CATEGORY:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014)
[back]
TOPIC:
Improving Science for a Better Future by Mohammed M. Khalil
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:24 GMT
Essay AbstractScience is the reason humanity reached this stage of progress, and science is humanity's guide to the future. However, to enable science to guide us to a better future, we need to improve the way we do science to accelerate the rate of scientific discovery and its applications. This is important to find urgent solutions to humanity's problems, improve humanity's conditions, and enhance our understanding of nature. In this essay, we seek to identify those aspects of science that need improvement, and discuss how to improve them.
Author BioMohammed Khalil is an undergraduate junior student at Alexandria University, Egypt. His main interest is theoretical physics, especially cosmology. Last year, he took the GRE physics test and scored 990. He also published a paper in the journal ‘Advances in High Energy Physics’; it is available at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2014/619498/.
Download Essay PDF File
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT
Mohammed,
It is my great delight to see an undergraduate junior student coming from Africa taking part in this highly intellectual based competition. I am glad to be the first to rate you. Your essay is quite research oriented and wish you can increase your momentum because you are going places. There is a future for the Africans.
I will also employ you to read my article "STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM" and leave a comment base on your observation including rating the essay. Hope to see more Africans in this competition
It is well with you and keep it up.
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 11:26 GMT
Gbenga,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments, and for your rating.
I will read your essay, and tell you my opinion.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi Mohammed,
You have given a really thorough examination of the problems facing science and given very clear solutions. I found the discussion of the current problems with the quality control of published work eye opening. Also the bias introduced by not publishing negative results was a really interesting observation.I am quite staggered by the sheer number of papers published each year.
An interesting discussion of public education, good news too with the uptake of online university courses. You have given an optimistic view that science and technology will be able to solve future problems and you gave some very interesting examples. Relevant,informative and well written. Good luck,Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 13:22 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Thank you so much for kind comments. I am glad you liked the essay.
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Prospective Doctor Khalil,
Your essay was excellent. I do hope that it does well in the contest.
Regards,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 14:47 GMT
Thank you Joe. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 01:52 GMT
Hello Mohammed,
I greatly enjoyed your essay and I agree with the premise that Science as we know it needs some repairs. Actually; I've been trying to highlight and address some of the same problems for several years now. I have attached the slides and proceedings paper for my FFP11 talk "Learning to Cooperate for Progress in Physics," which I think fills in some of the areas your paper does not discuss. You will find additional sources about this and other topics related to your essay in
my own offering for this year's contest. You will also find Phil Gibbs' essay worthwhile to read, because he speaks at length about the peer-review story your essay touches on.
I wish you luck!
Regards,
Jonathan
attachments:
2_JDickauFFP11.pdf,
Learning_to_Cooperate_for_Progress_in_Physics.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 14:45 GMT
Thank you Jonathan. I read your essay and presentation, and I agree with you. Innovation is very important for humanity's progress, and what better way to encourage it than play. Also, thank you for mentioning Gibbs' essay, I'll read it soon.
Good luck for you.
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:50 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Shukran! Thank you so much for your encouraging comment.
I agree that many of my suggestions are hard to achieve, but they are not impossible. Most of the issues raised in my essay are science related, and scientists are better at adapting to change. To fix science we need as many people as possible to believe in the need to do so, and discussions are a great place to...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
Shukran! Thank you so much for your encouraging comment.
I agree that many of my suggestions are hard to achieve, but they are not impossible. Most of the issues raised in my essay are science related, and scientists are better at adapting to change. To fix science we need as many people as possible to believe in the need to do so, and discussions are a great place to start.
I read your essay and I find your interview with Einstein very enjoyable.
Best regards,
Mohammed
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 15:08 GMT
Hi Vladimir and Mohammed,
My dictionary says: "If someone revamps a system, group, or organization, they make changesto it in order to try and improve it and hide its faults; often used showing disapproval". I guess Vladimir didn't intend hiding faults.
