Author Topic: CNPS General Discussion  (Read 67 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
CNPS General Discussion
« on: April 22, 2017, 01:20:31 pm »
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 http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/cnps-wiki-outline .

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.

DEMOCRACY:
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?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 01:12:12 pm by Admin »

Social Buttons


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
INVITE
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2017, 11:37:33 am »
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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14667
Scientific bias prevents scientific progress
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16408
Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16016
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 10:54:27 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 07:34:34 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: DISCUSSION
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2017, 12:08:53 pm »
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 http://chatzy.com/52491623534005
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 http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=141

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:
Phone
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 www.bitsandpieces.com/  $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 http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/d

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 http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/cnps-wiki-outline 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?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 05:43:14 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2017, 05:14:55 pm »
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 http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561 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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561

Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
CNPS WIKI
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 http://naturalphilosophy.org.

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.

REQUESTING ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE DATA

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.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 07:17:38 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2017, 01:56:44 pm »
Hi Bruce. You said:  I'm sure others have analyzed the MM theory.  If we could find reports already written about this, it would save a huge amount of our time.

I doubt if there are any unbiased reports. Plenty of people, including scientists, are interested in MM's ideas, but they don't take the time to make a very meaningful report.

I looked briefly at the CNPS Wiki and it looks like it will be merely a collection of alternative science papers. I don't think that will be very helpful. I think what would be helpful is establishing a system for evaluating (while minimizing bias) theories and claims and publicizing the best ones (and only links to others so readers could see why they don't make the grade, which could lead to improving those theories too).

Making the list of essential elements of each theory or claim, as you suggested, would be important. But then there needs to be a process for evaluating each element too. I guess I could try working on such a process on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum. Readers could be tested on logic and on knowledge of a theory's subject matter before they could qualify to evaluate the essential elements of a theory. Then CNPS could publicize the best theories. Mainstream theories would need to be evaluated too, so the public can see why alternatives are sometimes better.

-----

Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:45 PM
<Bruce
_I agree with the essence of all of your points. So, here's how I would follow them:
_If you can find ANY MM reports, I think this would be a benefit. I agree, they will be biased. But I'm looking more for a "checklist" of critiques rather than final resolutions. We would also be starting a bibliography on the topic.
_I have the same observation about the Wikis. At the present time, we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then we can address your additional concerns.
_Your point about establishing a "system for evaluating (while minimizing bias) theories and claims" is my next TOP priority. I actually tried to find such a system by doing a fair search on the topic of "peer review". Wouldn't you expect someone has addressed this before???  What I found was terrible. I've attached my summary of what I found. It is still a feeble approach. You touched on this again in your last paragraph.
_Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.
_Your last paragraph brings up "reader testing". This is a sensitive issue if we try to grade ALL readers. What I think is a good solution is to reward great Peer Reviewers. That stays on the positive side. The other thing that will become an indirect measure is just the "rejection", by peer reviewers, of things people say, without calling those members out by name. This depends on how well we can develop a peer review system and methodology.
_So, all of these items should be HIGH PRIORITY for us. We can both test them out in our structured forums (... and I admit, I'm still way behind getting mine going.)

