Good luck with that! We tried a wiki project a few years ago to do exactly what you propose, but it died of neglect. I'm not sure if the results of that effort is still around, even.
Cheers On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:18:37AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > There are obviously a lot of very intelligent members here who are well > read in modern science. I think everyone would agree with this. > > However the usual MO of group members (true of most groups) is simply to > argue for their own theories and to criticize those of others, and as a > result no one changes their views and no significant progress is made. > > Let me humbly suggest that we can do better than that... > > What would really be nice if we could work together cooperatively, in the > way that actual working science teams do, to build consenses towards areas > of agreement. > > The way this works is that first we see what we can agree upon, state that > clearly in a way all can agree upon, and take that as the basis for further > progress. > > Second work to clearly define areas of disagreement and actively analyze > and clarify them to prune the disagreements to the minimum possible. > > Third, devise mutually acceptable tests to resolve these disagreements. > > Fourth, run the tests and add the results to the areas of agreement. > > Fifth, use this process iteratively to progress to the maximum areas of > agreement possible towards agreement on the most comprehensive theory > possible. > > Now obviously this is probably more doable among small groups that already > have significant areas of agreement to start with. But as each of these > groups make progress defining what they do agree upon they can then join to > debate the areas of agreement and disagreement between groups and how best > to resolve those differences. > > For example I was pleased to learn that Stephen and I agree that block time > is BS, even though Stephen doesn't seem to actively want to argue that > here. So e.g. Stephen and I could try to clearly define our area of > agreement here and when we clarify that we could then debate it with the > supporters of block time and the UDA who believe differently once they > clarify their areas of agreement. > > My basic point is that instead of just forever arguing our differences, it > would be great to actively work on defining and clarifying the theories > that we could agree upon. It seems to me that would be a truly worthwhile > mutual endeavor that would progress all our understandings. > > How about it guys? Anyone interested in working on this? > > Edgar > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
