View Full Version : Complaint mainstream science criterion
Can we remove the mainstream science criterion, or at least be much less strict about it. I have seen a few times now threads that I thought were interesting, but then disappointingly closed because they rubbed a mentor in a non-mainstream way. Is this forum to be restricted to mere factual reference?
Can you link to a few of these closed threads? Just curious.
I realize that these kinds of discussions are unpopular and frustrating, and that they have the potential to turn away some valuable people. But, there are others (myself included) who are disappointed. Here is the most recent one that I've seen, which prompted me to post here.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=350472
DaveC426913
Nov4-09, 02:21 PM
This forum has a mandate to educate students with discussion about existing science theories. It cannot be all things to all people. There are plenty of fora out there that will welcome highly speculative threads.
russ_watters
Nov4-09, 08:36 PM
I realize that these kinds of discussions are unpopular and frustrating, and that they have the potential to turn away some valuable people. But, there are others (myself included) who are disappointed. Here is the most recent one that I've seen, which prompted me to post here.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=350472 That thread was basically wrong-headed idle speculation and trolling. There isn't much to be gained from a discussion where the person driving the discussion is just pulling factually wrong claims out of the air and posting them without thought. From your first post: Is this forum to be restricted to mere factual reference? I'm not completely sure what you meant by that, but all discussions must, at least, be grounded in reality and logic. If you are asking that we allow pure, baseless idle speculation, sorry, but that isn't going to happen here.
Shahin.Omar
Nov6-09, 04:23 AM
Ok, I came here to give a suggestion and found a thread that speaks about me, good to hear that.
Listen russ_watters you can abuse someone and make general comments about somebody without being specific about it, and then can be happy about it. But this is what the papal's do, they do not try to be specific and tell what exactly is wrong, they just brand a person heretic and excommunicate him.
Anyways, I think one additional purpose of such forum's is to make money or sell themselves. So what you can do, and do it very safely is start a new section by the name non-mainstream where those restrictions do not apply as much.
I suggest this because if you see the number of hits my thread got was really very high for those 3-4 days, it crossed over 1000 in just 4 days.
Think about it!
Pengwuino
Nov6-09, 05:00 AM
Anyways, I think one additional purpose of such forum's is to make money or sell themselves. So what you can do, and do it very safely is start a new section by the name non-mainstream where those restrictions do not apply as much.
There is the independent research area which, if it still is around, gets (got) out of control with crackpottery.
Ok, I came here to give a suggestion and found a thread that speaks about me, good to hear that.
Listen russ_watters you can abuse someone and make general comments about somebody without being specific about it, and then can be happy about it. But this is what the papal's do, they do not try to be specific and tell what exactly is wrong, they just brand a person heretic and excommunicate him.
Anyways, I think one additional purpose of such forum's is to make money or sell themselves. So what you can do, and do it very safely is start a new section by the name non-mainstream where those restrictions do not apply as much.
I suggest this because if you see the number of hits my thread got was really very high for those 3-4 days, it crossed over 1000 in just 4 days.
Think about it!
We HAD that, it was a disaster!
PF has had a "long" history in its evolution. Your suggestion isn't something we haven't tried before. Furthermore, there are so many other forums that cater to crackpottery ... er... non-mainstream posts. Knock yourself out there. Why pick the one few forums that simply don't welcome them? You did read the Rules when you signed up, so you should know fully well what you were getting yourself into, don't you?
This forum has a very high signal-to-noise ratio. It is the major selling point of this forum that made us popular in the first place.
Zz.
Ok, I came here to give a suggestion and found a thread that speaks about me, good to hear that.
Listen russ_watters you can abuse someone and make general comments about somebody without being specific about it, and then can be happy about it. But this is what the papal's do, they do not try to be specific and tell what exactly is wrong, they just brand a person heretic and excommunicate him.
First off:
Somehow, I think you could have done better with the mutual recriminations between the Shias and Sunnis in, for example, contemporary Yemen, rather than denounce how papal power was wielded centuries ago.
Secondly:
Your analogy is totally wrong, since PF and its staff has no means of coercion available OTHER THAN shutting an individual out of PF.