CNPS Peer Review Guidelines [from web search]
- DRAFT -
_Scientific progress depends on communication of information that can be trusted. Reviews should be objective evaluations of the claims presented.
_The core values of peer review are
1. availability – does the reviewer have the time to do the review by the deadline?
2. expert assessment – does the reviewer have the background to do the review?
3. transparency – the process is open for review by others
4. impartiality – the review is not biased by social background of the submitter
5. fairness – the review is not biased by social acceptance of the science presented
6. integrity – the review is not biased by financial, social, religious or philosophical background of the reviewer. The reviewer presents all significant findings, both positive and negative
_Rules:
_General
_The reviewer will not make ANY personal comments. For example, it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.”
_Technical Rigor is expected. Data and arguments are to be addressed or clarified substantially.
_Reviews must be constructive and be presented in a courteous tone.
_the reviewer will respect the intellectual independence of the author. When writing a review, be mindful that you are critiquing the article in question – not the author.
_Details
_During the review, the reviewer will be expected to do the following:
1. Mark up the copy. Things that should be marked are:
all important points. Use reference numbers that index the points for longer discussions made in a separate notes area; errors in graphs and tables, spelling and grammar,
_Steps
1. Before starting to read, make sure you have:
 a. tools to mark the copy. b. a method to make notes as you read.
The notes should have the following sections: questions; things that seem to be mistakes;
2. Read the article.
3. Make a simple outline of the article. Write a brief 3 or 4 sentence summary of the article. List its major contributions.
4. Write a draft of the review. If the review is favorable, write a longer summary highlighting the strengths. The structure of the review should be as follows:
a. Write out any major criticisms. Begin with the larger issues and end with minutiae.
b. Some major areas of criticism to consider:
Is the article well-organized?
Does the article contain all of the components you would expect (Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)?
Are the sections well-developed?
Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature?
Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer?
Is the methodology clearly explained?
Does the theory connect to the data?
Is the article well-written and easy to understand?
Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?
5. Write out any minor criticisms of the article.
6. Address editorial issues; for example: mislabeled tables and graphics, misspellings and grammar.
7. Review the review.

-----

5/23/17 8:50AM
>Bruce
_I got started on the Photonic Universe forum, including a list of essential elements of the model. Now I'm trying to start on the Electrodynamic Universe forum and the Catastrophism forum, since I have a sense of how to proceed.
_I wanted to sticky a couple threads that I had started before, but the stick option was no longer available once they were posted without sticking them, but the stick option was available by posting a second message in the same thread. So I was able to stick them, but I had to delete the second post, because you want just one post each in those threads that I post in exclusively. So it would be nice if the stick option would remain after first posting without sticking, instead of with being available only with the second post.
_Another issue is the date on the threads that I post in exclusively. They show the date of the first posting. Instead, they should show the date of the updated posting. Otherwise, readers will think the thread hasn't been posted to since the first posting. An example of this is on my thread: "Electrodynamic Universe - working paper".
_Also, when a reader opens the thread, the date of the first posting or edit should appear inside, and the last update at the top, maybe right above or before the first posting date. It might be good if each update date (not just the last one) were also listed inside, but not important.
_I'd like to experiment with "peer reviewers". I think any reader should be able to qualify as one by doing a short self-test on the forum.
_You said: "... we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then we can address your additional concerns."
--- Critiques sometimes contain good data, including on logic, but I don't think they're very important, because they take up time to review, interpret and discuss. I like to simplify a lot. Just one reader or peer reviewer is a good start for evaluating claims. I hope to try doing that before long myself, as a trial. Each essential element (claim or idea) of a model could be rated P for 70-100% probable, M for 30-70% probable (M for Maybe), or I for 0-30% probable (I for Improbable). I think all P ratings should eventually have explanations included, but wouldn't need to initially.