Mohammed wrote: "we need as many people as possible". Hm.Aren't there already many unemployed people in particular in Muslim...
view entire post
Hi Vladimir and Mohammed,
My dictionary says: "If someone revamps a system, group, or organization, they make changesto it in order to try and improve it and hide its faults; often used showing disapproval". I guess Vladimir didn't intend hiding faults.
Mohammed wrote: "we need as many people as possible". Hm.Aren't there already many unemployed people in particular in Muslim countries with rapidly growing population? I know, you meant it differently.
Nonetheless, not just the prophet Mohammed could not yet envision that the growing number of people who are producing mounting dangerous waste and goods of questionable use while believing in the wonder that the resources will be sufficient for maybe 100 billion people too.
I think science needs honest work and consequent responsibility rather than unlimited funding. Public peer review after publication might really be a good idea as to stop too prolific paper fabricators.
How do you imagine peace between Arabs and Jews as long as both sides are or at least pretend to be overly patriotic in their beliefs?
I hope, at least you Mohammed are young and flexible enough as to learn from those who faced disasters like WWII, holocaust, and loss home. My essay is an attempt to make you aware of our common responsibility.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi Eckard,
Thank you for your comments.
By "we need as many people as possible", I meant that for an improvement to happen, people must first believe in the necessity of doing so, especially scientists, engineers, and policy makers. I don't understand what "unemployed people" have to do with this.
You are right that earth's resources are limited and cannot sustain 100...
view entire post
Hi Eckard,
Thank you for your comments.
By "we need as many people as possible", I meant that for an improvement to happen, people must first believe in the necessity of doing so, especially scientists, engineers, and policy makers. I don't understand what "unemployed people" have to do with this.
You are right that earth's resources are limited and cannot sustain 100 billion, but I believe science and technology can provide good living conditions for the 7 billion people today, and even 10 billion in the near future. Reducing, or stopping, the rate of population growth is important, but it is not the goal of this essay to discuss that.
I agree that "science needs honest work and consequent responsibility", and I didn't say that "unlimited funding" is the only solution.
I read your essay and I agree with you; realizing peace between all nations is a common responsibility of us all. I also like how you linked peace with discovery and invention, this is in agreement with my essay that science and technology can lead us to a better future.
Mohammed
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 07:34 GMT
Mohammed,
Can you please reveal to me how "that for an improvement to happen, people must first believe in the necessity of doing so, especially scientists, engineers, and policy makers" explains your claim "we need as many people as possible"?
Is it an improvement when Muslim women believe in the necessity to get pregnant? Obviously, the amount of unemployed people as well as other...
view entire post
Mohammed,
Can you please reveal to me how "that for an improvement to happen, people must first believe in the necessity of doing so, especially scientists, engineers, and policy makers" explains your claim "we need as many people as possible"?
Is it an improvement when Muslim women believe in the necessity to get pregnant? Obviously, the amount of unemployed people as well as other problems including destruction of environment are worse in Muslim countries than in countries without rapidly growing population. Neither Philip Gibbs nor Sabine Hossenfelder will save the world. They and you are perhaps not even aware of the consequences a quite simple fact: Discoveries, inventions, and the like are a mounting treasure of the whole world, not of rivaling nations, religions or other groups. If something will steer humanity to the better then certainly this fact.
Fix science? We seem to differ. In my essay I tried to critically analyze what might be wrong on a very basic level instead of focusing on symptoms.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 23:52 GMT
Mohammed,
Your solutions require openness and equal media access. I believe you correctly identify the shortcomings of the current system. Certainly science is the guide to the future and improvements are in order. My fear is that monolithic corporations with control over energy, investment, government and the media -- and increasingly what is researched in the academic world, has an agenda which does not include long-term solutions regarding climate change, alternative energy sources, and research on the foregoing problems. Technology and science discoveries have an emphasis on weaponry, fossil fuel discovery and pharmaceuticals in the US. It is hard to break the monopoly on resource use based on profit.
