Bing Copilot identifies the final step in the scientific theory as communication:
Communication: Share your findings with the scientific community for review and further testing.
I think this review is intended to be a free-ranging review by others and not a review of a tiny fragment of your findings at a time.
I fully understand that it would be quite burdensome to have to discuss your entire theory in the comments section on every single post. I think once a month is quite reasonable, however.
Instead of complaining about me not giving you the ability to make substantive comments, please get to the point about what those substantive comments on this topic are...
Fine. If they are very long comments, I would appreciate you posting them on your Substack and then linking to the comments of the most appropriate article on my Substack.
You have presented a general theory of history. Where and how can we discuss that in its fullness, on a regular basis, rather than a tiny fragment of it?
One of the strengths of your theory is that it is has a whole with interacting parts. I know of no other realm of intellectual discourse where there is no place to frequently discuss “the big picture.”
I think that your reluctance to entertain discussions of the big picture is a devastating weakness in introducing your ideas to the world. Those who seek to understand the world, want to freely discuss the whole of a theory. What if Columbus came back from his first voyage and told everybody that he would only discuss the ocean currents that affected his outward voyage today? He would drive everyone crazy.
I suggest that a good compromise is to put out a post once a month where any and all forms of discussion are welcome.
Please do not accuse me of "reluctance to entertain discussions of the big picture. Or that this "is a devastating weakness in introducing your ideas to the world."
This article has been on my Substack for one month. The original articles were published in April, and I posted a link in response to your comment. You apparently made no effort to read the articles or comment on them.
You received the email for this article and apparently did not even bother to read it. Nor did you post a single comment.
Then you wait for one month and accuse me of "reluctance to entertain discussions"
And I notice that this comment does not actually contain any substantive criticism of my theory. You only accuse me of not being willing to discuss.
This is the post to discuss those issues. And if your comments focus on a specific part of the theory, then it should be in the article that relates to that topic.
There is no need for me to repost the same article every month. I do not want an article where the comments in "all forms are welcome." You are free to post your own article on this topic.
Staying focused on a single topic is the key to understanding and communication. Constantly changing the topic is a sign of an undisciplined mind. If you cannot learn that discipline, the just read the articles without commenting.
I don't want you to repost this article every month. What I want you to do is to issue an invitation every month for a general discussion of your theory. You don't have to write a new post, you just have to issue a monthly invitation on a post that has no new content.
When I attend an academic conference in my field, there is abundant opportunity to discuss all issues in that field. I think it this is particularly important to have a regular opportunity to discuss your entire theory, especially when a general theory of history is proposed.
This is not undisciplined. When one goes to a medical specialist, they ask about all symptoms in a medical history. For example, swollen ankles are often a sign of heart disease. Every doctor I interact with should know that even if they are not a specialist in the care of feet and ankles. Headaches are a symptom of so many things that they there is no such thing as a headache specialist in medicine. Too narrow discussions can be unbelievably unfruitful.
I know and value the whole of the scientific method, which involves a free ranging discussion of all aspects of an issue.
Yes, I agree that a focused discussion can be is valuable, but I also believe that a REGULAR opportunity for wide ranging discussion is INVALUABLE.
I would really like to be able to recommend your substack widely, including to my 900 subscribers and my 900 followers. But unless they can actually discuss your whole theory regularly rather than tiny bits of it, I cannot do that.
I actually think your theory would be valuable to the world— but you will only encounter continuing disinterest unless you can provide a place where a free and ride ranging opportunity to discuss the entire theory is regularly available.
Sometimes, the person who comes up with a valuable theory is incapable of effectively communicating it to the world at large. Newton came up with stupendous stuff, but the person who was able to explain it to the world at large was Haley. I am not saying that I am your Haley, I'm just saying that you are a lot like Newton.
If there was a law against violating the scientific method, you would be eligible for arrest.
I wish Progress Studies had a real academic conference, but it unfortunately does not. A Substack column is very different from a face-to-face conference. Thank you for the nice words on my substack.
Like I said, that is what the comment section of this article (and the linked articles) is for.
Please get to the point about what your criticism and concerns of my theory are...
If you feel this comment section is too constraining, perhaps you should write an article in your own Substack and link to it here. I link to my articles in the comments section of other Substacks all the time.
Also be aware that I am not done with this series. I am working on three more articles right now.
Bing Copilot identifies the final step in the scientific theory as communication:
Communication: Share your findings with the scientific community for review and further testing.
I think this review is intended to be a free-ranging review by others and not a review of a tiny fragment of your findings at a time.
