No. Your writing style then deviates from that of the majority of posters on this, and other, forums. I cannot make an exception for you. You should try to write in such a way that someone not familiar with you or your writing style should be able to parse it correctly. So if you want to make a conjecture, qualify it by adding I believe, I think, or similar.
If you don’t, I can’t distinguish an attempt at stating a conjecture from an attempt at stating a fact.
This is a question only you and Dave have, I think.
Reason for the hiding is also the back-and-forth between you and Doug, but I am feeling too low-energy at the moment to actively moderate that exchange.
Here are some conjectures:
C1. AWE will one day win economically over towered wind turbines for generating utility-grade electricity.
C2. Groundgen AWES will one day prove to be better at generating utility-grade electricity than flygen AWES.
C3. Dominantly soft-material wings for AWES will one day prove superior economically to rigid-wing AWES.
C4. Network AWES one day will prove superior to farms of single-line AWES for generating utility-grade electricity.
C5. KiteMill will need radically to change its technology one day to stay in the AWE big-utility game profitably.
C6. AWE is in an infancy in 2020 despite the huge dollar investments in AWE.
C7. Graphene will one day remake AWE.
C8. In 2030, there will be more than 10 AWE research centers that are not yet active in AWE in 2020.
C9. Circumnavigation of Earth will be accomplished by FFAWE.
Those conjectures could possibly become topics for development within some forum of AWE workers.
Such could be so without having to declare any author for the conjectures. And meaningful and valuable discussions could arise from facing the above conjectures, all without stating an author for the conjectures and without first putting forth any support for the conjectures. The conjectures may stand on their own; what the AWE community does with the conjectures is up to the community; if they do not wrestle with the conjectures, they they won’t get the potential benefits of such wrestling. Easy.
I think the following:
People who write as though they are stating a “fact” may be just conjecturing that something is fact. Proof of something as “fact” is a high-order matter. Not easy to get facts! How many “facts” are later found to be not factual? Take care to check the facts that are purported to be facts. Are they really facts?
Perhaps related:
What do you think?
Dave makes a similar argument:
…
To limit the chance of moderation being triggered by that, you’d need to write out the “C3”.
I will say that is an opinion. To hold any opinion, you would have needed to have gathered some evidence to support that opinion for it to have any meaning. It is completely reasonable to then ask for that evidence to make up one’s own mind about that opinion and about the strength of the evidence.
I don’t care about your opinion or conjecture or answer, show me the work. Or in the language of /r/askhistorians: “good answers aren’t good just because they are right – they are good because they explain.”
Now when you keep posting the same opinion time and again, you’re soapboxing.
When you only care about, and only actively search for yourself, evidence supporting your opinion, you are no longer doing science but have turned into a dogmatist.
It’s a shitty game, those conjectures. Do your own homework exploring all sides of the issue not just the ones favoring your opinion, then share your research here so we can have a basis for discussion.
They are an attempt at a shortcut. Or rather wanting to be able to state an opinion without doing the work to support it is an attempt at a shortcut. You’ll be stuck inside the labyrinth, or on the ground, or at the foot of the mountain, forever if you try doing science like that because you tried to divine the solution before understanding the problem.
Your conjectures are broad and have bias. I’d move away from conjectures and just go with open research questions or narrow hypotheses on this forum. Leave the conjectures for your amply referenced popular science articles.
Thanks for your discussing, Windy_Skies; you write your inputs to the flow; and I study your inputs; others might also.
The following comes from my thinking:
Some clarifications:
I have attempted to gel matter found in others for phrasing the first set of conjectures; of course my phrasing is my responsibility; and the phrasing may change.
A conjecture so formed as just said need not be a conjecture that I believe in; indeed, I might believe quite oppositely or some degree otherwise.
If some reader is interested in facing one or more of the conjectures, then such may be a neat opportunity for them from their point of progress in understanding AWE. They might be very glad to face one or more of conjectures to exercise their research, critical thinking, and conversational skills, etc.
I give all I can to AWE and share freely with others; I aim to soak in anything others might share about AWE. A conjecture being faced by workers might bring on AWE solutions sooner than later; that is an aim for which I subscribe.
An opinion may be a type of conjecture. Say one in 1852 had the opinion that four colors would be enough to color a planar map avoiding adjacent regions having the same color; one might state that the matter is true. Others interested in that opinion (conjecture) would be free to gather talents toward effecting a proof of that opinion (conjecture). The one having the opinion need not have had much experience to state the conjecture; perhaps the opinion arrived from playful results of over numbers. Objectively, there is no forcing that any certain amount of experimentation or even thinking need precede the statement of a conjecture (or having an opinion). I am assuming the conjecture maker is sincere; but the conjecture does not need sincerity to stand for facing. Persons interested in a conjecture should take on the responsibility for their own investment in facing the conjecture, little, none, or a great deal of investment; such is up to those facing the conjecture at their choice. Without the conjecture, the world does not get the facing of the conjecture. I am glad F. Guthrie had his opinion and glad others faced his opinion (conjecture); it was not just that a theorem arrived over the matter, but other tools were sharpened during the course of others facing the challenge to reach the theorem. The exercise many people experienced while trying to reach the theorem on average advanced mathematics. Even now that the theorem is established, exercises by students to prove the theorem in one way or another continue to serve the positive growth of mathematics.
