The Seahorse Connection

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've have publications across many scientific disciples and I am not entitled to royalties from any of them.
And would you pay 30 dollars to watch a movie based only on the title and a 100 word summary?
And if so, would you do that 10 or 20 times a day? Because that is how often I hit a paywall.

Might I ask what your scientific disciplines (not disciples) are? And I only ask since there is a history on this site of people saying that they have scientific degrees when evolution comes up, only to find out that the degrees they do have havr.e absolutely no relevance with regards to evolution whatsoever.
Considering the current exchange rate puts 30 USD at £22.54 GBP, then yes, I have. Multiple times. Although certainly without the daily frequency you have said.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

I've nothing to hide.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've nothing to hide.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo

What were your MS, PHD and BS in? The page doesn't say.

 

[sfs]

"Major revisions to the phylogenetic tree are not published on YouTube."
Why not?

Because science is a social activity; it works by persuading other scientists of your findings. Because YouTube is not where you'll get the experts to critique it. Because there are many, many crackpots, fringe folk and outright schizophrenics out there convinced that they've discovered the groundbreaking truth that's going to revolutionize [fill in scientific subfield]. Scientists -- including me -- are not going to pay the slightest attention to your work unless you make a minimal effort to get past the gatekeepers. The gates are there for a reason.

If it's major revision, why shouldn't it be free to the public instead of enslaved by academic journal paywalls?

Those aren't your only alternatives. Submit to one of the PLoS journals, for instance. Editorial decisions at PLoS are independent of financial considerations, there's no paywall, and they can provide financial assistance to cover page charges if you have no other means of doing so.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Because science is a social activity; it works by persuading other scientists of your findings. Because YouTube is not where you'll get the experts to critique it. Because there are many, many crackpots, fringe folk and outright schizophrenics out there convinced that they've discovered the groundbreaking truth that's going to revolutionize [fill in scientific subfield]. Scientists -- including me -- are not going to pay the slightest attention to your work unless you make a minimal effort to get past the gatekeepers. The gates are there for a reason.


Those aren't your only alternatives. Submit to one of the PLoS journals, for instance. Editorial decisions at PLoS are independent of financial considerations, there's no paywall, and they can provide financial assistance to cover page charges if you have no other means of doing so.

There is no objective measure of "gatekeepers' nor "minimal effort" in academia and so I don't chase that tail.
And gates are not only meant to keep people out but also to keep people in.

There is however an objective measure of consistencies or inconsistencies within the proposed connections.
Such as a proposed genetic connection between spina bifida and seahorse dorsal fin formation: you may not be personally inclined to follow up on that but a spina bifida researcher might be interested in validating or invalidating the connection.
Hence I put as much as I can as best I can and let your personal interests determine followups.

As to journal submission, I only propose the connection and let you do with it as you will. A submission would be up to a year to be published IF accepted. I can reach a lot more people in one year though youtube than a through a successful journal submission.

 

[sfs]

There is no objective measure of "gatekeepers'.

Sure there is: the people who decide whether your work will be seen by scientists as scientific, which can be measured by citations in later scientific work.

There is however an objective measure of consistencies or inconsistencies within the proposed connections.
Such as a proposed genetic connection between spina bifida and seahorse dorsal fin formation: you may not be personally inclined to follow up on that but a spina bifida researcher might be interested in validating or invalidaing the connection.

And what I'm telling is, no, the spina bifida researcher is not going to be interested in a connection proposed by some guy on YouTube. Ain't gonna happen. Do you have any idea how much trouble researchers have just keeping up with research that's actually published in their field?

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

If you know any spina bifida researchers, tell them this joke and see if they laugh.
If you know them but don't want to tell them this joke, then they'll hear it from another person.
And if you don't know any, then their interest in this work is not for us to speculate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm still waiting for you to say what your MS, PHD and BS are in.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Is the "education" link not working?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is the "education" link not working?

It just says you studied at the University of Cincinnati and West Virginia University. That's it.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still waiting for you to say what your MS, PHD and BS are in.

Looks like physics.

 

[Papias]

Looks like physics.

Hey Ricardo - Looking over your information, a few things come to mind. First, with a PhD in physics, I'd expect that you are already quite familiar with the peer review publication process, and why it works so well. Which makes it seem strange that you would think, for even a second, that "publishing" something on youtube instead of a journal would be a good idea. Second, and probably more importantly - it looks like you are doing good and helpful stuff with the educational games. What cool stuff! Why waste time on unsupported ideas like seahorses where you have no expertise when you are an actual expert in games that teach physics, and can continue doing real work in that area?

Papias

 

[RickG]

Thanks for the tip.

Consider that in all the examples you mentioned, the money goes to the person who provided the service.
If it where the same here, where I'm paying the AUTHOR(S) of the work instead of the PUBLISHER or IP HOLDER, then I would have no issue.

But paying 30 USD (30 dollars!!!!) to see "if" a single paper is even relevant to my research and NONE of that money goes to the author, that is "enslaving knowledge" IMO.

Or you could go to a local University library and look at all the peer review article you want for free. Besides many articles published in journals have full access as well. At your level, try Google Scholar.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Which makes it seem strange that you would think, for even a second, that "publishing" something on youtube instead of a journal would be a good idea.

