Method of Trust

[questfortruth]

QUOTE from my paper with Short Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (P.S. can I sell the manuscript to you?):

The unhealthy addiction to scientific skepticism pushes the reader to see a lot of mistakes, inconsistencies, and dubious places in the paper. So now please read text with a strong desire to confirm it: be more like a friend, not a foreign referee. If the author says, that he has written a proof, then a polite human considers it as proof. Did not the reader hear about the human factor -- wishful thinking? Latter is the cause of papers questioning global warming.

Try to love the author like ``Good Samarian'' does to a stranger and look not for refutations (if desired, everything can be refuted through over-pushed imagination, trivial trolling, lies and daily discrimination), but look to confirm the manuscript. However, the globally overused method ``scientific skepticism'' pushes an author to earn tons of Gold and Platinum to convince editors in his sanity: that the newest open access (with astronomical article processing fees) journals are for.

The reader thinks that we must keep the old system and methods even if they are not entirely healthy for authors because we have no alternatives. No. The method of ``scientific trust" is this:

1. While reading the manuscript, a referee felt that a place in the article is doubtful.

2. The referee tries to justify his unpleasant feeling with logic.

3. Having substantiated it with logic, the referee looks for the reasons why the author may still be right within the arguments of the paper: so, e.g., the author is not forced to write appeal like ``the referee forgot the text at Eq.(2)!"

4. If there are no such reasons for all referee's desire to serve the author's interests, then reject the article.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If the author says, that he has written a proof, then a polite human considers it as proof.

This is the horrible, fallacious, yet hopeful insistence of a snake-oil salesman.

 

[Milton Platt]

QUOTE from my paper with Short Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (P.S. can I sell the manuscript to you?):

The unhealthy addiction to scientific skepticism pushes the reader to see a lot of mistakes, inconsistencies, and dubious places in the paper. So now please read text with a strong desire to confirm it: be more like a friend, not a foreign referee. If the author says, that he has written a proof, then a polite human considers it as proof. Did not the reader hear about the human factor -- wishful thinking? Latter is the cause of papers questioning global warming.

Try to love the author like ``Good Samarian'' does to a stranger and look not for refutations (if desired, everything can be refuted through over-pushed imagination, trivial trolling, lies and daily discrimination), but look to confirm the manuscript. However, the globally overused method ``scientific skepticism'' pushes an author to earn tons of Gold and Platinum to convince editors in his sanity: that the newest open access (with astronomical article processing fees) journals are for.

The reader thinks that we must keep the old system and methods even if they are not entirely healthy for authors because we have no alternatives. No. The method of ``scientific trust" is this:

1. While reading the manuscript, a referee felt that a place in the article is doubtful.

2. The referee tries to justify his unpleasant feeling with logic.

3. Having substantiated it with logic, the referee looks for the reasons why the author may still be right within the arguments of the paper: so, e.g., the author is not forced to write appeal like ``the referee forgot the text at Eq.(2)!"

4. If there are no such reasons for all referee's desire to serve the author's interests, then reject the article.

I see no reason to accept something as true just because you say it is. Gullibility is not a virtue.

 

[questfortruth]

I see no reason to accept something as true just because you say it is. Gullibility is not a virtue.

Is the World perfect? As example, No problems with global warming and ocean plastic wats or ever?!

 

[Milton Platt]

Is the World perfect? As example, No problems with global warming and ocean plastic wats or ever?!

I did not address any of the world's problems in my post. Only a single point in your post. That point was that I should accept something you wrote as true uncritically. i do not believe I should. Perhaps you were trying to make a different point and I have misunderstood?

 

[questfortruth]

I did not address any of the world's problems in my post. Only a single point in your post. That point was that I should accept something you wrote as true uncritically. i do not believe I should. Perhaps you were trying to make a different point and I have misunderstood?

Somebody can laugh out my papers following way: ``I see no reason to accept something as true just because you say it is. Gullibility is not a virtue.'' I reply to him: ``Is the World perfect? As an example, No problems with global warming and ocean plastic what-so-ever?! No, the World is mentally ill. But why then, if something is absolutely terrible, the Scientific Methodology is undoubtedly perfect?''

The arXiv.org looks like a cemetery of the unchecked solutions to known conjectures, however the Positive Methodology, if widely accepted, can get them journal publication. The author with the M.Sci. scientific degree has no access to arXiv publication service because of its discriminatory policy. But others are accepted in arXiv, however, it does not help them to get fair treatment in journals. The human factor of a Journal is this: if a Journal is pessimistic, then the submission contains many fundamental errors, if a Journal is optimistic, then there are no significant errors in the same manuscript. The positive method is to be optimist while using logic. Therefore, in the first section of the paper, the importance of Positive attitude towards author sanity is explained, revealing the unofficial, but always used the method of Scientific Trust. However latter is used only selectively (thus, discriminatory) on people.