Discussions may face all sorts of conjectures, even the sort called opinions.
All human statements carry some bias; how a person holds each term in a statement carries some bias. No two persons have identical textural imprints. The task over conjecture resolution in AWE might be to obtain from the fuzzy soup some well working AWES.
One may state a conjecture and also still want to do all possible work to play in the game; the two horns are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In my personal case, I am doing the AWE work on the ground and in the air and in the literature. Doing such work does not prevent me from stating conjectures from my belief and/or from my paraphrasing what I find in the literature from others.
When a reader or co-worker reads a conjecture, they are free to compose another conjecture that may or may not be associated with the conjecture they have read.
After stating a conjecture, the conjecture stater may or may not input matter for or against the conjecture. And so for many possible reasons, some not as nefarious as I sense in your note. Getting familiar with such reason set is a project of its own. Time; desired responses need not follow anyone’s particular schedule; some participants may input soon, others later, and maybe others very much later or not at all. Hopefully participants balance their lives and participation so the most good on Earth is served.
Identifying what research questions are open or closed is a fine work. Forming new research questions may also be helpful to the AWE program. There is room for all the branches to be developed. Indeed, “closed questions” might be opened again! And open questions might be rephrased following learnings. That the options exist does not force anyone to face any particular aspect of the flow.
Windy_Skies, and others: you have my invitation to state your own conjectures that may be faced by those interested in your conjectures. No one owns conjecture making.
A conjecture need not be repeated. Stating a conjecture once might suffice to help change the world of AWE in a positive way.
Stating a conjecture need not halt anyone from doing good science.
I am not sure if in your post above there is or is not an abuse of the pronoun “you.” Do you mean to place “one” instead in order to avoid unneeded accusatory statements? If so, the edit could still occur in your post. If the “you” is let to stand, then I may face your accusations later. Clarifying matters is not soapboxing. And I personally savor facing evidence that teases upturning my apple cart; bring it on, I say.
When I write “you” you may substitute that with “one” wherever applicable. In the above post you could also substitute in “Dave”.
You are looking at the question here without taking into account the context. The context is that Dave was making claims about the truth of the world without backing up those claims with evidence or adding in an “I think” or “I believe”. When you do that, like I said before about your “already commercially viable” comment, you’re spreading misinformation. We have become allergic to that from Dave’s practice and also just don’t want that here.
Many of Dave’s claims already have dedicated topics. He is free to continue his research there. The problem that was the impetus for the rule being added is that he would make these claims whenever he could, even when he really couldn’t. We don’t want the same discussion or claim repeated all over the forum and in topics that really aren’t about that discussion. We don’t want soapboxing. We also don’t want to let misinformation stand unchallenged, so the burden of proof rests with the poster, not the reader.
I’ll say you are better off if you start thinking in falsifiable hypotheses. Your conjectures (or predictions) are all about the future making them necessarily unfalsifiable now. This is a forum dedicated to applied science so I don’t know what place unfalsifiable predictions have, other than guiding own work. Start by trying to understand the present, by asking open questions and making falsifiable hypotheses and trying to test them.
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, ?
All conjectures/roads lead to Dave Santos.
OK Joe, I searched my email for “Joe Faust”. Wow what a DeJaVu. Remember when we forum participants including you and Santos went over to just using email, after you kicked me out of your “most open forum” for exposing the lies of AWE, especially of you and Santos? Email actually worked better than the forum itself. It is funny to read these e-mails from 2017 back now. One was me relating how a friend of mine who knows the Makani team told me they had actually already given up, and that Astro Teller was the only remaining one who still believed in Makani. Years ago. Other messages included me predicting the demise of KPS, and how ridiculous they were. The overall dominant topic was the lies of you and Santos and your unfair censorship. Here is an exact quote from you, sent to me from you by email, which I believe is the quote in question, which I believe was in response to my asking the question of the group whether forum participants believed Minesto’s pre-announced (all accomplishments always “in the future”) operation of their “500 kW” machine would be successful. You did not approve of my asking that basic question:
to me
Have an AWE friend post the link.
Your behavior has brought a distrust;
you too many times injured the forum.
Your post, though carefully crafted,
still showed Doug weaseling toward
injuring those in the living room.
Best to you,
Joe