure: What are the Major Fields of Science being discussed by CNPS members, Where can the discussions be found.
    Scientific Method: What it is; what are its problems; how can it be improved
    Wikis: writing Wikis for CNPS
    Now create a coordination subject post for each of these topics. Again, this is for your edit only. Each of these would look similar to your Outline & Sources post dated April 23 12:19p The organization of each post would be related to the description included in the "subjects under discussion" list.
    Once you get all of this in place, your effort is reduced to summarizing activity and coaching.

This should go pretty quickly because all you will be doing is organizing the material that has already been posted.


2PM May 8: I told BN I restructured this forum as he advised. But I'd like to start inviting people to discussion of the Catastrophism topic and I want to do that on the CNPS forum, not here. I need to be able to read my own posts there, so when can I do that?


5:40PM: Okay, I tried to post in various places. In 6. Earth Sciences I'm able to post under "discussion" and under "Surge Tectonics" and see my posts. But I can't post anywhere else there without waiting for moderation.

I need to be able to see my posts right away under "summary and coordination" and under "external inputs and documents".

And I probably need to be able to start new threads for other Earth Sciences topics.

Also, other members need to be able to see their posts right away in that section 6 in the discussion threads. If they can't see and edit their posts right away, they'll very likely leave and not return. I don't want to invite people until at least that forum section 6 is user friendly, as in being able to see and edit their own posts.

You said before that I'd be able to moderate that and maybe some other sections. So, if anyone spams or trolls, I could delete them. Am I still to have that ability?

5/11, 5PM
>Dave (Talbott). Glad to see your replies to Grey Cloud and Norman in Norman's NIAMI thread. Norman tried to argue with me in my thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, when I discussed myths, that the ancients were referring to the Milky Way. I asked him to start a different thread to discuss that, because I considered it off-topic. He got upset once when I posted an announcement on his thread, so I've stayed away since then, though I read what you wrote there lately.

I'm working with Bruce Nappi at CNPS. He wants to set up the CNPS forum for structured discussions for the purpose of collaborating on science papers for an upcoming CNPS Wiki for Alternative Science. I figure it may lead to a more efficient process.

I started a thread called, Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki, on this forum at to invite members to contribute data on any of several topics, including ancient myths. I've seen myths about the Great Flood organized in a table that easily showed the similarities and differences among many Flood myths worldwide. It seems that all ancient myths could be organized in similar tables and would then make the archetypes and real meanings more obvious. Do you think that's possibly true? If so, I suppose a team might need to prioritize a list of archetypes or something to put into such tables. What do you think about that? Or about the invitation to members to collaborate for the CNPS Wiki? I have gotten a Catastrophism board and E.U. boards etc at the CNPS forum.


[>TB] Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki

Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
CNPS is starting to create an Alternative Science Wiki, like Wikipedia, and is calling for anyone to help, especially scientists, lay scientists, writers, editors, promoters & supporters. CNPS is the Chappel Natural Philosophy Society, which was previously the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Their website is

Bruce Nappi is helping organize discussions on the CNPS forum on any science topic of interest. The purpose of forum discussion is to collaborate to produce professional science papers that will be posted on the CNPS Wiki. Several topics are posted on the forum, but more can be added on request.


What data do you feel science overlooks or misrepresents? And what theory or model does that data support?

Initial preferred topics for discussion are:
Catastrophism: Ancient Global Cataclysm
Mythology: Ancient Myths
Earth Sciences: Global Tectonics
Astronomy: Solar Science

But other science topics may also be discussed.

If you want to post data here, I'll copy it to the CNPS forum. I'll see [if] it's also convenient enough to post links here.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version