* Phyllo, et al, how does this plan sound?POTENTIAL EU RESEARCH PLAN
- Matthew & company plan research organization
- Invite interested TB forum members et al to join this effort
- Agree to and use efficient scientific consensus unanimous rule decision making
- Establish a wiki etc for public access to all known scientific data and knowledge
- Find and organize data optimally
- Set up or join an EU and progressive science research group
- Set up or join a workable research and development system
- List main EU tenets and other good ideas worth experimenting on
- Recruit pro and lay scientists
- Scientists specify what they need to test the ideas
- Research organization help scientists get funding
- Scientists proceed to acquire data and test ideas
- Research org evaluate and improve progress at regular intervals
- Goal: Make maximum scientific progress for humanity by developing a continually self-improving scientific research establishment that efficiently discovers scientific facts which will continually improve life for all, via improved technology and knowledge sharing.* I think acquiring and organizing accurate data in a wiki etc is likely to be as important as doing experiments. That's what I'm most interested in myself. I have a wiki at http://askus.wikispaces.com, but I haven't attempted to compile data there yet, mainly just sources of data. But I'd like to help compile data, if I have time.
* Here are highlights from our Saturday night discussion. MD is Phyllotaxis.
MD: My goal is really to initiate the effort and find ways to popularize this line of research.
My goal remains the same as it ever is: learn more facts about science, apply them to technology and make life better.LK: Or: we want to form a continually self-improving scientific research establishment that efficiently discovers scientific facts which will continually improve life for all, via technology and knowledge sharing.
MD: The group funding is only one part of my imagined plan here
-- I’d like to think about developing an index of “To Do” things that anyone might be able to try out at home, so they can do some garage scientist stuff as well.
- Crowdsourcing is a funding method that allows individuals or companies to tell the public what they are doing, what they want to accomplish, what it will cost, why they need it to get the result, and what they think the results could be. Then, they post the progress of the work as it is done, keeping donors/Advocates “in the loop”, so that they can be shadow partners in the science being performed. The data collected is made available to any and all, not secrets to exploit.
- Each of the sites I’ve linked to in our posts has a clear method to go about setting up and implementing a funding drive.
- Here are some links that show how these projects will work:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_fundinghttp://www.rockethub.com/projects/scifundhttp://www.petridish.org/http://sciencedonors.com/
- After reading through these links you will realize how simple this process has become; that’s why it’s so powerful.
All you need is: a coherent idea (one that we can refine with TB forum members & others); the means to do the work; and the results made public.
- It’s crowd science, without the academic walls shutting out the open-minded.LK: To simplify things initially, have you looked for any existing proposals that might interest our forum members that we might want to assist with in any way?
MD: The links in the second post on the “Research” thread link to existing, live projects that I look at as having tangible ties to our research in one way or another.LK: Is funding the only way for people to participate in those projects?
allows anyone to put their work on its platform.
- Additionally, I could see us having a place for forum member do-it-yourselfers to gather, discuss, and implement their own experiments, both with and without direct assistance. Maybe it would be a good place for a new forum room to address? Like RJHuntington-type things.LK: Hackerspaces does things like that, but focuses on technology, rather than experiments, I think.
MD: We could eventually have teleconference calls, or skype-ins, or Fuze meetings [like NPA does] or something; dealing with active experiments and such, we’d probably need more fluid forms of communication.
- As long as we pick reasonable, specific, and useful experiments, it will gain credibility and a strong track record for further work. It will also draw scientists who might be curious about helping in this work but had no way to do it before.
- How do we derive a “panel” of people to decide on what will be attempted? Just a vote in a thread, or some other way?LK: I think it should be up to whoever is willing to get more involved.
MD: More specifically, as far as the technical aspects- the “hard” parts. We’ll need specialists to contribute their expertise to make sure we aren’t testing with bad aims. Does that make sense?LK: If this is just to test EU and other theories to the satisfaction of the reading public, then experts may not be needed, other than people who are somewhat expert at reasoning etc. Right?
MD: Yes, I understand. My thought was more about deriving the way tests should be carried out-- the technical aspects and all-- for example, if we are going to buy telescope time to look at the sun, we’d want forum members with experience in that field to be a part of deciding on the nature of that experiment.LK: I’m inclined to let the scientists who do the tests decide that.
- Some members of the EU team are already scientists and so are many forum members.
MD: I will need a list of people
you think it would be good to contact
- As far as using the forum as a place to do-it-yourself, I like the idea, though there are other places online already doing that, and perhaps we could just reference them instead of trying to copy it all on TB.
- Tomorrow I will study the primary sites that deal with these types of work and figure out the pro’s and con’s. Perhaps I can come back here and post a list so it can be evaluated and we can maybe choose one based on the results. Then, all we need is an experiment to post, and it’ll be there.MD Update:
- The RocketHub
site appears on inspection to be the easiest and most straight-forward place to initiate this plan.
I investigated the various sites out there and it looks like it has few requirements and easy methods of posting projects to fund.
- Petridish requires a more formal research approach via practicing university staff/research foundations, and therefore limits our avenues of use.
OpenGenius is too new and seems unprepared to start from Go.
- The RocketHub process is simple. I signed up for an account and explored the process a bit-- anyone can do it. There are customizable variables for presenting your “pitch” in video/youtube clip form, with a detailed written explanation included on your page. There is a readily identifiable progress indicator on the project allowing people to see how funding is going at a glance, and you can keep in contact with funders via mailing list or some other way to keep them up on the work as it progresses.
----------------------------------------The Scientific Method
1. making accurate observations of subject matter;
2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
5. publishing the experiment;
6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.Common errors
that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1. making inaccurate observations;
2. making an untestable hypothesis;
3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.