Teaching Scienists To Think Outside The Box

[bornagainathiest]

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.

 

So why should I accept your opinion about the wording Pantheory, when you were not involved in the editing, peer-reviewing or data gathering processes?

 

Why should I accept your interpretation over that of others?

 

I still don't know why and I seek to discover why what you say trumps what others say.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[bornagainathiest]

BAA.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Could still be wrong?

 

Yes, I understand that by definition science is always tentative and never complete.  

 

But to how many decimal places do you have to be satisfied before you will accept that a given prediction has met the necessary threshold to be accepted as correct?

 

Why is it that others can accept that this threshold has been met, whereas you want the bar moved up and up and up?

[bornagainathiest]

BAA.

 

 

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. 

 

Most, but not all.

So, changing the wording of the question to reflect your comments...

 

In those papers that did make predictions, do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could help validate these predictions?

 

And following on from this...

 

At what threshold do you accept that a theory is sufficiently well validated as to be considered confirmed?

[pantheory]

 

BAA.

 

 

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. 

 

Most, but not all.

So, changing the wording of the question to reflect your comments...

 

In those papers that did make predictions, do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could help validate these predictions?

 

And following on from this...

 

At what threshold do you accept that a theory is sufficiently well validated as to be considered confirmed?

 

 

 

In those papers that did make predictions, do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could help validate these predictions?

 

Often observation plans, as part of their design, look to help confirm theory and predictions.  Yes, all that would perform such observations would understand, hope,  and expect that their observation data would help validate theory and related predictions.

 

And following on from this...  At what threshold do you accept that a theory is sufficiently well validated as to be considered confirmed?

 

Very few theories are ever considered totally confirmed by nearly all practitioners. Nearly all practitioners realize that a proposal is called theory for a reason. One theory that is universally accepted is "Natural Selection." This is because there is almost a mountain of evidence to support it. Other examples of "confirmed" theory would be the Atomic theory of matter, also called the Atomic Principle of matter, or the Atomic and molecular principle concerning the construction of matter, or similar wording.  Atomic theory today relates to other aspects of atoms such as how electrons relate to nuclei, clouds of probability, etc. How nucleons are combined, with gluons, etc. The Germ theory of disease, is now the Germ Principle of disease causality.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution will continuously be amended concerning its details, over the coming years, IMO, before it could ever reach the status of its primary tenet, also called theory by some: "natural selection."

 

Natural Selection has now reached the status of being called a Principle, the Principle of Natural Selection. Few would still call it theory, except for some religious people.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

BAA.

 

 

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. 

 

Most, but not all.

So, changing the wording of the question to reflect your comments...

 

In those papers that did make predictions, do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could help validate these predictions?

 

And following on from this...

 

At what threshold do you accept that a theory is sufficiently well validated as to be considered confirmed?

 

 

 

In those papers that did make predictions, do you accept that the scientists making the observations understood that their data could help validate these predictions?

 

Often observation plans, as part of their design, look to help confirm theory and predictions.  Yes, all that would perform such observations would understand, hope,  and expect that their observation data would help validate theory and related predictions.

 

And following on from this...  At what threshold do you accept that a theory is sufficiently well validated as to be considered confirmed?

 

Very few theories are ever considered totally confirmed by nearly all practitioners. Nearly all practitioners realize that it is called theory for a reason. One theory that is universally accepted is "Natural Selection." This is because there is almost a mountain of evidence to support it. Other examples of "confirmed" theory are the Atomic theory of matter, and the Germ theory of disease, also called the Atomic Principle of matter, and the Germ Principle of disease causality.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution will continuously be amended concerning its details, over the coming years, IMO, before it could ever reach the status of its primary tenet, also called theory by some: "natural selection."

 

Natural Selection has now reached the status of being called a Principle, the Principle of Natural Selection. Few would still call it theory, except for some religious people.

 

 

 

I did not use the words, 'totally confirmed' Pantheory.

 

Nor is right or proper for you to draw that implication or make that inference.  

The key point which you should have addressed was that of sufficiency, not totality.  

My question asked you to state the threshold at which you consider a theory to be sufficiently well validated by evidence for you to accept it as a valid explanation of the observed phenomenon.

 

Please address the issue of sufficiency and please avoid any further mention of totalities or absolutes.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

My question asked you to state the threshold at which you consider a theory to be sufficiently well validated by evidence for you to accept it as a valid explanation of the observed phenomenon.

