11
$\begingroup$

Science proposals need your help! Consider committing to:

This is community wiki -- feel free to add other proposals worth mentioning.

EDIT: Most proposals from the list are now in Beta stage -- and still need your help in gaining traffic and content (= For more proposals, see Physics meta thread.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Does this really belong on CV meta? $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 28 '11 at 19:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Probably not, but I feel it is worth it. $\endgroup$ – user88 Sep 28 '11 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ IMO I don't mind this type of shameless promotion (at this point). Traffic is low enough it is not particularly bothersome. $\endgroup$ – Andy W Sep 29 '11 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Andy I agree that this is not bothersome, but that's not the point. If high-rep users and mods are to get any benefit from invoking standards in making decisions about closing and migrating questions, those standards need to be applied consistently and fairly. In this case there are obvious problems about the topic (where is the meta-CV interest in this question?) and localization. $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 29 '11 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ I really regret that CompSci is mine, it would be easier to promote the other way; anyway IMO it is bad only because it is off-topic (not about CV), not because it is a shamelessly smuggled ad (in fact I believe it qualifies as higher good). Some time ago one user was doing similar promotion of Chemistry proposal on Physics and it seemed to be judged as acceptable. $\endgroup$ – user88 Sep 29 '11 at 19:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ mbq, It's a gray area. The close connection between chem and physics suggests there may be considerable overlap in audience (and even topics), so the creation of a chemistry site could be on-topic on physics meta. I see only tenuous connections (but they are there) between your five proposals and CV. Maybe we could compromise by asking that any replies to this thread (as well as the original question) explain why CV users might be interested in the proposals that are mentioned. $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 29 '11 at 21:49
3
$\begingroup$

I'd like to throw my own Public Health and Epidemiology proposal into the ring. Admittedly, it's less developed than some of the other's on the list, but I think it probably has a pretty compelling overlap CrossValidate's audience.

My take on a few of the proposals, and why I support them:

  • Biology: Half of what I do is probably better described as Biology. I think a question like this one on CV illustrates a situation I've been tangling with. Mathematical modeling - and by extension epidemic models - don't really have a logical home. MathOverflow is probably too theoretical at times, especially for models that don't have a pleasant analytical solution. I've also got my own issues with relying too much on the math-oriented community, but that's getting a bit far afield. Similarly, it doesn't really belong on CrossValidated. Rarely is are the problems statistical in nature. The people probably most familiar with the use and application of these models? Biologists.
  • Computational Science: "When in doubt, simulate" is probably one of my major guiding principles. It seems pretty clear how statisticians could benefit greatly from having an active community of people discussing how to throw more hardware at the problem.
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ it is not clear how this proposal would be better than the Biology proposal. I think that there is a lot of overlap with other fields of biology. $\endgroup$ – Abe Oct 5 '11 at 22:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Abe By "this proposal", are you referring to the Public Health and Epidemiology proposal? If so, there's no assertion it's "better". Just different. In the same way SuperUser and Serverfault are different. There's not even an opportunity cost between them, as they're in different stages of development. $\endgroup$ – Fomite Oct 5 '11 at 23:00
1
$\begingroup$

I made a proposal about future studies/futurology (forecasting roughly within 100 years range)

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/34955/futurology

based on personal interest and imho missing place on SE to ask questions concerning climate models (but hopefully climate modeling will just be on sub-topic of this site). It is not intended to ask questions, whether global warming exists etc. But to ask questions about underlying models of environmental/economic/demographic scenarios and assumptions (not more, not less) for forecasting of future developments.

If there wouldnt be math physics theophys sites on SE, i wouldnt have proposed it, as it would probably get a speculative mess with very low quality. So i would highly appreciate if some of the experts here would participate and help defining the site and draw the scope of answerable and good questions. Its hard, but imho for this topic can only work with a Q&A site with voting system. Ive posted a list of questions, feel free to copy paste some you agree with, so people can vote it.

Thanks for your interest and input.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The subject is fascinating and potentially could benefit from the SE treatment. I do find it strange, however, that you seem to think a discussion of world population in 50 years or a discussion of anything after 100 years would be off topic. This seems to confuse uncertainty with lack of importance. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 3 '12 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber We cannot predict technological and environmental progress in 100-200 years, we dont know what research will drive that future, but we for example that superconducters and quantum computing(current research) will trigger this century. 100 years is just a rule of thumb to me, most simulated future scenarios do calculate within this time frame, as computer power and models dont offer more. And this proposal is not about crystall ball rubbing like singularity, but prediction based on scientific models, simaulations, knwoledge, then you have to draw a line imho. $\endgroup$ – Werner Schmitt Jan 5 '12 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ But i would be intersted to see a question from you in the time frame of 200-500, you think one can give a objective answer and not just guessing or sci-fi. $\endgroup$ – Werner Schmitt Jan 5 '12 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ E.g., "what is the basis of industry projections that peak coal will not occur for another 200 years?" "Where would the inhabitable areas of the earth be if global warming were to continue at currently extrapolated rates for 200 years?" "What are the chances of a globally catastrophic asteroid strike in the next 1000 years?" $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 5 '12 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber the proposal is really more about factors and models for future scenarios, your questions would need deeply tricky calculations and simulations exceeding a shorter answer. Also I have made the experience that people and politics don't really care about things outside of their life-expectancy (roughly 100 years). If a asteroid crashes on earth within the next 1000 10000 years is not really of interest and anyway more determined by a general likelihood with has not much to do with the absoulte $\endgroup$ – Werner Schmitt Jan 8 '12 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ number of years you are asking in your question, Such questions would be allowed, but not "how will energy consumption develop based on population growth rates in 2200". That's not answerable and therefore not interesting. Same imho with your sea level raise due to global warming. Here you have to set up a time limit or it becomes crystal ball rubbing with so much side-factors. No serious economic or climate future simulation goes beyond 50-100 years currently. Please show me one. $\endgroup$ – Werner Schmitt Jan 8 '12 at 3:49

You must log in to answer this question.