Charter for Citizen Science
Published by admin January 4th, 2007 in Science, Physics, Doctors, Citizen Science, Regulation, Freedom of Science, Shaman, AlphysicsThis blog is about taking legal action to effect the transfer of scientific authority to the people. I drafted a Charter of Citizen Science. Please help develop this document. Also available as a wiki for you to edit.
Charter for Citizen Science (Draft 1)
I. Evidence
1. A hidden evidence is not evidence
2. Doctors of Philosophy (”Doctors of Physics” or “Doctors”) do not have authority over the evidence
II. Legibility of evidence
3. Physicists use a tool they call an “equation” to model how quantities change. The equation is the oldest scholastic polemical tool in existence. In order for the evidence to be legible some clarification about the nature of the equation is needed:
4. Every equation can be simplified either into an identity or into a rule.
5. A rule is a definition which defines the rule of how symbols of the rule should vary.
6. An equation is either a useless identity or a broken rule
7. A rule is also known as a proportionality.
III. The burden of evidence
8. It is the burden of Doctors to simplify their equations into publicly legible rule.
9. A rule contains only what it contains nothing less nothing more
10. There are no hidden content in a rule
11. There are no decorative symbols in a rule
12. Equations contain hidden content which is only visible to Doctors. Equations contain decorative symbols written down to save the authority of physics but are cancelled in order to obtain useful rules. Doctors call this process of eliminating authority symbols “derivation.”
13. A rule does not make any reference to any outside authority.
14. An equation is full of references to outside authority, to principles and to conjectures.
15. A rule cannot be altered without changing its rule.
16. An equation is a polemical tool and it can be altered. Any Doctor can add new symbols to an equation or remove symbols from it and still claim that both the new and the old equation are the same equation. This is the old scholastic method of sophistical polemics by multifinitions.
IV. Who has authority on the rule
17. When Doctors are served with a rule they have no authority on the rule
18. What is publicly available is not publicly available unless it is also publicly legible
V. Knowledge
19. Knowledge is the error which results when computed is taken out of the measured (there is nothing more to science)
20. Knowledge is not knowledge error is knowledge
21. Popularization is not simplification
The above items constitute just a start. If we bring a Shaman to court what would the rules for the evaluation of the evidence be?
Today, it would be impossible to evaluate in a court a Shaman simply because the court will defer to the Shaman and call the Shaman as “expert witness.”
It is better to think about this process as evaluation of ideas marketed by Shamans as science. There is no guilty party here. Assumption of guilt presupposes an absolute notion of right. In physics this translates into an absolute truth. In science there are no absolute truths. There are only defined rules which are valid within their realms. That’s why physics is not science. Law is more scientific than physics.
No punishment will be doled out. The purpose is to evaluate, not to judge.
Can we bring scientific standards upon the business of Big Media shamanism today called physics?
I believe so. All we have to do is to agree upon the standard of evidence.
Then two most important principles are:
Principle I
It is the burden of the defendant (Doctors) to make the defendant’s evidence publicly legible.
Principle II
If an evidence is not publicly legible the evidence is not evidence.
Making these simple principles a requirement in physics will make physics into science.
I think now it is time to move to legal activism, to move from theory to practice. Please contribute your thoughts to make this a proper and binding legal document.
Just imagine that if academic physicists are required to obey standards of evidence as expressed here 90 percent of measurements filed as experiments in Big Media controlled peer reviewed journals will not meet this standard of evidence and must be removed from the literature!
Can this be a bad thing? What do you think?
If there exists a standard of evidence in physics 90 per cent of physics experiments will turn out to be bogus. Do you still believe in what Doctors sell as physics to be science? Or do you think what Doctors sell as science today is alphysics?
I present this document to your review. Please review it and let us know what you think. Thank you.
4 Responses to “Charter for Citizen Science”
- 1 Pingback on Jan 7th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
- 2 Pingback on May 15th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
If an evidence is not publicly legible the evidence is not evidence.
This is why we publish our research results, whether experimental or theoretical. You just have to read them.
Bee wrote: This is why we publish our research results, whether experimental or theoretical. You just have to read them.
“I asked you to explain it, not to talk physics!”
I just saw this quote on Backreaction. It seems to be a good reply to your comment:)
At first look, what you say appears to be so right. Physicists publish and whoever wants it can read it.
But Just like an Apple box is a closed information realm physics too is a closed information realm. No one is supposed to open and try to figure out what’s in Apple’s products.
No one is supposed to read and understand an academic physics paper. That’s why physicists never simplify their papers. This is unthinkable.
Physicists monetize authority, not knowledge. So physicists popularize but never simplify. Once simplified and legible the physics paper looses all of its authority.
Thanks for your comment.