A Wiki science Journal?

[R.A.F.]

I don't have a strong opinion about this - but yes, why not?

Because it would be a waste of time.

...any member of the public - within prescribed parameters - should be able to rationally challenge published, peer reviewed papers.

I just don't see why anyone would think that a layperson would have a better understanding than a skilled, trained, scientist.

If a peer reviewed paper is in need of correction or is just outright wrong...

...and who is to determine that it is wrong?...a layperson with little understanding?

...how can that in any way do other than give us a clearer picture of our Universe?

Because it wouldn't. It would "surrender" scientific rationality, and "replace" it with public opinion.

Would I have an interest in occupying my time in that manner? No.

I was just going to ask...who would be doing all the "work" involved.

Guess it won't be you, huh??

I can imagine it is a facet of an online science journal many scientists and laymen may find interesting and/or useful.

Laypersons would be delirious...scientists, not so much.

[gfellow]

How is that any different from the existing scientific journals?

And how is that different from what happens already with published, peer-reviewed papers?

It is different in that published, peer-reviewed papers are not readily available to the public. Most of the present journal edifice hinders public web queries. At best, if you are fortunate, you may be able to access the abstract.

Scientists already use search engines for published papers with several options.

Scientists? Yes. Their institutions, private or educational, provide free access to scientific journals. The public? Most individuals do not have those kind of financial resources.

[gfellow]

Because it would be a waste of time.

It is possible that there is any argument I could put forth that in any way might convince you that a publicly accessible online science journal system might be viable? Perhaps this ought to be a discussion we may have at another time, some years down the road?

[HenrikOlsen]

Thanks, gfellow. Same as, if you're willing to sell your science book (to make it bestseller), get rid of of those too heavy mathematical equations and try to touch the minds of the ordinary science fanatics. Ain't you become physicists or chemists w/PH.Degrees w/out being a science fanatics, in the first place?

If you want people to read a book of English prose, you don't write it in German, do you?
And you don't see people complain that they have to learn English to read it, do you?

Equations is a language, much easier to learn than English, used to talk about physics. Why do you insist on crippling the explanations by requiring them to be written in a foreign language (English), this only results in flawed understanding.
It's been rather clear over the years that the vast majority of the ATM'ers trying to post their ideas here fail because they never got beyond the English, i.e. foreign-language, version of physics.

[R.A.F.]

It is possible that there is any argument I could put forth that in any way might convince...

Perhaps it isn't my "closed-mindedness", but your inability to make a persuasive argument??

...that a publicly accessible online science journal system might be viable?

Accessibility is one thing, dumbing down science by removing all that "pesky" math is another.

[HenrikOlsen]

It is possible that there is any argument I could put forth that in any way might convince you that a publicly accessible online science journal system might be viable? Perhaps this ought to be a discussion we may have at another time, some years down the road?

Having a publicly accessible science journal is very different from having a publicly written science journal.

[gfellow]

Perhaps it isn't my "closed-mindedness", but your inability to make a persuasive argument??

Absolutely. Perhaps if my life was hanging on a thread I might take a more determined stab at it. However, the thrust of a fellow forum member's remarks can be a good indication that they don't like the suggestion. Consequently, any amount of further discussion on that particular subject is unlikely to make much further headway. Time and a preponderance of accruing evidence can sometime reshape opinions, so let's give it time.

The purpose posting this subject, is to seek opinions and suggestions. If someone says it is a bad idea, and they make a coherent argument why it ought not be tried, then that's a valid suggestion and I'll thank you for it.

Accessibility is one thing, dumbing down science by removing all that "pesky" math is another.

I presume you are referring to another member's comment here.

[gfellow]

Having a publicly accessible science journal is very different from having a publicly written science journal.

I stand corrected. I believe mentioned earlier in the thread, an online science journal eliciting papers from professional scientists and the public. Peer review by registered members.

[R.A.F.]

the thrust of a fellow forum member's remarks can be a good indication that they don't like the suggestion. Consequently, any amount of further discussion on that particular subject is unlikely to make much further headway.

I agree...you've "fallen" for this wiki thing, and because of that, you can't see why it is such a bad idea.

If someone says it is a bad idea, and they make a coherent argument why it ought not be tried, then that's a valid suggestion and I'll thank you for it.

Well, HenrikOlsen's posts certainly qualify as "coherent argument's" against your idea...yet I don't see where you thanked him.

I presume you are referring to another member's comment here.

Yeah..that was Sirjon's post...do you agree or disagree with it?

[R.A.F.]

...an online science journal eliciting papers from professional scientists and the public. Peer review by registered members.

Lets say that this came to pass...if ideas are not "tested" by a qualified scientific investigation/review, but instead by a lay public, then why should anyone be interested in the results?