 

Based upon your question alone it appears you realize that there will be countless different answers depending upon the practitioner or theorist being asked.

 

Practitioners will probably have one type of answer, and theorists would tend to give different criteria concerning "validation" of theory.

 

Answers of mainstream theorists will be quite different from alternative theorists, like myself, who believe that much of modern-physics theories will be replaced within this century. 

 

Of course you are asking me to state my subjective standard based upon what I consider to be evidence which would "sufficiently" qualify a theory to be "validated." For me a theory can become "validated," if the theory is obviously logical and has no foundation hypothesis, if the theory hasn't changed to any considerable extent (no new ad hoc hypothesis added) for maybe half a century. When more than 90% of its practitioners and mainstream theorists agree on the major details of the theory, agree on a number of future predictions (different from past predictions), and that there are no longer any reasonable alternatives to the theory.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

My question asked you to state the threshold at which you consider a theory to be sufficiently well validated by evidence for you to accept it as a valid explanation of the observed phenomenon.

 

Based upon your question alone it appears you realize that there will be countless different answers depending upon the practitioner or theorist being asked.

 

Just so, Pantheory.

Which is why I have a specific example in mind.  An example where a certain theory made a highly specific prediction, which agreed to a such high degree of confidence with the observed data that it was accepted by mainstream scientists. I would like to know why this degree of confidence is not sufficient for you and also what degree of confidence would be sufficient for you to accept it.

 

Practitioners will probably have one type of answer, and theorists would tend to give different criteria concerning "validation" of theory.

 

Please explain why the criteria of these two would diverge.

 

Answers of mainstream theorists will be quite different from alternative theorists, like myself, who believe that much of modern physics related theories will be replaced within this century. 

 

Yes, that's very curious.

It's almost as if there were two realities, which mainstream and alternative scientists were investigating in parallel.  Even more bizarre is when data that would precisely agree with a mainstream prediction, is precisely mimicked in every way by a completely different alternative prediction and explanation.  It's as if the the data is a kind of chameleon which changes itself according to who is interpreting it.  But most bizarre of all is the incredible 'selectivity' of this chameleon-effect.  When an experiment that won't have any significant influence on science is performed, both mainstream and alternative scientists have no trouble agreeing on the meaning of the observed data.  But when something contentious like General Relativity or Quantum mechanics is involved, this chameleon-effect suddenly kicks in, causing the mainstream and the alternative scientists to disagree with each other.   The selectivity of this effect is truly staggering!   

 

Of course you are asking me to state my subjective standard based upon what I consider to be evidence which would "sufficiently" qualify a theory to be "validated."

 

No.  Instead I will be asking you to clearly and unequivocally declare a numerical value that is sufficient for you to accept that a certain theory has ruled out it's rivals and it's alternatives.

 

For me a theory can become "validated" if the theory hasn't changed to any considerable extent (no new ad hoc hypothesis added) for maybe half a century.

 

Please explain why you do not use the term 'confirmed'.

Since we are agreed that an absolute (100%) condition of confirmation cannot be used, are we agreed that a specific value of less than this must be used?

 

When more than 90% of its practitioners and mainstream theorists agree on all of the details of the theory, on its future predictions, and that there are no longer any reasonable alternatives to the theory.

 

Please explain why these criteria are relevant.

 

[pantheory]

Just so, Pantheory.

 

Which is why I have a specific example in mind.  An example where a certain theory made a highly specific prediction, which agreed to a such high degree of confidence with the observed data that it was accepted by mainstream scientists. I would like to know why this degree of confidence is not sufficient for you and also what degree of confidence would be sufficient for you to accept it.

 

To answer this question I would need to know your specific example, then again you would know that I would be giving you my opinion only, since you are not asking about what I think others believe.

 

Please explain why the criteria of these two would diverge.

 

IMO the difference would be that theorists can spend their whole life studying and formulating theory. They have a lot at stake if they are tied to mainstream theory if it is seriously challenged. If so they will very forcefully defend existing theory. If theorists are interested in alternative theory/ hypothesis they will be more tied to their own ideas, unless proven otherwise. Practitioners are always looking for new ideas to explain their anomalous observations so that many would not spend as much time trying to defend a particular theory. Most practitioners are primarily concerned with properly interpreting their observations.

 

No.  Instead I will be asking you to clearly and unequivocally declare a numerical value that is sufficient for you to accept that a certain theory has ruled out it's rivals and it's alternatives.