--- This simple method could be used for theories of any length. The sky is blue is a theory. A better theory would be that the sky is blue a certain percentage of the time etc. Long theories merely have more claims, each of which can be evaluated separately.
_You said: ""Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.""
--- It's not clear what you mean by "ALL the papers". Will you explain? The readers' (peer reviewers') evaluations of essential elements of papers should be made public and we should make it easy to see which elements are rated P, M, and I, then the ones with the most P's should move to the Wiki, IMO.
_I think it's also important to prioritize theory topics. Those that seem most important for the good of humanity and the ecosystem should have highest priority. Readers or peer reviewers should be encouraged to evaluate those first. CNPS should also display them by such priority, IMO.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 07:28:55 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2017, 09:21:11 pm »
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:37 PM
_Lloyd, I really appreciate your support with this.
_I can't find any way to regulate the "sticky" function other than turn it on or off. But starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and coordination  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs and documentation  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure.
_I don't have control of the date labeling. When I open the page, it shows the creation date. BUT, it also has a note saying, "last modified xx/yy/zz".  If you don't think this is strong enough, you could add a note in bold at the top of the page:  "LAST UPDATE: xx/yy/zz" .  You could also include separate updates. Decide if this is needed - just another admin headache. Where it would make sense is on the coordination page. List the date each "coordination" guideline is posted and dated entries under a new subheading: COMPLETED.
_I wish my experience with participants was as positive as yours. On the email string it was hard to find even 5 good peer reviewers out of 50. Not only are many outright trolls, but most are also incapable of logical clarity. This is why I am so interested in your reviewing rules. Were you ever on the email string? If not, I can put you on for a few days and then get you off. All that is needed is to have a few troublesome "trigger" words show up and they will polarize into clans. The word "relativity" would cause a fire storm; so would "God", which shows up all the time. Sure we could edit those out, but that would impose both a heavy editing "hand" and a lot of effort. I also think your P, M, I rating would result in a wave of complaints from all those who don't agree. That's why, I was hoping your review approach would FORCE the group to "resolve" all the issues to categories like: most probable explanation (7 reviews); clarifications;  all dissenting views - a. xxxxxx; b. xxxxxx  etc.  At this point, I agree that a high count of multiple "probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in a WIKI. But I'd like to see some summary reference to the dissents.
_When I said, "ALL" the papers, I was anticipating that for some topic, like Photonic Universe, there would be many theories submitted. Each would be reviewed. But there would be a lot of similarities, with variations, among them. For example, in your "Working Paper", you included a "definition" of "PHOTON: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius… which is detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation …."  I would contribute a short paper under this topic for Space Lattice Theory that would challenge this definition. In SLT, for example, the photon has a very different "definition". It is not a physical entity, but a dislocation (localized void) in a structured lattice. HOWEVER, in SLT, dislocations produce all the properties of mass. So, in your forum on P.U.T., your definition for photon would get a "probable" rating, and my SLT concept would show up as a dissenting view. In a forum for SLT, my photon definition would be "probable" and your definition a dissenting view. THAT SAID, in yet another place in the forum, i.e. the DEFINITIONS section, the "classical" photon definition might be "most probable" and both of our definitions dissents.
_I do agree with your idea of prioritizing based on some scale of "value". Until we see the response to this, I wouldn't jump to a simple "humanity and the ecosystem" criterion. Where I think this is heading is something more like multiple scales. For example, "Current discussions related to human sustainability are: 2.1.2.2 Synchronizing Clocks; 2.1.2.4 Twin Paradox; 3.4 Science at the supernatural boundary etc..   Current discussions on ecosystems: 6. Earth Sciences; 6.1 Catastrophism …etc. "  This is easy to do because the lists would be short.