In other words, there is no reason why someone can't do this wiki thing but don't hold your breath expecting it to be taken seriously.

[gfellow]

Lets say that this came to pass...if ideas are not "tested" by a qualified scientific investigation/review, but instead by a lay public, then why should anyone be interested in the results?

Many members of the public are individuals who have been in a field of science although may have moved on to other occupations, still actively follow their previous discipline. Others will have retired but like to keep a hand in. Some are highly intelligent amateurs who have decades of experience in a given field, and in many cases have more expertise than many of their professional counterparts. Individuals who fit these and like definitions would qualify, and there is a lot of them. On this very forum there are individuals who are intelligent, experienced and very well informed. Such individuals would qualify to perform peer review. And you, R.A.F? - bet you would sneak in and register.

In other words, there is no reason why someone can't do this wiki thing but don't hold your breath expecting it to be taken seriously.

I agree. No reason someone can't try and to this Wiki thing. Curious what the timbre of your comments might have been had you written about Wikipedia before it existed.

[gfellow]

I agree...you've "fallen" for this wiki thing, and because of that, you can't see why it is such a bad idea.

Merely curious as to what comments forum members might have. Am I attracted to the idea? Yes. Fallen? No.

Might you tell me why you think it is such a bad idea?

Well, HenrikOlsen's posts certainly qualify as "coherent argument's" against your idea...yet I don't see where you thanked him.

Yes I did: "...The purpose posting this subject, is to seek opinions and suggestions. If someone says it is a bad idea, and they make a coherent argument why it ought not be tried, then that's a valid suggestion and I'll thank you for it..."

[korjik]

Many members of the public are individuals who have been in a field of science although may have moved on to other occupations, still actively follow their previous discipline. Others will have retired but like to keep a hand in. Some are highly intelligent amateurs who have decades of experience in a given field, and in many cases have more expertise than many of their professional counterparts. Individuals who fit these and like definitions would qualify, and there is a lot of them. On this very forum there are individuals who are intelligent, experienced and very well informed. Such individuals would qualify to perform peer review. And you, R.A.F? - bet you would sneak in and register.


I agree. No reason someone can't try and to this Wiki thing. Curious what the timbre of your comments might have been had you written about Wikipedia before it existed.

And if you demonstrate your expertise, and let it be known you like to peer review, you will be innundated with requests under the current system. Your idea either a) Dosent change the system, or b) Lets unqualified people determine what is good science.

I dont know about R.A.F. but my comment would be the same. Wiki is wonderful if you want laymans level info, but if you think it is a good source for detailed info, you will be sadly dissapointed.

[R.A.F.]

Many members of the public are individuals who have been in a field of science although may have moved on to other occupations, still actively follow their previous discipline. Others will have retired but like to keep a hand in. Some are highly intelligent amateurs who have decades of experience in a given field, and in many cases have more expertise than many of their professional counterparts. Individuals who fit these and like definitions would qualify, and there is a lot of them. On this very forum there are individuals who are intelligent, experienced and very well informed. Such individuals would qualify to perform peer review.

Seems we need a re-definition of what "lay public" actually is.

And you, R.A.F? - bet you would sneak in and register.

For what purpose? No good science can come from allowing laypeople to make scientific decisions.

Curious what the timbre of your comments might have been had you written about Wikipedia before it existed.

Irrelevant...

[R.A.F.]

Yes I did...

Where??

[R.A.F.]

Might you tell me why you think it is such a bad idea?

How many times must it be said? It will ALWAYS be a bad idea to allow laypersons to determine what is good science.

Understand?

[gfellow]

How many times must it be said? It will ALWAYS be a bad idea to allow laypersons to determine what is good science.

Understand?

Thank you for your detailed critique, and your dismissive comment - that I understand quite clearly.

Have a happy.

[sirjon]

How many times must it be said? It will ALWAYS be a bad idea to allow laypersons to determine what is good science.

Understand?

In that way, it would be uninteresting to know what's your idea because in the first place, there's no way a layman could understand it. Why? It's a one way traffic, you'll always wanted to be the one talking and let others hear what you say...and then ask them... Now do you understand?

Yes, I understand... (wondering what's he's talking about)

Bottom line, communication gap because you deny people to access what supposed to be "a free exchange of informations". I'll stick then to my facebook...

[HenrikOlsen]

Might you tell me why you think it is such a bad idea?

By definition, lay people don't have the needed qualification to peer review, that's from the definition of "lay".

If you don't see where the problem is with wanting to have people who don't know the subject determine whether articles are accepted of not, then it's hard to see how a discussion can continue because there's basically no common ground to base the discussion on.