 

There is no means by which I can tell anyone definitively such probabilities. For my own theories, it is simply that they seem to me to be far more logical than their mainstream or alternative theory rivals. Concerning cosmology, the Big Bang model is not illogical but it has failed the test of time and observation IMO. This is because it has had to add 3 new hypothesis in the past 25 years "to save the theory" since observations contradicted it -- which is why these hypothesis were added.

 

The mainstream model generally that fails in logic is Quantum Theory, IMO, with its many versions  Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is still the best statistical and mathematical system to make predictions in the quantum world. Many believe that Quantum Mechanics is a theory by itself without any verbal explanations as to why it should be considered valid. It is simply a phenomenological creation based upon approximately 85 years of observations and experiments.

 

Yes, that's very curious.

It's almost as if there were two realities, which mainstream and alternative scientists were investigating in parallel.  Even more bizarre is when data that would precisely agree with a mainstream prediction, is precisely mimicked in every way by a completely different alternative prediction and explanation.  It's as if the the data is a kind of chameleon which changes itself according to who is interpreting it.  But most bizarre of all is the incredible 'selectivity' of this chameleon-effect. When an experiment that won't have any significant influence on science is performed, both mainstream and alternative scientists have no trouble agreeing on the meaning of the observed data.  But when something contentious like General Relativity or Quantum mechanics is involved, this chameleon-effect suddenly kicks in, causing the mainstream and the alternative scientists to disagree with each other.   The selectivity of this effect is truly staggering!   

 

In my view it is a matter of interpreting observations. Mainstream theorists were attracted to the field they have chosen, cosmology, particle physics, quantum mechanics, etc. because often they have thought since they were very young that it was a field they wanted to study as a life-long career. Most alternative theorists were attracted to a particular field because they are looking to correct a theory they think is wrong. Usually they believe something does not seem logical so they study until they decide the theory is either OK, or that it probably is wrong and will continue studying until they find other ideas/ hypothesis/ theories they consider better, or come up with their own explanations. The most prominent of alternative theorists started as mainstream practitioners or theorists and later decided that there were too many problems with the particular theory they are concerned with. They may be attracted to other existing alternative theory, but often they form their own hypothesis and theory, or joint together to do so.

 

Other alternative theorists started theorizing before there was just one accepted theory or version, and have continued with theory development for more than half a century.

 

Maybe a prime example of a difference of interpretation relates to galactic redshifts. The mainstream interpretation of these redshifts is that space is expanding. My interpretation is that matter is very slowly getting smaller. If a person understands relativity he would understand that there is no difference in these two interpretations since there is no evidence for a preferred reference frame to judge which perspective is correct. Taking the perspective that space is expanding, then one might say that the universe is expanding. Taking the alternative perspective one would say that the universe is staying the same in size but matter is getting smaller while energy increases. This rate of diminution would only need to be that matter is getting only 1/000th part smaller about every 8 million years. This small change can produce the galactic redshifts we observe. In one model the universe is expanding into a cold oblivion, in the other the universe is in a steady state condition if the additional energy converts to new matter. The universe would have had a beginning but no foreseeable end to it. The alternative interpretation, of course, is my model.

 

Please explain why you do not use the term 'confirmed'.

 

I use the word "confirmed" but not in the context of theory. I follow the standard, primary definition of the word:

 

"Made certain as to truth, accuracy, validity; finally settled; ratified."

 

Since we are agreed that an absolute (100%) condition of confirmation cannot be used, are we agreed that a specific value of less than this must be used?

 

A value less than 100% yes, but a specific number no. My idea of "confirmed" is when maybe 90% of practitioners and theorists agree that a theory should be considered a principle and that theorizing on the subject would not longer be productive. Examples of this are given in my answers above.

 

Please explain why these criteria are relevant.

 

Of course you continue to ask my opinion rather than asking me what I think others opinions may be. I think few practitioners and theorists would agree that these theories should be "confirmed," but most understand and would concur that these theories are highly regarded in mainstream science.  

 

The criteria given are based upon the definition of the word "confirmed" which generally means "highly unlikely to be wrong."  Instead for these theories mentioned above, along with the standard model of particle physics, Instead IMHO these theories are highly unlikely to be correct, concerning the major tenets of the theories.

 

 

We are now diverging from the subject "Teaching scientists to think outside the box."  IMO this is usually a task conducted by non-mainstream theorists that, based upon history, has lead us to many of the mainstream theories we now cherish.

[bornagainathiest]

Very well, Pantheory.  Perhaps we have diverged, somewhat.

 

But if I may, one further question.

