Dear Phil,

Thanks for clarifying your point concerning viXra. I completely understand your point of view and I also agree with it. On the other hand, I was not attacking vixra (I told you that I appreciate it). My using of the word "problem" could generate misunderstanding. Yes, the mistake was mine. Sorry.

Cheers,

Ch.

Phil,

Open peer review is a good idea, but it will not save the world. I know that there has been and will be situations that are unfair, careers sadly ended and work wrongly credited. That is pain on the level of the individual, but good science in the long view of history will win. If we are talking about the future of humanity, science as a slow process is what is important.

My name was one of several authors on a paper in experimental physics written about 20 years ago. That was my only experience with a peer review process.

Now, I teach mostly at community colleges to mostly non-science majors and I see my job as a tour guide to the world of science and not part of the process of science. Teachers are at the tail end of the process of science (the old dusty textbook part). Teachers decide if Tycho Brahe was a rich, nose-less, fool or a careful researcher who followed the best data he had to a conclusion that proved to be wrong with better data.

All the Best,

Jeff

    • [deleted]

    • Post #117

    Jeffrey,

    In my opinion, teachers train the minds of their students to identify shortcomings in relating information to outcomes, and then efficiently teach themselves the relationships and information they need to know to predictably manipulate their desired outcomes.

    All of this is implicit to problem solving.

    However, related to Open Peer Review and being a steerable pathway to guide future human outcomes, I strongly believe Open Peer Review is part of that process. This forum of essay review is a form of Open Peer Review. I have generated at least two activities for business generation resulting from the FQXi Open Peer Review process.

    Open peer review is very much a part of Staged peer review with business incubation tools.

    Staged peer Review & Business Incubator

    Open Peer Review is ANY open forum.

    The term "Crackpot" in science is a derogatory statement to provoke political influence in dismissing competing pathways for investigation. Mainstream physics is currently at a apparent dead-end related to space and time experimentation. So the crackpot is going to be the future inspiration for new investigations to steer the future away from dead-ends.

    The Crackpot is a great source for inspirations in diverse areas of business. Who would buy a mop with a spray bottle attached to it? My wife.

    The Crackpot simply has a set of related but not well defined, nor broadly consistent relationships that are important enough for them to stick their neck out for ridicule.

    Every scientist I know falls into the above classification of Crackpot because they are all dealing with an incomplete set of information. Scientists however are able to tie their works to useful Applications; except of course theoretical physcists.

    In almost every system proposed by scientists, their works must be stated within exactly defined constraints or their outcomes are not repeatable broadly. Very few scientists take the time to identify the broad limiting constraints of their assertions. This makes these mainstream scientists Crackpots.

    I reviewed a concept for time characterized as pages in a book. The mathematics was quite impressive, until constraints in relationships related to set theory were considered. The mathematics was disjoint. This does not mean their work may not become important one day. It just means the work is incomplete; a partial perspective and an illusion of being a completely valid perspective.

    The are hundreds of thousands of physicists in the world; how many of them contribute toward a final solution? Very few. So aiming a an arrow at open peer review as a target of dismissive condemnation is like saying no one should speak until they are fully knowledgeable in what they are about to say.

    Every conversation is Open Peer Review.

    By educating people related to the biases that misdirect useful outcomes and relating these biases infused with common sense, is a strong basis for "supporting" broad systems of development; in very diverse subject areas.

    However, Corruption derails the effort not to be unethically biased.

    Corruption = unethical/illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

    But unless something actively and physically is pursued, of what use is this discussion; or any discussion ...

    Meetings: Pandering waste of time, or productive asset

    As a result of yours or anyone's efforts to read essays and write comments, what productively are you and other's "doing" to convert rhetoric into outcomes?

    Contributors here have diverse perspectives, and most, obviously thoughtful people. Therefore, everything presented in these essays has the potential to contribute productively toward any overall goal; within staged constraints. A person with a passion to provoke anarchy is most likely going to disrupt product development and make it impossible to produce a product to fund further efforts. However, that same anarchist is an important controls feedback function for philosophical discussions about ethics related to what should be considered about the uses and abuses of the product when developed.

    Most business people want to jump onto a path that most directly provides them with the greatest return on investment. The problem is that without negative feedback the initial business resources are used up before sustainable systems can be put in place to establish a stable AND sustainable cash flow. As an example, the lowest risk investment on average is a franchise, but only one in 20 franchises become sustainable. The diverse types of influences on a business start-up takes time and a slow trickling of resources so that unforeseen influences can be characterized and incorporated into the business control systems. But meetings and efforts without useful outcomes is wasted resources and undeveloped opportunities.

