Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Teaching Scienists To Think Outside The Box


pantheory

Recommended Posts

This is a follow up on a question by BAA. Why do some people think very differently from others?

 

Sometimes outside-the-box-thinkers can be very creative and productive in society. Sometimes they are psychopathic and live in jails or mental institutions  Somethings they are within mainstream science and sometimes they are contrarians concerning a number of scientific theories. Sometimes they follow alternative theories and sometimes they create their own alternative models. Sometimes they can come up with unique solutions and hypothesis to support mainstream theory, and others of similar thinking are more critical of mainstream theory/ science and follow such alternative ideas of others, or develop their own own alternative explanations and theories. Sometimes they are highly educated people concerning mainstream theory, but most spend a great deal of time in self study.

 

Some of these people might be classified as Nerds, others are more socially well adjusted.

 

http://sc-ctsi.org/index.php/news/teaching-scientists-to-think-outside-the-box#.V7d59RLpfHE

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736021/

 

http://www.creativitypost.com/create/how_geniuses_think

 

I believe I fall within these classifications somewhere in that I have come to believe that most of modern physics will eventually be replaced by logical, far better theories in the coming century, if not hopefully sooner.

 

Questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



The Mainstream is a nice reference point from which to launch. But innovation and progress requires some thinking outside the box. 

 

Mainstream theories should not be abandoned unless we have some better ideas, nor should we cling to the mainstream just because of tradition. 

 

Science is always changing. Dont worship a theory. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

My question to you wasn't, "Why do some people think very differently to others?".  Here's what I wrote...

 

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/73543-researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/#.V7jaGPkrJD8 (see post # 12)

 

So, my question to you Pantheory was... why can you not accept what others can?

 

While I want to understand why you think as you do, I also want to do so by discovering why you cannot accept what others can.

 

That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words.

 

What you have substituted is NOT what I wrote, NOT what I intended and NOT what I meant.

 

Please do me the courtesy of quoting me properly and addressing the actual question I put to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

My question to you wasn't, "Why do some people think very differently to others?".  Here's what I wrote...

 

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/73543-researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/#.V7jaGPkrJD8 (see post # 12)

 

So, my question to you Pantheory was... why can you not accept what others can?

 

While I want to understand why you think as you do, I also want to do so by discovering why you cannot accept what others can.

 

That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words.

 

What you have substituted is NOT what I wrote, NOT what I intended and NOT what I meant.

 

Please do me the courtesy of quoting me properly and addressing the actual question I put to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I believe the answer is that I think differently than other people think. Not always outside the box, but just differently. When I was in college a teacher that I respected told another student the same. He said to another student in my presence, he said something like " you know how you and I think and everybody else thinks," he said to him, "well Forrest does not think that way. His thinking process is quite different from other people." I think he meant what he said as a complement but he did not explain more clearly the meaning of what he said.

 

One big difference in the way I think may be related to the saying "show me, I'm from Missouri" Although I'm from California my thinking runs that way. Whatever I read, learn in school, I take all "learning" with a grain of salt. I need to see the evidence. Then with the evidence, I sill may believe what is being said or observed is probably  wrong if I disagree with the perspective being followed.

 

I accept nothing at all just because I've been told that the majority PhD "experts" in that field believe this or that. " Once I study something, afterwards I can either agree, disagree, or think I need to know more. To make any final judgement I have to study something for many years if I'm that interested. Finally when I have studied a subject for many years and think I have a very good understanding of the pros and cons of the subject, I may then make a value judgement about it but will be always ready to change my mind the day more convincing evidence, IMO, comes along.

 

For example:  Chemical theory is a perspective, as are all theories. But IMO the theory in general is a good theory. Of course there may be many faults within the theory, still the overall theory I think is a very good one.  I feel the same way about natural selection. A great theory where I completely agree with the perspective. The theory of evolution is still a work in progress but one of its foundation pillars, natural selection, IMO is beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand we have modern physics -- Physics since the beginning of the 20th century-- is almost totally absent of any logic IMO. For me to believe in anything, it must be logical. IMHO modern physics is the worst of all sciences because it lacks in logic on all fronts IMO. Yes one must study all sciences if you are interested in them, but don't be surprised if much of Modern physics finally turns out to be wrong. 

 

Why can you not accept what others can?

 

So I believe this is the answer to your question. These theories, IMHO, are not logical to me -- after many decades of related study. IMO other explanations instead are far better.

 

your quote:

"That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words."

 

Yes, I try to understand the meanings of your postings, truly. I believe I nearly always do, like others.

 

all the best,   Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pantheory,

 

My question to you wasn't, "Why do some people think very differently to others?".  Here's what I wrote...

 

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/73543-researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/#.V7jaGPkrJD8 (see post # 12)

 

So, my question to you Pantheory was... why can you not accept what others can?

 

While I want to understand why you think as you do, I also want to do so by discovering why you cannot accept what others can.

 

That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words.

 

What you have substituted is NOT what I wrote, NOT what I intended and NOT what I meant.

 

Please do me the courtesy of quoting me properly and addressing the actual question I put to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I believe the answer is that I think differently than other people think. Not always outside the box, but just differently. When I was in college a teacher that I respected told another student the same. He said to another student in my presence, he said something like " you know how you and I think and everybody else thinks," he said to him, "well Forrest does not think that way. His thinking process is quite different from other people." I think he meant what he said as a complement but he did not explain more clearly the meaning of what he said.

 

One big difference in the way I think may be related to the saying "show me, I'm from Missouri" Although I'm from California my thinking runs that way. Whatever I read, learn in school, I take all "learning" with a grain of salt. I need to see the evidence. Then with the evidence, I sill may believe what is being said or observed is probably  wrong if I disagree with the perspective being followed.

 

I accept nothing at all just because I've been told that the majority PhD "experts" in that field believe this or that. " Once I study something, afterwards I can either agree, disagree, or think I need to know more. To make any final judgement I have to study something for many years if I'm that interested. Finally when I have studied a subject for many years and think I have a very good understanding of the pros and cons of the subject, I may then make a value judgement about it but will be always ready to change my mind the day more convincing evidence, IMO, comes along.