---

5/23 9 PM
Bruce,
_Re "sticky" function, no problem.
_Re date labeling, I could take care of that manually, if I were allowed to edit the thread titles in the forums where I moderate or facilitate.
_You said: "starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and coordination  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs and documentation  (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure."
_That would be okay, if you let me edit the thread titles, as I said above. I'm okay with "Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers" for now, though I think there could be better titles. I'm less okay with "summary and coordination", and "external inputs and documentation". I'd rather call the former "working paper" and the latter "discussion summary and references", or something like that.
_No, I haven't been on the email string? David said today that he recieved my membership fee, so does that qualify me now? Sounds like fun having members who get triggered. I was in Dave Talbott's private group a few years ago and it was so frustrating having many of my messages refused, that I quit the group. So I'm glad you don't censor so much. I'm willing to join the string. Would I then be allowed to invite members to join forum discussions?
_Re Space Lattice Theory, do you have the list of essential elements of the theory? Do you have a forum for it yet? I can help with it, if you want to do that.
_Do you have time to rate the essential elements of P.U.T.? I could rate those of SLT as well as the theories I'm working on. That should give us ideas how to improve the process. By the way, I suspect that I'd give SLT a lot of M's. If I were to do such a review or rating, I might discover a key question or claim that might be most worth your focusing on, if you haven't already found it.