You do present aspects of science that need improvement, especially in open applications of technology, and we do need a common good solution. This I also discuss.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 13:40 GMT
Hi James,
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you; that's why I believe governments should fund innovation in those kinds of problems, not the private sector. For this to happen, the public must believe in the importance of those issues, and scientists have the responsibility of raising the public awareness of those problems and how to solve them.
Best regards,
Mohammed
James Lee Hoover replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 17:38 GMT
Mohammed,
Having had rating problems with my Firefox browser and with some 5 days remaining, I am revisiting essays I've read to see if rated. I find that I rated yours on 4/30.
I would like to see your comments on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 19:31 GMT
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
hereTo 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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 22:24 GMT
Thank you Ajay, your reply made my day. Extracting water vapor sounds like a great method to solve water shortage problems, but to use it widely, I think it needs a good renewable energy source.
I think that I addressed expanding the use of science, but yes I did focus more on adding to science. I believe new scientific innovations are needed to solve humanity's problems, and to provide better conditions for all people.
Thanks again,
Mohammed
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 09:09 GMT
Hi Ajay,
Waiting so far in vain for a reply by Mohammed, I read your idea. Yes, we say the devil is in the detail. In Europe we are familiar with acid rain. Recently I heard that multi-resistance is a growing problem in Calcutta. Too many people would cause huge unseen difficulties. What do you mean, how many people does the earth need?
Curious,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Eckard,
I replied to your comment, sorry about the delay.
Cristinel Stoica wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:35 GMT
Hi Mohammed,
Very nice essay, I enjoyed reading it. You are right about the publishing process, in particular regarding publishing negative reviews, confirming the results of research, peer review done more seriously (often reviewers don't give full consideration when accepting, but also when rejecting a paper, for being an alternative approach). You are also right with involving more the scientists, and especially with your views on access to education and empowering people to participate to global decisions. We can do better science, and we can raise awareness of the global problems by education.
Good luck with the contest, and with your research!
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 21:00 GMT
Hi Cristi,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comment. I am glad that you enjoyed my essay, and that you agree with me.
Good luck to you too,
Mohammed
Robin Hanson wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 18:26 GMT
You list some changes you would like to see in academic practices, but you don't integrate that into a theory of why the existing practices are a social equilibrium. So you don't have a plausible story about how things could be changed to make the practices you like also be a social equilibrium. These things aren't accidents, they are all the result of people pursuing their incentives in the context of particular institutions. You need to tell us how you plan to change things so that these new outcomes would result from people pursing their incentives in the context of particular changes.
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 21:18 GMT
Robin,
Thank you for your comment.
In this essay I do
not talk about improving academic practices, but how to improve the scientific process in order to accelerate the rate of scientific and technological advances.
Who said the current practices are a "social equilibrium"? According to Talcott Parsons, no real social system will reach a perfect equilibrium; to Parsons...
view entire post
Robin,
Thank you for your comment.
In this essay I do
not talk about improving academic practices, but how to improve the scientific process in order to accelerate the rate of scientific and technological advances.
Who said the current practices are a "social equilibrium"? According to Talcott Parsons, no real social system will reach a perfect equilibrium; to Parsons "the fully equilibrated society served as a theoretical reference point rather than as a description of a real system." [
Britanica ]
I did write that some academic practices need improvement, such as peer review, and publishing negative results, but those are not changes that only
I believe in their importance; a great number of researchers have expressed similar concerns as pointed out in the essay. In addition, I think I did offer some solutions to those problems in the essay.
Mohammed
view post as summary
Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 07:08 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Tihamer,
Thank you so much for your kind comments and useful criticism.
I agree that science is not the only steering mechanism, but I believe it had the biggest impact on our present progress. For example, the economy of many countries is primarily based on technology, including Japan. In this essay I didn't only discuss how to produce new scientific knowledge more...
view entire post
Dear Tihamer,
Thank you so much for your kind comments and useful criticism.
