Improving Science for a Better Future by Mohammed M. Khalil

Mohammed,

Having had rating problems with my Firefox browser and with some 5 days remaining, I am revisiting essays I've read to see if rated. I find that I rated yours on 4/30.

I would like to see your comments on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim

Okay. If matters change, please let me know. Meantime best of luck in your exams. - Mike

Mohammed,

Writing "accelerate the rate of scientific discovery and its applications ... is important to find urgent solutions to humanity's problems", you advocated the boomer's philosophy that trusts in the solution of all problems via scientific progress.

Although I wrote an essay "Peace via discoveries and inventions" my position is different. I share Nobel's cautious attitude who did obviously not trust in speculations but demanded responsibility. Doesn't this include putting reasonable limits to consumption of resources and to growth of population?

You seem to be prone to believe in propaganda and further propagate it. The Nobel Prize Committee hesitated to accept something that is still unexplained. Don't get me wrong. I merely criticize that you swallowed the dogma of relativity as a scientific revolution. You may believe in this as you perhaps are also believing in Mohammed. However, as Karl Popper stated, a scientific claim cannot be confirmed but only be falsified. Einstein's theory evades falsification because it is a fabrication, something that you called philosophy rather than science.

Eckard

Dear Mohammed Khalil

You wrote a perfect study, how to improve science in the future.

I will add about wrong filters for amateur papers (people not from universities). I wrote about this in my essay. One example is because arXiv almost totally rejects papers from amateurs. Their principle with endorsers leaves almost zero number of amateur papers. I agree with stronger filter for amateurs, but not with almost zero probability. They even do not allow to have references from viXra, as Phil Gibbs writes in this contest. Besides, computer analysis allows today transparency over the papers of different quality.

"Admittedly, amateurs are less intelligent in average than professionals, because professionals go through a larger number of selections. Amateurs have less time and no money for research, except their own money. But probability for correctness of their theories is not zero. On the other side, amateur's theories come across too little arguments for their rejections than professional's ones. Thus their (un)correctness is much less checked. We should know that in influential statistical parameters are mainly distributed by Gaussian curves, or at least, probability never falls toward zero. Finally, because this is only probability, it is never sure that someone will not or will and TOE or anything other. Now, there are too many over-reactions against alternative theories, too rigorous limitations who can publish, what s/he can publish, how s/he should to write, etc. Limitations are necessary,but they should be more precisely set, according to mathematical and statistical laws. For instance,natural selection respects that distributions of aptitudes are more Gaussian ones than rectangular ones, but selection of physical theories does not respect this. Thus, if we have enough large number of papers from amateurs, someone will give scientifically useful ideas. Thus, I predict that after discovery of a TOE it will appear that also some theories of amateurs are correct. Thus, maybe alternative approaches need to be respected with less prejudices."

I wish to add still your principle for publication of papers with zero results. Besides, the extreme, that some measurements are written 10 years, because of checking of results, is also not optimal. For instance one last measurement of gravitational constant take 10 years.

Besides, a possibility appeared that G measurement is changing cyclically through time. If number of such measurements would be larger, it can be statistically checked whether if this cyclical change is really a case.

One rule for the advancement of Science is also to write physical theories more clearly. For example, here is an example for a clearer presentation special theory of relativity.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Above it is my post.

Janko Kokosar

Dear Mohammed,

What I like about your essay is that it is well documented and matter-of-fact. Perhaps mine is on the controversial end. I wish you success in the contest.

Chidi

Best of luck in your exams.

Peter

dear Mohammed,

Congratulations with your high score in the community rating and now being a member of the finalists pool.

Science is one aspect of consciousness and I hope that the discussions will not be ended just after the community rating, you still can give public ratings.

So I feel honored to give you a direct link to my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?" and hope that you will give me a comment on my thread.

Good luck with the "final judgement" and

best regards

Wilhelmus

Dear Muhammad

Mabruuuuuuuk! Щ...ШЁШ±Щ€Щ€Щ€Щ€Щ€Щ€Щ€Щѓ Congratulations for winning one of the top prizes for your wonderful essay.

Now, for the benefit of humanity, the World will have to live up to your and well-considered expectations and recommendations!

Vladimir