Dear Mohammad

Azeem! A fantastic essay! It is astonishing to see how an undergraduate has accumulated, digested and creatively presented so much knowledge and his own ideas about it in such a lucid manner. Brilliant.

Having said that I see that the enthusiasm of youth is matched by its idealism. Many of the suggestions you make are eminently practical and should be implemented. Yet...

view entire post

Dear Mohammad

Azeem! A fantastic essay! It is astonishing to see how an undergraduate has accumulated, digested and creatively presented so much knowledge and his own ideas about it in such a lucid manner. Brilliant.

Having said that I see that the enthusiasm of youth is matched by its idealism. Many of the suggestions you make are eminently practical and should be implemented. Yet you ignore the problems of simple human limitations. Alas self interest, laziness and the inertia of things as they are - i.e. political, social and religious factors - may well stand in the way of realizing the wonderful scenario you have presented.

Take environmental policy: have governments and businesses taken a concerted unified approach to solving such problems as carbon emissions? Hardly. This crucial human factor is discussed by Sabine Hossenfelder in her fqxi essay. Your idea about peer review after publication is akin to Philip Gibb's essay.

By the way you start your essay with a reference to relativity and quantum mechanics. These two fields too are long due for revamping, as I discussed in my fqxi essay of some years past "Fix Physics!"

It is refreshing to read your enlightened ideas from the city that boasted the great lighthouse and Library of ancient times. Good luck.

Vladimir

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Hi Mohammed,

You wrote a fact-packed and easy to read essay. The F1000Research Journal sounds like a worthwhile idea. I will check it out.

Your comment on negative results made my day but from a different perspective than yours. For the past years, I have been working to identify how to naturally extract water vapor indigenously from the air we breathe anywhere in the world. I...

view entire post

Hi Mohammed,

You wrote a fact-packed and easy to read essay. The F1000Research Journal sounds like a worthwhile idea. I will check it out.

Your comment on negative results made my day but from a different perspective than yours. For the past years, I have been working to identify how to naturally extract water vapor indigenously from the air we breathe anywhere in the world. I believe this is the only long-term way to solve safe water supply issues everywhere without resorting to transporting, cleaning etc efforts. After all, nature's water cycle is a water purification and delivery machine that holds safe water as vapor in the air we breathe. If you want, you can visit my blog here

To solve this I have been talking, for example, to the pharmaceutical industry about sharing with me the circumstances when unwanted moisture ruins a batch of medicines. They don't seem to keep good records on this and part of my difficulty is in their hesitation to tell me how they failed.

My only quibble and a minor one with your essay is that it did not address more on expanding use of science but, maybe, because you are personally more focused on adding more science.

The very best of luck in this essay competition

-Ajay

view post as summary

Dear Mohammed,

What a great essay! I wish I would have been able to write so intelligently when I was an undergrad. Anyone who quotes Hawkings, Von Neumann, and Drexler at the beginning of a paper is on the right track. Then again, Alexandria has been a center of learning for millenia, so you have a great tradition to uphold. :-)

Now for the critical comments: :-(

Science...

view entire post

Dear Mohammed,

What a great essay! I wish I would have been able to write so intelligently when I was an undergrad. Anyone who quotes Hawkings, Von Neumann, and Drexler at the beginning of a paper is on the right track. Then again, Alexandria has been a center of learning for millenia, so you have a great tradition to uphold. :-)

Now for the critical comments: :-(

Science (the discovery of how the universe works using the scientific method) is not the only steering mechanism; by covering only one aspect you have limited yourself unnecessarily. Engineering, economics, politics, media, emotion, philosophy, and religion are also powerful influences on our future. Discoveries in science are exciting, but they must be applied to real-world needs--specific technologies for which money will pay for so that more scientific discoveries can be made. I love science and technology, but then found presentations by Ralph E. Grabowski and Stanley N. Lapidus which dismayed me very much because it showed that if your research and development budget is not matched by an equivalent or higher amount of money on understanding how your market might need your product, you will fail. To make matters worse, it correlated with my own experience with a number of technically superior products that failed (e.g. Lisp machines). See http://www.marketingvp.com/guests/bridge/index.htm

Your comments about improving the publishing process by having authors rate each other has one serious drawback -- really new ideas are often controversial. This why Socrates was made to drink poison, Aristotle fled Athens, why Thomas Aquinas was banned by a few bishops (for "Christianizing" Aristotle), and why the U.S. multi-billion-dollar National Nanotechnology Initiative has essentially zero dollars allocated for molecular manufacturing. If there was an objective way to score papers, perhaps by non-emotional computers who could really understand them well enough to compare and contrast them with reality, that might help. In my own my essay Three Crucial Technologies ), I discuss how the RDF/OWL representations of knowledge might help (I also talk about nanotechnology and a space-faring civilization).

