[ExI] Peer review reviewed

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 02:23:23 UTC 2023

Another problem is journals are hierarchically managed, and playing a
primitive win / lose survival of the fittest game where the new
revolutionary small guy can't compete against huge establishments and are
censored.  This is especially true in neural science.  On the one extreme
you have atheistic hierarchical neuroscience institutions that censor any
words like 'qualia'.  On the other extreme you have religious institutions
and conferences arguing that qualia prove their particular religion is
true.  There is very little overlap nor cross communication between the
extreme hierarchies.

Another problem is peer reviewed publications, like everything else on the
internet, are just bleating and tweeting, with nobody measuring for
success, or lack thereof.  What I believe we need is a bottom up win / win
system where everyone can indicate what they currently believe without
censoring, and we can track it all.  When papers are presenting various
evidence and arguments, we should be able to track how many people they are
converting.  In the bleating and tweeting world peer reviewed article
world, the quality of the papers are measured by anything that supports the
bubble you are currently in (the establishment), how snarky they are and so
on.  But if you can track how many people a particular paper converts, that
becomes the new measure of the quality of an argument/evidence/paper.

In wikipedia, you see this extreme divide
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia>, where Dennett is listed as the
leading critic of qualia.  In contrast, on Canonizer, where you can push
the less important things you disagree on down to supporting sub camps, out
of the way of the consensus, you finally see Dennett's current predictive
bayesian coding theory camp
in a supporting sub camp to the Representational Qualia Theory
camp.  The stuff in the supper camp everyone does agree on is always far
more important than all the stuff everyone disagrees on.

Also, this rise and fall article says that "over time" science wins, but
the length of this time is the problem.  Revolutionary ideas are way too
often kept out of publications for WAY too long, and often require
military might to overcome the establishment.  On canoniser, where there is
no censoring, you could be the first one in a revolutionary camp, along
with all the lonely BS noise camps.  Then, unlike the noise, you get
someone else to join your camp, and everyone can see that as it happens.
Then the two of you get 4, 8, 16, and scientific revolutions can finally
happen at an exponentially faster rate than they can, today, since the
signal can finally stand out from all the lonely BS noise.  It is truly
exciting to use the "as of" feature on Canonizer to look back in time.  You
can see new minority camps first appearing in the theories of
consciousness topic
Then you can see them grow to the point of becoming a new leading
consensus.  Since this has to do with real scientific consensus, it is far
more entertaining than something irrelevant like a horse race.

Publishing papers is good, you just need a way to track how good it is by
how many people it converts.  Instead of everyone just bleating and
tweeting, why don't we start rigorously measuring for scientific
consensus?  That which you measure, improves.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 12:56 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> [image: 24ab2184-c024-44c5-81cc-4bc14851b965_1762x1173.jpeg]
> The rise and fall of peer review
> <https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review>
> experimentalhistory.substack.com
> <https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review>
> <https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review>
> No problems that can’t be fixed?
> Regards,
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230105/06fffd5a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 24ab2184-c024-44c5-81cc-4bc14851b965_1762x1173.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 112015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230105/06fffd5a/attachment-0001.jpeg>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list