NationStates

I'm taking this idea from something Banana said in the WA server.

Anyways, happy shredding!

Repeal: “On Scientific Cooperation”

Category: Repeal | Target: GAR#322

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the august member states of the World Assembly;

Believing, however, that there are several flaws with this legislation,

Finds as follows:

1. Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, raises a not unreasonable possibility that literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.
   
2. Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of, wide variety of sources of, these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection could find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.
   
3. That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.
   
4. There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided, since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.

Therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”.

Support. Will give feedback later.

From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

You don't need ellipses before or after quoted sections, they're only stand-ins for cut-out sections between quoted text. If you did need ellipses, then all quotes would have ellipses. All quotes don't have ellipses though, so.

Support

Imperium Anglorum wrote:From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

I think the way it's currently written, it would sound better with the "hereby" excluded altogether.

I'll give more feedback in a sec.

Minskiev wrote:You don't need ellipses before or after quoted sections, they're only stand-ins for cut-out sections between quoted text. If you did need ellipses, then all quotes would have ellipses. All quotes don't have ellipses though, so.

Sorry, history major brain there!

Morover wrote:Support

Imperium Anglorum wrote:From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

I think the way it's currently written, it would sound better with the "hereby" excluded altogether.

I'll give more feedback in a sec.

Removed the "hereby".

Okay this one is a bit heavy on the rewrites but I made sure to keep your language and style as much as possible. It’s definitely a good start!

Hulldom wrote:Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the member states of the World Assembly;

“member states” might flow better with an adjective before it.

Hulldom wrote:Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation that render it unsuitable for further promulgation as settled law,

“Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation” could flow better as “Believing, however, that several flaws are present within the legislation”

“promulgation” is a super weird word to use here because in this case, the resolution has already been “promulgated”. Promulgating something is just to put it into law which… it is in fact law so it can’t exactly become further promulgated? Idk what you’re trying to say here tbh

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature” includes literature which is unfit to be called scientific. Given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, the collection activities delegated to the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) include literature which fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.

I’m gonna go ahead and suggest a rewrite for this one because this is a bit of a jumble to read:

“Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, includes literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.”

Pretty much reorganized a couple things for clarity and cut out the bit about WASP because it wasn’t particularly necessary in this clause given the quote (just use the full name the first time it is used elsewhere if using this edit). Feel free to pick and choose what you like from that as well

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of data, and the wide variety of sources of these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the WASP archive as a result.

Once again, rewrite because I realized I was trying to reword like 3/4 of the clause

“Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to its mandate” is vague to a point of unviability; The wide variety and sheer amount of data bolsters the unavoidable problem that unscientific and pseudo-scientific data will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.”

Fixed a couple of grammatical inaccuracies and made a couple of bits a little more concise (removed the need for 3 sentences).

Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

Okay I’m starting to feel really bad about this but another rewrite here (I’m sorryyyy):

“Given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”, the resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, and allows states to outlaw portions of scientific study to prevent dissemination of materials from the WASP, thus failing to prevent malicious states from misrepresenting scientific data and undermining the goals of this resolution.”

Almost all reorganization this time! Mostly writing kept the same but fixed the 3 sentence problem again and just generally swept up the floors a bit, maybe organized the pantry, you know me.

Hulldom wrote:There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided for by WASP in 1(d), since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias in the process of review and replication of findings–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.

…rewrite but mostly for posterity’s sake

“The resolution introduces no mechanism for WASP to make claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, a lack of blindness raises the possibility of bias during the review/replication process, and since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, the credibility of any results obtained through this process is throughly undermined.”

Again, mostly reorganizing, a little bit of wording changes toward the end.

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(f)’s mandate for the University Library Coalition (ULC) to collect only that data which is “necessary to the scientific process” provides two problems. First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, thus presenting a contradiction in terms. Second, given the possibility of innovation, this new dataset could leave out important overturned findings and data that contribute to the later knowledge base.