 

[Milton Platt]

Somebody can laugh out my papers following way: ``I see no reason to accept something as true just because you say it is. Gullibility is not a virtue.'' I reply to him: ``Is the World perfect? As an example, No problems with global warming and ocean plastic what-so-ever?! No, the World is mentally ill. But why then, if something is absolutely terrible, the Scientific Methodology is undoubtedly perfect?''

The arXiv.org looks like a cemetery of the unchecked solutions to known conjectures, however the Positive Methodology, if widely accepted, can get them journal publication. The author with the M.Sci. scientific degree has no access to arXiv publication service because of its discriminatory policy. But others are accepted in arXiv, however, it does not help them to get fair treatment in journals. The human factor of a Journal is this: if a Journal is pessimistic, then the submission contains many fundamental errors, if a Journal is optimistic, then there are no significant errors in the same manuscript. The positive method is to be optimist while using logic. Therefore, in the first section of the paper, the importance of Positive attitude towards author sanity is explained, revealing the unofficial, but always used the method of Scientific Trust. However latter is used only selectively (thus, discriminatory) on people.

Your reply seems a bit garbled, but I will try to respond to at least a part of it.
Your response about "is the world perfect" in no way is an appropriate response to my statement that I should not take a stranger's word as fact without critically examining it.
I never said the world did not have problems and I never said the scientific method was perfect. But again, neither of these things have anything to do with whether I should accept your word as true simply because you wrote it down someplace.

As to the journal you are referencing, I am unfamiliar with what it's publication standards are, but I am sure they are available. Why don't you post the standards here in the entirety and we can all judge for ourselves if the are "discriminatory" or not. Real easy, right?

I'm guessing English isn't your native language and that's why we are having trouble understanding each other.....

Edit:
I did your work for you. Here are the journal's standards: Please point out what you feel is discriminatory.

To submit an article
Everyone who submits should read the following general information:

• We accept submissions only from registered authors.
• Submitters must grant arXiv.org a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute or certify that the work is available under another license that conveys these rights.
• Submitters must agree to arXiv terms of submission.
• Formats for text submission
• Formats for figures
• File names and case sensitivity
• Inclusion of data sets and ancillary files (data, programs, etc.)
• Title/Abstract preparation
• Check your submission and read messages
• Edit or replace your article if necessary
• Take responsibility
• Special instructions for third party submission and index submissions for conference proceedings

Please note that we do not accept submissions with omitted figures, tables or sections. We also do not accept "abstract only" submissions. Such submissions are unhelpful to readers and of very limited archival value.

• To submit an article, use the Submit form or select "START NEW SUBMISSION" from your user page.

The availability of new submissions is explained below, in the section on availability of submissions and announcement order (policy change 2017-01). Note further that all official versions of submitted articles are made publicly available. See the discussion of submission version availability.


Formats for text of submission
Your submission to the archive must be in one of the following formats (listed in order of preference):

• (La)TeX, AMS(La)TeX, PDFLaTeX
• PDF
• HTML with JPEG/PNG/GIF images

Our goal is to store articles in formats which are highly portable and stable over time. Currently, the best choice is TeX/LaTeX, because this open format does not hide information. Note that for this and other reasons we will not accept dvi, PS, or PDF created from TeX/LaTeX source. Users of word processors such as Microsoft Word should save their documents as PDF and submit that. Note also that we will not accept scanned documents, regardless of format.


Formats for figures
Figures for a submission can be in a number of common formats. These include:

• PostScript, PS, EPS - requires LaTeX processing
• JPEG, GIF, PNG or PDF figures - requires PDFLaTeX processing

If figure files are too large, then readers with poor network connections will not be able to download them. Remember that arXiv has many users with poor network connections. If your submission has a large figure, be sure to include it, but make all possible efforts to reduce its size. Note that we do not accept submissions with omitted figures, even if you provide a link to another server. See our information on submission sizes and our bitmapping help for more information. If you have problems with a large submission, contact arXiv administrators.

If you submit figures with your (La)TeX source, use standard macro packages (e.g., the graphics and graphicx packages) so that the figures will appear in the document. Unfortunately, arXiv administration cannot provide help with TeX-related issues, so seek help from your colleagues if necessary.


File names and case sensitivity
arXiv will accept only the following characters in file names:

a-z A-Z 0-9 _ + - . , =

The presence of any other character (e.g. spaces, question marks, asterisks, etc.) will cause the system to reject the file upload or submission. These restrictions ensure maximum portability of the stored files and minimize archival risk.

File names and extensions are also case sensitive on our system. The file names Figure1.PDF and figure1.pdf are not the same. Whether your local system is case sensitive (e.g. Unix) or not (e.g. Windows) you must ensure that internal file references such as LaTeX figure inclusion commands match case exactly.


