Censorship

Spanking Science - Inappropriate Submissions...:)



Review of the "Review"

Let me make it very clear. I tried to present a non-orthodox view of science and that was censored without an appropriate justification.


Just in case you don't realized it, the argument below is a cynical or ironical consideration.

It is cynical because a conclusion of conspiracy//collusion can be easily derived from the obstacles Los Alamos (i.e. the moderators) place on the intellectual production of the people who doesn't review their grants or papers, see them in conferences etc...- the unafilliated people.

I have a hard time stating what I am stating, since I know crackpot literature... Half-backed ideas and I don't like them... On the other hand, it takes me just a few minutes to find some flaw in their argument and move on. So there is no need for censorship. Categorizing is enough.


I have to do the same for crackpot ideas from affiliated people (university affiliated people).

A simple solution to the problem can be easily achieved by providing a subsection on the site for speculative science by non-afilliated people. One can envision the same kind of reviewing protocol as in Philica.com and a larger and searcheable abstract. If necessary one might limit the volume of contribution to some arbitrary size, such that prolific people concentrate on their best ideas... but that should be larger than a large manuscript... Sometimes people have something interesting to say which requires lots of explanations...:)

This would eliminate the need for the horrendous barrier of finding an endorser. I tried to contact many potential endorsers and they certainly didn't give me the time of the day. This in itself is a tremendous censorship of new ideas.

Since I've just provided a simple solution to the problem, censorship has to be the goal of the moderators...Q.E.D.

In addition, the moderation process is not described in the submission protocol. I don't really understand how one can substitute the discussions I had with my endorser - who is a particle physicist and who published on the High Energy Physics section in the past - by a moderator's glance of my work.

Irony and Cynicism Below...:)




It is a shame that Los Alamos Archives betrayed to such great level the goals set forth by their founder Paul Ginsparg . Paul envisioned the creation of an e-print sharing system where quality wouldn't suffer while the access from the disenfranchised developing countries would be achieved. Special consideration was even taken to make sure that papers were not too large such that slow modem connections in African countries wouldn't become a barrier to knowledge.

The goal was a Level Playing Field..:)

I highly respect the concepts and the initiative and I praise Paul Ginsparg for that.

It is not clear that the endorsement system - a barrier I was able to overcome with tremendous difficulty - plus an extra level of moderation just for me doesn't constitute an unleveled playing field...:) I feel extremely sorry for those Poor African Scientists...:) Good Luck finding an endorser...:) and then passing through this kind of moderation!!!!!

I wonder if Paul Ginsparg knows about this kind of shenanigans..>:)

Well... if the moderation added something to the process, I would be the first to accept it. As you can see, the moderator's email contains nothing substantial. It seems in bad faith...:) It lacks intellectual courage, that is, if you have some stupid or smart concern about the paper, take a deep breath and put it in writing...:) I did it... and it certainly took courage.....even though, these are just ideas...:)



Final Remarks

I created the logical framework. I also created a publication you can refer to support your own ideas (pro or con) on the subject.

I hope I can create some intellectual duel of some sort... The idea is the best I am aware of and explains Everything quite well... Maybe there will be people taking sides - some saying that this theory is really, really, really bad while the other side will say NOOOO... this theory is only really, really bad...:)

I don't really care... I do care that the idea sees the light of the day...:) and the Brightness of Your Minds and Comments..:)

If you feel strongly about the subject, you are welcome to write to
Paul Ginzparg <mailto:ginsparg@cornell.edu>or to the or to the kid who moderated my paper ...:)

Cheers,

MP



<mailto:ginsparg@cornell.edu><mailto:ginsparg@cornell.edu><mailto:ginsparg@cornell.edu><mailto:ginsparg@cornell.edu>

Currently unrated