Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
Listing Observations
CC said: Few people will be willing to step through an article, one sentence at a time, evaluating the observational content of each sentence. I tend to think that people preparing articles will break out the observations. It's good form in a scientific paper to describe the instrumentation and the data that were collected, and then, in a different section, to discuss the interpretation thereof. So what I'm saying is that those sections that deal just with the data collection would appear in the Observations folder. The advantage will be that you won't have to read through each individual article to get to the data — they'll be in their own folder, organized per topic. And people will be able to discuss the validity of the data collection methods as an independent topic.
Proposing Encyclopedia Having thought things over a bit since last night, I think we need to do both: Compose an Encyclopedia of Observations and Write and Collect Papers. Your Observations Folders shouldn't be too hard to collect into an Encyclopedia. And the Theories about the Observations could be referenced in the Observations Folders. Right? So the Papers could be organized under Observations.
Papers So I guess you're saying each Paper would have an Observations section and a Theory section. The Observations will likely cover several specific topics, so each Observation may need a Topic Title along with the specific Observation. That way the Titles can help organize the Observations into the Encyclopedia.
Your Site Your site then could be used for: 1. productive Scientific Discussion (in threads and the chat room in the Teams and Topics section, I guess) 2. Collaboration to write Science Papers (in the Blogs, Teams & Topics section, I guess) 3. Collaboration to compose an Encyclopedia of Observations (in the Teams section, I think)
Encyclopedia Collaboration I think the Encyclopedia writing could draw a lot of collaborators, i.e. new members, who would like to edit Entries, like people do on Wikipedia. But it would be more fun on your site, because it'd be fair to everyone, letting everyone's theories be listed in the Reference section and anyone would be able to critique anyone's theories where they're posted on your site. - I'd like to get started right away to compile a list of Topics for the Encyclopedia, starting with Astronomy etc. I see Wikipedia has an Outline of Astronomy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_astronomy, so that may help.
CharlesChandler
Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
Lloyd wrote: Proposing Encyclopedia Your Observations Folders shouldn't be too hard to collect into an Encyclopedia.
Yes, that will be the easy part. Putting something IN those folders is where it starts getting tough.
Lloyd wrote: Papers So I guess you're saying each Paper would have an Observations section and a Theory section.
Yes. And the advantage to breaking out the data into their own sections, in the Observations folders, is that other people will get to re-use the same data in their projects.
BTW, another thing that we should be thinking about is not just standard observations, but anomalies. Ian Tresman is the keeper of the late William Corliss' collection of scientific anomalies. Some of them are on the website (http://science-frontiers.com), but I guess that most of the info is in the print media. That's the low-hanging fruit, for a pack of enthusiasts such as ourselves.
Lloyd wrote: Encyclopedia Collaboration I'd like to get started right away to compile a list of Topics for the Encyclopedia, starting with Astronomy etc.
Go for it. Just remember that too much structure frustrates creativity. We should have just enough structure to maximize the value of the material that has been created, but not so much that people don't feel free to conceive things their way. Everybody likes exploring fresh territory, so they don't need a map — they just need the tools to help them make faster progress through their journeys. Making it easier to utilize information developed by others will make their efforts more gratifying. Likewise, seeing that their results lay the foundation for progress being made by others will be fulfilling. So they just need the tools to explore whatever interests them — they don't need to be led by the nose, and told what to do, or how to do it.
Lloyd
Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
Collecting Observations
CC said: We should have just enough structure to maximize the value of the material that has been created, but not so much that people don't feel free to conceive things their way.
1. Don't you think a lot of people would like to edit an alternative to Wikipedia that gives links to their favorite theories? 2. What would be enough structure for Observations? How about: -Topic Title; -Location in Hierarchy; -Organized List of Relevant Observations (from submitted Papers and from online sources, like Wikipedia); -Relevant Theories; -References; -Bibliography? 3. When submitting Papers, would Astronomy authors likely be willing to check off which of the following categories their Papers should go under: Universe; Galaxy Filaments & Great Voids; Galaxy Clusters; Galaxies; Galactic Cores; Molecular Clouds; Galactic Halos; Star Clusters; Stars; Planets & Moons; Asteroids, Comets & Meteors; Dust & Matter; Radiation; Space & Time? 4. Should there be templates for the Observations Encyclopedia Entries - and for the Papers?
Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
Lloyd wrote: 1. Don't you think a lot of people would like to edit an alternative to Wikipedia that gives links to their favorite theories?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: 2. What would be enough structure for Observations? How about: -Topic Title; -Location in Hierarchy; -Organized List of Relevant Observations (from submitted Papers and from online sources, like Wikipedia); -Relevant Theories; -References; -Bibliography?
I'd be happy enough just to see things in folders, on the basis of what they're observing, and then leave the structure of the article up to the author. The only rule would be to keep the theories out of it — just say what you saw, and how you saw it. Theories go in a different folder. That way, other people can use those same observations in their theories, without having to spend time contradicting somebody else's theories that were written into the observations.
BTW, in QDL you can import a Wikipedia article. Once it's already inside QDL, it's a little easier to copy-and-paste HTML to other places. See this for an example:
Lloyd wrote: 3. When submitting Papers, would Astronomy authors likely be willing to check off which of the following categories their Papers should go under: Universe; Galaxy Filaments & Great Voids; Galaxy Clusters; Galaxies; Galactic Cores; Molecular Clouds; Galactic Halos; Star Clusters; Stars; Planets & Moons; Asteroids, Comets & Meteors; Dust & Matter; Radiation; Space & Time?
In QDL, "categories" are just folders, since the whole thing is categorical. So to get something into a category, you just copy-and-paste a link for the item into the appropriate folder.
Lloyd wrote: 4. Should there be templates for the Observations Encyclopedia Entries - and for the Papers?
Why don't we make it easier on people by not requiring any additional structure at first?
Lloyd
Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
Hey, you guys, I'm trying to try out an Etherpad online at https://titanpad.com/IVjl7gjmPb with one or more people at the same time to see how good it is for collaborative writing. It's better than Google Docs in that no one has to register or log in for it and it is said to reload much faster than Google Docs. I'm inviting anyone to come try it out with me. Is 5PM Central Time, 6PM Eastern a good time to try it? I think that might be good to have on CC's site, including the no registering or log in, if possible.
CharlesChandler
Re: Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
CharlesChandler wrote: Votes and weights So if I'm browsing a folder that is sorted by rank, the software has to: 1. Find all of the votes that were cast, and who cast them (already stored, in a different table). 2. Search the Weights table for me as the ranker, and any of the voters as the rankees. 3. If any are found, weight the votes accordingly. An average user gets 1 vote. A user ranked 1 notch above average gets 2 votes. 4 notches above average yields 5 votes. 4 notches below yields 1/5 vote. 4. Multiply the votes by the weighting factor, and add them up, for each item in the list to be sorted. 5. Sort the list.
I got this done on QDL. It will really only be worth something with a lot of users, some of whom with opinions you respect, and others not so much. But it really looks like it will work well, to help bump up things that are actually interesting to you, and to ignore the circle-jerking and the mindless masses of people who always up-vote the consensus.
Just remember that too much structure frustrates creativity. We should have just enough structure to maximize the value of the material that has been created, but not so much that people don't feel free to conceive things their way. Everybody likes exploring fresh territory, so they don't need a map — they just need the tools to help them make faster progress through their journeys. Making it easier to utilize information developed by others will make their efforts more gratifying. Likewise, seeing that their results lay the foundation for progress being made by others will be fulfilling. So they just need the tools to explore whatever interests them — they don't need to be led by the nose, and told what to do, or how to do it.
