April 21, 2021

  • Michael Durfee

    As I’m sure it is common knowledge that in the realms such as the engineering world and the military world; there are logs. That is running documents of voyages, statuses, maintenance, and events. Yet, when considering the tales written down by our ancestors (in very non-scientific vocabulary) they have always been dismissed by the scientific community.

    I’ve been for a while now, trying to see the similarities and differences that peer-reviewed articles have with logs. Because logs are not published literature by any stretch due to ending only when what they’re logging breaks, goes obsolete, ect. But extremely important nonetheless for situational awareness and accountability. The question here becomes, how does something like a running document hold scientific validity when it hasn’t been through the peer-review process? Or, how many unimpeachable lines of evidence does there need to be in order for something that hasn’t happened/been witnessed yet, to be taken seriously enough by the scientific community for further study? The closest answer that I’ve been able to come to is, in a system where scale, time, and place holds no bounds, there is only a convergence of periodicities. Because in a realm claimed to be independent of the subjective I stress that it is in bad academic practice to dismiss or falsify something when all of the evidence has yet to be considered.

    And a big thanks to our ‘dusty pinball’ scientists here. They’re on track to make things a lot safer.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.