List, A footnote to the peer review process problem I mentioned in connection with Alfven's work. A recent study has revealed a major problem involving "self-citation."
Citation metrics indicate how often a scientist's research output is formally referenced by colleagues in the footnotes of their own papers – but a comprehensive analysis of this web of linkage shows the system is compromised by a hidden pattern of behaviour that often goes unnoticed. Specifically, among the 100,000 most cited scientists between 1996 to 2017, there's a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent "extreme self-citations and 'citation farms' (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other's papers)," explain the authors of the new study <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384>, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University. One can read more about it in this article in *Nature*. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7 Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:46 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, List, > > Thanks for this these interesting comments, some of which I was able to > follow. > > For now I'll only remark that I have for many decades been interested in > Alfven's plasma cosmology finding it an intriguing alternative to Big Bang > theory. Here's an encyclopedia entry very critical of Alfven's cosmology as > many astrophysicists have been. But, as you may know, I see quite a bit of > astrophysical dogma evident in much of Big Bang theory. Still, and despite > its bias, the article gives a decent overview of some aspects of Alfven's > theory. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology > > If you're not familiar with Alfven, here's a passage from a biographical > entry commenting on the negative reaction to his work by especially British > cosmologists following his being awarded the Nobel Prize, and Alfven's > sense that much of this had to do with a broken peer-review system, > something many of us here see as a major problem worldwide. Joe Ransdell, > for one, found the present system highly problematic and looked to better > alternatives to current approaches to peer review. And having been involved > in the review process for a number of publications over the years, I have > seen first hand many of its problems (bias, inappropriate reviews, > substandard reviews, and other abuses.) > > Here's a snippet from the biographical article on Alfven. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfvén > > In 1937, Alfvén argued that if plasma > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)> pervaded the universe, > it could then carry electric currents capable of generating a galactic > magnetic field. After winning the Nobel Prize for his works in > magnetohydrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics>, > he emphasized that: > > In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is > necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the > electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which > transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The > currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are > likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a > cellular structure. > > His theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora > (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland>) was confirmed in > 1967, these currents now being known as Birkeland currents > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current>. > > Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space > physics, the British mathematician > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician> and geophysicist > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics>Sydney Chapman > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Chapman_(astronomer)>. Alfvén's > disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer > review <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review> system. Alfvén rarely > benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in > scientific > journals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal>. He once > submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_storm> and auroras > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auroral_light> to the American journal > *Terrestrial > Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Magnetism_and_Atmospheric_Electricity>* > only > to have *his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the > theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time.* He was > regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science>* in the field by many > physicists *(emphasis added by me). > > > "Unorthodox" and non-conventional indeed! > > I'm not at my desk now, and I'll be heading up to Martha's Vineyard for an > event at the beginning of September. If you think Alfven's thought might be > a valuable contribution to this discussion, I'll go to my downtown > apartment before we leave for MV and pick up my copy of Alfven's most > complete discussion of his plasma theory in book form which, as I recall, > has my copious notes written when I was studying it years ago (the last > time I picked it up it was 4 or 5 years ago). I hope that I'll have some > down time to review it in early September. > > My concern, however, is that we get too far away from matters related to > Peirce's own cosmological thinking that it might, at least at some point, > make sense to take such a discussion off-list for those who might be > interested in it. It is, of course, also possible that Alfven's cosmology > will prove relevant in the list discussion. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:48 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon S, Gary F, List, >> >> Peirce provides definitions for dimension, dimensional and dimensionality >> in the Century Dictionary. Nothing jumps out at me in the definitions >> offered, but it is worth noting that he does make a distinction between the >> dimensions of a mathematical space and that of a physical space. >> >> For the sake of understanding the points made in the last lecture of RLT, >> the discussion of topological dimensions in the EM and >> the NEM are particularly helpful resources. There, Peirce describes the >> various ways that a particle can be moved from a point, a filament from a >> line, etc. This is consonant with the contemporary way of talking about >> the dimensions of a topological space in terms of the degrees of freedom >> that something can be moved. >> >> Those mathematical ideas can be applied to physical space by asking >> questions about how something like an atom or a sub-atomic particle might >> be able to move. My sense is that Peirce is thinking in terms of >> continuous spatial fields as being more fundamental than discrete >> particles. >> >> Cosmologically speaking, the permanence of something like a Hydrogen atom >> is explained in terms of the parts (e.g., the proton) of that whole >> evolving from something more basic. So, if we consider something like >> an extremely high-temperature plasma in which the particles (e.g., the >> quarks, leptons and bosons) are moving relatively freely in relation to one >> another, then it is helpful to think of those "particles" as spread areas >> of charge in a field. >> >> If we think of the laws of physics as evolving in the early stages of the >> development of the universe, how might we envision gravity, and the strong >> and weak forces operating in a relatively dense plasma? More to the point, >> how might we envision the laws of time and space evolving where the >> universe is comprised of a dense plasma of charged areas in a >> multi-dimensional field? >> >> In order to conceive of the evolution of time and space as involving a >> trend having a decrease in number from a vague infinity of dimensions to a >> more determinate number (e.g., from more than 100, to 12, to 10 to 4), we >> need some kind of tools to picture how this might work. Two of the >> resources that Peirce worked with in his various studies of topology, >> projective geometry and metrical geometries are Riemannian manifolds and >> Klein groups. >> >> Those probably give us what we need for thinking, at least in broad >> terms, about the character of the dimensions of a space that are (1) vague >> and (2) infinite. Setting aside metrical considerations (which will >> naturally make things more vague), the question becomes a matter of >> explaining how a topological space (which may be folded, knotted and >> twisted in many ways) might evolve into a space that has projective >> characteristics (where there is "straightness" or homoloidal properties, >> but no preservation of angles or lengths under transformations). >> >> If you will, let me think out loud using very rough terms about how some >> of the characteristics of sub-atomic particles in a plasma might change as >> those particles move through a space of high dimensions. What follows >> is conjectural in character. In the case of a real physical space that >> is highly folded, knotted and twisted, where the "particles" are charged >> areas that move through the space, how should we conceive of the >> dimensionality of such a space in the initial phases where the laws of time >> and space themselves are evolving as the number of dimensions of that space >> decrease? >> >> It helps, I think to distinguish between the global character of such a >> space and its local character. Locally speaking, I imagine that the charged >> areas might "break up" into smaller areas as they move through different >> "branches" (i.e., handles, like a hole in a torus) that may twist (i.e., >> cross caps, as with a Mobius band) and that are knotted together and >> then recombine with other moving charged areas. >> >> We tend to think of subatomic particles (e.g., quarks) as having >> relatively fixed masses (voltages). Neutrinos, on the other hand, have mass >> values that are simply less than a particular voltage value. This seems to >> imply that they have an amount of energy that may vary, perhaps up to some >> limit. Furthermore, I suspect the value of the charge and perhaps the value >> of the spin (the angular momentum) of the charged areas moving through a >> field may change as the charged area moves through a twist in the space. >> >> How might we study something as complex as a highly folded, twisted and >> knotted space? As with any kind of relatively complex topological space, it >> helps to decompose that space into its component parts. As such, we >> can focus on one simpler two-dimensional surface at a time, and then think >> about the various ways such surfaces might be connected. What is more, we >> can think of the possible paths that things might travel on that surface as >> edges in a graph. Those, I suspect, are kinds of the techniques we might >> profitably employ to study the question of how the dimensions of space and >> time might have evolved in the early history of the cosmos. >> >> Thanks for your patience as I've tried to talk out loud. In order to >> make any progress in cosmological metaphysics, we will need to make a >> transition from these sorts of conjectural musings on matters of >> cosmological physics to something that is easier to get one's mind >> around. As such, in a future post, I'd like to take up some >> graph-theoretical explorations of how we might think about