Publishing on arXiv for people outside universities is practically impossible. But the probability that progress in basic science occurs outside the university is not negligible. This article presents what problems people have in universities because of people with alternative theories, which problems with COVID-19 were because of alternative theories. which problems people have to publish alternative theories. The article shows how to improve the persuasion of people who are wrong with alternative theories, and how to enable those alternative theories that are good to be published. Reseach of this slippery field is necessary.
The Progress of the Basic Science can be also Outside of Universities
6 days later
This essay is written by someone for whom English is not his native language. It also suffers from disorganization. Nevertheless, the points he raises are exactly the deficiencies in the institution of science worldwide.
Science has become too conservative. We are excellent at filling in gaps and adding to databases. We are very poor at evaluating radically new ways of understanding. Since science was "professionalized" 70 years ago, research has been lopsided with confirmation bias, reinforced by financial incentives and careerism. This essay proposes concrete alternatives for ways that new ideas can be brought in from outside the scientific establishment and evaluated by people who have the appropriate understanding and still have an open mind.
12 days later
An excellent essay please. There can be many people who cannot get time or resources for proper university backup. viXra or FQxI are really helping them. For your information there is Dynamic Universe Model, using the same mathematical set up solved from cosmological problems to galaxy level to solar system level to energy level to particle level to atoms level and into chemistry, etc. I hope you will further explore further into this solution also.
Best wishes
6 days later
mitteldorf I admit about language and disorganisation. This essay was written in hurry.
6 days later
I gave this Essay a high rating because I see several similarities with mine, in which I emphasize the strong influence of "politics" and economic interests in the Scientific Community. Despite having university affiliations, I too am on the arXiv "blacklist" because in my work I often try to go beyond the "sacred protocols". So there are some APs that are also UPs. The only thing I disagree with the Author in is his idea of giving a voice to anti-relativists by putting them into one group. The master guide of Science must be the Galilean scientific method which tells us that we cannot go against what observations and experiments tell us and SR is the theory which in the history of science has had the greatest experimental and observational confirmations. Therefore, and on this I am adamant, anti-relativists must be excluded from the scientific community.
Maybe the Author could be interested in my Essay:
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2346
I completely agree with you about the serious problem of the exclusion from the scientific debate, mainly carried out through arXiv, of non-academic physicists who could in any case enrich the scientific debate.
In my essay "The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science" I denounce similar problems, in particular related to the obscure policies of arXiv, proposing that at least arXiv should admit papers published in peer-reviewed journals and respects the classification given by the journals.