Your idea about publishing negative results being a duty is very good, but as a young techno-enthusiast, you're forgetting at least two issues:

1. Original papers about stuff that works are much more fun to read than experiments that have failed.

2. In a "publish or perish" environment, it is difficult to boycott a journal.

Perhaps there might be a easy and effective way to implement this? Perhaps all electronic versions of journal papers should be followed by a comments section, as done for this contest? Negative results could also be entered in such a format; the advantage would be that readers would immediately learn about these failed results.

You wrote that "environmental and sustainability problems are among the bigest problems faced by humanity". I beg disagree strongly. War, injustice, poverty, and ignorance are much more threatening. Fix injustice and ignorance, and that will take care of poverty. Take care of poverty, and you don't need to worry about the environment. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University aggregated data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for more than 200 countries to find that every country with a per capita GDP greater than $4,600 is gaining forests (seehttp://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/upload/26441_1.pdf)
. Solar power is almost at parity (depending on how you measure); continued progress in lowering costs and increasing efficiency will do wonders for solving many environmental and sustainability problems.

Your idea of requiring govenment to follow scientists made me laugh (sorry). Can you imagine those in power accepting limits on their power?

You touched on the importance of fixing ignorance through the use of a number of computer-enabled solutions (OLPC), so we're on the same page there.

You pointed out that 26% of Americans did not know that the Earth revolves around the Sun; I am totally embarassed, but also shocked that the EU did worse. As far as increasing numbers of Americans believing in astrology, again I am very embarassed, but given that Christianity is an antidote to superstition, and that it is under attack in the U.S., I'm not too surprised. I suspect that monotheism would make that also true for devout Muslims--Have you heard one way or the other?

The turmoil in Egypt has been on news quite a bit, so I worry that you personally may suffer from the same persecution that Averroës (Ibn Rushd) suffered. I would ask Allah to bless and protect you, but he is utterly transcendant and perhaps not beneficient (according to the 2nd most important preacher in Islam, al-Ghazali, in "Moderation in Belief"), plus I'm not Muslim so he probably wouldn't listen to me anyway. I'd ask God to bless and protect you except than you might be offended (I don't know your religious beliefs).

So just remember thqat you have people around the world thinking about you and wishing you the best (and likely willing to provide aid if you ever travel to their countries).

view post as summary

Very nice essay and a future where science and technology have solutions for humanity is a very desirable one. But science and technology also may have possible futures that bring new problems for humanity as well, and you do not talk about those possible futures very much.

You mention science literacy as important for the public, but for most of humanity, science is simply a vague notion...

view entire post

Very nice essay and a future where science and technology have solutions for humanity is a very desirable one. But science and technology also may have possible futures that bring new problems for humanity as well, and you do not talk about those possible futures very much.

You mention science literacy as important for the public, but for most of humanity, science is simply a vague notion that somehow brings technology like cell phones and dvd players and computers. Unless it somehow affects a person's survival, whether or not one believes that the earth moves or that ancient aliens built the pyramids or that meditation in a cave brings enlightenment does not really matter.

Without denying that science and technology are important, is equally important to acknowledge that humanity needs more than just science for its future. There are more fundamental drivers for humanity than science and belief in a purpose in my mind is actually much more important for humanity's future than science per se. Hhumanity needs purpose to find its way to destiny and you are well on your way...

view post as summary

Fantastic essay! I may turn a quote of yours "...nature is a whole that recognizes no disciplinary boundaries" into a poster and put it on my wall.

Totally agree with your point: "..in 2013 the US spent only $2 billion on clean energy R&D, compared with $72 billion on defense R&D"- this is obscene. We Americans really don't know what real "defense" spending in the 21st century should mean,...

view entire post

Fantastic essay! I may turn a quote of yours "...nature is a whole that recognizes no disciplinary boundaries" into a poster and put it on my wall.