-----

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: Re "thread titles", there is no separate control that I can set for that. You are allowed to edit your posts. So, the fact that it doesn't let you change the titles is a built in control. You could delete and repost, but that might not produce meaningful dates on the posts. I think I can change the titles. So, I could do that for you if it isn't done often.
_Since I haven't set up the 4.1.1.4 forums, suggest a better title. But if what you want to change is "summary and coordination" or "External Inputs and documentation", we should discuss why. What are the functions of a "working paper"? Why aren't "summary" in my wording and "discussion summary" in yours the same? Why isn't "documentation" in mine and "references" in yours the same?
_Your membership fee is not related to the email string.  The membership fee just makes your participation in the Forum official. David just made you a Forum member before you paid your fee because he recognized you.  You get on the email string when someone includes you in the cc: list. You get off when someone removes you. You don't have any say in it, except to complain. I'll put you in. But, please, just loiter for a few days. It's a rat hole because everything will go into the landfill. Yes, you can ask members to look at specific Forum topics. They all know about the Forum. So, no need to tell them. Many participate in both places.
_For Lattice Theory, take a look at http://www.a3society.org/LatticeTheory . This has multiple length versions of the theory. I haven't put it on the forum because I want to get at least one structured forum going. It would be a topic that is much more popular like a relativity / aether test match. I have one. Just haven't had time to launch it.
_What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?

-----

5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce. I read part of the email group discussion. Where was David saying I could invite members to the forum?
_I think you want to have 3 types of threads:
1. "summary and coordination"
2. "External Inputs and documentation" and
3. "discussion".
I think by "summary" you mean "discussion summary". And by "coordination" I think you mean "coordination on collectively writing a CNPS wiki paper". I figured that "working paper" makes that more obvious. And it doesn't seem to be helpful to have the discussion summary in with the working paper. It's also not obvious to me yet that a discussion summary is needed. If it IS needed for some reason, I could maybe just bold the main words in the discussions, as I started to do.
_I'm not clear on whether "external inputs" would be something other than "discussion". And "documentation" seems like presenting lots of paperwork, so I thought "references" would be clearer and less overwhelming.
_So the thread titles that seem best to me are:
"working paper"; "references"; "discussion"; and "theory rating".
The first two would be stickied; the last two would not. If "discussion summary" is needed for some reason, I'd prefer to put it with "references". I'll discuss "theory rating" below.
_You said: "What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I try?"
_Well, I started 3 threads for "theory rating" here:
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=180
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=181
_Each thread starts like this:
Rate this theory & give reasons for I-ratings (in parentheses).
RATING: [for reader to fill in]
_I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
-----------------------------------
_Spoiler alert: I rated the 3 theories as follows, respectively:
21P, 13M, 1I
9P, 4I
17P, 1M
I included the reasons for my I-ratings.
_The I-ratings could show:
a) what the reader didn't read or understand, or
b) what the theorist needs to explain better, or
c) what needs to be dropped or replaced from the theory.
Readers giving their reasons for I-ratings should be helpful to theorists.
The M-ratings could show deficiencies too, but the I's should probably have the theorist's highest priority for addressing.
_The process of rating essential elements goes pretty fast. It should make it fairly easy for readers/reviewers to rate theories. It just requires someone to take the time to determine the essential elements of a theory and display them. Even that isn't very time-consuming in many cases. I've read a lot of theories and I can remember some or many of the essential elements of many of them. It seems like reading the essential elements of a theory helps the reader to understand it quite a bit. Maybe the ratings would help theorists improve the list of essential elements and the definitions.
_My impression is that a streamlined wiki could be developed pretty quick, if it mainly just showed the essential elements of any theory or claim, and if it had a way like this for readers to rate each essential element (and a way to rate the raters). I'm imagining a dynamic wiki that would be constantly improving, due to reader and theorist interactions.
_Will you let me know where you post your rating of PUT?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 07:43:56 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2017, 07:28:59 pm »
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017, 9:33 AM
_Lloyd, I'm only addressing your first two points in this response. I'll address rating in a followup email.
_Inviting members to the forum: Remember, the email string is a renegade email environment. NO RULES!  David and CNPS have no authority there. And "as a rule" they avoid it. So, to invite members, you essentially just go OFF TOPIC! You post an email, "reply all", and state your goal.  For example, "Anyone interested in this topic might be interested joining XYZ on the Forum." Also, after a few days, you will have dozens of emails with different topics. So, go out of order and reply all to the email with a topic that is closest to what you want to talk about.  Remember, please don't fall into the rat hole.
_Structure:I looked at your 4.1 Photonic Universe set up. Your suggestions now make
more sense to me, along with your explanations below. I had never considered using the forum to directly develop a paper. I always considered it a much larger, CNPS wide event. So, this is a very good idea for smaller efforts and can be added as an alternative element of the structured approach.
_Notice, we {two blindfolded researchers communicating by email}  have been examining the elephant from different sides. Let me expand on your observations and you will see the problem.
_The term "Summary":  Yes, by this I did mean "discussion summary", but not just from the standpoint of content summarization. More importantly, I viewed it as a running summary of coordination of the discussion. Think of this more as a "status report". The goal being, when a new person enters the discussion, or someone has left for awhile and returned, the "summary" tells them: 1. what this forum is all
about - its goals, challenges etc.; 2. what has gone on so far (discussion summary); 3. what issues have been resolved; 4. what issues are hot now;  and 5. what are the current focus activities. Again, in short, my "summary" is a project "status report". Item 2, which is what you started to do, does not need to be a line-by-line summary. Too much work.
_The term "coordination": This did not foresee paper writing. As such, it was simply coordination of the discussion in an attempt to resolve specific scientific questions. Any paper that came out of that, I thought, would be written by the facilitator as a personal activity, possibly involving others as co-authors.
_The term "external inputs": As part of the facilitation, I expected the facilitator to bring in material from sources outside the discussion as "drivers" to focus or promote the discussion. For example, one discussion on the email string degraded into an emotional fight about what Einstein believed and meant about the speed of light. I jumped in (which I only did infrequently) with a long quotation I cited "verbatim" from a transcribed presentation that Einstein made. I emphasize
"verbatim" because I had to stay in the discussion long enough to just get them to acknowledge that they could not make up their own story about what Einstein "said" when there was physical history that recorded what he said. In the end, they ignored me and went back to fighting. This is where the control of the structured part of the forum can shut this down, without actually moderating (by deletion) the actual discussion. So, the external inputs section would collect these intervention documents. Another group of "external inputs" would be discussions from other forums brought in by the facilitator which challenged the forum discussion.
_The term "documentation": I picked this word because the external "material" could be in any form: papers, speeches, drawings, graphics, articles, quotes from anywhere including other forums, books, policies, data tables etc. To me, "references" seemed to apply just to formal papers and books.
_Possible solution: Here is an approach I think addresses both of our approaches.
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch. 2. An additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can be formatted (by me during set up) as: open access; moderated; facilitator only.  The facilitator would decide which one. 3. The term "references" is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled "Summary" document. 4. The "external input" function could be merged into the references but also added directly into the discussion. For example, if the facilitator (or anyone else)  brought in a post from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation for the "reference" section.

