Is saying "...so I know how science works." likely to convince people?

[The Grand Nudger]

I was thinking more of a peer review type thing, but I guess a copyright is a start.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I was thinking more of a peer review type thing, but I guess a copyright is a start.

I understand what you want, but I do not have the credential to enter a paper with a lot of word salads like the scholars do it - my dissertation will have to be very complete. The copyright is to protect myself from someone stealing the work that I have so far, and if I die without finishing it

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you should work on getting the credentials before you put the final touches on your opus?

[Little lunch]

I know x-tians who know how science works better than I do.
I don't trust them.
Besides, I know humans better than a lot of scientists do.

[polymath257]

Well, claiming you know how science works and then explaining that you do linguistics isn't going to impress someone who is trained in physics, chemistry, biology, or geology. It may impress someone who doesn't know anything else about science.

The difference isn't that the 'hard' sciences can tell when they are wrong right away. Often they cannot. The Big Bang model was debated for decades before the weight of the evidence went the way it did. The proposal for the Higg's boson was also decades before being verified. General relativity required an expedition to Africa in 19191 to see an eclipse. So, it isn't the amount of time it takes to verify an idea that is relevant. The *big* difference is the *standard* of error allowed before an effect can be claimed.

So, for example, in particle physics, you don't get to announce a new particle until your signal is five standard deviations from what would otherwise be expected. By that standard *any* subject that uses p<.05 (or even p<.001) is laughably lax. Having something that passes that test would, to any of the 'hard' sciences, be simply a suggestion that more work needs to be done to pin down what is going on.

And, while people argue that such a standard is not possible in the 'soft' sciences, that is precisely the point: that is why they are 'soft'. Maybe if they raised their standards and rejected 99% of the garbage that is out there they could rise to being 'hard'.

So, no, simply saying you understand how science works because you do a soft science isn't going to get you very far. At least, it won't for anyone who actually does a hard science.

---

I was thinking more of a peer review type thing, but I guess a copyright is a start.

I understand what you want, but I do not have the credential to enter a paper with a lot of word salads like the scholars do it - my dissertation will have to be very complete. The copyright is to protect myself from someone stealing the work that I have so far, and if I die without finishing it

All writings are copyrighted automatically. Getting a *registered* copyright is a different thing.

But, a dissertation is very unlikely to do much other than give you a degree.

There is an old way of dramatizing this: put a $20 bill into a copy of your dissertation in some library. Then come back in 10 years. You will be able to retrieve your $20.

As for 'entering a paper', if your paper is actually worth anything, the journals will publish it even if you have no credentials. If it isn't worth anything, well, you may have trouble getting it published in anything other than a vanity press. In the middle, you have some chance.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I registered preliminary terminologies and textural formatting techniques significant to the application of the theory.

---

As for 'entering a paper', if your paper is actually worth anything, the journals will publish it even if you have no credentials. If it isn't worth anything, well, you may have trouble getting it published in anything other than a vanity press. In the middle, you have some chance.

Like I described previously, I can not get away with writing any word salads - where as, I believe, some scholarly writings are. Maybe, I do not understand the specific subject, but I have found a suspicious article in Popular Science, and I have encountered an interesting call for papers theme that I wanted to review

---

I was thinking more of a peer review type thing, but I guess a copyright is a start.

I understand what you want, but I do not have the credential to enter a paper with a lot of word salads like the scholars do it - my dissertation will have to be very complete. The copyright is to protect myself from someone stealing the work that I have so far, and if I die without finishing it

. . . and if I die without finishing it, hopefully, someone in the future will search the copyright list for a knowledge classification system, and find what I put together, and maybe, recognize its beneficial aspects that I see, and advance it to the stage that more people will recognize its beneficial aspects; and hopefully, that it leads to world peace.

Do you have any ideas as to how we can begin working on world peace??? You seem very bright, well informed, and a good writer, and should have wondered why domestic relations are other than tranquil???

No - everything is cool?

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably not.

[FlatAssembler]

Richard Feynman, so far as I know, never said, "I'm a professor at Caltech, so you'd better listen to me."  I'm pretty sure he brought forth the clear knowledge of science.

-but you can imagine him saying it, with that face and in his style, and how hilarious it would be, lol.

Flat....got a link to your peer reviewed work?

One of my papers about linguistics is finally available on the Internet, in this PDF on page 70.

[no one]

Nobody knows science better than me. Believe me. I just got off the phone with CERN, they said they've never seen anyone scientific quite like me.

[Angrboda]