 

For example:  Chemical theory is a perspective, as are all theories. But IMO the theory in general is a good theory. Of course there may be many faults within the theory, still the overall theory I think is a very good one.  I feel the same way about natural selection. A great theory where I completely agree with the perspective. The theory of evolution is still a work in progress but one of its foundation pillars, natural selection, IMO is beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand we have modern physics -- Physics since the beginning of the 20th century-- is almost totally absent of any logic IMO. For me to believe in anything, it must be logical. IMHO modern physics is the worst of all sciences because it lacks in logic on all fronts IMO. Yes one must study all sciences if you are interested in them, but don't be surprised if much of Modern physics finally turns out to be wrong. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks for this explanation, Pantheory.

 

In the light of what you've said, I'd like to present a hypothetical scenario to you, to see how you'd resolve the conflict between Alice, Bob and Carl.  

They are scientists who have each formulated a theory that explains how gravity works.  

Catch is, theory A, B and C are totally different from each other.  

Alice, Bob and Carl sincerely believe that their particular theories are logical and coherent, but that the other two are illogical and incoherent.

Also, each scientist interprets the observed data to mean that their particular theory is confirmed and the other two are ruled out.  

Neither Alice, Bob nor Carl will budge from their belief that they are correct and the others, wrong.  

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of interpreting the observed data.

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of testing the logic and coherence of their theories.

 

What would you do to break this logjam? 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why can you not accept what others can?

 

So I believe this is the answer to your question. These theories, IMHO, are not logical to me -- after many decades of related study. IMO other explanations instead are far better.

 

your quote:

"That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words."

 

Yes, I try to understand the meanings of your postings, truly. I believe I nearly always do, like others.

 

Yes, nearly... but not actually.  

Hence the need for me to correct your misinterpretation.  

You've now addressed my actual question and I thank you for that.

 

all the best,   Forrest

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Pantheory,

 

My question to you wasn't, "Why do some people think very differently to others?".  Here's what I wrote...

 

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/73543-researchers-orbit-a-muon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/#.V7jaGPkrJD8 (see post # 12)

 

So, my question to you Pantheory was... why can you not accept what others can?

 

While I want to understand why you think as you do, I also want to do so by discovering why you cannot accept what others can.

 

That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words.

 

What you have substituted is NOT what I wrote, NOT what I intended and NOT what I meant.

 

Please do me the courtesy of quoting me properly and addressing the actual question I put to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I believe the answer is that I think differently than other people think. Not always outside the box, but just differently. When I was in college a teacher that I respected told another student the same. He said to another student in my presence, he said something like " you know how you and I think and everybody else thinks," he said to him, "well Forrest does not think that way. His thinking process is quite different from other people." I think he meant what he said as a complement but he did not explain more clearly the meaning of what he said.

 

One big difference in the way I think may be related to the saying "show me, I'm from Missouri" Although I'm from California my thinking runs that way. Whatever I read, learn in school, I take all "learning" with a grain of salt. I need to see the evidence. Then with the evidence, I sill may believe what is being said or observed is probably  wrong if I disagree with the perspective being followed.

 

I accept nothing at all just because I've been told that the majority PhD "experts" in that field believe this or that. " Once I study something, afterwards I can either agree, disagree, or think I need to know more. To make any final judgement I have to study something for many years if I'm that interested. Finally when I have studied a subject for many years and think I have a very good understanding of the pros and cons of the subject, I may then make a value judgement about it but will be always ready to change my mind the day more convincing evidence, IMO, comes along.

 

For example:  Chemical theory is a perspective, as are all theories. But IMO the theory in general is a good theory. Of course there may be many faults within the theory, still the overall theory I think is a very good one.  I feel the same way about natural selection. A great theory where I completely agree with the perspective. The theory of evolution is still a work in progress but one of its foundation pillars, natural selection, IMO is beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand we have modern physics -- Physics since the beginning of the 20th century-- is almost totally absent of any logic IMO. For me to believe in anything, it must be logical. IMHO modern physics is the worst of all sciences because it lacks in logic on all fronts IMO. Yes one must study all sciences if you are interested in them, but don't be surprised if much of Modern physics finally turns out to be wrong. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks for this explanation, Pantheory.

 

In the light of what you've said, I'd like to present a hypothetical scenario to you, to see how you'd resolve the conflict between Alice, Bob and Carl.  

They are scientists who have each formulated a theory that explains how gravity works.  

Catch is, theory A, B and C are totally different from each other.  

Alice, Bob and Carl sincerely believe that their particular theories are logical and coherent, but that the other two are illogical and incoherent.

Also, each scientist interprets the observed data to mean that their particular theory is confirmed and the other two are ruled out.  

Neither Alice, Bob nor Carl will budge from their belief that they are correct and the others, wrong.  

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of interpreting the observed data.

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of testing the logic and coherence of their theories.

 

What would you do to break this logjam? 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I believe this is the answer to your question. These theories, IMHO, are not logical to me -- after many decades of related study. IMO other explanations instead are far better.

 

your quote:

"That is the proper wording, the proper intent and proper meaning of my words."

 

Yes, I try to understand the meanings of your postings, truly. I believe I nearly always do, like others.

 

Yes, nearly... but not actually.  

Hence the need for me to correct your misinterpretation.  

You've now addressed my actual question and I thank you for that.

 

all the best,   Forrest

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

BAA, question below.

 

In the light of what you've said, I'd like to present a hypothetical scenario to you, to see how you'd resolve the conflict between Alice, Bob and Carl.  

They are scientists who have each formulated a theory that explains how gravity works.  

Catch is, theory A, B and C are totally different from each other.  

Alice, Bob and Carl sincerely believe that their particular theories are logical and coherent, but that the other two are illogical and incoherent.

Also, each scientist interprets the observed data to mean that their particular theory is confirmed and the other two are ruled out.  

Neither Alice, Bob nor Carl will budge from their belief that they are correct and the others, wrong.  

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of interpreting the observed data.

Nor will any of them agree on a common and/or independent method of testing the logic and coherence of their theories.