Totally agree with your point: "..in 2013 the US spent only $2 billion on clean energy R&D, compared with $72 billion on defense R&D"- this is obscene. We Americans really don't know what real "defense" spending in the 21st century should mean, which is dealing with the man made and human threats to global society.

Love that you brought up the MIT Media lab. I originally had them in my own essay, but had to cut that section do to length requirements.

One group I wish you might have mentioned were ethicists.I think it's important to get them into the design process when it comes to new technology.

Not to stereotype, but I've read a bit about the golden age of science in the Islamic world, thinkers such as Al- Farabi, Ibn al-Haytham and Ibn Sīnā who set

the stage for the scientific revolution in the West. Bringing this science back to that area would be the greatest benefit to both the Islamic world and larger humanity.

Best of luck in the contest!

Rick

view post as summary

Mohammed,

A truly masterful essay identifying and well describing a comprehensive range of related issues and some solutions. I agree with all including; The need for innovation and major advancement of science, inter- or cross 'discipline' work, better teaching methods, information overload, new peer review and publication methods and inclusivity of access. Top marks for those....

view entire post

Mohammed,

A truly masterful essay identifying and well describing a comprehensive range of related issues and some solutions. I agree with all including; The need for innovation and major advancement of science, inter- or cross 'discipline' work, better teaching methods, information overload, new peer review and publication methods and inclusivity of access. Top marks for those. However;

There are two major dichotomies therein which you don't address. 1) Due to volume of submissions truly innovative and groundbreaking work is automatically 'bounced off' and rejected by the present system even before review however good or important as being too 'different' to doctrine. Only those from 'big names' or universities may penetrate. Drexler's message (K Eric!?) is ignored so inclusivity has seriously reduced, more seriously slowing advancement.

2) is scientific. You laud SR and QM but they themselves remain incompatible. Time itself is different. I propose logical unification is simple but will not now penetrate published science as interpretations require modifying. i.e. beliefs must be dropped. No editor now dares. Such a model may end up with say 3 top ten scores in a row in this contest yet not even get to review in a major journal (i.e. see 2nd last yr.). I agree the way we teach and think is the problem, but would your suggestions really overcome that?

I hope you read my essay, deriving QM from a classical mechanism with 'cross discipline' implications for SR allowing convergence. I tried to make it entertaining. The ability to think beyond boxes and planets is needed but only scant 'knowledge' of QM (do ask if anything's not clear). The broad implications should bring no less than a new Copernican revolution in understanding.

My 2011 essay '2020 Vision' estimated how long to 1st penetration, but was optimistic. Dozens of papers have bounced instantly so far. I applaud your view but feel it may now be too late, so revolutionary not evolutionary change may soon be needed. Views?

Best wishes

Peter

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Mohammed,

I completely agree with you when you say that, since we cannot predict future scientific discoveries (as opposed to "mere" technological improvements), the best we can do is to try to make the process of science the most effective possible.

I believe as you do that "university departments should give periodic talks on the problems they are working on to stimulate...

view entire post

Mohammed,

I completely agree with you when you say that, since we cannot predict future scientific discoveries (as opposed to "mere" technological improvements), the best we can do is to try to make the process of science the most effective possible.

I believe as you do that "university departments should give periodic talks on the problems they are working on to stimulate discussions with researchers from other disciplines, thus opening the possibility of interdisciplinary collaborations". I also agree that we should try to find a better way to peer-review papers, to publish negative results, and to stimulate the reproduction of research findings.

When I was a graduate student, I deplored the fact that not enough effort was being spent toward the summary and review of already existing research, so I naturally agree with what you propose in section 3.8 (Managing Research Literature). In academia, the job of full-time researcher exists, but not the job of full-time "synthesizer and reviewer", and it is unfortunate.

Of course, I particularly like your arguments about education, in sections 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, since they resonate with my ideas about a worldwide futurocentric education initiative! You are quite right when you say that "efforts through the internet should not focus on scientic news, but on established scientic facts in short articles containing images and videos". I think this is starting to happen, with YouTube channels like Veritasium and MinutePhysics, and a successful futurocentric education initiative will certainly have to use this approach.