In contrast to what sort of powers the Pope possessed, and various religious communities still possess, along with most state authorities.
Thus, a PROPER analogy would have been:
Can a private individual shut somebody else out from his own home merely on basis that the guest is voicing views the house owner doesn't like?
Of course the house owner can do so!
You are free to go wherever you like, but individual sites possess the right to kick you out of their home turf.
There is the independent research area which, if it still is around, gets (got) out of control with crackpottery.
The Independent Research forum still exists. Look under General Physics. It doesn't get much traffic because it's moderated, with specific requirements for the format and contents of initial posts.
About three years ago (I think), the IR forum replaced a forum called "Theory Development" which was unmoderated and overrun with crackpottery. This is what Zz was referring to with his "We HAD that" statement.
Why did you need to shut down the forum if it was already sequestered? Was it simply consuming too much physical bandwidth or storage space, and so causing the rest of the forums to suffer? It seems like, without a designated area, the crackpots are infecting all areas.
Why did you need to shut down the forum if it was already sequestered? Was it simply consuming too much physical bandwidth or storage space, and so causing the rest of the forums to suffer?This forum doesn't host discussions on crackpot ideas or conspiracy theories. There are many, many places on the internet that do if you enjoy that type of thing.
This forum doesn't host discussions on crackpot ideas or conspiracy theories.Actually, it does. Just not for very long.
Why did you need to shut down the forum if it was already sequestered? Was it simply consuming too much physical bandwidth or storage space, and so causing the rest of the forums to suffer? It seems like, without a designated area, the crackpots are infecting all areas.
Totally wrong!
By not giving them ANY platform, they wail and scream, and then..LEAVE. For good.
Did you ever think they kept themselves within the designated area? :rofl:
Totally wrong!
By not giving them ANY platform, they wail and scream, and then..LEAVE. For good.
Did you ever think they kept themselves within the designated area? :rofl:This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your response is totally inappropriate. What, exactly, is "totally wrong"? Asking a question?
I appologize (insincerely) for not knowing the answer to my own question before I asked it.
It was a response to the your last assertion:
It seems like, without a designated area, the crackpots are infecting all areas.
Having a designated crackpot area attracts them in large numbers, making crackpottery more visible, not only in the designated area, but in many other sub-forums as well.
By refusing their "right to have their own place at PF" dissuades many of them from even visiting (much less commenting), so that their "attack strength" becomes minimized.
Moonbear
Nov6-09, 04:26 PM
Why did you need to shut down the forum if it was already sequestered? Was it simply consuming too much physical bandwidth or storage space, and so causing the rest of the forums to suffer? It seems like, without a designated area, the crackpots are infecting all areas.
So, in your first post you were complaining that the rules against crackpottery are overly strict and should be relaxed, and now here you're complaining that the crackpots are infesting all areas of the forum. Do you see the logical inconsistency in those two arguments?
Astronuc
Nov6-09, 05:03 PM
Why did you need to shut down the forum if it was already sequestered? Was it simply consuming too much physical bandwidth or storage space, and so causing the rest of the forums to suffer? It seems like, without a designated area, the crackpots are infecting all areas. Crackpots come here with an agenda. Also, it appears that most do not read the PF guidelines, or if they do, simply disregard them.
IR is set up for independent (non-mainstream) research. A big problem is that most submitters do not bother to follow the submission guidelines, assuming that they even bother to read them in the first place.
We get a lot of ill-informed people there, who feel they understand physics or the ultimate reality, when in fact they express a poor understanding of basics.
It is way too much effort to monitor each and every post for misinformation of crackpots, so if we find a post or thread, it is shutdown pretty quickly.
And we certainly do not need a crackpot forum at PF.
Redbelly98
Nov7-09, 06:16 PM
We are not trying to make money at PF. We are trying to teach and discuss the current knowledge of science, math, and technology. That is what attracts most of our members here.
Allowing personal theories ends up, in many cases, consuming members' time with trying to teach basic stuff to somebody who does not wish to learn or understand it. (And learning the basics is necessary before developing a new theory.) Our general membership finds this extremely annoying, so we don't allow it.