---

On May 26, 2017, at 12:55 AM)
Hi Bruce. Your last email was in my spam folder all day along with a bunch of emails from your email string.
_I thought you had said earlier that the purpose of the structured forum was to produce papers for the Wiki. If not, then what is the purpose? Just to have fun?
_You said: "Possible solution:
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch."
2. An additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can be formatted ( by me during set up ) as: open access; moderated; facilitator only.  The facilitator would decide which one."
__I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine. Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled 'Summary' document."
__Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think I'd prefer "Ongoing Status Report" or "New & Returning Members, Read This!", if I understand you.
_"4. The 'external input' function could be merged into the references but also added directly into the discussion. For example, if the facilitator (or anyone else)  brought in a post from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation for the "reference" section.
__Right. As for the phrase "external inputs", it seemed vague to me, but I don't know if other people would have that impression.

---

Friday, May 26, 2017 10:39 AM
<Bruce
_There are multiple purposes for the structured forum. Here were my goals in general order of priority:
_Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among members around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly divided about Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to simple language flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors would open for serious work.
_Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would include things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to answer "resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up a bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion. They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.
_Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution, with the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or more papers). For example, we are talking about developing a number of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity / Aether debate once and for all.
_The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences.
_The structured forum will become a new paradigm for coordinating scientific research. Creating more papers, the way it is done now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.
_" I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine."   OK. I'll set up a "closed" forum for you: 4.1.1.4  Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper
_"Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?"       See list above.
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled 'Summary' document." __Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think I'd prefer "Ongoing Status Report" or "New & Returning Members, Read This!", if I understand you."
_At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different wording for the structured elements for different forums. So, pick out your titles and the order they should show up in.  HOWEVER, make sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status report a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges etc.; b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary); c. what issues have been resolved and what breakthrough conclusions have come up; d. what issues are hot now;  e. what are the current focus activities (which are different from d. due to renegade members); f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going, list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.

---

5/26 7:11 PM
Hi Bruce. My reply is in two parts.
_Part 1.
Here is my understanding of your structured forum goals, which I label A-D, with your quotes in << - >>:
A. Attempt to resolve disagreements among members:
<<Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among members around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly divided about Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to simple language flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors would open for serious work.>>
B. Set up bibliographies to reduce newbies' questions:
<<Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would include things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to answer "resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up a bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion. They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.>>
C. Each section develop goals, like doing experiments, writing papers ... :
<<Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution, with the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or more papers). For example, we are talking about developing a number of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity / Aether debate once and for all.>>
D. Improve & promote CNPS & scientific research:
<<The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences.
The structured forum will become a new paradigm for coordinating scientific research. Creating more papers, the way it is done now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.>>
_My impressions are:
A seems useful.
B seems difficult & of questionable value. We or some of us could try it and do a survey to say what's worthwhile in the effort.
C seems most valuable.
D sounds like what the last CNPS forum might be doing. Right?
_Part 2.
You said:
<<At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different wording for the structured elements for different forums. So, pick out your titles and the order they should show up in.  HOWEVER, make sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status report
a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges etc.;
b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary);
c. what issues have been resolved and what breakthrough conclusions have come up;
d. what issues are hot now; 
e. what are the current focus activities (which are different from d. due to renegade members);
f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going, list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.>>
_My impressions are:
1a seems useful and easy enough.
1b-e seem difficult & of lesser value. Readers can do most of those things themselves.
1f seems possibly useful, but it may be time-consuming & hard to remember to do.
2 seems okay.
3 seems only slightly useful. This sounds like "Important Files" or the like on some forums. Maybe the CNPS forum setup will make the bibliography more convenient than on most forums. But there should be a survey eventually to ask members how helpful the bibliography is and whether and how it should be improved (ditto for the whole forum).
4 seems slightly useful too.
_Let's see if I can come up with thread titles, now that you've explained your goals more completely. Okay, here are my choices for thread titles:
1st - for 1a & 1b-f & 2 (all in one thread): purpose, status report & assignments(?);
2nd - for a wiki working paper: wiki working paper;
3rd - for 3 & 4 (in one thread): bibliography & important outside viewpoints.
All of those would be stickied in that order and the discussion section would be unstickied. How's that?

---

Saturday, May 27, 2017 5:33 PM
<Bruce
_This is a good summary of my points. Your selection of titles covers all of my points plus your working paper. So, let's give it a shot.
_I notice that you already changed the titles in your section with the subheading Important threads.  That is how I would have done it, but with 4.1.1.4 numbering. Am I right that you created the subheadings: Important threads, and Normal Threads, using a "sticky" function?.  I tried logging in as a member to see if I could reply to these. I was able to. That's what I want to stop by locking the forums you called "Important", so regular members can't post in that area - Too many trolls.
_The only title I'm not sure if you want to lock or not is the Working Paper. I thought you said you wanted to lock it, but I can't find that discussion. Let me know about this.
_While I generally agree with your summary, there are still a few comments where I haven't convinced you of the merit. A way to do that might be for me to participate in your forum. When the issues come up, if I point them out, I think you will then see my concerns.
_A few, however, I can address right now:
_Setting up the bibliographies for newbies - yes, this is a difficult task. But I wouldn't expect any single forum, like yours, to complete the effort. Over time, however, many forums making a few contributions each would produce a large impact.
_For example ( and this relates to your MM paper ), there should not be any confusion about principles like "photons". The MM paper falls right into this quagmire. So as soon as any member raises a question about what a photon is, they should be referred to the Definition section of the Forum - in this case: 8. Definitions - Photon. And why this is a good example is, when a newbie or newly joining expert jumps to the Photon definition, what I expect is they will NOT get a simple answer.  Instead, they will be referred to a number of Critical Wiki articles that show the scientific community, at large, is still very divided about what photons are. After they read a few articles, they would return to your forum with a much more open and critical approach.
_Yes, for approach D,  the Work Group section will be involved. But largely to "coordinate" this goal. The primary work effort, however, will be for specific structured forums to make the scientific progress. And, it will be the ability of the structured approach to break down barriers to progress that will attract new members.