Rewrite again:

“Clause 1(f)’s mandate that the University Library Coalition (ULC) collect only data that is “necessary to the scientific process” creates two major problems; First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, and second, given the possibility of future innovation, any new datasets could leave out important overturned findings or data that contributes to the later knowledge base.”

This rewrite was mostly yard trimming, just making things a little more concise!

Hulldom wrote:This legislation presents no mandate on the member states of the World Assembly, only providing for their potential cooperation.

“the member states of the World Assembly” can be shortened to just “member states”

“providing” is a weird word, perhaps like “requesting”? I’m not sure what you mean by providing.

Okay sorry I know this one was really rewrite-heavy but there was a lot of organization stuff and that’s the easiest way I have to show that. As previously mentioned, feel free to use whatever you like! Hope you have a great day!

-A

Here is a link to the original drafting thread

I had intended to repeal it and rework it myself but never got around to it. Read the entire thing some of your arguments were covered in there.
It was actually ruled illegal at the time but since it was already at vote it was passed into law.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=327209

1c was added to protect states from being forced to share something that is a state secret, A good modern analogy would be the design of a nuclear submarine. Yes there is good science there but it might not be a good idea for a nation to share it all with it's neighbors.

As for your argument on peer review, clause 1d actually covers that providing for peer review. The resolution is designed to actually foster international peer review of the gathered material.

Thousand Branches wrote:Okay this one is a bit heavy on the rewrites but I made sure to keep your language and style as much as possible. It’s definitely a good start!

Hulldom wrote:Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the member states of the World Assembly;

“member states” might flow better with an adjective before it.

Hulldom wrote:Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation that render it unsuitable for further promulgation as settled law,

“Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation” could flow better as “Believing, however, that several flaws are present within the legislation”

“promulgation” is a super weird word to use here because in this case, the resolution has already been “promulgated”. Promulgating something is just to put it into law which… it is in fact law so it can’t exactly become further promulgated? Idk what you’re trying to say here tbh

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature” includes literature which is unfit to be called scientific. Given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, the collection activities delegated to the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) include literature which fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.

I’m gonna go ahead and suggest a rewrite for this one because this is a bit of a jumble to read:

“Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, includes literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.”

Pretty much reorganized a couple things for clarity and cut out the bit about WASP because it wasn’t particularly necessary in this clause given the quote (just use the full name the first time it is used elsewhere if using this edit). Feel free to pick and choose what you like from that as well

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of data, and the wide variety of sources of these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the WASP archive as a result.

Once again, rewrite because I realized I was trying to reword like 3/4 of the clause

“Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to its mandate” is vague to a point of unviability; The wide variety and sheer amount of data bolsters the unavoidable problem that unscientific and pseudo-scientific data will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.”

Fixed a couple of grammatical inaccuracies and made a couple of bits a little more concise (removed the need for 3 sentences).

Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

Okay I’m starting to feel really bad about this but another rewrite here (I’m sorryyyy):

“Given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”, the resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, and allows states to outlaw portions of scientific study to prevent dissemination of materials from the WASP, thus failing to prevent malicious states from misrepresenting scientific data and undermining the goals of this resolution.”

Almost all reorganization this time! Mostly writing kept the same but fixed the 3 sentence problem again and just generally swept up the floors a bit, maybe organized the pantry, you know me.

Hulldom wrote:There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided for by WASP in 1(d), since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias in the process of review and replication of findings–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.

…rewrite but mostly for posterity’s sake

“The resolution introduces no mechanism for WASP to make claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, a lack of blindness raises the possibility of bias during the review/replication process, and since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, the credibility of any results obtained through this process is throughly undermined.”

Again, mostly reorganizing, a little bit of wording changes toward the end.

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(f)’s mandate for the University Library Coalition (ULC) to collect only that data which is “necessary to the scientific process” provides two problems. First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, thus presenting a contradiction in terms. Second, given the possibility of innovation, this new dataset could leave out important overturned findings and data that contribute to the later knowledge base.