Furthermore, keeping the house clean increases the chances that people we want to visit PF choose to do so.
For example, professional engineers and other scientists will often have low tolerance for "garbage", and will keep away from sites they see allow garbage proliferation.
To moonbear,
My statement that you quoted was not a complaint, it was an attempt at empathy. I do not understand the criteria for "crackpot", "troll", etc., so I suppose that I misused the terminology. I do not complain here about other people's non-mainstream viewpoints, and I maintain my complaint regarding the intolerance of non-mainstream viewpoints, sans contradiction.
To penguino, jtbell, astronuc,
I will take a peek at the IR forum. Thanks.
To all (esp. moderators),
I resign this discussion, reiterating my feedback one last time (in this thread) as a request rather than a complaint: a request to allow non-mainstream viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration.
DaveC426913
Nov9-09, 11:15 PM
To all (esp. moderators),
I resign this discussion, reiterating my feedback one last time (in this thread) as a request rather than a complaint: a request to allow non-mainstream viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration.I just do not understand why. It is directly contradictory to PF's goal. You are asking for PF to change its identity from that of a premiere source of reliable, established science on the web to ... something else.
Will you now go to the "First Christian's Forum" and ask them to create a subforum for Jewish issues?
Moonbear
Nov9-09, 11:33 PM
To all (esp. moderators),
I resign this discussion, reiterating my feedback one last time (in this thread) as a request rather than a complaint: a request to allow non-mainstream viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration.
What people have been attempting to explain is that we have already tried that approach on this forum, and it was a miserable failure. People are not refuting your suggestion out of an unwillingness to consider new things, but because it is an old, tested approach, and we know what the results were and don't wish to repeat them.
George Jones
Nov9-09, 11:37 PM
To all (esp. moderators),
I resign this discussion, reiterating my feedback one last time (in this thread) as a request rather than a complaint: a request to allow non-mainstream viewpoints. Thank you for your consideration.
How much time have you spent on sci.physics?
Born2bwire
Nov9-09, 11:45 PM
Man, I would not want to encourage anymore crackpots coming here. They are bad enough as it is given the discouragement the forum projects toward them. Even in the short time I have been here I have grown tired of them quickly because, as stated previously, it is usually a problem of their personality than their ideas. Most are unwilling to concede to learning basic knowledge or promote a proper debate. It is all a waste of time.
Hell, I'm even getting people PMing me crackpot nonsense now.
Integral
Nov10-09, 03:02 AM
What people have been attempting to explain is that we have already tried that approach on this forum, and it was a miserable failure. People are not refuting your suggestion out of an unwillingness to consider new things, but because it is an old, tested approach, and we know what the results were and don't wish to repeat them.
I wouldn't call it a failure, we had a lot of fun in the old "Theory Development" forum, and it helped grow the forums. Unfortunately, we all became tired of it for the exact reasons stated by B2b in a previous post. It was simply an unending repetitive discussion with a procession of crackpots one after the other. The more convoluted the language the bigger the cracks in the pot.
In those days we did not have nearly as large a active member base, so sometimes any discussion was better then none. But now there are a large number of highly qualified members who contribute on a regular basis and our membership is growing steadily. We can now be a little more picky about the discussions we permit and the members who post in them. Why would we want to open the floodgates to nutcases who do not know the basics but claim to hold the true knowledge?
Hell, I'm even getting people PMing me crackpot nonsense now.Please forward any unwanted PM's to a mentor. If they are contacting you, they are probably bothering other members as well.
FredGarvin
Nov11-09, 06:08 PM
I think the rise in Google and other search engines' effectiveness is another reason for us to be even more vigilant in stopping the "non-mainstream" posts. It seems now a days you can't post anything that is mainstream without seeing a zero post count new person show up and give their 2 cents worth.
jim mcnamara
Nov15-09, 07:50 PM
.............
Hell, I'm even getting people PMing me crackpot nonsense now.
I got a bad one today from a poster with 0 posts, plugging a blog.