 

What would you do to break this logjam? 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My answer:

 

I will need to change your scenario a little since I have my own theory of gravity which I also think is well supported by observation so I would not be an impartial judge and would side with the model closest to my own and explain the details to the other theorists where I believe their theory is contradicted by observation.

 

We can change the hypothesis from gravity to "the dark flow," instead if the theory/ hypothesis was one that I have not developed to a high level of understanding as yet, a hypothesis not  generally detailed within my book, then I might be able to be more open minded concerning these alternative hypothesis.  There is a leading dark flow hypothesis where a vast quantity of cluster matter outside the observable universe in the direction that galaxy clusters seem to be moving toward. Not a bad hypothesis, IMO, but still not my favorite.

 

Let's say that all three theorists have a different hypothesis  to this mainstream and none of them are also not close to my own hypothesis. In all three cases I would go over what they consider to be the evidence in favor of their hypothesis. I would go over the evidence that I known of that might seem to contradict or support their hypothesis. After listening to their answers for a while, and their proposed "evidence," if I thought there were logical flaws in them I would point them out. If needed we might review the material, agreed or disagree upon definitions as needed, and the logical pattern needed  to "verify" their hypothesis, as well as the probabilities that they think would be involved. Finally I would express my own opinion. Next I would tell each what I think they would need to make their hypothesis stronger based upon improvement of theory, Next I would ask each to imagine possible experiments that might be conducted that could be contrary to the mainstream model and which could show that there model would be a good replacement for the mainstream theory.

 

It could be that one scientist has the best argument and is generally the most convincing, but still a different proposal is also interesting and is much more easily tested. I would explain this second hypothesis should be tested first, because it is easier and less expensive to test. And the others tested should be eventuated based upon the facility and cost of the needed observations for the  testing.

 

When it's all done maybe one or two the hypothesis could be generally eliminated. If two were thought to be eliminated at least one would dissagree with the methods or logic involved, even though to start with he did agree.

 

Finally I would write a paper that would involve all the hypothesis pointing to the pros and cons of each proposal, with brief mentions that one or more is more in line with mainstream thinking, while giving all evidence concerning the testing that has been done, and additional testing that might be done. Based upon some mathematical models one might show that one model seems more likely that another. Theories that require a background of additional theory would need to be explained in further detail that one involving mainstream theory that most all readers would understand.

 

To finish my paper I would show what I consider to be the pros and cons for each paper based first upon logic, then include all other conceivable factors that I, or the other theorists have imagined. If I made a final judgement concerning them all, I would put my choice in the format of comparative probabilities. Hypothesis one, for instance is determined to have a 30% probability based upon my assessment of these factors : 1,2,3,4 5, etc., and choices number 2 and 3 would seem to have about the same likelihood of being valid as the other, the calculated odds being about 19% probability of being correct for each, according to my assessments and calculations. Again I would point to of the pros and cons of these last two model.s In this case the collective would add up to 68-69%, The remaining 31-32% would involve other completely unmentioned models, or a model that has some commonality with one or more of the models proposed, but which operates based upon a different overriding theory and therefore has a very different perspective.

 

My conclusion would strongly state that these are my personal opinions and calculations, and that the reader can evaluate all methods using their own logic and calculations, to draw their own conclusions based upon these, or other undiscussed factors considered important by the reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It would seem that none of these people are willing to learn or study the other's theory. For people who are not willing to broaden their horizons, nothing can be done. They are forever locked into their own beliefs. Neither I or anyone else could help them learn anything new. Learning requires listening, observing, reading, asking questions, etc., not talking or offering up your own opinions unless interacting with another mainly by listening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It would seem that none of these people are willing to learn or study the other's theory. For people who are not willing to broaden their horizons, nothing can be done. They are forever locked into their own beliefs. Neither I or anyone else could help them learn anything new. Learning requires listening, observing, reading, asking questions, etc., not talking or offering up your own opinions unless interacting with another mainly by listening. 

 

 

Yes Pantheory,  What you say is true.  

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?

 

Please note that it really doesn't matter what their various theories are about.

 

We could be referring to geological, biological or chemical theories and their behavior would still lack this one, vital ingredient.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?

 

Your answer yesterday covered such important things as testing, elimination, logic and the drawing of conclusions.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?

 

And today, you covered willingness to learn, observation and asking questions - which are all important too.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh. Ooh. I know. ✋????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It would seem that none of these people are willing to learn or study the other's theory. For people who are not willing to broaden their horizons, nothing can be done. They are forever locked into their own beliefs. Neither I or anyone else could help them learn anything new. Learning requires listening, observing, reading, asking questions, etc., not talking or offering up your own opinions unless interacting with another mainly by listening. 

 

 

Yes Pantheory,  What you say is true.  

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?

 

Please note that it really doesn't matter what their various theories are about.

 

We could be referring to geological, biological or chemical theories and their behavior would still lack this one, vital ingredient.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?

 

Your answer yesterday covered such important things as testing, elimination, logic and the drawing of conclusions.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?

 

And today, you covered willingness to learn, observation and asking questions - which are all important too.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

 

 

I bet your advice to them would be better than mine. Tell me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please be patient, Pantheory.

 

I will get back to you tomorrow.

 

Right now my mind is focused on this...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/73675-stop-press-possible-earth-sized-planet-orbiting-nearest-star/#.V73sOPkrJD8

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It would seem that none of these people are willing to learn or study the other's theory. For people who are not willing to broaden their horizons, nothing can be done. They are forever locked into their own beliefs. Neither I or anyone else could help them learn anything new. Learning requires listening, observing, reading, asking questions, etc., not talking or offering up your own opinions unless interacting with another mainly by listening. 

 

 

Yes Pantheory,  What you say is true.  

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?

 

Please note that it really doesn't matter what their various theories are about.

 

We could be referring to geological, biological or chemical theories and their behavior would still lack this one, vital ingredient.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?

 

Your answer yesterday covered such important things as testing, elimination, logic and the drawing of conclusions.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?

 

And today, you covered willingness to learn, observation and asking questions - which are all important too.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

 

 

I bet your advice to them would be better than mine. Tell me smile.png

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

 

 

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?   They lack objectivity.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?   Objectivity.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?   Having their work peer-reviewed.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

You could have recommended that they submit their work for peer-review.

