story: [details in 01 v.proper context
1 year prior selekt kriiiketz wearing++ ample ties to selekt konglomerates which we shall hear more of in 01 v.proper context peer reviewed an article by netochka nezvanova and in 01 extravagant display of idiocy [eg. living 1 dekade in the past] blocked its publication ___... in the process indikating they maintain ample interest$ in selekt konglomerates which we shall hear more about in 01 v.proper context.
o +
Re: Dr. Terry Sejnowski
Dr. Wolfram has theorized alone, published under his own imprint and never submitted his text to peer review.
Peer review science has created for the New York Times science reviewers' experts like Dr. Terry Sejnowski and his cohorts to give provide their opinions. The opinions expressed by the Sejnowski crew with deep links to government agencies and corporations -- which George Orwell with his accustomed insight called oligarchic collectivists.
It is experts Sejnowski through his indentured fairy tale writers (aka Salk publicists) who, according to Orwell, invent stories about the leading edge of science.
As an independent scientist with presumed abilities to investigate alone without grants, agency oversight, colleagues and corporate funds for pocket money, a few years ago I offered Salk $350,000 is Dr. Sejnowski would have lunch with me. After all, as an independent scientist, what good is my research into a brain-mind algorithm if experts like Dr. Sejnowski have not passed on the research accuracy?
Dr. Sejnowski, after just two months contemplation with his higher powers decided to pass on lunch. Thus will persist the myth that independent scientists like me preferto live outside of peer review.
When are you chaos psychologsists going to grow up and realize that peer review is meditoracy raised to its highest exponent. Peer review is lack of courage. Peer review is an invitation to theft. Peer review is arrogance of such as Dr. Sejnowski with his agency conections and corporate funders judging research outside of his purview as taking years to sift through and evaluate properly.
No, it is he, Sejnowski who everytime he sups with the rich and powerful perverts findependent science, the greatest discovery of the human race. Bar none.
Simply stated: Which decent and courageous scientist would during early stages of breakthrough science permit his ideas to be stolen by peer reviewers, then if he or she complains be sent into academic exile?
My hat goes off to Dr. Wolfram.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodman, Ph.D. Biological scientist
good morning cycling74
good morning ircam