Are you a man of honor who can be held to an honorable agreement?  I ask because I've made an agreement with another member of Ex-C to eat my words if the the Donald is elected president.  The terms of our agreement are quite simple and clear-cut, not relying on or being subject to personal interpretation.  If he's in, I eat my words.  If he isn't, I don't.  Neither myself or that other member will fall back on personal interpretation to argue that he isn't the president, when he clearly is, or vice versa.

 

Now, I wonder if I can hold you to similar kind of honorable, gentleman's agreement when it comes to matters of science?

Please refer to this...  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/...for examples of scientists who honorably entered into wagers (Various News) and those who appear to never want to give up on their beliefs (Not Ever Wrong).

 

So, will you bind yourself to an honorable agreement with me over what the JWST will discover after it's launch?

 

Or is personal interpretation something you will always use to argue that black is white, no matter what?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[pantheory]

Very well, Pantheory.  Perhaps we have diverged, somewhat.

 

But if I may, one further question.

Are you a man of honor who can be held to an honorable agreement?  I ask because I've made an agreement with another member of Ex-C to eat my words if the the Donald is elected president.  The terms of our agreement are quite simple and clear-cut, not relying on or being subject to personal interpretation.  If he's in, I eat my words.  If he isn't, I don't.  Neither myself or that other member will fall back on personal interpretation to argue that he isn't the president, when he clearly is, or vice versa.

 

Now, I wonder if I can hold you to similar kind of honorable, gentleman's agreement when it comes to matters of science?

Please refer to this...  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/...for examples of scientists who honorably entered into wagers (Various News) and those who appear to never want to give up on their beliefs (Not Ever Wrong).

 

So, will you bind yourself to an honorable agreement with me over what the JWST will discover after it's launch?

 

Or is personal interpretation something you will always use to argue that black is white, no matter what?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It will not be my interpretation alone. It will certainly be a minority opinion, but IMHO many will joint to counter today's interpretations which will be the same ideas used when the James Webb goes up. Search the internet and see what you can find concerning what astronomers expect to see from the James Webb concerning the most distant galaxies. I found no consensus on this matter, and I expect you also will find little on this subject.

 

This is because there is no agreement on this matter. The Hubble's continuous findings of what appears to be fully formed galaxies at the farthest distances, makes them incapable IMHO of properly interpreting the pictures they will develop and see. If they are using the wrong formula to calculate distances, and the wrong model by which to interpret visual images, then there is no chance for most to be able to properly interpret what will be observed.

 

They are using the Hubble formula to calculate distances. IMO this formula is wrong based upon my studies.  I use the Pan Theory distance formulation which is close to the Hubble formula up to a distance of maybe 6 billion light years, then it grossly diverges claiming that the most distant galaxies are 10 times farther away than what the Hubble formula predicts. This alternative distance formula claims that dark energy is just an error in calculations based upon astronomers using the wrong formula to calculate distances.

 

It would require a major paradigm shift for astronomers to be able to understand what they will be seeing with the James Webb IMO. I expect to be writing a major paper concerning the specifics of what astronomers will be seeing and how it should be interpreted to enable astronomers to understand what they will be looking at. I hope that I can find one or more young rebel astronomers, or one or more old farts like myself, that will joint me -- and which will be endorsed by a recognized academic institution. I expect astronomers will be perplexed by what they will see, Without accurate predictions made beforehand by someone like me IMHO, nothing but a flurry of new papers will follow, many having new interpretations, with a few ad hoc hypothesis proposed. This will follow from mainstream astronomers and theorists after the James Webb is up and running. Without that help. One of the major new hypothesis that will surface, IMO, will be that the universe is quite a bit older than what they currently believe. With the Inflation hypothesis and its various varieties in play, I believe they could come up with such an additional ad hoc hypothesis in no time.

 

Of course IMO the hypothesis will be all wrong, but to the extent that it would be predicting an older universe, it would be correct.

 

So, this is the general idea that I have concerning predictions and interpretations when the James Webb goes up. They will get it all wrong! -- so our gentleman's agreement will have to involve beer somehow, instead

Maybe a wager of some sort?

 

If you wish to continue this talk beyond such a wager, I can again start a new thread to be more in line with the subject matter we are discussing. I will be directed concerning the subject of this new thread based upon any new questions that you might wish to ask, if you wish to continue.

[bornagainathiest]

No, please don't trouble yourself to start a new thread, Pantheory.