Since we all have certain subjective biases, preferences and beliefs (some which we are unaware of) a feasible way of overcoming our subjectivity is to allow a group of our peers to review our work.  This solution has a much better chance of bringing a more balanced and objective overview than any one person's singular point of view.  The discipline of science requires that we balance our individual creativity and brilliance against the need for objectivity.  If we lose sight of this need for balance, then our judgement could be suspect and we might never know that it is.  

 

Alice, Bob and Carl have lost sight of their objectivity.

They therefore need to restore the balance that should exist in their scientific work.  Peer-review is the first step in dealing with the imbalance.  The next step would be to accept the findings of the peer-reviewing panel, should they be told that their work is overly subjective.  A degree of humility is called for.  Also, an acceptance that the findings of the panel are more likely to be objective than their own, singular viewpoints.  Passionate self-belief must be balanced against the need for objectivity.  To lose sight of that balance is to be unprofessional and unscientific.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

...and i can now see that I need to change something also.

 

Here is the change.

 

What could be done to objectively break this logjam?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It would seem that none of these people are willing to learn or study the other's theory. For people who are not willing to broaden their horizons, nothing can be done. They are forever locked into their own beliefs. Neither I or anyone else could help them learn anything new. Learning requires listening, observing, reading, asking questions, etc., not talking or offering up your own opinions unless interacting with another mainly by listening. 

 

 

Yes Pantheory,  What you say is true.  

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?

 

Please note that it really doesn't matter what their various theories are about.

 

We could be referring to geological, biological or chemical theories and their behavior would still lack this one, vital ingredient.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?

 

Your answer yesterday covered such important things as testing, elimination, logic and the drawing of conclusions.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?

 

And today, you covered willingness to learn, observation and asking questions - which are all important too.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

 

 

I bet your advice to them would be better than mine. Tell me smile.png

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

 

 

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?   They lack objectivity.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?   Objectivity.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?   Having their work peer-reviewed.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

You could have recommended that they submit their work for peer-review.

Since we all have certain subjective biases, preferences and beliefs (some which we are unaware of) a feasible way of overcoming our subjectivity is to allow a group of our peers to review our work.  This solution has a much better chance of bringing a more balanced and objective overview than any one person's singular point of view.  The discipline of science requires that we balance our individual creativity and brilliance against the need for objectivity.  If we lose sight of this need for balance, then our judgement could be suspect and we might never know that it is.  

 

Alice, Bob and Carl have lost sight of their objectivity.

They therefore need to restore the balance that should exist in their scientific work.  Peer-review is the first step in dealing with the imbalance.  The next step would be to accept the findings of the peer-reviewing panel, should they be told that their work is overly subjective.  A degree of humility is called for.  Also, an acceptance that the findings of the panel are more likely to be objective than their own, singular viewpoints.  Passionate self-belief must be balanced against the need for objectivity.  To lose sight of that balance is to be unprofessional and unscientific.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

your answer, Lacking objectivity, is a good one smile.png

 

Peer review can be a good thing, but sometimes it can be detrimental to an otherwise good paper . When you have a theory very different from the mainstream model, peer review could have little or no meaning to any reader because they would have little of no understanding of the paper without weeks of study concerning the theory itself, which practically no scientist would do.

 

Like I have said before, all my published papers were peer reviewed but none were based upon pure theory alone, like a new theory of gravity would be.  New theories sometimes are so different that it would be like a PhD physicist reviewing a paper on biology. They would have to study too much to be able to properly review your paper. None of my theories, or few other's unique theories can be published today without an extensive study accompanying it, and then the theory would need to take a back seat to the study itself in the paper.

 

New theory would have to be accompanied by an extensive study comparing the new theory to the existing theory.  Even if scientists do this there is no guarantee that their paper would get published by any respected journals.  I've been told more than once by journals that they will not publish non-mainstream theory by anyone. Once they find out the paper is contrary to known mainstream models or versions thereof, they will not even read the paper. It is automatically rejected.

 

For instance my published papers all involved another author than myself in the study. My "no dark energy" paper was part of a study of type 1a supernovae,  my "no dark matter paper" was accompanied by a study of spiral galaxy rotation curves, the rotation velocities of galaxies in a cluster, gravitational lensing, motions of the universe as a whole, etc. My paper regarding "no big bang or expanding space" was a study professedly showing the universe was less dense in the past rather than more dense, along with a study of eight other major perceived problems with the BB model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

 

 

 

But beyond the points you make, what is the one, critical thing that Alice, Bob and Carl all lack?   They lack objectivity.

 

What is it that they, as scientists, must always factor into their work?   Objectivity.

 

But what did you miss, that would have solved their conflict at a stroke?   Having their work peer-reviewed.

 

But what is the one piece of advice should you have given to them -  as one scientist to three others?

 

You could have recommended that they submit their work for peer-review.

Since we all have certain subjective biases, preferences and beliefs (some which we are unaware of) a feasible way of overcoming our subjectivity is to allow a group of our peers to review our work.  This solution has a much better chance of bringing a more balanced and objective overview than any one person's singular point of view.  The discipline of science requires that we balance our individual creativity and brilliance against the need for objectivity.  If we lose sight of this need for balance, then our judgement could be suspect and we might never know that it is.  

 

Alice, Bob and Carl have lost sight of their objectivity.

They therefore need to restore the balance that should exist in their scientific work.  Peer-review is the first step in dealing with the imbalance.  The next step would be to accept the findings of the peer-reviewing panel, should they be told that their work is overly subjective.  A degree of humility is called for.  Also, an acceptance that the findings of the panel are more likely to be objective than their own, singular viewpoints.  Passionate self-belief must be balanced against the need for objectivity.  To lose sight of that balance is to be unprofessional and unscientific.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

.

.

.

your answer, Lacking objectivity, is a good one smile.png

 

Peer review can be a good thing, but sometimes it can be detrimental to an otherwise good paper

 

That is your subjective and singular opinion, Pantheory.

But ultimately, the value of the paper cannot be decided just by you.  If you won't accept that it's value must be decided by others, for the sake of objectivity, then you place your singular judgement of its worth above that of others.  In science, one person cannot be the judge of the value of their own work.   