I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. I believe that it is important that your essay makes it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

Marc

view post as summary

Dear Mohammed,

I gladly join the list. Your essay is very well written, and dense with references to concrete facts and percentages, which makes it solid and persuasive. Good and easily digested food for the reader!

A note of psychological character about your idea to publish negative results. While I see your point, I can imagine a number of circumstances in which I would...

view entire post

Dear Mohammed,

I gladly join the list. Your essay is very well written, and dense with references to concrete facts and percentages, which makes it solid and persuasive. Good and easily digested food for the reader!

A note of psychological character about your idea to publish negative results. While I see your point, I can imagine a number of circumstances in which I would personally tend not to believe the negative result (as well as the positive ones), until I try it out myself. I find that often the strategies for attacking a problem are so many that, by taking an alternative perspective, the positive result may pop out. Of course, this may not be equally valid for any area of science.

And I totally agree on the importance of having scientists take active part to political activities and decisions - not merely consultative. This is particularly crucial in my country (Italy), where recent interviews and reports have exposed the dramatic ignorance of a high percentage of our politicians. The problem, however, is to find enough scientists willing devote a serious portion of their time to these non-scientific activities. Making science is much more fun.

Best regards,

Tommaso

view post as summary

Mohammed,

Let me put a question that is less taboo to you:

You wrote: "History of science teaches us not to hold to unjustified assumptions, even if they are held by the majority, we should always consider opposing views. Unfortunately, we are making the same mistake again".

Well, you might argue that what you wrote in the introduction of your essay is absolutely...

view entire post

Mohammed,

Let me put a question that is less taboo to you:

You wrote: "History of science teaches us not to hold to unjustified assumptions, even if they are held by the majority, we should always consider opposing views. Unfortunately, we are making the same mistake again".

Well, you might argue that what you wrote in the introduction of your essay is absolutely justified.

Let me nonetheless consider your following statement:"Relativity revolutionized our understanding of space, time, mass, and gravity. This understanding made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".

Are my opposing essays definitely wrong? Can you please reveal flaws?

Eckard

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Mohammed Khalil

You wrote a perfect study, how to improve science in the future.

I will add about wrong filters for amateur papers (people not from universities). I wrote about this in my essay. One example is because arXiv almost totally rejects papers from amateurs. Their principle with endorsers leaves almost zero number of amateur papers. I agree with stronger filter for...

view entire post

Dear Mohammed Khalil

You wrote a perfect study, how to improve science in the future.

I will add about wrong filters for amateur papers (people not from universities). I wrote about this in my essay. One example is because arXiv almost totally rejects papers from amateurs. Their principle with endorsers leaves almost zero number of amateur papers. I agree with stronger filter for amateurs, but not with almost zero probability. They even do not allow to have references from viXra, as Phil Gibbs writes in this contest. Besides, computer analysis allows today transparency over the papers of different quality.

"Admittedly, amateurs are less intelligent in average than professionals, because professionals go through a larger number of selections. Amateurs have less time and no money for research, except their own money. But probability for correctness of their theories is not zero. On the other side, amateur's theories come across too little arguments for their rejections than professional's ones. Thus their (un)correctness is much less checked. We should know that in influential statistical parameters are mainly distributed by Gaussian curves, or at least, probability never falls toward zero. Finally, because this is only probability, it is never sure that someone will not or will and TOE or anything other. Now, there are too many over-reactions against alternative theories, too rigorous limitations who can publish, what s/he can publish, how s/he should to write, etc. Limitations are necessary,but they should be more precisely set, according to mathematical and statistical laws. For instance,natural selection respects that distributions of aptitudes are more Gaussian ones than rectangular ones, but selection of physical theories does not respect this. Thus, if we have enough large number of papers from amateurs, someone will give scientifically useful ideas. Thus, I predict that after discovery of a TOE it will appear that also some theories of amateurs are correct. Thus, maybe alternative approaches need to be respected with less prejudices."

I wish to add still your principle for publication of papers with zero results. Besides, the extreme, that some measurements are written 10 years, because of checking of results, is also not optimal. For instance one last measurement of gravitational constant take 10 years.

Besides, a possibility appeared that G measurement is changing cyclically through time. If number of such measurements would be larger, it can be statistically checked whether if this cyclical change is really a case.

One rule for the advancement of Science is also to write physical theories more clearly. For example, here is an example for a clearer presentation special theory of relativity.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

view post as summary