 

A wager can only be entered into if both parties agree to a common frame of reference within which the terms and conditions of the wager will reside - as described on Peter Woit's blog.  So, unless you and I can agree on a common frame of reference that is fully acceptable to both of us, then no wager is possible.  Neither one of us can have the absolute right to force the other to accept only their interpretation.  Nor can one of us enjoy the absolute and inviolable right to interpret the meaning and terms of the wager as they see fit.  It has to be by mutual acceptance and agreement.  When negotiation, compromise and mutual agreement are made impossible by unrestrained personal interpretation , reasonable dialog between two people is impossible.  I am willing to negotiate and compromise, but you have to meet me halfway on this.  It's that or nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

No, please don't trouble yourself to start a new thread, Pantheory.

 

A wager can only be entered into if both parties agree to a common frame of reference within which the terms and conditions of the wager will reside - as described on Peter Woit's blog.  So, unless you and I can agree on a common frame of reference that is fully acceptable to both of us, then no wager is possible.  Neither one of us can have the absolute right to force the other to accept only their interpretation.  Nor can one of us enjoy the absolute and inviolable right to interpret the meaning and terms of the wager as they see fit.  It has to be by mutual acceptance and agreement.  When negotiation, compromise and mutual agreement are made impossible by unrestrained personal interpretation , reasonable dialog between two people is impossible.  I am willing to negotiate and compromise, but you have to meet me halfway on this.  It's that or nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree, I will ponder a bit and get back with you, I expect within a week or less,  concerning what may be an interesting wager that will not be disputable. The prize of the bet will be that one of us will be sending a premium beer on a one way journey to the other

[bornagainathiest]

 

No, please don't trouble yourself to start a new thread, Pantheory.

 

A wager can only be entered into if both parties agree to a common frame of reference within which the terms and conditions of the wager will reside - as described on Peter Woit's blog.  So, unless you and I can agree on a common frame of reference that is fully acceptable to both of us, then no wager is possible.  Neither one of us can have the absolute right to force the other to accept only their interpretation.  Nor can one of us enjoy the absolute and inviolable right to interpret the meaning and terms of the wager as they see fit.  It has to be by mutual acceptance and agreement.  When negotiation, compromise and mutual agreement are made impossible by unrestrained personal interpretation , reasonable dialog between two people is impossible.  I am willing to negotiate and compromise, but you have to meet me halfway on this.  It's that or nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree, I will ponder a bit and get back with you, I expect within a week or less,  concerning what may be an interesting wager that will not be disputable. The prize of the bet will be that one of us will be sending a premium beer on a one way journey to the other

 

 

Pantheory,

 

If you are indeed serious about compromise, negotiation and agreement, then you should start that process here and now.

 

It's not for you to impose your decision on what the prize will be on me.

 

I did not agree to it and you did not consult me about it.

 

Please start as you mean to go on and negotiate with me at every decision-making point.

 

I suspect that you have decades of single-minded decision-making to unlearn, so the sooner you begin, the better.

 

The nature of the prize is currently undetermined.

 

Agree?

 

 

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

No, please don't trouble yourself to start a new thread, Pantheory.

 

A wager can only be entered into if both parties agree to a common frame of reference within which the terms and conditions of the wager will reside - as described on Peter Woit's blog.  So, unless you and I can agree on a common frame of reference that is fully acceptable to both of us, then no wager is possible.  Neither one of us can have the absolute right to force the other to accept only their interpretation.  Nor can one of us enjoy the absolute and inviolable right to interpret the meaning and terms of the wager as they see fit.  It has to be by mutual acceptance and agreement.  When negotiation, compromise and mutual agreement are made impossible by unrestrained personal interpretation , reasonable dialog between two people is impossible.  I am willing to negotiate and compromise, but you have to meet me halfway on this.  It's that or nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree, I will ponder a bit and get back with you, I expect within a week or less,  concerning what may be an interesting wager that will not be disputable. The prize of the bet will be that one of us will be sending a premium beer on a one way journey to the other

 

 

Pantheory,

 

If you are indeed serious about compromise, negotiation and agreement, then you should start that process here and now.

 

It's not for you to impose your decision on what the prize will be on me.

 

I did not agree to it and you did not consult me about it.

 

Please start as you mean to go on and negotiate with me at every decision-making point.

 

I suspect that you have decades of single-minded decision-making to unlearn, so the sooner you begin, the better.

 

The nature of the prize is currently undetermined.

 

Agree?

 

 

 

BAA.

 

 

Yes, no wager or prize yet determined.