13 replies to this topic

[zoolander]

I have read the postings and it seems like a great proposal. A proposal that would open up discussion

This part perhaps explains one of the strong positives

This will have other powerful implications. For example it will be possible to determine gaps that weaken supporting propositions (even in very deeply nested levels). As a result this tool will guide researchers to think about the work needed to move a given proposition forward--providing a research plan.

There is a big problem though. Alot of scientists/researchers become very attached to their projects like a mother to its baby. In saying that, critism is not usually taken that well at all and its often skoffed at.

Prometheus, you have experianced this locked in/possessiveness recently in discussions you had with a rather prominent researcher online recently.

What I see way to much these days are people that are happy to dish out but refuse to take some critisism in return. How do we question when we are so closed off and blinded by what we want to see. Every researcher faces this at some time or another and that's why studies are blinded and double blinded so one cannot influence the result. Consciously or subconsciously.

Scientists need to be more open and sharing with their research if it's going to benefit society as a whole.

Why would such a proposal be so easily dissmissed?

[Richard Leis]

John Schloendorn makes some valid points. It is one thing to create such a tool; it is another to convince the appropriate people to make use of it. Also, it may be easier to build an assertion system than to ensure its proper use.

Hopefully there is no assumption being made that just anyone should be able to refute or support an assertion in such a system. The very idea is appalling.

[Richard Leis]

Scientists need to be more open and sharing with their research if it's going to benefit society as a whole.

That is one approach. Another is for new people to actively pursue their own research and simply compete.

[John Schloendorn]

Scientists need to be more open and sharing with their research if it's going to benefit society as a whole. Why would such a proposal be so easily dissmissed?

Zoolander, what do you want us to do? Drop SENS advocacy, advocate another online science wiki instead? Suspend the Mprize maybe, and spend the money on open-mindedness training classes? Do you have any idea what's involved in running these things? We're limited man, and you should be grateful that someone is getting anything done at all.

(for the record, as should be evident from my hammering and stifiling, I did not dismiss this proposal at all, but pointed out a major difficulty with it and asked for solutions.)

If you want the MF to support something, then make an argument that it's not just worthy of support, but that it's the *best* use of our limited money and even more limited time.

[zoolander]

you've beaten me to a response Prometheus and I couldn't have said it better.

[lightowl]

...but alas being stifled by MF

This is not true at all. It is being *critiqued* by John as an individual. I ( and other volunteers I am sure ) like the idea a lot, but I have no idea if it would work in relation to science. I have a strong sense that a similar system would work wonders in a political and/or social setting. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar, as of yet not popular enough to have an impact, already exists in some form.

In any case, I think such a project would work much better as an open source effort, rather than being an MF project. It should really be a collaboration between volunteering developers and the users/content-providers. The great thing about open source software is the enthusiastic development of successful systems, and as a consequence, the almost complete abandonment of useless systems. On top of that, it costs nothing but willingly given time.

That said, an open source project wont automatically exclude the MF from donating time and/or money. The question is really if the system would help advances towards the goal faster than any other project that could be supported by the MF. And what money should be used if so? SENS money? Expense money? Prize money? There are certain limits to what donated money can be used for when such donations are made for specific purposes.

[John Schloendorn]

Tone down the arrogance and self-importance.

To clarify: I am obviously not speaking of myself, but of the Foundation which you criticised.

[lightowl]

Hopefully there is no assumption being made that just anyone should be able to refute or support an assertion in such a system. The very idea is appalling.

I think it would be a positive if anyone could add argument and/or evidence against or in favor of an assertion, provided that an extensive reputation system is implemented to give the sources value. It would be possible to create assertions evaluating sources in relation to specific posts, posts in general and posts relating to a specific assertion. Such a reputation system would make it possible for users to vote on the value of an argument when there is no evidence to support or refute it. That would in turn make it possible to search for the most likely candidates for further investigation.

( I am talking in the general sense though. There may be issues in relation to research that would negate the value of this possibility )

[Richard Leis]

I think it would be a positive if anyone could add argument and/or evidence against or in favor of an assertion, provided that an extensive reputation system is implemented to give the sources value. It would be possible to create assertions evaluating sources in relation to specific posts, posts in general and posts relating to a specific assertion. Such a reputation system would make it possible for users to vote on the value of an argument when there is no evidence to support or refute it. That would in turn make it possible to search for the most likely candidates for further investigation.

( I am talking in the general sense though. There may be issues in relation to research that would negate the value of this possibility )

Privilege restrictions instead of or in addition to a reputation system are also necessary. The lay public should NOT be voting for or against an assertion if they do not have the requisite educational background to make their vote meaningful. No Digg-style voting for or against assertions! Digg and other social-networking enabled news sites have demonstrated only that the uneducated feel a sense of entitlement to provide their opinion on topics they know nothing about.

I don't believe that anyone who has commented on this proposed assertion system to date is against the idea. Instead, most have pointed out problems that will need to be addressed to create a successful assertion system. MF probably has neither the time nor resources to devote to such a project, but another group could get started.

Edited by RichardLeis, 31 October 2006 - 09:23 PM.

[lightowl]

Privilege restrictions instead of or in addition to a reputation system are also necessary. The lay public should NOT be voting for or against an assertion if they do not have the requisite educational background to make their vote meaningful. No Digg-style voting for or against assertions!

I think it should/could be up to any individual and/or group to define what reputation is necessary to give value to a vote/argument/comment. This would make it possible to include opinions from people with extensive knowledge in a field, but with no official title from an approved institution. If the assertion author is interested in a more general opinion, I think it should still be possible to widen the scope of opinions. The alternative could very easily be that developers of the system becomes judges of who and what backgrounds have adequate value. So, instead of excluding access at the point of INPUT, the exclusion could be done at the point of OUTPUT at the whim of the user(s) of the requested output.