[HenrikOlsen]

In that way, it would be uninteresting to know what's your idea because in the first place, there's no way a layman could understand it. Why? It's a one way traffic, you'll always wanted to be the one talking and let others hear what you say...and then ask them... Now do you understand?

Yes, I understand... (wondering what's he's talking about)

Bottom line, communication gap because you deny people to access what supposed to be "a free exchange of informations". I'll stick then to my facebook...

You're also confusing written for lay people for written by lay people.

The main critique here is against the notion that any good will come from having lay people write or select the articles, not agsainst the idea that it would be nice to have them understandable.

I think what you're really after is something at the level of Simple English Wikipedia, except that's not a science journal and never will be.

[papageno]

It is different in that published, peer-reviewed papers are not readily available to the public. Most of the present journal edifice hinders public web queries. At best, if you are fortunate, you may be able to access the abstract.

Abstracts are publicly accessible. And if somebody is motivated enough to read and challenge a paper, he/she can surely be bothered to contact a library, or even the authors of the paper.

Scientists? Yes. Their institutions, private or educational, provide free access to scientific journals. The public? Most individuals do not have those kind of financial resources.

What resources do you need to access a paper through a library or askng the authors for a copy?
The same that you would need to access this Wiki-journal in the first place.

You would be surprised how forthcoming scientists can be if you are interested in their work.

...any member of the public - within prescribed parameters - should be able to rationally challenge published, peer reviewed papers.

"Within prescribed parameters": if you work out what these parameters are, you will end up with a system indistinguishable from the current peer-reviewd journals.

Bottom line, communication gap because you deny people to access what supposed to be "a free exchange of informations".

What is your personal experience in talking to scientists about their work?

[sirjon]

What is your personal experience in talking to scientists about their work?

I admit I don't have any experience. But what I'm pointing here is that I hope scientists would be more 'available' in informing about their work (theory on something) and not always inside their lab or talk to themselves that the outside world seems not existing.

[sirjon]

You're also confusing written for lay people for written by lay people.

The main critique here is against the notion that any good will come from having lay people write or select the articles, not agsainst the idea that it would be nice to have them understandable.

No, I understand it well, reason why I no longer interested to even comment in the ATM (that supposed to be, not at all "Against" the Mainstream, I'll reserve my reasoning for that, for it's just another topic).

Now, if you guys believe that you are for the benefit of mankind, why not present them to us and let you know what the people's reaction toward it? Are you afraid there are much more genius guys out there that might scrutinize your work (no offense please, just being frank)

[R.A.F.]

...and not always inside their lab or talk to themselves that the outside world seems not existing.

How many scientists have you known that behave in such a reclusive manner??

[sirjon]

You're also confusing written for lay people for written by lay people..

Let ATM remained for "written 'by' lay people" and your work "written 'for' the lay people". Narrow the gap that separate your world from ours

[sirjon]

How many scientists have you known that behave in such a reclusive manner??

Sorry for that, it's just let's say an 'expression' and doesn't mean the real meaning of it... (...seems you people are too strict in even to use exact words to express one's idea. Can't blame, that is where I think you are trained for, no offense again, just saying what's on my mind).

[R.A.F.]

...if you guys believe that you are for the benefit of mankind...

??? Say what?

...why not present them to us and let you know what the people's reaction toward it?

Present what to who?...and why would "people's reaction" be relevant to a scientific (non-lay) question?

Are you afraid there are much more genius guys out there that might scrutinize your work (no offense please, just being frank)

No, fear is not a factor...and if someone can (with credibility) refute a theory, then it deserves to be refuted....but that ain't gonna happen without evidence that the theory is wrong.

[R.A.F.]

...seems you people are too strict in even to use exact words to express one's idea.

Too strict?? Why would you want to post to a scientific forum which didn't have a certain amount of "strickness"?

Don't you want to "arrive" at the correct conclusion?, of would you rather have the "History channel answer"?

[sirjon]

I think what you're really after is something at the level of Simple English Wikipedia, except that's not a science journal and never will be.

I disagree with this statement. Before, they said only 3 people understand the 'theory of relativity' (read it on Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time") but now-a-days, thousands people understand what Einstein's relativity is all about.
It's just a matter of "going toward to the level that lay people could understand it". I think that is what's ITs main goal or they're trying to do, make computer things easy towards the level that ordinary man can use the computer with no complications at all.

[sirjon]

Too strict?? Why would you want to post to a scientific forum which didn't have a certain amount of "strickness"?

Don't you want to "arrive" at the correct conclusion?, of would you rather have the "History channel answer"?

Don't wish to answer this... seems the gap's too wide to come up with a common ground to be in agreement. If you insist it's not for lay people, I'll respect it.