 

When you have a theory very different from the mainstream model, peer review could have little or no meaning to any reader because they would have little of no understanding of the paper without weeks of study concerning the theory itself, which practically no scientist would do.

 

Then such a radically different theory should be validated by the quality of it's confirmed predictions.

Einstein's gravitational theories were such a radical departure from Newton's that they were initially met with confusion and skepticism.  It was the confirmation of his predictions that swayed the scientific community and caused them to take his work seriously.  Please note that while you have the right to question the validity of Einstein's confirmed predictions, the specter of your subjectivity once again raises it's head.  You cannot be certain that your criticisms are as objective as they can be and should be.  

 

Like I have said before, all my published papers were peer reviewed but none were based upon pure theory alone, like a new theory of gravity would be.  New theories sometimes are so different that it would be like a PhD physicist reviewing a paper on biology. They would have to study too much to be able to properly review your paper. None of my theories, or few other's unique theories can be published today without an extensive study accompanying it, and then the theory would need to take a back seat to the study itself in the paper.

 

Once again, this is your subjective and singular opinion.

What can you alone do to effectively manage and minimize your own subjectivity?  

 

New theory would have to be accompanied by an extensive study comparing the new theory to the existing theory.  Even if scientists do this there is no guarantee that their paper would get published by any respected journals.  I've been told more than once by journals that they will not publish non-mainstream theory by anyone. Once they find out the paper is contrary to known mainstream models or versions thereof, they will not even read the paper. It is automatically rejected.

 

I am sorry to hear that.

But once again, you seem to be placing your singular and subjective judgement of the worth of something above that of many others.   

 

For instance my published papers all involved another author than myself in the study. My "no dark energy" paper was part of a study of type 1a supernovae,  my "no dark matter paper" was accompanied by a study of spiral galaxy rotation curves, the rotation velocities of galaxies in a cluster, gravitational lensing, motions of the universe as a whole, etc. My paper regarding "no big bang or expanding space" was a study professedly showing the universe was less dense in the past rather than more dense, along with a study of eight other major perceived problems with the BB model.

 

Pantheory,

 

You say that objectivity is good.

 

But you continue to place your subjective judgments above those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing the necessary objectivity to the scientific process.  

 

Peer review cannot be perfectly objective, but it has to be more objective than the singular p.o.v. of any one scientist.

 

Do we agree?

 

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

That is your subjective and singular opinion, Pantheory.

But ultimately, the value of the paper cannot be decided just by you.  If you won't accept that it's value must be decided by others, for the sake of objectivity, then you place your singular judgement of its worth above that of others.  In science, one person cannot be the judge of the value of their own work.  

 

True, but I've been one of three editors myself, concerning papers submitted by others.  I believe I am quite objective as an editor.

 

Then such a radically different theory should be validated by the quality of it's confirmed predictions.

Einstein's gravitational theories were such a radical departure from Newton's that they were initially met with confusion and skepticism.  It was the confirmation of his predictions that swayed the scientific community and caused them to take his work seriously.  Please note that while you have the right to question the validity of Einstein's confirmed predictions, the specter of your subjectivity once again raises it's head. 

 

That's why my book has seventy some predictions, most of which are contrary to mainstream predictions. All of my published papers also have predictions within them that are contrary to mainstream beliefs and predictions.

 

You cannot be certain that your criticisms are as objective as they can be and should be. 

 

True, I can't be certain --  but no one else can be certain either, concerning their objectivity or correctness of their criticisms.

 

 

But you continue to place your subjective judgments above those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing the necessary objectivity to the scientific process.  

 

As I have said, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

Peer review cannot be perfectly objective, but it has to be more objective than the singular p.o.v. of any one scientist.

 

It usually is a fair process, but sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. For instance, I have had to add references that did not directly apply and which were not a mainstream p.o.v.'s, to satisfy an editor. But one does not always have to agree with an editor. Sometimes I disagree with an editor, and the chief editor agrees with me that a particular request does not have to be implemented.  It usually relates more to the editor than it does to the paper. It is usually easier to make the changes an editor requests if it doesn't change the meaning or intent of the paper -- even if one disagrees with an editor's request(s).

 

It also should be realized that for nearly all papers, editor's comments will be quite different from each other.

 

regards Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

That is your subjective and singular opinion, Pantheory.

But ultimately, the value of the paper cannot be decided just by you.  If you won't accept that it's value must be decided by others, for the sake of objectivity, then you place your singular judgement of its worth above that of others.  In science, one person cannot be the judge of the value of their own work.  

 

True, but I've been one of three editors myself, concerning papers submitted by others.  I believe I am quite objective as an editor.

 

 

Sorry Pantheory, but that is flawed reasoning.  You (subjectively) believe that you are quite objective.  

You express a subjective belief about your own objectivity and expect us to take it as a meaningful and coherent statement?

 

Then such a radically different theory should be validated by the quality of it's confirmed predictions.

Einstein's gravitational theories were such a radical departure from Newton's that they were initially met with confusion and skepticism.  It was the confirmation of his predictions that swayed the scientific community and caused them to take his work seriously.  Please note that while you have the right to question the validity of Einstein's confirmed predictions, the specter of your subjectivity once again raises it's head. 

 

That's why my book has seventy some predictions, most of which are contrary to mainstream predictions. All of my published papers also have predictions within them that are contrary to mainstream beliefs and predictions.

 

 

But do you reserve the right to interpret the data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way?

 

You cannot be certain that your criticisms are as objective as they can be and should be. 

 

True, I can't be certain --  but no one else can be certain either, concerning their objectivity or correctness of their criticisms.

 

​Yet if peer review is usually a fair process (your words, below), then isn't it more likely that a panel of scientists will be more objective than just one?  

After all, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a 'usually fair process', would it?

 

But you continue to place your subjective judgments above those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing the necessary objectivity to the scientific process.  

 

As I have said, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

 

Please specify if these papers were edited only by you.   

Also please specify if being an invited editor is the same as sitting on a peer-review panel.  

We wouldn't want to confuse two different things, now would we?

