posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM
Reminds me of this little skit from Red Dwarf (British Comedy from the late 80s and early 90s)
Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's
aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, ALIENS used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and
alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.
Lister: Well I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.
The point here and above in many of the posts is the following
'Just because you do not understand or know with any certainty what an object is, you cannot firstly assume that it means it is Aliens. You also
cannot then go ahead on that assumption and make any kind of statement to propulsion.'
Also the idea of suppression in somewhere such as the arXiv is not really a true suppression. The point is that author who wishes to publish there
much like any reputable place, should hold themselves to general good practice. These are as follows
1) Papers much be clear and concise
This means no word salad, in general, you cannot construct a sentence that makes it sound like you just said something profound to an uneducated
reader, but anyone with any knowledge can see that you just strung some fancy words together and what you said has no meaning at all.
Experiment that is clear what is being measured, how it is being measured. If something new is being measured then it must be justified, a paper
cannot just spring in and say "This device that no one has ever heard of is measuring jabble waves in units of gaggles per miliwinkles." Because
again this is word salad. Any extraneous wiring if the device is something new and wonderful must be explained and no part of the experiment can be
Experimentation must also control as many external factors as possible, allowing for control of systematics, systematics must be examined and
discussed. This allows the author to explain that the measurement they present actually is valid.
3) Data and Data analysis
While it is not common practice to show a raw dataset, it is however common practice to explain the analysis at the level you did it. That means
that if you took data using some device that gives you a whole pre-chain of analysis, this fact needs to be known. Analysis also must be logical and
conclusions must follow the same logic. The whole double slit paper in one of the other threads really showed how not to do analysis. The reason is
the basic statement above. You cannot gun straight for your proposition and analyse your data backwards so that it looks like you proved something. If
your data does not support your original proposition, it quite simply doesn't support it. This is what I like to call 'Analysing the lack of
evidence into evidence'
Ah yes a favourite word used here by a few members as criticisms for mainstream science. Neutrality is very important, and it must be exercised at
all times in papers. A paper should not open with an emotive statement about how mainstream science is wrong etc etc etc, why? Well because your paper
is about the subject title, not the subject title and the personal ramblings of the author. Your personal opinions are NOT what is being experimented
and presented. A little foreground/background information is completely acceptable, but it must remain within sensible limits. Examples being
something like this.
Science has ignored the subject of perpetual motion though out the years, inventors have been killed or suppressed by the mainstream and the powers
that be who want to stop their devices being given to the public. Science holds onto its arrogant assumptions and actively holds people back, and does
not invite new and fresh ideas. Now I am going to talk about my ground breaking work that will revolutionize chocolate production with my perpetual
quantum dirac aether choco gun
Chocolate production is an intensive process, both difficult for farmers who often work in challenging environments, but also difficult for producers
who must overcome logistical and processing challenges. I took this problem and have worked on a solution which has potential to shift the burden of
farming away from physical labour and instead be a burden of electrical requirements. I present a theory and a device that uses novel application of
quantum mechanics to produce high quality chocolate.
Now both of those are totally bananas (or should i say chocolatey), but the bad is basically filled with irrelevance, opinion and generally a lack of
substance. The good, while also making some very tall claims, steers away from what is not relevant to the paper, It gives a general outline of why
the work was done, and a little nibble at what the results are, without making 8 jumping assumptions.
This is just my take, but these are the basic rules that scientists use when writing a paper. I mean, I didn't start a paper about radioactivity in
steel by talking about doom and gloom of radiation killing everyone, fukashima, oh god! No, because I'm not insane and also because those things are
completely irrelevant to the subject matter