I agree that science is not the only steering mechanism, but I believe it had the biggest impact on our present progress. For example, the economy of many countries is primarily based on technology, including Japan. In this essay I didn't only discuss how to produce new scientific knowledge more effectively, but also how to apply this knowledge to solve humanity's problems and improve its conditions.
The problem you mention of authors rating each other is a problem in the current peer review system. However, in the current system, new controversial ideas may go unpublished, but if the peer review happens after publishing those ideas will be available for those who appreciate it.
As for publishing negative results, you are right that positive results are more interesting, and that's why most journals don't publish negative results. But that's the point; negative results are useful, at least for those who pursue the same topic, and they must be published. I disagree that boycotting some journals is a problem. Currently there are tens of thousands of journals, boycotting a few hundred is not that difficult.
I agree that environmental and sustainability problems might not be
the biggest problems, but they are very important, and science is the key to solve them. We seem to disagree about the meaning of "sustainability"; it is not the same as "going green", sustainable development means "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[
scientific American] Thus, it includes agriculture, economy,...
You are right that it is a bit idealistic to think that governments will follow scientists, but who do you think are in power? They are the people not the government.
Finally, I would like to thank you again for your encouraging words, and valuable comments.
Best regards,
Mohammed
view post as summary
Steve Agnew wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 16:33 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your comments.
You are right that science and technology may bring new problems for humanity, but I would rather be optimistic and think that in the future humanity will be more responsible about how to use science.
I agree that to many people science is a mysterious thing, but that should change if more importance is to be given to science....
view entire post
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your comments.
You are right that science and technology may bring new problems for humanity, but I would rather be optimistic and think that in the future humanity will be more responsible about how to use science.
I agree that to many people science is a mysterious thing, but that should change if more importance is to be given to science. Scientific and technological innovations will be the key to the survival of humanity in face of its global problems.
I didn't say that science is the only factor for humanity's progress, but I believe it is the most important one. Purpose is important of course; it is the fist step in accomplishing anything, but science tell us what to do and how. For example, protecting the environment is a purpose, but science and technology provide the actual methods of doing so.
best regards,
Mohammed
view post as summary
Member Travis Ty Norsen wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Mohammed,
Thanks for your earlier comments on my essay,
"Back to the Future". I finally found time to start reading some of the other contributions to the contest. I enjoyed your essay and agree with most of your suggestions. I couldn't help feeling, though, that it was a little difficult to keep them all in mind at the same time. I wonder if you perceive a common thread or theme running through all of the concrete proposals you make? Many of them pertain in some way to education or collaboration or cooperation, but I wondered how you would boil the list down to its "essence"...
Best,
Travis
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 14:45 GMT
Travis,
Thank you for the comment. I agree that the essay discussed many topics, but they all are about how to increase the rate of scientific and technological advances in order to solve humanity's problems and reach a better future. Those topics can be classified as follows:
1) Basic themes of science and technology that are gaining more importance (interdisciplinarity - new...
view entire post
Travis,
Thank you for the comment. I agree that the essay discussed many topics, but they all are about how to increase the rate of scientific and technological advances in order to solve humanity's problems and reach a better future. Those topics can be classified as follows:
1) Basic themes of science and technology that are gaining more importance (interdisciplinarity - new specializations - big projects - relation between science and technology)
2) Improving some academic aspects of science(peer review - negative results - reproducible research - managing research literature - multiple research approaches)
3) Applying science and technology to solve humanity's problems (encouraging innovation in global problems - increasing the role of scientists in global decisions)
4) Increasing the number of scientists and engineers and providing better atmosphere for science and technology (empowering all humanity to participate - improving education - raising the public understanding of science)
Best regards,
Mohammed
view post as summary
Rick Searle wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 02:13 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 14:47 GMT
Hi Rick,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments. I am really glad you liked my essay.
You are right about the importance of ethics. I believe ethicists will gain even more importance in the future with the new advances in science and technology, especially biotechnology.