 

Peer review cannot be perfectly objective, but it has to be more objective than the singular p.o.v. of any one scientist.

 

It usually is a fair process, but sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. 

For instance, I have had to add references that did not directly apply and which were not a mainstream p.o.v.'s, to satisfy an editor. But one does not always have to agree with an editor. Sometimes I disagree with an editor, and the chief editor agrees with me that a particular request does not have to be implemented.  It usually relates more to the editor than it does to the paper. It is usually easier to make the changes an editor requests if it doesn't change the meaning or intent of the paper -- even if one disagrees with an editor's request(s).

 

It also should be realized that for nearly all papers, editor's comments will be quite different from each other.

 

The perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the role of the editor for us - so that we can better understand your above comments.

 

Or maybe the RogueScholar, Bhim or the Redneck Prof could be consulted, so that there's no confusion between the roles of an editor and a peer-reviewer?

 

I'm sure they would be happy to bring their expertise to bear on this.

 

 

 

regards Forrest

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted double posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......do you reserve the right to interpret the data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way?

 

Predictions should be written so that anyone in that field of study will understand them.

 

Pantheory,

 

Please answer my question as it was written, along with it's intended meaning.

What you have posted is a general guideline for anyone making predictions.  But you and how you interpret data are the focus and subject of my question.  So please answer my question.  Thank you.

 

 

.......do you reserve the right to interpret the data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way?

 

 

 

​........if peer review is usually a fair process (your words, below), then isn't it more likely that a panel of scientists will be more objective than just one?  

After all, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a 'usually fair process', would it?

 

Peer review is most often a fair process if the journal accepts one's paper for review. Remember, the chief editor is responsible for the contents of the published journal. For some journals (often the most well-know ones) if in the Chief Editor's opinion the readership of his journal does not want to hear about alternative theory, the paper will summarily reject any paper once the editor has perused the abstract and decided the paper contains alternative theory.  The curt reply of rejection will simply state something like "this journal is not interested in publishing papers involving unknown alternative theory."

 

 

Is the editor responsible for performing any peer review of the published papers?   Y / N ?

If No, then your comments about editorship are not relevant to the issue of subjectivity, which is the focus of my questions to you.  If Yes, then please say how.

 

But you continue to place your subjective judgments above those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing the necessary objectivity to the scientific process.  

 

As I have said, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

 

Please specify if being an invited editor is the same as sitting on a peer-review panel.  Please answer, Pantheory.

 

 

Peer review cannot be perfectly objective, but it has to be more objective than the singular p.o.v. of any one scientist.

 

It usually is a fair process, but sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. 

For instance, I have had to add references that did not directly apply and which were not a mainstream p.o.v.'s, to satisfy an editor. But one does not always have to agree with an editor. Sometimes I disagree with an editor, and the chief editor agrees with me that a particular request does not have to be implemented.  It usually relates more to the editor than it does to the paper. It is usually easier to make the changes an editor requests if it doesn't change the meaning or intent of the paper -- even if one disagrees with an editor's request(s).

 

It also should be realized that for nearly all papers, editor's comments will be quite different from each other.

 

The perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the role of the editor for us - so that we can better understand your above comments.

 

Or maybe the RogueScholar, Bhim or the Redneck Prof could be consulted, so that there's no confusion between the roles of an editor and a peer-reviewer?

 

I'm sure they would be happy to bring their expertise to bear on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

Comments in Blue BAA, in black, my comments. Your last comments were confusing to me since you repeated many of the same questions, and appear to not have read my answers to your questions and comments. Maybe we crossed postings when I was further clarifying my posting.

 

.....do you reserve the right to interpret the data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way?

 

Predictions should be written so that anyone in that field of study can understand them. Interpretation of the applicable data is in the eyes of the theorists, authors, editors, and readers, to make their own decisions.

 

​ ........if peer review is usually a fair process .........., then isn't it more likely that a panel of scientists will be more objective than just one?  After all, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a 'usually fair process', would it?

 

Peer review is most often a fair process if the journal accepts one's paper for review in the first place. Remember, the chief editor is responsible for the contents of the published journal. For some journals (often the most well-known ones) if in the Chief Editor's opinion the readership of his journal does not want to read alternative theory, the paper will be summarily rejected. This will happen for nearly all papers once the editor has perused the abstract and decided the paper contains alternative theory.  The curt reply of rejection will simply state something like "this journal does not publish papers proposing unknown alternative theory, or studies which involve such theory"

 

As I have said before, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

Please specify if these papers were edited only by you.   

Also please specify if being an invited editor is the same as sitting on a peer-review panel.  

We wouldn't want to confuse two different things, now would we?

 

There usually is no panel of editors. Once the chief editor decides to consider the paper, he starts looking for editor candidates. In a double blind review the editors are simply different practitioners and/ or specialists in the designated field, who have agreed to edit the paper once they have been invited to review a paper based upon its Title, Abstract, or sometimes a brief summary of the paper. Rarely are potential editors given access to reading the paper itself before agreeing to edit it. Editors are not given the names of each other, the names or institutions of the authors, nor are authors informed concerning who the editors are, except for the Chief Editor.  If the Chief editor cannot find at least two (usually three) additional editors who are willing to edit the paper, besides himself, within a reasonable period of time, he may send a notice of rejection stating this reason, back to the authors. Now-a-days nearly all correspondence, including the paper submittal,  editing, etc., is done by e-mail.

 

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the role of the editor for us - so that we can better understand your above comments.

 

Peer reviewers are generally the same thing as editor's if their comments are sent to the authors for their reply and response. The Chief Editor is an expert working for the journal. He makes the final decisions concerning which of the editor's comments are valid and must be complied with by the authors. The authors must identify which of them will be the primary correspondent. The Chief Editor is responsible for the final form/ wordings of the paper that will be published, or if the paper is to be rejected, whether it requires additional specified changes before publishing, or not, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

Comments in Blue BAA, in black, my comments. Your last comments were confusing to me since you repeated many of the same questions, and appear to not have read my answers to your questions and comments. Maybe we crossed postings when I was further clarifying my posting.

 

Predictions should be written so that anyone in that field of study can understand them. Interpretation of the applicable data is in the eyes of the theorists, authors, editors, and readers, to make their own decisions.

