Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:20 pm

Lloyd wrote:I started discussing Truth Mapping ..
Deliberatorium came up too and it's probably one of the best methodologies that we found.

(I added links to youtube videos)

Both are good. Deliberation seems best.

Turth mapping is like:
(idea)-> (new idea) -> (new idea) -> (conclusion)
These steps can form a tree.
Each step can be discussed separately.
This is in the form of Agree/Dispute.

But if people have conflicting theories this discussion may never end.

Deliberation is structured a bit different:
(general question1)
___ (proposal1)
_____ (answer1)
_____ (answer2)
_____ (answer3)
___ (proposal2)
_____ (answer1)

Deliberation seems better, because it seems more focussed,
and allows different directions to be taken simultaneously.

So a redshift discussion would look like:
what is the cause of redshift (general question)
__ "expansion/big bang" (proposal1)
____ theory: general relativity lambda (answer1)
____ evidence: background radiation (anwer2)
__ "new tired photons" (proposal2)
____ theory: photons lose energy due to interstellar plasma (answer1)
____ evidence: Halton Arp
____ evidence: laboratory experiments
____ theory: plasma redshift

In this setup, it seems to work for conflicting theories, which is nice.
It would be fair when people that support one theory would not mess too
much into the other theories.

Maybe they could add criticism as:
question: what was before big bang?
question: what is the cause of background radiation?
problem: General relativity may be not be correct.
These may start new general questions.

Good find Loyd.

I would even suggest to convert a part of this forum towards such a format.
But we should first test if this format works in practice.

P.S. Are we allowed to make our own server based on this idea?
It seems pretty simple, and I would expect it could work in a few weeks.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:09 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Deliberation is structured a bit different:
(general question1)
___ (proposal1)
_____ (answer1)
_____ (answer2)
_____ (answer3)
___ (proposal2)
_____ (answer1)

Deliberation seems better, because it seems more focussed,
and allows different directions to be taken simultaneously.

So a redshift discussion would look like:
what is the cause of redshift (general question)
__ "expansion/big bang" (proposal1)
____ theory: general relativity lambda (answer1)
____ evidence: background radiation (anwer2)
__ "new tired photons" (proposal2)
____ theory: photons lose energy due to interstellar plasma (answer1)
____ evidence: Halton Arp
____ evidence: laboratory experiments
____ theory: plasma redshift

In this setup, it seems to work for conflicting theories, which is nice.
It would be fair when people that support one theory would not mess too
much into the other theories.

Maybe they could add criticism as:
question: what was before big bang?
question: what is the cause of background radiation?
problem: General relativity may be not be correct.
These may start new general questions.


Thinking about it, it seems that it works better, if there is one more layer underneath each "answer".
In here we can have a small discussion, before it starts a whole new "general question".

So in this case we will have:
[general question]
--- [proposal]
--- --- [answer]
--- --- --- [remark]

Maybe the system already allows some flexibility in the structure of a discussion.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixe

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:29 pm

ZZ said: I would even suggest to convert a part of this forum towards such a format.
But we should first test if this format works in practice.
- P.S. Are we allowed to make our own server based on this idea?
It seems pretty simple, and I would expect it could work in a few weeks.

Testing the format is what I volunteered to help do at CNPS. I haven't heard back from Bruce yet. That's what I'm waiting for. I want to test their method of adding to their Wiki too.
- What do you mean by "make our own server"?
- You're welcome to become a member of CNPS and ask to help develop their forum or Wiki etc.
- That's at http://naturalphilosophy.org
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests