Analog SFF, April 2009 by Dell Magazine Authors

Author:Dell Magazine Authors
Language: eng
Format: mobi, epub
Tags: Science Fiction
Publisher: Dell Magazines
Published: 2010-12-15T07:07:33.649000+00:00

* * *

Probability Zero: ARMCHAIR SCIENTIST

by David Bartell

Dear Fellow Armchair Scientist,

Thank you for your submission to Armchair Scientist, the revolutionary alternative to the biased, elitist, so-called “leading” scientific journals. Unfortunately, we must pass on your paper at this time.

Fully 93.057% of papers submitted to Armchair Scientist are turned down for one or more of the reasons listed below. While we would like to provide you with a personal rejection, we're fairly certain that one of these top reasons applies to your paper.

1. Interesting concept, but consider circularizing your logic a bit more. Readers prefer theories with at least a sense of closure.

2. Your Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is too complicated to suspend disbelief. For example, you may have employed an excessive number of sub-atomic particles or spatial dimensions for our readership. We find it is best to avoid logical impossibilities such as non-determinism, wave-particle duality, and tachyon paradoxes.

3. Your cover letter credits more than one person with the paper. Remember, the armchair scientist rides alone.

4. Lack of maverick attitude in the writing. As a suggestion, coin yourself a provocative pseudonym like “GUTbuster” or “God's Dice,” and establish a contrarian online presence. Anonymously argue with as many “experts” as possible, even if you agree with them. Get in their faces. Then emulate the emotion of their rebuttals in your next submission to us.

5. Your credentials are impeccable.

6. Your theory does not challenge enough well-established scientific principles for our readership. Newton was wrong, Einstein was wrong, ergo it stands to reason that nearly everybody else is probably wrong too.

7. Because you propose a testable theory, it too might be proven wrong in the future. The armchair, not a lab bench, is the true throne of science.

8. Too much data and not enough speculation. Hint: try cleverly relating your theory to a seemingly unrelated discipline with which you are familiar. Published authors have successfully drawn analogies to such topics as Nirvana viruses in Zen computing, revisionist theopaleontology, and the topology of zipperless fly fishing waders.

9. Too many references cited. This can undermine the perception of originality in an article.

10. There is no clear science-fictional aspect “extrapolatable” from your idea. Never forget that like an armchair, science is the seat of dreamers.

Copyright © 2009 David Bartell

[Back to Table of Contents]

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.