Improving Science for a Better Future by Mohammed M. Khalil

Mohammed,

A truly masterful essay identifying and well describing a comprehensive range of related issues and some solutions. I agree with all including; The need for innovation and major advancement of science, inter- or cross 'discipline' work, better teaching methods, information overload, new peer review and publication methods and inclusivity of access. Top marks for those. However;

There are two major dichotomies therein which you don't address. 1) Due to volume of submissions truly innovative and groundbreaking work is automatically 'bounced off' and rejected by the present system even before review however good or important as being too 'different' to doctrine. Only those from 'big names' or universities may penetrate. Drexler's message (K Eric!?) is ignored so inclusivity has seriously reduced, more seriously slowing advancement.

2) is scientific. You laud SR and QM but they themselves remain incompatible. Time itself is different. I propose logical unification is simple but will not now penetrate published science as interpretations require modifying. i.e. beliefs must be dropped. No editor now dares. Such a model may end up with say 3 top ten scores in a row in this contest yet not even get to review in a major journal (i.e. see 2nd last yr.). I agree the way we teach and think is the problem, but would your suggestions really overcome that?

I hope you read my essay, deriving QM from a classical mechanism with 'cross discipline' implications for SR allowing convergence. I tried to make it entertaining. The ability to think beyond boxes and planets is needed but only scant 'knowledge' of QM (do ask if anything's not clear). The broad implications should bring no less than a new Copernican revolution in understanding.

My 2011 essay '2020 Vision' estimated how long to 1st penetration, but was optimistic. Dozens of papers have bounced instantly so far. I applaud your view but feel it may now be too late, so revolutionary not evolutionary change may soon be needed. Views?

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Mohammed,

Thanks for your essay. I agree in every point. And even better you provide makeable solutions! You earn a high score. Maybe I don't fully agree, that science and specifically technology can provide the solutions of the most urgent problems. Many problems are man made and are of structural nature. But also there science might help to enable us to steer the future.

Thanks again,

Luca

Mohammed,

I completely agree with you when you say that, since we cannot predict future scientific discoveries (as opposed to "mere" technological improvements), the best we can do is to try to make the process of science the most effective possible.

I believe as you do that "university departments should give periodic talks on the problems they are working on to stimulate discussions with researchers from other disciplines, thus opening the possibility of interdisciplinary collaborations". I also agree that we should try to find a better way to peer-review papers, to publish negative results, and to stimulate the reproduction of research findings.

When I was a graduate student, I deplored the fact that not enough effort was being spent toward the summary and review of already existing research, so I naturally agree with what you propose in section 3.8 (Managing Research Literature). In academia, the job of full-time researcher exists, but not the job of full-time "synthesizer and reviewer", and it is unfortunate.

Of course, I particularly like your arguments about education, in sections 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, since they resonate with my ideas about a worldwide futurocentric education initiative! You are quite right when you say that "efforts through the internet should not focus on scientic news, but on established scientic facts in short articles containing images and videos". I think this is starting to happen, with YouTube channels like Veritasium and MinutePhysics, and a successful futurocentric education initiative will certainly have to use this approach.

I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. I believe that it is important that your essay makes it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

Marc

Mohammed,

I enjoyed your essay. It was a pleasure to read. Science can help, and it should be nurtured.

I think your optimism is catching.

Don Limuti

Mohammed,

Thanks for this fact-filled, well written review of the state of science! You are a visionary, and your article is highly publishable regardless of any contest outcome. I hope your essay gets the visibility it deserves.

My own contribution echoes your emphasis on education and inter-disciplinary cooperation.

Best,

Tom

Dear Mohammed,

I gladly join the list. Your essay is very well written, and dense with references to concrete facts and percentages, which makes it solid and persuasive. Good and easily digested food for the reader!

A note of psychological character about your idea to publish negative results. While I see your point, I can imagine a number of circumstances in which I would personally tend not to believe the negative result (as well as the positive ones), until I try it out myself. I find that often the strategies for attacking a problem are so many that, by taking an alternative perspective, the positive result may pop out. Of course, this may not be equally valid for any area of science.

And I totally agree on the importance of having scientists take active part to political activities and decisions - not merely consultative. This is particularly crucial in my country (Italy), where recent interviews and reports have exposed the dramatic ignorance of a high percentage of our politicians. The problem, however, is to find enough scientists willing devote a serious portion of their time to these non-scientific activities. Making science is much more fun.

Best regards,

Tommaso

Dear Tommaso,

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments.

I totally agree with you that we should always question published results, and think of alternative methods and strategies. However, it's hard, or even impossible, for anyone to check everything they read; that's why reproducing research results and publishing them is very important.

I also agree that not many scientists would be willing to spend their time on non-scientific activities; that why we should discuss the importance of this issue and encourage more scientists to participate. Scientists should know it's their responsibility to use their knowledge to help the society.

Best regards,

Mohammed

Dear Mohammed M. Khalil,

Very nice essay with full range of what you focus on. It is sometimes difficult to evaluate science including its socialistic impact but you guide it with broad point of view.

Regards,

Ryoji

Dear Mohammed,

I read with interest your depth analysis and concrete proposals for a global project "Open Science". We need to hear the voice of the Earth, [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2034] to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. Time has come and we start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age. Fundamental science should go ahead.

I invite you to comment and appreciate my ideas

Best regards,

Vladimir

Mohammed,

Let me put a question that is less taboo to you:

You wrote: "History of science teaches us not to hold to unjustified assumptions, even if they are held by the majority, we should always consider opposing views. Unfortunately, we are making the same mistake again".

Well, you might argue that what you wrote in the introduction of your essay is absolutely justified.

Let me nonetheless consider your following statement:"Relativity revolutionized our understanding of space, time, mass, and gravity. This understanding made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".

Are my opposing essays definitely wrong? Can you please reveal flaws?

Eckard

Mohammed,

I consider strict philosophy at the roots of science, and I question your lazy statement:"This understanding [of space and time] made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".

Even David Bohm admitted in his textbook on Special Relativity that achievements attributed to SR can also be attributed to other interpretations.

I maintain what I wrote in my essay: "Several insights that were incorporated into Einstein's theory of relativity and are now ascribed to it did nonetheless prove realistic and useful in practice. In particular, there is no reason to doubt that the speed of light [in vacuum] is constant and constitutes an upper limit for the propagation of energy." Einstein himself was forced to admit that his imperfect understanding of "past, present and future" worries him seriously, cf. my earlier essays. The countless experiments you mentioned confirm facts that are not necessarily related to the claimed relativity of time. What about GPS, those who are defending Einstein are merely claiming that the Sagnac effect does not contradict to SR. It does not confirm it.

I humbly don't feel in position and also not obliged to deal with all arguments that were risen to defend an ideology. I merely found out that Einstein's reasoning was neither his own nor flawless but led to unresolved and perhaps unresolvable paradoxes. That's why I am asking (in vain) for a trustworthy experiment that confirms more than the incorporated contributions of others.

So far, I tend to agree with Luis von Essen on that SR is lacking any own experimental basis. May we call it therefore a mere philosophical fabrication or is it really a discovery? Anyway, I see this allegedly settled question unsettled as long as belonging paradoxes cannot be denied. The future is open. Discoveries and inventions may steer it.

Eckard