pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/18/85)
> > Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much. You might count his > position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him, > although his best objections have never been answered to my > satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified > field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he > knew what he was doing there). In other words he understood what he didn't do, which admittedly goes quit beyond the fruits (no pun intended) of current endeavors. > The process of peer review and refereed publication is ^^^^^^^^ refried? > certainly not ideal, but it is better than the obvious > alternatives. If someone has a really good idea how > potentially valuable ideas can filter through the system > using some other approajch, it would be quite a service > to explain how. (Il Nuovo Cimento is one journal that > publishes more speculative papers, but even it uses peer > review to keep out obvious trash. I have no special > love for the process, which rejected my anti-tachyon > paper due to being reviewed by people whose funding was for > pro-tachyon research, but I see the necessity for something > of the sort.) > Perhaps you have answered your own query. Set aside a modest but siqnificant number of articles in each of all journals for such speculative work, and in addition establish a journal for exclusive publications of such speculative or controversial works, and finally, establish rules of publication which require the disclosure of "conflicts of interest" to the editor (requester of review). Conflicts of interest would include association with groups, institutes or individuals being supported by your same source of funds. And finally, if all else fails, publish your work in net.physics under the name of I. Velikovsky. :-) PS. I just saw my buddy Eugene Velikov in a Russian Press Conference from Geneva. He's on the Russian disarmament committee! Polish those amazing brass balls, Gene. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/19/85)
> > Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much. You might count his > > position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him, > > although his best objections have never been answered to my > > satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified > > field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he > > knew what he was doing there). > > In other words he understood what he didn't do, which admittedly > goes quit beyond the fruits (no pun intended) of current endeavors. No, in fact Einstein gradually developed several good ideas toward such a theory, including a method for measuring how strongly such theories constrain physical behavior and the ideas that Schr"odinger turned into his "pure affine" theory. Whether or not these have any relation to what is considered quantum theory (and they might; that hasn't been disproved), there is much that can be understood from the generalized geometric point of view. Unfortunately this subject is not being taught, at least not consistently with Einstein's later ideas. (One looks in Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler, for example, and finds that very early they limit discussion to torsion-free manifolds, whereas torsion is essential according to the more general theory.) I was writing a textbook on (classical) relativistic field theory once, but couldn't figure out who'd read it. > ... > > Perhaps you have answered your own query. Set aside a > modest but siqnificant number of articles in each of > all journals for such speculative work, and in addition > establish a journal for exclusive publications of such > speculative or controversial works, and finally, establish > rules of publication which require the disclosure of > "conflicts of interest" to the editor (requester of review). I don't think the first idea is workable, though. There would be far too much crank literature to publish, so selection would still be required, which reduces the process to that that the journals claim to use. The special journal would be worthwhile, if you can figure out how to get it going and how to ensure some degree of quality so that people would subscribe. There will always be conflicts of interest whenever peer review is done; there is a lot of competition and a degree of jealousy in science research. Suppose you have spent months or years working in a field, then have to review a paper that disputes your whole basic approach; would you really be able to read it just for its intrinsic merit? (Some people could, but I bet not most.) I really don't see how to avoid this problem without creating worse ones.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/22/85)
>> establish a journal for exclusive publications of such >> speculative or controversial works I thought this had long ago been done, many times. Such journals have titles like "Fate" and the like, I believe...
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (11/23/85)
> > ... > > > > Perhaps you have answered your own query. Set aside a > > modest but siqnificant number of articles in each of > > all journals for such speculative work, and in addition > > establish a journal for exclusive publications of such > > speculative or controversial works, and finally, establish > > rules of publication which require the disclosure of > > "conflicts of interest" to the editor (requester of review). > > I don't think the first idea is workable, though. There would be > far too much crank literature to publish, so selection would The American Association for the Advancement of Science has poster sessions at its annual meeting that are apparently unreferreed (or, uncensored, if you prefer:-). Some(a small percentage) of these presentations are of the crank variety and make an interesting diversion in small doses-- a sort of sideshow to the main meeting. I tend to think that it is good to look at these fringe ideas once in a while because it helps clarify the difference between good and bad science and gets scientists to think about the epistemology of their field. The danger is that some of these people then advertise that they presented their ideas before the "American Association for the Advancement of Science" with the implication that the AAAS endorses or takes seriously the work. Another forum for harmless cranks is the classified ad section in the back of magazines like Popular Science and Science Digest. There you can find theories about gravity or the structure of space-time. I sometimes send out for them. Again, in small doses, they are imaginative and interesting in a surrealistic way. (Well, I liked net.bizarre, too.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Away beyond the ishkabow and over the foofram sea, there is a place called Boofland, where very soon you'll be."
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/25/85)
Hey, Alan, the idea was NOT to help cranks get published, but rather to help worthwhile ideas that are too far off the beaten track to get sympathetic review from "peers". There IS a difference. The yellow issues of Il Nuovo Cimento used to carry a substantial amount of the latter, articles which Phys. Rev. D would not touch. I found several of them very good, while others were silly. But no sillier than what Phys. Rev. D routinely publishes! I think the main difference between crank literature and off-beat literature is that the crank is ignorant whereas the purveyor of off-beat ideas understands the "accepted" point of view but disagrees with it.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/26/85)
> Hey, Alan, the idea was NOT to help cranks get published, > but rather to help worthwhile ideas that are too far off > the beaten track to get sympathetic review from "peers". > There IS a difference. The yellow issues of Il Nuovo > Cimento used to carry a substantial amount of the latter, > articles which Phys. Rev. D would not touch. I found > several of them very good, while others were silly. But > no sillier than what Phys. Rev. D routinely publishes! > > I think the main difference between crank literature and > off-beat literature is that the crank is ignorant whereas > the purveyor of off-beat ideas understands the "accepted" > point of view but disagrees with it. Well, this is close, but I would say that the crank may or may not be ignorant of facts, but is incapable of following scientific logic. Also, I think your comment about Phys.Rev.D is slightly hyperbolic. The sin they usually commit is preferring correct, but boring, work to speculative, but interesting work. The real problem any journal faces in publishing speculative stuff is the difficulty anyone has in drawing the line between the presently unverifiable and the intrinsically unverifiable. From a scientific point of view the latter is even more boring than steam tables. Journals that err too frequently by publishing flakey stuff cause their readers to drift away. I don't see any solution to the problem. -- "Superior firepower is an Ethan Vishniac important asset when {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan entering into ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU negotiations" Department of Astronomy University of Texas