---

5/27 7:45 PM
Hi Bruce.
_I don't remember using thread titles "Important threads" and "Normal threads". I guess it's possible.
_Am I right that you've made me facilitator of just these forums?
3.3.3 The Scientific Method
4.1.1 Electric Universe or Aether
6.1 Catastrophism
6.2 Expansion Tectonics
6.3 Surge Tectonics
_I guess you'll be providing 3 locked threads for each of them titled:
- purpose, status report & assignments(?)
- wiki working paper
- bibliography & important outside viewpoints
plus an unlocked section titled discussion.
_After you do that, then I can change the titles of some of the threads that I started and relocate the contents appropriately.
_Which forum/s would you like to post in to help get me oriented?
_I invited email string members to a thread in 3.3.3.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 08:22:09 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Theory Rating
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2017, 11:05:50 am »
Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:25 AM
<Bruce
_OK. I understand your objective. But, for me, I can't do the rating without having a broader understanding of the theory the pieces come from. As I said, they appear to be just a totally disjointed list of physics concepts.
_For example, your first entry is: P Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or multiple thereof. You rated this P. I'd rate it I. Why? Because the long history of the duality discussion - particle / wave - has not been resolved. For any statement that simply sides with a photon being "a particle of a fundamental mass and radius", but provides no sound explanation, it has to be labeled "improbable" because there is over 100 years of strong arguments that say it CAN'T be just a particle.
_This is why I don't find value in the a simple rating scale you are using. It's not the simplicity that's the issue. Here's another simple system I do think has value:
_Y = yes, I'm interested in discussing further;  N = no, I'm not.  At least this system would help locate people to carry an idea further. I think this Y/N version would actually be an outcome of your system. Let's say you picked one issue that scored P on your survey. That doesn't mean everyone who took the survey would work with you. Those who voted I just wouldn't participate, producing a de facto N.
_I think this is a typical case where you are "too close" to your subject. You know it so well. People like me, even with years of physics experience, are coming into it cold. We need a lot more background to help you. THAT is what I'm trying to coach people into doing with the structured method.
_So, point me to a paper on P.U.T. and let keep my test trial going.

---

.5/31) 11AM)
>Bruce.
_You say you want to "help locate people to carry an idea further". So in the theory rating thread at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151 I added this statement: YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or NO):
_So here's how that thread starts out now.
-----------------------------------------
Below is the list of Essential Ideas of PUT.
Please rate each idea as I, M, or P:
I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
(& give reasons for I ratings in parentheses)
_WHAT RATING YOU GIVE P.U.T.:
_YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or NO):
---------------------------------------------------
_What do you think of the objective of building an encyclopedic list of good alternative theories, explaining each one in about a paragraph, as a list of essential ideas of each theory?
_Each member on the email string and each other member of CNPS probably has their own theories. Would it be a good experiment to have a CNPS forum or section where we can try to list the essential ideas of each member's main theory? Each theory listing could include a link to their discussions on the main forum. The rating method could be an option that readers could click on.
_You rated the first idea of PUT and you included your reason for rating it I, which was helpful. It shows that the wording of the photon idea may need to be improved or another idea may need to be added to the list of essential ideas. I rated one of the ideas as I, but that doesn't keep me from having interest in the theory. Would you mind rating some more of the PUT essential ideas?