I am glad you know about science in the Islamic world. I do wish we could regain our place in...
view entire post
Hi Rick,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments. I am really glad you liked my essay.
You are right about the importance of ethics. I believe ethicists will gain even more importance in the future with the new advances in science and technology, especially biotechnology.
I am glad you know about science in the Islamic world. I do wish we could regain our place in the world through science.
Thanks again, and good luck to you too.
Mohammed
view post as summary
Peter Jackson wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 11:04 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT
Peter,
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments. I am glad you liked my essay.
I agree that in the current publication system, new controversial ideas may go unpublished, but if peer review happens after publishing those ideas will be available for those who appreciate them.
Thank you for mentioning your essays, I will read them as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 20:14 GMT
Mohammed,
Than you. I hope the extension will now allow you the time to do so.
You'll find the 'discrete field' dynamics model ('DFM') highly consistent and predictive, employing the SR postulates but using Einstein's 1954 descriptions rather than the original 1905 ones which persist along with the paradoxes.
The problem is that despite the good words about open minds and...
view entire post
Mohammed,
Than you. I hope the extension will now allow you the time to do so.
You'll find the 'discrete field' dynamics model ('DFM') highly consistent and predictive, employing the SR postulates but using Einstein's 1954 descriptions rather than the original 1905 ones which persist along with the paradoxes.
The problem is that despite the good words about open minds and testing some areas are considered 'taboo' so most won't countenance a fair challenge, so in the rut we remain.
Interestingly QM also requires only the slightest re-interpretation (Copenhagen as modulation not 'creation' of reality) for the same model to converge and unite the two.
Can we still escape the theoretical rut by giving new models a fair test, or it it too late? I fear the latter, but have given us until 2020 to evolve intellectually.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 21:03 GMT
Peter,
I am sorry, currently I do not have time to read your essays because of my final exams.
I agree that we need to question the foundations of physics, even those that are considered 'taboos'. However, I am optimistic; I believe the situation is starting to change. An increasing number of people are working on fundamental questions, and there are various places where those questions are discussed, such as the FQXi forums.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT
Best of luck in your exams.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Luca Valeri wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Mohammed,
Thanks for your essay. I agree in every point. And even better you provide makeable solutions! You earn a high score. Maybe I don't fully agree, that science and specifically technology can provide the solutions of the most urgent problems. Many problems are man made and are of structural nature. But also there science might help to enable us to steer the future.
Thanks again,
Luca
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Luca,
Thank you for your kind comment. I am glad you agree with me.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Member Marc Séguin wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 21:30 GMT
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 scientic news, but on established scientic 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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:41 GMT
Marc, I accidentally replied in a separate comment below. Sorry about that.
Author Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:37 GMT
Hi Marc,
Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging comments. I am really glad that you liked my essay and that you agree with me.
I think your idea of a full-time "synthesizer and reviewer" is important, but I do not think that many graduate students would review only, instead of doing original research. Thank you for mentioning the YouTube channels Veritasium and MinutePhysics; I find them very interesting.
Thanks again for the comment and the rating,
Mohammed
Don Limuti wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 23:03 GMT
Mohammed,
I enjoyed your essay. It was a pleasure to read. Science can help, and it should be nurtured.
I think your optimism is catching.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 14:36 GMT
Hi Don,
Thank you so much for your kind comment. I read your essay and I agree with you that improving education and enabling everyone to get a good education is extremely important for humanity's progress and for a better future.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 11:13 GMT
Mohammed,
Thanks for this fact-filled, well written review of the state of science! You are a visionary, and your article is highly publishable regardless of any contest outcome. I hope your essay gets the visibility it deserves.
My
own contribution echoes your emphasis on education and inter-disciplinary cooperation.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 15:10 GMT
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I skimmed your essay and there are indeed some similarities between our essays. I will read it and tell you my opinion.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 16:49 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
Dear Tommaso,
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments.
I totally agree with you that we should always question published results, and think of alternative methods and strategies. However, it's hard, or even impossible, for anyone to check everything they read; that's why reproducing research results and publishing them is very important.
I also agree that...
view entire post
Dear Tommaso,
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments.
I totally agree with you that we should always question published results, and think of alternative methods and strategies. However, it's hard, or even impossible, for anyone to check everything they read; that's why reproducing research results and publishing them is very important.
I also agree that not many scientists would be willing to spend their time on non-scientific activities; that why we should discuss the importance of this issue and encourage more scientists to participate. Scientists should know it's their responsibility to use their knowledge to help the society.
Best regards,
Mohammed
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ryoji Furui wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Mohammed M. Khalil,
Very nice essay with full range of what you focus on. It is sometimes difficult to evaluate science including its socialistic impact but you guide it with broad point of view.
Regards,
Ryoji
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 09:21 GMT
Thank you Ryoji for your encouraging comment.
Mohammed
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear Mohammed,
I read with interest your depth analysis and concrete proposals for a global project "Open Science". We need to hear
the voice of the Earth,
to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. Time has come and
we start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age. Fundamental science should go ahead.
I invite you to comment and appreciate my
ideasBest regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I am glad that you liked my essay and that you agree with me. And thanks for those great songs.
I have read you essay and commented.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 17:36 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 19:07 GMT
Eckard,
I insist on what I wrote that we should not hold to
unjustified assumptions. However, in my opinion, a
justified assumption is one that has been tested experimentally, or at least has enough theoretical evidence to support until an experiment verifies.
Questioning the foundations of physics, including relativity, is very important. Nevertheless, for a new...
view entire post
Eckard,
I insist on what I wrote that we should not hold to
unjustified assumptions. However, in my opinion, a
justified assumption is one that has been tested experimentally, or at least has enough theoretical evidence to support until an experiment verifies.
Questioning the foundations of physics, including relativity, is very important. Nevertheless, for a new alternative theory to succeed it has to agree with experiment. If a new theory conflicts with experiment, then it is wrong. If a new theory doesn't produce experimentally verifiable results, then it is philosophy not science, and everyone is entitled to his/her philosophy.
So to answer your question, if your theory agrees with the countless experiments that verified relativity and brings new understanding of space and time, then it's a very good theory that deserves recognition. If it does not produce experimentally verifiable results, then it is philosophy not science.
Mohammed
view post as summary
Anonymous replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 06:33 GMT
Mohammed,
I consider strict philosophy at the roots of science, and I question your lazy statement:"This understanding [of space and time] made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".
Even David Bohm admitted in his textbook on Special Relativity that achievements attributed to SR can also be attributed to other...
view entire post
Mohammed,
I consider strict philosophy at the roots of science, and I question your lazy statement:"This understanding [of space and time] made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".
Even David Bohm admitted in his textbook on Special Relativity that achievements attributed to SR can also be attributed to other interpretations.
I maintain what I wrote in my essay: "Several insights that were incorporated into Einstein's theory of relativity and are now ascribed to it did nonetheless prove realistic and useful in practice. In particular, there is no reason to doubt that the speed of light [in vacuum] is constant and constitutes an upper limit for the propagation of energy." Einstein himself was forced to admit that his imperfect understanding of "past, present and future" worries him seriously, cf. my earlier essays. The countless experiments you mentioned confirm facts that are not necessarily related to the claimed relativity of time. What about GPS, those who are defending Einstein are merely claiming that the Sagnac effect does not contradict to SR. It does not confirm it.
I humbly don't feel in position and also not obliged to deal with all arguments that were risen to defend an ideology. I merely found out that Einstein's reasoning was neither his own nor flawless but led to unresolved and perhaps unresolvable paradoxes. That's why I am asking (in vain) for a trustworthy experiment that confirms more than the incorporated contributions of others.
So far, I tend to agree with Luis von Essen on that SR is lacking any own experimental basis. May we call it therefore a mere philosophical fabrication or is it really a discovery? Anyway, I see this allegedly settled question unsettled as long as belonging paradoxes cannot be denied. The future is open. Discoveries and inventions may steer it.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:36 GMT
Eckard,
Thank you for your comment. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Mohammed
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 06:11 GMT
Mohammed,
Writing "accelerate the rate of scientific discovery and its applications ... is important to find urgent solutions to humanity's problems", you advocated the boomer's philosophy that trusts in the solution of all problems via scientific progress.
Although I wrote an essay "Peace via discoveries and inventions" my position is different. I share Nobel's cautious attitude who did obviously not trust in speculations but demanded responsibility. Doesn't this include putting reasonable limits to consumption of resources and to growth of population?
You seem to be prone to believe in propaganda and further propagate it. The Nobel Prize Committee hesitated to accept something that is still unexplained. Don't get me wrong. I merely criticize that you swallowed the dogma of relativity as a scientific revolution. You may believe in this as you perhaps are also believing in Mohammed. However, as Karl Popper stated, a scientific claim cannot be confirmed but only be falsified. Einstein's theory evades falsification because it is a fabrication, something that you called philosophy rather than science.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Robert de Neufville wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 00:05 GMT
I'm glad I finally got a chance to read your smart, well-written essay, Khalil. I agree completely that we have to improve the way we conduct scientific research. You make a lot of excellent proposals for what we can do (my pet peve, for what it's worth, is the misunderstanding and misuse of p-values).
I would add that while improving the way we do science would be extremely valuable, better science won't address all our problems. Many of our problems aren't technical, but political; that is, over what we should do rather than how we can do it. In some ways—this what I argue in my own essay—I think the technical challenges we face may be easier to solve than the political ones.
Excellent essay, in any case. Good luck in the contest!
Best,
Robert de Neufville
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 16:59 GMT
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad we agree on the importance of improving the way we conduct scientific research.
I agree with you that politics is an obstacle towards solving many of humanity's problems, but I believe that science and technology have the greatest effect. For example, current technology exists for producing clean energy, but the problem is the cost. If science and technology reached a new method for generating energy that is cheaper than fossil fuel, politicians will support that method.
Best regards,
Mohammed
Michael Allan wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
Hello Mohammed, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I'd ask you to return the favour. Here's my
policy on that. - Mike
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 16:59 GMT
Hello Michael, thank you for your comment. I would be glad if you reviewed my essay, but currently I am busy with my exams and won't be able to review yours.
Michael Allan wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 00:38 GMT
Okay. If matters change, please let me know. Meantime best of luck in your exams. - Mike
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 18:43 GMT
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 essayBest regards
Janko Kokosar
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Janko,
Thank you for your comment. I will check your essay as soon as possible.
Mohammed
Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 18:44 GMT
Above it is my post.
Janko Kokosar
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Mohammed,
What I like about your essay is that it is well documented and matter-of-fact. Perhaps mine is on the
controversial end. I wish you success in the contest.
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Chidi,
Thank you for your kind comment. I will read your essay as soon as possible.
Mohammed
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jun. 14, 2014 @ 16:02 GMT
dear Mohammed,
Congratulations with your high score in the community rating and now being a member of the finalists pool.
Science is one aspect of consciousness and I hope that the discussions will not be ended just after the community rating, you still can give public ratings.
So I feel honored to give you
a direct link to my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?" and hope that you will give me a comment on my thread.
Good luck with the "final judgement" and
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Jun. 14, 2014 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you for your encouraging comment, and for mentioning your essay; I will read it as soon as possible.
Mohammed
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 03:15 GMT
Dear Muhammad
Mabruuuuuuuk! مبروووووووك Congratulations for winning one of the top prizes for your wonderful essay.
Now, for the benefit of humanity, the World will have to live up to your and well-considered expectations and recommendations!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed M. Khalil replied on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Many thanks for the congratulations. I really appreciate it.
Mohammed
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.