Distinti & Mathis
Lloyd
Posts: 35
I thought I should share what I just posted on the TB forum here too. It's from http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 113#p96113
Science Improvement Procedure
I think I'm learning how to streamline evaluation of science theories. In this thread and on QDL etc, I've tried the method of listing individual statements from a paper so that each statement can be evaluated. I found that after listing all of the statements that relate directly to the theory, it's good to select just the key statements out of those, whether those statements seem plausible or implausible, then labeling the key statements as observations or arguments, which both can then be labeled as either probable or improbable. Focusing on the key statements avoids having to evaluate the other statements.
But I'm ready to try streamlining even further now. Instead of going through hundreds of papers or other material, I think it's better to simply go to the theorists or their supporters and ask for the name of the theory, the top 5 or fewer main subtheories, and 5 or fewer key points for any or all of these subtheories, and 5 or fewer main arguments for each of the key points (usually made as statements). Then get teams of judges to evaluate the key points and the supporting arguments and give each competing theory a grade from 0 to 100. The evaluation would point out all of the weak points or arguments of a subtheory, so theorists can attempt to improve the theory, the observations, or the arguments.
Distinti & Mathis
I propose that we start having conferences between Distinti supporters and Mathis supporters. Theorists from different camps can cross-fertilize each other's theories to make them better. Both Mathis and Distinti seem to have gobs of good points. By finding the key points and arguments of each, we may be able to help them improve both theories.
Some of us had some good chat room chats yesterday and last week. This morning I was thinking QDL needs to start holding online conferences. We've formed teams to study several different topics. And Charles installed chat rooms or boxes in each team's workspace. It occurred to me this morning that having two or more chat boxes on one page might make it possible to have a good conference online. So I asked him about it and he said it would work and he's already tried it somewhere, but he has to check to see how much of a load they make. I guess that might be for those with slow internet, like mine, or maybe worse than mine.
I figure that up to 9 or even 12 chat boxes could fit on a single page. It should be possible for anyone to chat on any or all of the boxes that are available. Chat room chats usually have quite a bit of dead air or else if too many people are chatting it gets hard to follow who's talking to whom. Even if Charles can't get more than one chat box to work well on one page, it would still be possible for users to open several chat rooms in different windows.
Are yous ready for an online conference? I hope any potential bugs will be weeded out within a couple days or so.
Science Improvement Procedure
I think I'm learning how to streamline evaluation of science theories. In this thread and on QDL etc, I've tried the method of listing individual statements from a paper so that each statement can be evaluated. I found that after listing all of the statements that relate directly to the theory, it's good to select just the key statements out of those, whether those statements seem plausible or implausible, then labeling the key statements as observations or arguments, which both can then be labeled as either probable or improbable. Focusing on the key statements avoids having to evaluate the other statements.
But I'm ready to try streamlining even further now. Instead of going through hundreds of papers or other material, I think it's better to simply go to the theorists or their supporters and ask for the name of the theory, the top 5 or fewer main subtheories, and 5 or fewer key points for any or all of these subtheories, and 5 or fewer main arguments for each of the key points (usually made as statements). Then get teams of judges to evaluate the key points and the supporting arguments and give each competing theory a grade from 0 to 100. The evaluation would point out all of the weak points or arguments of a subtheory, so theorists can attempt to improve the theory, the observations, or the arguments.
Distinti & Mathis
I propose that we start having conferences between Distinti supporters and Mathis supporters. Theorists from different camps can cross-fertilize each other's theories to make them better. Both Mathis and Distinti seem to have gobs of good points. By finding the key points and arguments of each, we may be able to help them improve both theories.
Some of us had some good chat room chats yesterday and last week. This morning I was thinking QDL needs to start holding online conferences. We've formed teams to study several different topics. And Charles installed chat rooms or boxes in each team's workspace. It occurred to me this morning that having two or more chat boxes on one page might make it possible to have a good conference online. So I asked him about it and he said it would work and he's already tried it somewhere, but he has to check to see how much of a load they make. I guess that might be for those with slow internet, like mine, or maybe worse than mine.
I figure that up to 9 or even 12 chat boxes could fit on a single page. It should be possible for anyone to chat on any or all of the boxes that are available. Chat room chats usually have quite a bit of dead air or else if too many people are chatting it gets hard to follow who's talking to whom. Even if Charles can't get more than one chat box to work well on one page, it would still be possible for users to open several chat rooms in different windows.
Are yous ready for an online conference? I hope any potential bugs will be weeded out within a couple days or so.