the >> dimensions of space and time. In doing so, the aim will be to create some >> kind of diagram that helps to picture how time and space might be evolving >> from a vague infinity of dimensions to a more determinate and smaller >> number of dimensions. >> >> --Jeff >> >> >> Jeffrey Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> Northern Arizona University >> (o) 928 523-8354 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:01 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang >> >> Jeff, List: >> >> JD (below): What is the general trend: an increase in dimensions from 1 >> to 4, or a decrease in dimensions from infinity to four? How might the >> rival metaphysical hypotheses be tested? >> >> JD (to Gary F.): We have to ask, if real space has 3 dimensions, then >> why is it a whole number and not an answer involving a decimal or >> fractional expression? >> >> >> Those are interesting questions, but I suggest that we first explore a >> more fundamental one--what is a *dimension *in this context? >> >> According to Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension>, "the >> *dimension >> *of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the >> minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it." Of >> course, discrete coordinates--as well as the discrete positions and >> instants that they are intended to mark--are arbitrary and artificial >> creations of thought for the purpose of describing motion through >> space-time, which in itself is continuous. Does this perhaps entail that >> discrete dimensions of *any *whole number are likewise arbitrary and >> artificial creations of thought--hypothetical *representations *of >> space-time, rather than *real *characters of it? >> >> The definition of a dimension given in the second video linked in the >> post addressed to Gary F.--the one about fractals--is even more obviously >> arbitrary and artificial as a measure of "roughness." What *meaning *could >> we assign to a decimal or fractional value somehow assigned to *real >> *space-time >> as a continuous whole? >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:35 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Gary R., Jon S, Edwina, John S, List, >>> >>> Keeping in mind the distinction that Peirce makes between metaphysical >>> cosmology and physical cosmology, let me again stress a point made earlier. >>> Instead of assuming that, at any point in his inquiries, Peirce typically >>> affirmed one answer to each of the main questions in metaphysical >>> cosmology, I tend to think that he explored a fairly wide range of possible >>> answers. >>> >>> In any given text, he often does spend more effort on one set >>> of hypotheses and less on others. And, over the course of his career, he >>> often does reassess the options he has considered up to that point. As a >>> result of the inquiries, he does give greater weight to the plausibility of >>> some metaphysical hypotheses as compared to others. In many cases where he >>> might seem to be "taking a position", I find that he is merely pointing to >>> defects in some of the hypotheses. Most of the hypotheses offered in >>> the cosmological metaphysics of his time failed in some degree to explain >>> phenomena that clearly called out for explanation (e.g., why does our >>> common experience of time involve 1 ordered dimension and our experience >>> of space involve 3 dimensions?) In some cases, the problematic hypotheses >>> might have been amended to remedy such defects. >>> >>> I tend to think that Peirce was remarkably sanguine about the fact that >>> the big questions in metaphysics like "What is the origin of all things?" >>> and "How did the universe evolve from such beginnings?" are the kinds of >>> questions that get answered over the course of millennia by whole >>> communities of inquirers and not by any individual during the course of a >>> lifetime. As such, I am cautious about proclaiming that Peirce's >>> position on these types of questions was, at some particular point in his >>> career, "X" or that his final mature position was "Y". Rather, I think that >>> he took his own advice on questions of metaphysics and tended to hold some >>> metaphysical hypotheses as more plausible than others because they offered >>> better explanations of the phenomena at hand or as worthy of our attention >>> because they were easier to test. >>> >>> I find it more interesting to articulate the *reasons *he offers for >>> holding that one hypothetical explanation is better than other than to >>> insist, on textual grounds, that some answer to a question was his >>> considered and mature view. Clarity about the conceptions employed in the >>> rival hypotheses comes from understanding those reasons and especially from >>> seeing what we might do to put the rival explanations to the test. >>> >>> So, here is a question. Consider two hypotheses: (a) the four dimensions >>> of space and time that are characteristic of the world in which we >>> live evolved by a process of an *increase* from a one-dimensional >>> continuum and (b) the four dimensions of space and time that are >>> characteristic of the world in which we lived are the result of a process >>> of decrease from an objectively vague state having an infinite number of >>> dimensions. What is the general trend: an increase in dimensions from 1 to >>> 4, or a decrease in dimensions from infinity to four? How might the rival >>> metaphysical hypotheses be tested? >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Jeff >>> Jeffrey Downard >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of Philosophy >>> Northern Arizona University >>> (o) 928 523-8354 >>> >>>>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
