[ExI] How to Bridging the Divide and communicate?

[Brent Allsop]

Thanks Anders,  That really helps.

I tried to explicit say it only feels like I'm being censored, in an as 
you say probably much better a post rejection func.

Brent


On 3/10/2013 5:44 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Don't extrapolate too much from reviewer stupidity. We all get these 
> ridiculous reviews from time to time, clear signs that the reviewer 
> didn't read or understand the paper. Unfortunately it is part of the 
> semi-brokenness of the current peer review system.
>
> On 10/03/2013 04:59, Brent Allsop wrote:
>> "The philosophy in the paper is unclear, there are no scientific 
>> results and the contents of the test web site mentioned in the paper 
>> not really interesting. As a case study, this example web site fails 
>> to demonstrate the potential of the system developed. The web site is 
>> currently full of 'crackpot science'."
>>
>> Evidently, the surprising to everyone scientific consensus survey 
>> results now from including experts from Dennett, to Chalmers, to 
>> Lehar, and a growing number of others supporting "Representational 
>> Qualia Theory", doesn't count, and isn't interesting, because the 
>> results are nothing but 'crackpot science'.  This reviewer gave us 
>> the most negative possible score, with the highest possible self 
>> surety rating, that this shouldn't be accepted.  I'm sure anyone 
>> mentions this kind of "crackpot science" in any hard neural science 
>> conference, similarly is likely censored.  Does anyone have any other 
>> similar first hand stories of feeling like you've been censored in 
>> this way?  It's amazing how fast you get the very real 'cold 
>> shoulder' in such 'hard science' conferences, once you even mention 
>> 'qualia'.
>
> You are not being censored. The reviewer just didn't like your paper 
> and told you why. The conference is an engineering science conference, 
> so you should not expect a shred of understanding of philosophy from 
> the reviewer. In fact, looking at the call for papers I get the 
> distinct impression that Canonizer doesn't fit in very well in any of 
> the impact/application areas as stated, and presumably you did not do 
> any study on its performance (by whatever metric) or claim it has some 
> interesting algorithmic properties, so it doesn't really belong in the 
> computing/informatics topics. I would suggest looking for another 
> conference.
>
>
>> Anyway, in an effort to find some way to bridge the gap on both sides 
>> of this immoral war, blinding everyone to what should be obvious, I'm 
>> thinking of adding something like the below to the front page of 
>> canonizer.com, and wanted to get any and all thoughts.  Could 
>> something like this help?
>
> It would help make you seem like crackpots.
>
> Seriously, any site that starts by denouncing some opposing group 
> looks bad. Especially when accusing them of trying to censor 
> information, and get involved in a mini-rant about a particular 
> theory. I assume Canonizer is intended to be about other things than 
> consciousness debate?
>
> Right now you are in a post-rejection funk. It will pass (I had one 
> last week).
>
>