If It's Broken, Fix It Conventional science is broken and some of us want to fix it. Let's discuss that here, if you like.
Charles' Website Charles is a software developer, working on making his website a useful place to improve science. I'm trying to help out and he invites others to come try it out to practice developing theories and documents, or commenting on others' work there, or helping others with their theories or documents, or asking questions etc. He's been compiling data etc there from other net sources on various science topics, attempting to get it organized in the most useful ways. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4760.
His site has some features similar to a regular forum, but he's organizing it in ways that make it easy to find the latest info on any topic and to develop theories efficiently and logically etc, so readers don't have to wade through a lot of opinions and ideas just to find a little valuable info.
There are lots of other good websites, whether EU-related, like this one and many others, or other alternative science related, like NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance), which the Thunderbolts team is part of. Work on many such sites should eventually pay off, but Charles' site isn't duplicating the work of other sites too much. It doesn't have many members yet, but it's ready to accept anyone who's interested in site-seeing (you don't need to register if you just want to do site-seeing) or in helping improve science.
Sociocracy is one of the methods we hope to try out on his site as one of the ways to improve science. But, besides Sociocracy, I also favor "Wishcraft" for planning how to achieve goals. The saying seems true that, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail, so I try to find and follow the best planning methods. Since our goal is improving Science, it's handy to work together with others on that, which I'm trying to do. Planning starts with a goal. Then plans become a list of subgoals under the goal which are all doable actions. (Often the subgoals can be developed most easily by thinking of steps going backwards from the goal to the present time.)
Plan to Improve Science Here is some of my thinking about our goal of improving science.
Goal: Develop a website to improve Science
Sociocracy says to specify for each goal an accomplishment or event that is observable or measurable, so you know when you've accomplished it. So what specific development would tell us that we've succeeded? How about a revised goal like this?
Goal (or maybe Mission for a website): to improve scientific method to correct the many errors in science and to improve the teaching and practice of the improved scientific method.
That's more specific, but what again would be an observable development that would indicate the goal is reached? What about this?
Goal Marker: We can tell when scientific method is good when we can break down a theory into a series of statements in logical order, all of which are >90% proved to be factual, and which altogether explain an entire physical or detectable process, which process by being understood can potentially benefit humanity with low risk/benefit ratio. This improved scientific method could be given a simple name, like Mecholoscience (for Mechanistic Holoscience, where Holoscience means Holistic Science, like in Thornhill's http://Holoscience.com). So how about this series of goal markers as goals?
1st Goal: Having a finished Mecholoscience theory on the website (on any science topic). 2nd Goal: Having five Mechol theories on the website. 3rd Goal: Having a yearly conference of Mecholoscientists, or a quarterly conference online on an efficient platform. 4th Goal: Having a Mecholoscience school. 5th Goal: Having a Mechol based small government. 6th Goal: Having a Mechol based large government.
And before those goals could be aimed for, we'd need some subgoals. What about these? Subgoal 1: get good participants Subgoal 2: develop efficient organization Subgoal 3: develop effective online platform If those are okay, more details could then be added, including target dates for accomplishing each goal or subgoal. Target dates serve as deadlines, which can help accomplish goals sooner.
CharlesChandler
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
I didn't know that Lloyd was going to post this, because I didn't know that we were ready to "go live" yet. We have really only just begun. But I'd like to say that while there is a science folder where we've been working on what we consider to be an improved process for scientific inquiry, the site itself is just generic software that can be used for any sort of material. So there are folders for all kinds of topics, and you can create new folders if you want, if your favorite topic isn't already there. History, philosophy, music, whatever you want. We intend to censor nothing (barring obscenities, fraud, slander, and sedition). The only rule is that things are supposed to be sorted out by topic. So if you post something that is off-topic, it will be moved to the correct topic.
One more thing — don't bother complaining if you see something with which you disagree. It isn't a theme site (like most sites on the Internet). It's a generic site that can be used for anything. I have already gotten a complaint about posting my religious views on my blog page (which all registered users get), and somebody didn't think that religious views were appropriate on a science site. Well excuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeee... We censor nothing, not even our own stuff... I didn't put it in the science folder — I put it on my blog page — cut me some freakin' slack already.
But yes, we're very excited about the possibilities for science, as we believe that online collaboration is the way to go, but that existing sites are too limited. Forums are great, but we also wanted to be able to do articles to condense the ideas in long threads down to concise statements of the conclusions of the discussions. We tried Google Docs, and got a LOT of value out of our online debates. But Docs gets a little flaky when too many people are working on a document, or if the document gets too big. And it isn't set up to represent the hierarchical structure of a sociocracy. So finally we decided to just use my site.
Enjoy!
justcurious
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
You should have a parallel scientific community who can peer review properly, folks with the right credentials and know-how, who don't need to risk their livelihood or career. For example retired scientists would be good candidates. Anonymous scientists might be problematic in terms of credibility. Make everything transparent and available to all. That way you might get some real science and proper objective peer reviewing based on the scientific method (which is pretty good). May the truth set you free.
My 2 cents... Sam
CharlesChandler
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
I totally agree. I tried to contact Nereid, because she seemed to be very knowledgeable, and willing to put in the time, and I was looking forward to hearing her debate EU ideas. Unfortunately, she has given up her online evangelism. But definitely, if you know any scientists who would like to participate, please let them know what we're doing. It's a great place to post original research, and you get to add comments on other people's stuff. Most sites that allow the general public to post their own articles are heavily moderated, but we have no intention of being intellectual Nazis, because we just don't think that that's healthy. Dogma sucks.
D_Archer
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
CharlesChandler wrote: I tried to contact Nereid,
That would be a waste of everyones time.
Regards, Daniel
Lloyd
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
Charles' Planet Model I reorganized and slightly edited a lot of Charles' material from his thread, Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model. It turned into a New Planet Model too and that's what I've now posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9484-10607. I hope to post his material on his star and galaxy model too from the same thread before long, when I finish reorganizing it.
Here are the topics I just posted at his site: LK re CC Geophysics Breakthrough (just a short introduction so far) [1] Earth's Heat from Compressive Ionization [2] Mechanics of Continental Drift [3] Causes of Earthquakes and Volcanism [4] Causes of Planetary Cratering and Scarring
Those follow his section, called Seismology, which includes his two articles on New Madrid Seismic Zone and Electronic Tectonics. I hope the type of reorganizing I did of his thread material will make it easier for him to do the finishing touches on those topics, while at the same time making it easier for curious readers to check out any particular part of his material that may be of interest. Readers would also be welcome to post comments, suggestions, questions etc. Or post your own articles on the site after registering.
I guess I misunderstood Charles when he told me it was okay to start inviting people to his site. I guess now he meant privately, although this is kind of private, since not many come here to read. But he's also been inviting people to read his site and so have I. Anyway, I guess things are moving forward okay. Does anyone suggest not moving forward yet?
Lloyd
Re: Improve Science and Scientific Method
Charles' Star, Quasar and Galaxy Model I finished posting now. It's in 3 parts at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9484-9454-9840, the last three articles on the page. Here are the articles listed on the page: Dynamo Theories Redshift Controversy Solar Models Asteroids & Meteoroids [1] Star Formation by Compressive Ionization [2] Exotic Star Formation by Natural Tokamak [3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
We censor nothing, not even our own stuff...