 

Pantheory,

 

Replying by stating what predictions should be is not answering the question I put to you.  

I am well aware of what predictions should be.

I asked you if you personally reserved the right to interpret data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way - as opposed to accepting the more objective, collective interpretation made by a peer-reviewing panel of scientists.   

Please answer by clearly and unequivocally declaring if you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing panel of scientists.

 

Thank you.

 

​ ........if peer review is usually a fair process .........., then isn't it more likely that a panel of scientists will be more objective than just one?  After all, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a 'usually fair process', would it?

 

Peer review is most often a fair process if the journal accepts one's paper for review in the first place. Remember, the chief editor is responsible for the contents of the published journal. For some journals (often the most well-known ones) if in the Chief Editor's opinion the readership of his journal does not want to read alternative theory, the paper will be summarily rejected. This will happen for nearly all papers once the editor has perused the abstract and decided the paper contains alternative theory.  The curt reply of rejection will simply state something like "this journal does not publish papers proposing unknown alternative theory, or studies which involve such theory"

 

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

As I have said before, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

Please specify if these papers were edited only by you.   

Also please specify if being an invited editor is the same as sitting on a peer-review panel.  

We wouldn't want to confuse two different things, now would we?

 

There usually is no panel of editors. Once the chief editor decides to consider the paper, he starts looking for editor candidates. In a double blind review the editors are simply different practitioners and/ or specialists in the designated field, who have agreed to edit the paper once they have been invited to review a paper based upon its Title, Abstract, or sometimes a brief summary of the paper. Rarely are potential editors given access to reading the paper itself before agreeing to edit it. Editors are not given the names of each other, the names or institutions of the authors, nor are authors informed concerning who the editors are, except for the Chief Editor.  If the Chief editor cannot find at least two (usually three) additional editors who are willing to edit the paper, besides himself, within a reasonable period of time, he may send a notice of rejection stating this reason, back to the authors. Now-a-days nearly all correspondence, including the paper submittal,  editing, etc., is done by e-mail.

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the role of the editor for us - so that we can better understand your above comments.

 

Peer reviewers are generally the same thing as editor's if their comments are sent to the authors for their reply and response. The Chief Editor is an expert working for the journal. He makes the final decisions concerning which of the editor's comments are valid and must be complied with by the authors. The authors must identify which of them will be the primary correspondent. The Chief Editor is responsible for the final form/ wordings of the paper that will be published, or if the paper is to be rejected, whether it requires additional specified changes before publishing, or not, etc.

 

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

 

There are two outstanding points that need addressing, Pantheory.

 

One by you and one by me.

 

Yours is this question.

 

Do you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing scientists?

 

Please answer exactly and only this question.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BAA,

 

Comments in Blue BAA, in black, my comments. Your last comments were confusing to me since you repeated many of the same questions, and appear to not have read my answers to your questions and comments. Maybe we crossed postings when I was further clarifying my posting.

 

Predictions should be written so that anyone in that field of study can understand them. Interpretation of the applicable data is in the eyes of the theorists, authors, editors, and readers, to make their own decisions.

 

Pantheory,

 

Replying by stating what predictions should be is not answering the question I put to you.  

I am well aware of what predictions should be.

I asked you if you personally reserved the right to interpret data concerning those predictions in your own singular and subjective way - as opposed to accepting the more objective, collective interpretation made by a peer-reviewing panel of scientists.   

Please answer by clearly and unequivocally declaring if you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing panel of scientists.

 

Thank you.

 

​ ........if peer review is usually a fair process .........., then isn't it more likely that a panel of scientists will be more objective than just one?  After all, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a 'usually fair process', would it?

 

Peer review is most often a fair process if the journal accepts one's paper for review in the first place. Remember, the chief editor is responsible for the contents of the published journal. For some journals (often the most well-known ones) if in the Chief Editor's opinion the readership of his journal does not want to read alternative theory, the paper will be summarily rejected. This will happen for nearly all papers once the editor has perused the abstract and decided the paper contains alternative theory.  The curt reply of rejection will simply state something like "this journal does not publish papers proposing unknown alternative theory, or studies which involve such theory"

 

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

As I have said before, I've also been an invited editor for other's papers.

 

Please specify if these papers were edited only by you.   

Also please specify if being an invited editor is the same as sitting on a peer-review panel.  

We wouldn't want to confuse two different things, now would we?

 

There usually is no panel of editors. Once the chief editor decides to consider the paper, he starts looking for editor candidates. In a double blind review the editors are simply different practitioners and/ or specialists in the designated field, who have agreed to edit the paper once they have been invited to review a paper based upon its Title, Abstract, or sometimes a brief summary of the paper. Rarely are potential editors given access to reading the paper itself before agreeing to edit it. Editors are not given the names of each other, the names or institutions of the authors, nor are authors informed concerning who the editors are, except for the Chief Editor.  If the Chief editor cannot find at least two (usually three) additional editors who are willing to edit the paper, besides himself, within a reasonable period of time, he may send a notice of rejection stating this reason, back to the authors. Now-a-days nearly all correspondence, including the paper submittal,  editing, etc., is done by e-mail.

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to describe the role of the editor for us - so that we can better understand your above comments.

 

Peer reviewers are generally the same thing as editor's if their comments are sent to the authors for their reply and response. The Chief Editor is an expert working for the journal. He makes the final decisions concerning which of the editor's comments are valid and must be complied with by the authors. The authors must identify which of them will be the primary correspondent. The Chief Editor is responsible for the final form/ wordings of the paper that will be published, or if the paper is to be rejected, whether it requires additional specified changes before publishing, or not, etc.

 

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

 

There are two outstanding points that need addressing, Pantheory.

 

One by you and one by me.

 

Yours is this question.

 

Do you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing scientists?

 

Please answer exactly and only this question.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

As to editing: Every editor values their own editorial comments to the authors of a paper. They are unaware of other requests, opinions, or editing comments, who suggested/ requested this or that. Again each editor has no knowledge of the other editors or their comments, but are made aware of changes to the text as the editing process progresses. Editors have no knowledge concerning the reason for changes excepting for their own requests, what changes were requested by another editor or whether the request was made solely by the chief editor, or whether the change(s) was made by the authors themselves without request, for numerous possible reasons. 