Rewrite again:

“Clause 1(f)’s mandate that the University Library Coalition (ULC) collect only data that is “necessary to the scientific process” creates two major problems; First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, and second, given the possibility of future innovation, any new datasets could leave out important overturned findings or data that contributes to the later knowledge base.”

This rewrite was mostly yard trimming, just making things a little more concise!

Hulldom wrote:This legislation presents no mandate on the member states of the World Assembly, only providing for their potential cooperation.

“the member states of the World Assembly” can be shortened to just “member states”

“providing” is a weird word, perhaps like “requesting”? I’m not sure what you mean by providing.

Okay sorry I know this one was really rewrite-heavy but there was a lot of organization stuff and that’s the easiest way I have to show that. As previously mentioned, feel free to use whatever you like! Hope you have a great day!

-A

I took most of your suggestions actually. They were quite helpful in terms of sharpening this repeal's clarity and conciseness.

It’s been a couple days. Bump.

Thousand Branches covered all of my issues (plus more!) and it looks good-to-go to me - not to say that it's time to submit, though.

Morover wrote:Thousand Branches covered all of my issues (plus more!) and it looks good-to-go to me - not to say that it's time to submit, though.

Moreover, we like your reasoning for repeal on various proposals like the reasonings for repeal on this proposal currently in place. - Pres. Schirkophf

Bump.

Actually, I meant to give feedback earlier but I don't really have much to give now, though I think you should change "Finding all of this, the General Assembly repeals ..." to "Therefore, the General Assembly repeals ...".

Apatosaurus wrote:Actually, I meant to give feedback earlier but I don't really have much to give now, though I think you should change "Finding all of this, the General Assembly repeals ..." to "Therefore, the General Assembly repeals ...".

Yeah, that makes sense and consider it done.

All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Bumping this one more time before the holiday. As a side note, I am undecided on whether to write a replacement or what that replacement would entail beyond my preference for a general Scholars Coalition.

As another note: my plan presently is to submit this on January 4, 2022.

Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.

Update: IA graciously DMed me to inform me that he thought that the former clause 5 about 1(f) was an honest mistake. I agree with his interpretation and withdrew this—I plan to resubmit at Major without the clause.

Edit: Submitted

This reached queue and will be voted on between the major updates of today (i.e. two minutes ago) and Friday 7th January.

AS OF 0459 GMT ON MONDAY: Approvals: 65 out of 56 needed (Tinhampton, Albrook, Imperium Anglorum, One Small Island, Smiley Bob, Thousand Branches, Chodean Kal, Dokdo and Ulleung, Trovons, Sedgistan, The Unified Pumaxi, Kalanaria, Tau Ceti Omega, Antamaran, Siochania, Kikittaukak, Voxija, Pheonixknight, Quentania, Kingdom of Sealia, The Free Columbian States, Seffa, Denathor, Dilber, Orca and Narwhal, Wischland, Battadia, The Huge Golden Empire, Eastern Kodiak, Wisea, Zombiedolphins, Conservativealia, Andusre, Creeperopolis, The Salaxalans, Karteria, Orennica, Madjack, Gatchina, Republic Of Ludwigsburg, Free Woritanarbio Islands, Cheries, Reultan, Bayin, Kingdom of Englands, Ruinenlust, Amerion, Treadwellia, The Age of Utopia, Americatain, Arab Darussalam, Candensia, Tostandia, Wallstone, Thaelle, Ordivus, Josephtan, The Finntopian Empire, The Andoran Empire ELARIA, BK04, Baccalieu, Morover, Seludong, Calnodia, Auxorii)

Hulldom wrote:

Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.

I happen to have a draft for a science advancement resolution you can use it if I get credited as a co-author
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1609780

One question:

Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

How would states "make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus" without falling foul of 436 GA Protecting Free Expression ?

