26-01-2012, 06:00 PM
Jim,
I am unconvinced of the assertions regarding Doorman. Unfortunately, I also observe that Jack White's expertise in this (and other) area(s) is sorely missed due to an extended convalescence. When one or two researchers believe that they have made a break through discovery, especially one that flies in the face of decades of research conducted by over a dozen fellow researchers (all of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their bona fides and integrity, including Jack), I would think that a peer review of sorts is precisely the reason that this potential discovery should be shared in its infancy.
It is not advised, IMHO, to share a new discovery of this nature that is still in its untested stage in a manner that pontificates to fellow respected researchers. If peer review is unimportant to you, then why even share the information now? Seems like the information could instead be placed in a new book if one is that convinced of its validity, rather than on a forum whose purpose is to vet such claims as these--particularly when they run contrary to previously validated studies. Is it possible that the new information will eventually supersede what we already know? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But, as of now--it has yet to be proved.
Bottom line: One should EXPECT harsh criticisms when posting work of this nature on a public forum. One should roll with the punches and prove their case, if possible. One should remain properly dispassionate, but not aloof.
On a final note...these recommendations are much easier for me to say since I am not the one sharing my work. I am not intending to preach either. My apologies if it came out that way.
I am unconvinced of the assertions regarding Doorman. Unfortunately, I also observe that Jack White's expertise in this (and other) area(s) is sorely missed due to an extended convalescence. When one or two researchers believe that they have made a break through discovery, especially one that flies in the face of decades of research conducted by over a dozen fellow researchers (all of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their bona fides and integrity, including Jack), I would think that a peer review of sorts is precisely the reason that this potential discovery should be shared in its infancy.
It is not advised, IMHO, to share a new discovery of this nature that is still in its untested stage in a manner that pontificates to fellow respected researchers. If peer review is unimportant to you, then why even share the information now? Seems like the information could instead be placed in a new book if one is that convinced of its validity, rather than on a forum whose purpose is to vet such claims as these--particularly when they run contrary to previously validated studies. Is it possible that the new information will eventually supersede what we already know? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But, as of now--it has yet to be proved.
Bottom line: One should EXPECT harsh criticisms when posting work of this nature on a public forum. One should roll with the punches and prove their case, if possible. One should remain properly dispassionate, but not aloof.
On a final note...these recommendations are much easier for me to say since I am not the one sharing my work. I am not intending to preach either. My apologies if it came out that way.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)