I fully understand that it would be quite burdensome to have to discuss your entire theory in the comments section on every single post. I think once a month is quite reasonable, however.
I have allowed you to communicate.
Instead of complaining about me not giving you the ability to make substantive comments, please get to the point about what those substantive comments on this topic are...
I definitely will, but not all at the same time. As you say, there is a value in focused discussion.
Fine. If they are very long comments, I would appreciate you posting them on your Substack and then linking to the comments of the most appropriate article on my Substack.
You have presented a general theory of history. Where and how can we discuss that in its fullness, on a regular basis, rather than a tiny fragment of it?
One of the strengths of your theory is that it is has a whole with interacting parts. I know of no other realm of intellectual discourse where there is no place to frequently discuss “the big picture.”
I think that your reluctance to entertain discussions of the big picture is a devastating weakness in introducing your ideas to the world. Those who seek to understand the world, want to freely discuss the whole of a theory. What if Columbus came back from his first voyage and told everybody that he would only discuss the ocean currents that affected his outward voyage today? He would drive everyone crazy.
I suggest that a good compromise is to put out a post once a month where any and all forms of discussion are welcome.
You are seriously trying my patience.
Please do not accuse me of "reluctance to entertain discussions of the big picture. Or that this "is a devastating weakness in introducing your ideas to the world."
This article has been on my Substack for one month. The original articles were published in April, and I posted a link in response to your comment. You apparently made no effort to read the articles or comment on them.
You received the email for this article and apparently did not even bother to read it. Nor did you post a single comment.
Then you wait for one month and accuse me of "reluctance to entertain discussions"
And I notice that this comment does not actually contain any substantive criticism of my theory. You only accuse me of not being willing to discuss.
This is the post to discuss those issues. And if your comments focus on a specific part of the theory, then it should be in the article that relates to that topic.
There is no need for me to repost the same article every month. I do not want an article where the comments in "all forms are welcome." You are free to post your own article on this topic.
Staying focused on a single topic is the key to understanding and communication. Constantly changing the topic is a sign of an undisciplined mind. If you cannot learn that discipline, the just read the articles without commenting.
I don't want you to repost this article every month. What I want you to do is to issue an invitation every month for a general discussion of your theory. You don't have to write a new post, you just have to issue a monthly invitation on a post that has no new content.
Consider yourself invited to comment on this topic monthly. I do not want discussions of the same issue spread across many comments section.
Or you can post it in your own Substack.
Please get to the point about what your criticism and concerns of my theory are...
When I attend an academic conference in my field, there is abundant opportunity to discuss all issues in that field. I think it this is particularly important to have a regular opportunity to discuss your entire theory, especially when a general theory of history is proposed.
This is not undisciplined. When one goes to a medical specialist, they ask about all symptoms in a medical history. For example, swollen ankles are often a sign of heart disease. Every doctor I interact with should know that even if they are not a specialist in the care of feet and ankles. Headaches are a symptom of so many things that they there is no such thing as a headache specialist in medicine. Too narrow discussions can be unbelievably unfruitful.
I know and value the whole of the scientific method, which involves a free ranging discussion of all aspects of an issue.
Yes, I agree that a focused discussion can be is valuable, but I also believe that a REGULAR opportunity for wide ranging discussion is INVALUABLE.
I would really like to be able to recommend your substack widely, including to my 900 subscribers and my 900 followers. But unless they can actually discuss your whole theory regularly rather than tiny bits of it, I cannot do that.
I actually think your theory would be valuable to the world— but you will only encounter continuing disinterest unless you can provide a place where a free and ride ranging opportunity to discuss the entire theory is regularly available.
Sometimes, the person who comes up with a valuable theory is incapable of effectively communicating it to the world at large. Newton came up with stupendous stuff, but the person who was able to explain it to the world at large was Haley. I am not saying that I am your Haley, I'm just saying that you are a lot like Newton.
If there was a law against violating the scientific method, you would be eligible for arrest.
You seriously try my patience with statements like this:
"If there was a law against violating the scientific method, you would be eligible for arrest."
Please refrain from this obvious attack.
Please get to the point about what your criticism and concerns of my theory are...
I wish Progress Studies had a real academic conference, but it unfortunately does not. A Substack column is very different from a face-to-face conference. Thank you for the nice words on my substack.
Like I said, that is what the comment section of this article (and the linked articles) is for.
Please get to the point about what your criticism and concerns of my theory are...
If you feel this comment section is too constraining, perhaps you should write an article in your own Substack and link to it here. I link to my articles in the comments section of other Substacks all the time.
Also be aware that I am not done with this series. I am working on three more articles right now.