 

Do you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing scientists?

 

Peer review process:  The editing process does not work like that. When predictions or conclusions are made within a paper, editors may ask on what basis were these predictions or conclusions being made. Authors are often asked for further references for their statements, or that the basis for their theoretical conclusions should be better explained -- or that there is no apparent basis for such statements or theory, whereby the authors must provide them or delete the statements.

 

All authors, including myself, spend a great deal of time and justification for any conclusions and predictions within the paper. We (my co-authors and myself) take great care to clearly or explain what is needed to clarify the paper. Sometimes when needed,  I refer to other published papers of mine for certain aspects of justification, if these aspects are not directly related to the subject paper.

 

The opinion concerning lack of objectivity, or of being overly subjective, is a responsibility of the Chief editor. If he wants further clarification of a perspective or other aspects of the paper, he will ask for it. An editor might think that some of your paper is too subjective, if so they may state their complaint along with their suggested changes. Such changes will not be made unless either the chief editor agrees with these comments along with the requested changes, or if the authors themselves agree to make such changes. If there is no agreement with these statements or comments, then the authors will explain to that editor why he believes this is not a valid comment. If the editor still disagrees he can appeal to the Chief editor. If the chief editor makes no further comment regarding this aspect of the paper to the authors, then the comment can be disregarded by the authors.

 

There is no such thing as a collective interpretation, or a peer-review panel in the editing process. Again, peer-reviewers (editors) do not have knowledge of each other, or of other's requests or comments in a double blind editing process, which now-a-days seems to be the sole editing procedure of mainstream journals.

 

Not for any of my published papers was there ever a mention by anyone concerning objectivity or subjectivity, involving the paper or its authors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to editing: Every editor values their own editorial comments to the authors of a paper. They are unaware of other requests, opinions, or editing comments, who suggested/ requested this or that. Again each editor has no knowledge of the other editors or their comments, but are made aware of changes to the text as the editing process progresses. Editors have no knowledge concerning the reason for changes excepting for their own requests, what changes were requested by another editor or whether the request was made solely by the chief editor, or whether the change(s) was made by the authors themselves without request, for numerous possible reasons. 

 

Do you place your subjective, singular interpretation of prediction-related data above that of the more objective, collective interpretation of a panel of peer-reviewing scientists?

 

Peer review process:  The editing process does not work like that. When predictions or conclusions are made within a paper, editors may ask on what basis were these predictions or conclusions being made. Authors are often asked for further references for their statements, or that the basis for their theoretical conclusions should be better explained -- or that there is no apparent basis for such statements or theory, whereby the authors must provide them or delete the statements.

 

All authors, including myself, spend a great deal of time and justification for any conclusions and predictions within the paper. We (my co-authors and myself) take great care to clearly or explain what is needed to clarify the paper. Sometimes when needed,  I refer to other published papers of mine for certain aspects of justification, if these aspects are not directly related to the subject paper.

 

The opinion concerning lack of objectivity, or of being overly subjective, is a responsibility of the Chief editor. If he wants further clarification of a perspective or other aspects of the paper, he will ask for it. An editor might think that some of your paper is too subjective, if so they may state their complaint along with their suggested changes. Such changes will not be made unless either the chief editor agrees with these comments along with the requested changes, or if the authors themselves agree to make such changes. If there is no agreement with these statements or comments, then the authors will explain to that editor why he believes this is not a valid comment. If the editor still disagrees he can appeal to the Chief editor. If the chief editor makes no further comment regarding this aspect of the paper to the authors, then the comment can be disregarded by the authors.

 

There is no such thing as a collective interpretation, or a peer-review panel in the editing process. Again, peer-reviewers (editors) do not have knowledge of each other, or of other's requests or comments in a double blind editing process, which now-a-days seems to be the sole editing procedure of mainstream journals.

 

Not for any of my published papers was there ever a mention by anyone concerning objectivity or subjectivity, involving the paper or its authors.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for this information, Pantheory.  What you've written is very interesting.  

 

Now I'd like to return to the prime reason for this thread's existence, which I described in post # 3.  

 

Do you accept that the theoretical papers upon which modern physics is built have successfully passed the peer-review and editing process? 

 

Do you accept that the editors/peer reviewers understood that the predictions made in these papers could be confirmed by observed data?

 

Do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could confirm these predictions?

 

Do you accept that other scientists (those not making the observations and those not editing/peer-reviewing) understood that this observed data could confirm these theories?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA.

 

Do you accept that the theoretical papers upon which modern physics is built have successfully passed the peer-review and editing process? 

 

Yes

 

Do you accept that the editors/peer reviewers understood that the predictions made in these papers could be confirmed by observed data?

 

In astronomy and physics the word "confirmed" can be nebulous. The correct wording IMO would be that a new paper meets the criteria, understanding, and theoretical perspective acceptable to that particular journal. Most all also realize that related theory and hypothesis could still be wrong.

 

Do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could confirm these predictions?

 

Again "confirm," may be too strong of a word. Maybe "help validate" according to theory, might be more appropriate wording. Also most papers do not contain predictions or directly relate to any predictions. Most papers are theory based concerning their wordings, mostly mainstream but sometimes alternative theory. 

 

Do you accept that other scientists (those not making the observations and those not editing/peer-reviewing) understood that this observed data could confirm these theories?

 

Again, IMO "confirm" would be too strong of a word when referring to theory. Theory is simply theory. Some observations can help validate a theory, others when interpreted in a certain way may help validate a theory, still other observations may appear to contradict existing theory unless unusual interpretations are made. A few observations directly contradict theory, so that to retain existing theory new ad-hoc hypothesis must be added. In that case it would be "change the existing theory to match observations." Prime examples of this would be the Inflation hypothesis, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. Possible observations could damage a theory so severely that alternative theories will be sought out by many practitioners to replace it. 

 

Regardless of the outcome, all such experiments, observations, and interpretations are part of the scientific process. Based upon history, outside-the-box-thinking can often be a key ingredient in this process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.