Papias

Simple. Academia is filled with people that seem to think that if I'm not using my time (or degree) the way they would use my time (or degree), then my time (and degree) are a waste of time.... like you just said.

And they never bother to focus on the content of my presentation before dismissing it as "unsupported" yet insist on focusing on the color of my PhD instead of the content of my ideas.... like you continue doing.

And because time and time academics consider talking to me "a waste of their time" and they leave the conversation... only to come back to again to remind us how talking to me is "a waste of your time".... like you just did.

So it's because of behavior like yours that FOCUSES ON THE PERSON AND NOT THE IDEA, people who somehow mysteriously "just happen to know" that I'm wrong and thus they see no need to present any "evidence" that I'm wrong.

That's why I'm on youtube reaching out to the masses that are willing to hear the idea instead of reaching out to people like you who only want to focus on my credentials.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Or you could go to a local University library and look at all the peer review article you want for free. Besides many articles published in journals have full access as well. At your level, try Google Scholar.

Academia.edu is pretty good in that regard; a lot of things on paywalls get uploaded by the authors there as well.

I've tried but there is no university in my city that will allow you into their library without student ID and the local libraries don't have the money to pay the tens of thousands it costs to license just one research site.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Simple. Academia is filled with people that seem to think that if I'm not using my time (or degree) the way they would use my time (or degree), then my time (and degree) are a waste of time.... like you just said.

And they never bother to focus on the content of my presentation before dismissing it as "unsupported" yet insist on focusing on the color of my PhD instead of the content of my ideas.... like you continue doing.

And because time and time academics consider talking to me "a waste of their time" and they leave the conversation... only to come back to again to remind us how talking to me is "a waste of your time".... like you just did.

So it's because of behavior like yours that FOCUSES ON THE PERSON AND NOT THE IDEA people who somehow "just happen to know" that I'm wrong and thus no need to present any "evidence" that I'm wrong.

That's why I'm on youtube reaching out to the masses that are willing to hear the idea instead of reaching out to people like you who only want to focus on my person.

Do you know why people are focusing on the fact that you, as a person with degrees in physics and are creating educational games (which is something I can 100% support, mind you. Lord knows those sorts of things are needed), are saying things about evolution is exactly why I have continually asked you for information on what your MS, PHD and BS are in: it's an appeal to authority. Just because you have advanced degrees in one branch of science does not mean that anyone should take you as authority on another branch of science that you have no training in, i.e. evolution.

If you had a good idea that you felt had good scientific validity and felt that it could be fully shown to be correct, you would actually submit to the people who had the correct skills and knowledge to understand it instead of every Tom, Dick and Harry who didn't have the correct skills or knowledge to understand. The phrase "pearls before swine" springs instantly to mind.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

it's an appeal to authority. Just because you have advanced degrees in one branch of science does not mean that anyone should take you as authority on another branch of science that you have no training in, i.e. evolution.

An "appeal to authority" would require that I lead with "trust me, I'm a rocket scientist"... which I don't, haven't, won't, and didn't. In fact, I've never asked you to trust me at all, only that you can help me spot inconsistencies in my model.

And you say that my degree doesn't make me an authority in another branch and you are absolutely correct; I never called myself an authority, you are the one trying to make me one.

I merely present the evidence and let others weigh it.

instead of every Tom, Dick and Harry who didn't have the correct skills or knowledge to understand. .

Exactly; you've proven to me that you do not have the correct skills or knowledge to understand ... so why continue to engage me?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An "appeal to authority" would require that I lead with "trust me, I'm a rocket scientist"... which I don't, haven't, won't, and didn't. In fact, I've never asked you to trust me at all, only that you can help me spot inconsistencies in my model.

And you say that my degree doesn't make me an authority in another branch and you are absolutely correct; I never called myself an authority, you are the one trying to make me one.

I merely present the evidence and let others weigh it.

Then if you wanted to do that, why didn't you actually send it to people who could actually weigh the evidence and actually give you the meaningful response you want instead of showing it to people who will simply look at it, go "huh" and just ignore it?

Exactly; you've proven to me that you do not have the correct skills or knowledge to understand and you already said this was a "waste of your time"... so why continue to engage me?

I never said it was a waste of time. That was papias. But I'm also proving my point: if you just show it to people who have no relevant knowledge or understanding about it, then you won't get any actual meaningful response to it. Only if you send it to the people who actually fully understand what you're writing about will give you the responses you want, and you will very likely not find those people on YouTube.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

You are correct; it was papias who's time I wasted time and time again; sorry I said it was you.

But again, why continue to engage my motivations if you have no interest in engaging my ideas?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are correct; it was papias who's time I wasted time and time again; sorry I said it was you.

But again, why continue to engage my motivations if you have no interest in engaging my ideas?

Because I'm proving a point. Showing a video or paper on a new hypothesis for evolution to people who have absolutely no schooling on evolution will not get the responses you want. Only if you actually send it to people who actually know the subject will you get the responses you want.

Also, and someone really should have pointed this out before, but it's kind of against forum rules to just post a video or paper and give no further explanation on what the video/paper contains, either in extracts or in just a summation.