Hi John,

> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes) I
> know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review approval
> on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific fabric of
> college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for several new ideas
> that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and debate').

It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and "me-too" papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.

Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
substance....

> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
> known inventory of science etc.

I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
papers received:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html

Since we've been talking about Turing:
"On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
Problem." This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
device absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism—that there
are numbers that it can't compute. As I see it, there are two
alternatives that apply to any machine that will ever be built: Either
these numbers are too big to be represented in the machine, in which
case the conclusion is obvious, or they are not; in that case, a
machine that can't compute them is simply broken!
Any tabulating machine worth its rent can compute all the values in
the range it represents, and any number computable by a function—that
is, by applying the four operations a number of times—can be computed
by any modern tabulating machine since these machines—unlike the one
proposed here with its bizarre mechanism——have the four operations
hardwired. It seems that the "improvement" proposed by Turing is not
an improvement over current technology at all, and I strongly suspect
the machine is too simple to be of any use.
If the article is accepted, Turing should remember that the language
of this journal is English and change the title accordingly."

I'm sure there are equivalents in every field.

> While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by
> itself, either.
>
> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness Sci)
> and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
> ever since.

Would you share that paper with us?

Cheers
Telmo.

> John Mikes
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
>> popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
>> mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the
>> product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
>> philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
>> substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
>> Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
>> imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because
>> having done this myself I know that it's very hard not to solicit feedback,
>> and not to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear in mind this
>> advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you something's wrong
>> or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you
>> exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always
>> wrong.").
>>
>> I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
>> fall into.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to