    The following was a national headline for the James-Rivers Paper Company journal. Related to unproductive meetings without an Action-Item Log and related Action-Item Worksheets to capture and track meeting productivity:

    "If you are going to listen, do something" ~Thomas Dunn

    Action Item Log and Action Item Worksheet

    So with all my rhetoric, what will I "do"?

    http://www.ua-kits.com

    http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com

    I'm currently involved with educational grants and am using the principles I presented.

    Everyone commonly dismisses other's works as a means of covering their own lack of self-esteem in related areas. This isn't appropriate for the benefit of society. Use all information for the "greatest" useful benefit without harmful contradictions.

    What will be your next "do"? Then tell us about it so we can learn from your efforts.

    Respect is based in the communication process of sharing useful information.

    Disdain is based in sharing information that is not useful, or that is destructive.

    Self-esteem is the additive accumulation of both.

    I am defending Phil's essay because it CONTRIBUTES toward a total solution for the Steering of Humanity more strongly action-oriented toward useful outcomes than many of the other essays presented.

    5 days later

    I played around with Excel last night and came up with a way to predict the contest winner. Basically, by downloading all the data pertinent to this contest such as the title of the essay, how many posts, the community rating, the public rating, how many community ratings and how many public ratings, and one more column for a combination of all the ratings and how the essay judges are likely to weight all the columns with respect to eachother, it spits out an answer.

    With all those numbers, I sorted on each column and changed the color of the top 10 essays in each column. Then when it was all done I just looked for the "most colorful essay".

    And the winner (will likely be)...

    Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs

    #2: Recognizing the Value of Play by Jonathan J. Dickau

    #3: Bohr-like model for black holes: the route for quantum gravity by Christian Corda

    #3 wins the slot because the contest judges will want to be science-minded. That's why Corda will likely win out over the Honorable Mention

    How to save the world by Sabine Hossenfelder

    because #3 is very science-y and #4 is a bit more of a preachy title without as much of a hint towards what the essay is about.

    Well, there's my prediction. It was enjoyable to participate in this contest. By my own criteria, my essay wasn't "colorful" at all. Maybe the judges will score highly on ease of understanding and practicality? Nahh, the guys who are at the top of this list still do very well in such categories.

    Good luck to you all.

    Kevin O

      Very nice, but have you checked your methodology against previous contests?

      No I have not checked my methodology against previous contests. I've only been involved in this one and my interest rapidly wanes from that point backward. But it is an open and straightforward methodology that can easily be tested against prior results.

      13 days later

      Philip,

      Thanks again for starting viXra. It enabled me to archive some of my papers for reference in a book I recently published on Amazon. I also recently re-published a couple of papers on academia.edu. It is interesting that the viXra papers and academia.edu papers get a lot of downloads and NO ONE comments. Do you know who these people are?

      The essay format solicits some feedback. Your essay received a lot of positive feedback and some pushback from people I thought might have been "the establishment" showing some of the bias you describe. Once the essay voting was finished the dialog on FQXi subsided quickly. This makes me think that the reason the essay format works is that everyone wants to politic for votes. I know that our mental plasticity declines with age and experience but are we so closed to anything new that dialog can't generate new interest and thought without a carrot attached? Blogs and videos on more popular subjects can "go viral" on u-tube and other social media but appear to be short lived and shallow (my bias).

      The more I thought about the need for open peer review the more I realized how important it is. What if some of the past autocrats, dictators and politicians had really listened to and acted on the best ideas and solutions available? History and civilization would be quite different. We can excuse some past behavior on lack of information and knowledge but this is not a good excuse in our information age. Theoretically it allows everyone to act globally rather than sub-optimizing.

      Anyway, good luck. I think your essay will bring some attention to the difficult subject.

        Gene, Yes, it is very difficult to get people to comment on a paper. That is one of the good things about the FQXi contest. Even if they do it to draw attention to their own work in the contest it is still a good thing that it generates some discussion.

        It is also one of the reasons why it is very hard to get new peer review systems to work. As I explained in the essay, people do peer review to impress the editors who are likely to be future employers. If you want to implement a new system you must not lose that incentive.

        It is not that people are not interested in other people's work. They just tend to read it and take it in, but it is much harder to form a critique. Most papers are skimmed quickly for the main facts. If you want to review it you need to spend much more time and there are a lot of papers to read.

        Another way people get some feedback is by giving talks at conferences, but any comments are hard-won. Open peer review would go a little way towards helping but people need to be realistic about the feedback they can expect. No response does not mean that they work is not being read or that it is not liked. You just have to keep adding to your work and make sure it is archived for future reference.