---

6/1 - 11AM
>Bruce.
_I have some comments about the forums.
Here are the main forum sections.
1. CNPS Small Forums (Topics)
2. Relativity
3. Philosophy
4. Universe, Aether and Field Theory
5. Mass, Energy and Forces - Components of the Universe
6. Earth Sciences
7. Human Biology
8. Definitions
9. CNPS Work Groups
_Some members say they can't find things on the forums. Instead of having many forums in each section, why not let members start their own threads in any of those 9 sections and let moderators request moderator-controlled threads when members or mods ask for them? And maybe let moderators move threads to other sections in case members start them in the wrong sections.
_I think Human Biology should be changed to Biology; Evolution should be moved from under Philosophy to under Biology. Is astronomy/cosmology supposed to go under section 4? I think it might be good to have section 4 called Astronomy or Cosmology and section 5 called Physics & Chemistry.
_Have you consulted with any forum experts, regarding optimum layout as well as attracting new members?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 08:34:37 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
BN 5-Part Plan
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2017, 09:55:43 pm »
6/2 9:50 PM
_Hi Bruce. I wanted to start one or two threads in section 1 of the forums, but I don't see a way to do that? Don't members have that ability?
_I just now came across your critique of my 8-point scientific method. You apparently posted it on May 26. I previously came across the discussion that had been going on about the scientific method for some time, so I've been getting in late on these discussions.
_Your critique doesn't seem to say anything much different from what I had said are problems because many scientists and media don't really follow scientific method well. I haven't read your links to Carl Sagan's comments on scientific method, but I'm very unimpressed with Sagan myself. I believe he was one of the main supporters of mainstream corporate science lies. I don't know if you're aware of how much corporate greed has turned science into fairy tales.
_Your data on repeats of the MM experiment is very interesting. I'd enjoy hearing exactly what was measured to have the velocities you quoted.
_And your 5-part idea sounds good for improving science. 1. Store raw data for public access 2. along with critiques; 3. Summarize experiments historically and 4. develop better theories; 5. Self-organize teams to rectify false media claims to better inform the public. It may help for such teams to be aware of the problem of corporate greed and deep state dangers to science.
_Storing raw data & critiques sounds like fun. Do you have a place to store them? Can the Wiki have a section for raw data? I think most of the Wiki design will be a waste of effort, if it's to be based on the Wikipedia model.

---

Monday, June 5, 2017 1:45 PM
_Lloyd, Members can post new Threads, but not "forums". When I tried to give them that ability, they refused to even look through the outline to find existing forums that were appropriate to their new ideas. I have changed the explanation for the major category to instruct them about this.
_You should have received a direct email telling you I posted the May 26 reply. If you didn't you may not have had email notification turned on.
_Your point about me not criticizing your scientific method outline is correct. That approach is sound. The problems lie outside that method. Corporate greed is a major part of the problem, as you say. So, that's why I went into some depth on how Structured discussion is intended to fix this.
_About the MM experiment repeats, they all used the same geometry as MM, just adding better sensors, longer path lengths and changing variables that MM didn't think about. For example, Miller believed the aether was proved by MM, but it's slow speed was due to earth-capture. So he did tests a various altitudes, including high mountain sights. He showed a direct correlation of measured aether speed with altitude. He also was much more careful on temperature and pressure issues. All of the data I uncovered was on-line. I can't quickly find my reference list. But it should be something for us to put together.
_Monday, June 5, 2017 3:47 PM
_I think the raw data will eventually get stored in many places. For small amounts, it could essentially be an attachment to the paper. For huge studies, it may simply be permissions for access to the current repository. For medium data sets, CNPS has its own servers. Since CNPS is in control of the Wikis, we should be able to work that out. But again, I think it will be a referral to a separate document.
_About the "CNPS Critical Wikis", remember, while they "look" like a Wiki, and are "composed" using a Wiki document format, they are a totally different breed of cat because they do NOT allow public editing. CNPS controls the content.

---


« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 08:41:44 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
REVIEW PROCESS
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2017, 02:29:14 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
« Last Edit: June 14, 2017, 08:59:24 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: CNPS General Discussion
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2017, 05:48:30 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 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 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

« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 10:23:01 pm by Admin »