I tried to organize friendly debates on the forum a couple years ago, but there was very little effort on most members' parts to contribute meaningfully to the debates or to be friendly.
Lloyd wrote:.. we need to develop better scientific social media ..
How can we do that?
Zyxzevn wrote:My idea is to build a discussion forum that allows different theories and opinions on the same phenomena.
CharlesChandler wrote:...
But I never succeeded in getting the users to agree on anything at all, including just the simplest consensus on how to have a productive debate on how to continue building a system that would support debating.![]()
...
Not coming to an agreement just on how to have a chat, we never developed a consensus on how to develop a consensus. All in all, it was just a big time-sink.
...
My suggestion is to put more effort into picking the right collaborators than in picking the right technologies and design strategies. Some people just want to explore, but they don't want to discover anything.
GALAXIES
[Electric Universe]
I think that the concept of dark matter is a wrong idea.
[8x like the idea]
* The velocity of stars in galaxies are much faster than possible with just normal matter
[5x like the idea]
[2x I still see a problem with that idea]
* I think that electric forces are responsible]
[4x I still see a problem with that idea]
[3x like the idea]
[1x <other>]
* The electric forces are not that strong between stars
[2x like the idea]
[1x I think that you are seeing it wrong]
* Where do these electric forces come from?]
[1x I like the idea]
[1x not interested in discussing it now]
* You are wrong
[5x not interested in discussing it now]
[1x trolling]
GALAXIES [Electric Universe]
I think that the concept of dark matter is a wrong idea.
[8x like the idea]
* The velocity of stars in galaxies are much faster than possible with just normal matter
[5x like the idea]
[2x I still see a problem with that idea]
* I think that electric forces are responsible]
[4x I still see a problem with that idea]
[3x like the idea]
[1x <other>]
* The electric forces are not that strong between stars
[2x like the idea]
[1x I think that you are seeing it wrong]
* Where do these electric forces come from?]
[1x I like the idea]
[1x not interested in discussing it now]
* You are wrong
[5x not interested in discussing it now]
[1x trolling]
CC said: But I never succeeded in getting the users to agree on anything at all, including just the simplest consensus on how to have a productive debate on how to continue building a system that would support debating.
The whole thing broke down when one of the users kept insisting that it had to support 6 different chat boxes all open at the same time, all getting dynamically updated, not understanding the performance limitations on dynamic updating, and not caring.
Not coming to an agreement just on how to have a chat, we never developed a consensus on how to develop a consensus. All in all, it was just a big time-sink.
My suggestion is to put more effort into picking the right collaborators than in picking the right technologies and design strategies. Some people just want to explore, but they don't want to discover anything.
CC said: I was asking "Where is this?" because it sounded like ZZ was talking about something that he had developed, and I wanted to know if it was online. Or maybe he was just talking about Reddit functionality, but I couldn't tell.
CC said: My whole issue with your method of evaluating individual statements is that few people are going to suffer through the tedium of it. ... But I don't know who is going to slog through a 5-page article, debating each sentence. Besides, any debate can always go in half a dozen different directions. So any given 5-page article, with 500 sentences, can yield 3000 different sentences that can be debated, all one at a time? I'm afraid that it will be tough to see the big picture if that much emphasis is put on the minutia.
Jeffrey's idea of doing multiple-choice questionnaires, which I implemented, seemed to work nicely, to get an overview of who agrees or disagrees with what, at least in terms of the most general ideas.
So I preferred listing the essential tenets of a paradigm, with the criticisms nested under them, and the rebuttals nested under the criticisms. That way, you can easily navigate to the topics of interest, and then drill down into the specific issues, including the logical organization of criticisms and rebuttals. Then you just need a way of summarizing the results, since the nesting puts the juicy stuff deep inside sub-folders. So I did summarizing features, including a mechanism for tallying up the votes that people cast on which models they thought were performing best for which things.
Lloyd wrote:Lloyd's Idea
Readers could just look for the most important statements and mark those for discussion. If five or ten readers read a paper and each one only marks one or two statements as most important to them, those statements could be focused on for evaluating and discussion. In my example 2 days ago, the TPOD contained about 39 statements. I marked 8 of those as most important. Those are what you commented on in the NIAMI thread, Most Thorough Model. I thought that was fairly efficient.
Lloyd wrote:Jeffrey's IdeaJeffrey's idea of doing multiple-choice questionnaires, which I implemented, seemed to work nicely, to get an overview of who agrees or disagrees with what, at least in terms of the most general ideas.
If that's online, could you supply a link to it?
Lloyd wrote:CC's Idea
In any case, have you already tried your idea somewhere?
Lloyd wrote:ZZ's IdeaCC said: I was asking "Where is this?" because it sounded like ZZ was talking about something that he had developed, and I wanted to know if it was online. Or maybe he was just talking about Reddit functionality, but I couldn't tell.
CC wrote:If the objective is just to find the points of interest, another QDL feature would be a lot easier to use. You just post the paper to be reviewed to QDL. Then users read it, and whatever statements they find debatable, they select with the mouse, and then they add a comment. The comment will appear at the end of the paper, but the statement in question will get a footnote number next to it
Return to The Future of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests