Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
lppfusion.com
Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#2Editors of arxiv: "We aren't the place to publish insubstantial discussions. There are other places for that."
Guys who wrote the paper: "But it's substantial!"
Like... obviously the guys who wrote the paper think it's substantial, or they wouldn't have submitted it. The very idea of "we think it's good, so we want to publish this without anyone telling us it's not" is... silly. As a developer, this is like someone opening a PR, then getting mad if the PR is rejected upon a quick code review because "Well, I think it's good code!" Of course you do, that's why you opened the PR, but the whole point of review is to get others' opinions in case you're wrong.
Get a disinterested expert third party to review the work and say it's worth publishing, then you can complain to arxiv.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#3Editors of arxiv: "We aren't the place to publish insubstantial discussions. There are other places for that." Guys who wrote the paper: "But it's substantial!" Like... obviously the guys who wrote the paper think it's substantial, or they wouldn't have submitted it. The very idea of "we think it's good, so we want to publish this without anyone telling us it's not" is... silly. As a developer, this is like someone o…
Or, taking the other approach, sure, you can publish it. Just not on arxiv.
Arxiv's editors decide what arxiv publishes. That's what editors are supposed to do.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#4Editors of arxiv: "We aren't the place to publish insubstantial discussions. There are other places for that." Guys who wrote the paper: "But it's substantial!" Like... obviously the guys who wrote the paper think it's substantial, or they wouldn't have submitted it. The very idea of "we think it's good, so we want to publish this without anyone telling us it's not" is... silly. As a developer, this is like someone o…
Or, taking the other approach, sure, you can publish it. Just not on arxiv. Arxiv's editors decide what arxiv publishes. That's what editors are supposed to do.
Yep, which is literally what the editors told them according to their own account.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#5Is this cranks?
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#6I'm curious if the authors of the paper are taking advantage of the well-known current problems with our standard cosmology. I'm also curious if the other commenters are even aware of this as an issue independent of whether the article was published.
The analogy to a failed pull request is typically developer-centric and grossly off the mark. Reiterating the function of an editor ignores the context of this particular article, which I've taken the time to reiterate myself.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#7Is this cranks?
[deleted]
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#8Editors of arxiv: "We aren't the place to publish insubstantial discussions. There are other places for that." Guys who wrote the paper: "But it's substantial!" Like... obviously the guys who wrote the paper think it's substantial, or they wouldn't have submitted it. The very idea of "we think it's good, so we want to publish this without anyone telling us it's not" is... silly. As a developer, this is like someone o…
I open PRs to facilitate discussion and get feedback.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#9At first blush, this reminds me of the phenomena where, every time some problem with evolution comes up (a missing piece in the fossil record, say), the creationists pop up with "See! Darwin was wrong!"
arxiv would be completely right to refuse those "take that, Darwin!" articles.
On the other hand, maybe there are serious problems with standard cosmology, and other models besides the Big Bang are worth considering. Are there?
On a different topic: I would hope that a paper questioning the existence of dark matter would be admissible, since there are pretty clearly some real problems with that.
Re: Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology
#10This is a topic that really frustrates me. Both sides make valid (non-technical, character-based) attacks on the other. On one extreme there is the textbook fringe pseudoscientist who calls out groupthink but constantly falls into fallacies rather than focusing on explaining empirical observations with the simplest and most accurate way possible. On the other extreme there is the career pseudoscientist who calls out the poor form of the fringe while not bothering to apply the appropriate level of scientific rigor to them either.
It's unfortunate simply how much ego is involved in this area. I'm not a plasma physicist. I'm not a cosmologist. I can just see when the idyllic scientific method is being short circuited.
For a quick toe-dipping in to Alfvein cosmology: check out the sci-hub for the 1986 IEEE Peratt paper "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies".
I'm not saying all elements of one model should be thrown out. Let's go one mystery at a time. How does galaxy evolution sound? Forget even trying to be certain of the Big Bang or alternatives until that's nailed down.