After careful consideration, I must vote AGAINST this repeal effort. I must also ask whether it is ILLEGAL under the present interpretation of the Honest Mistake Rule.

This repeal includes irrelevant arguments and multiple factual misrepresentations, which I cannot support. Repeal Clause 5 says we should repeal because OSC doesn't impose mandates and instead 'only facilitates potential cooperation.' Even assuming the allegation were true, that's not a good reason for repeal and not a direction I think we should be going when evaluating what makes a good WA law. Perhaps more importantly, it is a blatant factual misrepresentation to say that OSC "presents no mandate on member states." OSC has the following clause imposing a mandate on WA nations: "Requires all WA members to cooperate with the WASP by supplying it with all data relevant to it's mandate within extant national and subnational law." Saying OSC places "no mandate" on members is obviously false. It should be ruled an Honest Mistake, given how that rule is currently being interpreted.

The point of Repeal Clause 1 is to complain that OSC does not 'constrain' what "scientific" means. However, OSC defines "scientific" literature as "scientific publications such as journals or books that report or review original empirical and theoretical work or research in the natural and social sciences or within a given scientific field." I think that's clear enough about the scope. Repeal Clause 1 goes on to claim that, without further definition, "scientific" could be interpreted to include "pseudoscience." This is a false statement. By definition, pseudoscience is not science. To be considered pseudoscience, a belief or practice must be incompatible with the scientific method. There is no possible definition of pseudoscience in which it is included in the realm of actual science. I don't see how you can fairly claim that further definition is needed in order for "scientific" to exclude something which, by definition, is not scientific. Consistent with current interpretation of the Honest Mistake Rule, it's a misrepresentation to claim that OSC's scientific literature "includes... pseudoscientific literature."

Repeal Clause 2 suffers from similar, and more aggressive, misrepresentation. OSC says WASP will receive from member nations "all data relevant to it’s mandate." The mandate in question is the overall goal of "collect[ing] and archiv[ing] copies of any and all publicly available scientific literature." Repeal Clause 2 claims that "Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result." By definition, unscientific data and pseudo-scientific data would not be data relevant to a mandate of collecting available scientific literature. That is especially true for UNSCIENTIFIC data! It is a misrepresentation to claim that, because of OSC's mandate to receive and collect scientific data, unscientific data "will find its way" into the archive. Again, it should be ruled an Honest Mistake, given how that rule is currently being interpreted. (See the recent ruling on the legality of "Repeal CPA").

Repeal Clause 4 argues we should repeal OSC because it did not empower WASP to make commentary on the literature it archives and publishes. We are to believe this is inherently a flaw. However, to the extent the repeal author really cared about having a WASP critical review program, that could be accomplished via further legislation without repealing OSC. It is therefore not a logical basis for repeal. Clause 4 goes on to argue that because OSC creates a process for facilitating international peer review, without explicitly mandating that any peer review facilitated by the WA must include "blindness," it "raises the possibility of bias." However, OSC specifically requires that "any new theorems and experimental data submitted to WASP shall be disseminated to all member nations for the purpose of unbiased peer review." OSC is required to spread literature and data around so member nations can review it through their own unbiased processes. So I am not persuaded that, despite the clear purpose statement, there is a colorable risk of OSC fostering scientific bias. Overall, I'm not sure which side of the Honest Mistake Rule this claim is on. In any event, I consider the allegations of Clause 4 to be at best unfounded fear mongering, combined with the classic fallacy of complaining that the resolution doesn't do something that could easily be done without a repeal.

FWIW, I do agree with the argument made in the Repeal Clause 3. OSC does a disservice by calling on WASP to censor scientific works from the public if a member nation declares those materials illegal. However I cannot cast my vote for a repeal proposal unless the Princess stands behind each and every one of the claims.

Hulldom wrote:

Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.

I look forward to seeing it

Feel free to reuse anything from the original you wish.