Inclusion of ancillary files
There are limited facilities for including data sets and ancillary files (data, programs, etc.) which are associated with articles submitted to arXiv. See separate instructions about including data sets and ancillary files.


Title/Abstract preparation
See separate instructions on the preparation of separate title/abstract information. This information is used on the abstract pages, in announcements, in RSS feeds, and to support searching.


Check your submission and read messages
Before you make the final "Submit Article" step in the submission process be sure to check carefully both the title/abstract (metadata) and the processed files. If you see any errors or are unhappy with the formatting then correct them or contact arXiv administrators if there are problems you cannot resolve.

If you discover an error after submission but before public announcement then select the Unsubmit (

) icon next to the submission on your user page to return it to the incomplete status allowing modification and later resubmission. Unsubmitting an article takes the article out of the processing queue and announcement will be scheduled based on the later resubmission time.

In general, each day's submissions before 14:00 US Eastern Time (EDT/EST) Monday through Friday are not made available to the general public until 20:00 US Eastern Time (EDT/EST) Sunday through Thursday. See the discussion of availability.


Edit or replace your article if necessary
Edits before an article is publicly announced will not generate additional versions. The date stamp associated with the submission will be the time that the final "Submit Article" step is completed. Edits and final submission before 14:00 US Eastern Time (EDT/EST) Monday through Friday will not delay announcement. You may wish to check current local time at main site.

We encourage authors to update and to make corrections in their articles. DO NOT make a new submission for a corrected article or for an erratum. Rather replace the original submission.


Take responsibility
Because putting articles on arXiv entails certain responsibilities, authors must make their own submissions. Third-party submissions (by secretaries for example) are often the ones that cause the most problems, presumably due to lack of self-interest and related factors.

The following information is also required for submission:

• Institutional affiliation for the author(s) must be provided.
• Official report number(s) from the author(s) institution(s) must be provided.

Availability of submissions and announcement order
Submissions to arXiv are normally made public on Sunday through Thursday, with no announcements Friday or Saturday. Check the current time at the arXiv main site, with the amount of time remaining before the "freeze".

Submissions Received Between
(all times Eastern US) Will Be Announced
(all times Eastern US) Mailed to Subscribers
Monday 14:00 - Tuesday 14:00 Tuesday 20:00 Tuesday Night / Wednesday Morning
Tuesday 14:00 - Wednesday 14:00 Wednesday 20:00 Wednesday Night / Thursday Morning
Wednesday 14:00 - Thursday 14:00 Thursday 20:00 Thursday Night / Friday Morning
Thursday 14:00 - Friday 14:00 Sunday 20:00 Sunday Night / Monday Morning
Friday 14:00 - Monday 14:00 Monday 20:00 Monday Night / Tuesday Morning

 

[questfortruth]

But again, neither of these things have anything to do with whether I should accept your word as true simply because you wrote it down someplace.

I am sure, that the first page has made zero impact on you. But it is explainable so: to change brain circuits is almost impossible. A longer treatment than 10 seconds is necessary.

 

[Milton Platt]

I am sure, that the first page has made zero impact on you. But it is explainable so: to change brain circuits is almost impossible. A longer treatment than 10 seconds is necessary.

I get that you think that some journal is discriminatory. I was not addressing that. But I did in another post. I posted the journal's publication policies. Please show which policies are discriminatory. If they aren't following their own policy provide an example.

 

[questfortruth]

I get that you think that some journal is discriminatory. I was not addressing that. But I did in another post. I posted the journal's publication policies. Please show which policies are discriminatory. If they aren't following their own policy provide an example.

Find the part where they demand the recommendation-letters for every submission. This policy is called "endorsement."

 

[Milton Platt]

Find the part where they demand the recommendation-letters for every submission. This policy is called "endorsement."

I checked and did not see that section see post #7. Are there other criteria not published here? This is a cut and paste from their website.
I fail to understand why asking for a recommendation from someone would be a discriminatory policy. If you have a legitimate paper, someone in that field should be able to endorse you. Why does everyone not want to????

 

[questfortruth]

I fail to understand why asking for a recommendation from someone would be a discriminatory policy. If you have a legitimate paper, someone in that field should be able to endorse you. Why does everyone not want to????

And again, my latter comment left no impact on your brain. Can't you free your mind with me? I have scientific degree M.Sci., why I must get recomendations?

 

[questfortruth]

I checked and did not see that section see post #7. Are there other criteria not published here? This is a cut and paste from their website.
I fail to understand why asking for a recommendation from someone would be a discriminatory policy. If you have a legitimate paper, someone in that field should be able to endorse you. Why does everyone not want to????

I have scientific degree M.Sci., why must I get recommendations? Guess the Steven Hawking has not ever asked someone for recommendations.