The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Lauren Johnson]

I propose that this failed discussion between Josephs and Drago be taken offline by mutual consent and be subject to mediation by mutually trusted and sufficiently expert persons. The result would be a report back to the DPF community as to the status of the discussion showing strengths, weaknesses, misinterpretations and suggestions for moving the discussion forward.

Bless your cotton socks Lauren. I love your spirit and intention. All interactions on the forum would proceed smoothly if we all just keep to the forum rules and decorum. Stick to the research/points/facts/hypothesis. Make your definitions as clear as possible so we are all reading from the same book. Keep the personalities out of it. If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

Magda. What a great idea. Sadly, I need a break from the Josephs/Drago nexus. I say, sadly, because every once in a while, Mr. Charlie comes out with an eye popping, jaw dropping comment. But in between those times, Mr. Charlie, you are like a cat toying with the unfortunate spider that happens to cross the floor.



In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

First, I suggest that there is a 'hypothesis committee' of two to three persons.

Second, there is one hypothesis at a time for consideration to cut down on the workload.

Third, the hypothesis has to meet certain standards before going up: it must possess a statement of relevance (what is at stake to clearly avoid JFK assassination porn); it must have some criteria around falsifiability and its opposite; it must convince the 'committee' that it is ready to go up; if the person wanting to submit does not like the decision of the committee, then it goes up anyway if that is the desire, but without approval and a statement as to why it is not an official DPF topic -- i.e. back to the usual crabbiness.

Fourth, all responses are subject to moderation around clarity, relevance, politeness, etc.

Fifth, at some point, the hypothesis is subject to evaluation: is it considered proved, has it been falsified, and/or how can it be strengthened and made even better (this is the most important one, in my view).

Finally, a final statement is posted summarizing the progress or lack thereof regarding the hypothesis. The thread is then marked as closed.

This proposal is more of a thought experiment than a polished product. But Adele's admonition is what got me going on this and deserves more attention and creative thinking. (To Adele: I suggest reading The Crisis of Democratic Theory, by Edward A. Purcell, Jr. Robert Hutchins is a key figure in this provocative book.)

For example, Charlie Drago's hypothesis about PDS's theory about the two-stage cover-up could have used editing before it went up. Frankly, I am still not clear about what was at stake and whether it could have been verified or falsified. To put this another way, Charlie, when would you have been satisfied that your hypothesis was proved or disproved? Oh, I forgot, I am putting you into time out for a week or a month or a year.