In all honesty, for me, it is really hard to tell uneducated/miseducated from propagandist.
Considering the effort I have to put into researching some topics to give decent answers, I don't bother with 80% of the posts I could answer.
I got a bad one today from a poster with 0 posts, plugging a blog.
In all honesty, for me, it is really hard to tell uneducated/miseducated from propagandist.
Considering the effort I have to put into researching some topics to give decent answers, I don't bother with 80% of the posts I could answer.Forward the PM to me, or at least the member name. They usually harrass a large number of members.
Born2bwire
Nov16-09, 02:04 AM
Please forward any unwanted PM's to a mentor. If they are contacting you, they are probably bothering other members as well.
Will do in the future. I didn't previously because by the time I had read the PM the sender had been obviously dealt with.
jim mcnamara
Nov16-09, 06:34 AM
Yes - the problem child had been disusered in my case too.
How much time have you spent on sci.physics?Zero (unless you count the time that I spent just now to find out what it is; I assume you're talking about the groups.google.com/group subfolder).
Yes - the problem child had been disusered in my case too.It still is a good idea to let us know just in case they turn up again as a sockpupput, we'll be aware of their activities then.
MacLaddy
Nov18-09, 02:55 PM
As a new member of the forum, and preparing to begin in my own academic adventures, I think I can understand where the OP is coming from; as well as the moderators of the forum.
There have been a few times that I would of liked to ask a question that could have potentially been crackpottery, but I didn't do so in fear that a PF Lightning Bolt would slash a strike through the center of my name. However, it doesn't dispel my curiosity in the subject as I can not get a decent answer elsewhere, or not one that isn't biased, or fed with even more crackpottery.
I think a lot of people come to this forum to have there questions answered, and then they argue and do not accept the answer. In that case, I agree completely with the strict controls. However, sometimes I feel the mod's come down rather hard on people that are new to the forums, and the subjects in general, and are just looking for an academic evaluation of their interest.
Just my thoughts though... *Don't Strike me down*
arildno
Nov18-09, 03:05 PM
Crackpots are NOT the same as HTBIAPs (having totally bogus ideas about physics, "hattybiaps", colloquially)
A crackpot is a hattybiap convinced of having proven everybody else wrong, and that there is a large conspiracy out there to silence him.
Hattybiaps are welcome at PF! :smile:
MacLaddy
Nov18-09, 03:10 PM
That sounds familiar... I wonder if someone has called me that before.:uhh:
Oh well. Perhaps I can change MacLaddy to Hattybiaps. Has a nice ring to it I think.
arildno
Nov18-09, 03:15 PM
Thanks, I made it up right now. It's my poetic vein, I think. Or perhaps the wine? :smile:
DaveC426913
Nov18-09, 03:16 PM
HTBIAPs (having totally bogus ideas about physics, "hattybiaps", colloquially)In five years on this board, I've never come across that term.
MacLaddy
Nov18-09, 03:27 PM
Does that make the moderators Madtapbiap?
(Moderating and dispelling totally and preposterously bogus ideas about physics)
My poetic vein seems to have dried up. Perhaps you can spare some of that wine?
arildno
Nov18-09, 03:31 PM
Does that make the moderators Madtapbiap?
(Moderating and dispelling totally and preposterously bogus ideas about physics)
My poetic vein seems to have dried up. Perhaps you can spare some of that wine?
Gulp. It's gone.. :redface:
mikelepore
Dec9-09, 11:11 PM
The policy of having a list of "closed subjects" on the rules page seems too strict to me. Even within the guideline that you are not sponsoring a forum for spreading crackpot ideas, there remain valid purposes for mentioning each crackpot idea. For example, a discussion about: If someone in the news media were to ask a scientist to comment on this or that crackpot belief, how could the scientist best answer it, for maximum public educational benefit? If a teacher wants to develop a lesson plan which includes the correction of certain misconceptions, including this crackpot belief, what would be a good approach? What place does this belief hold in the history of the transmission of rumors and popular fallacies, crowd psychology, the anthropological fact of myth-making, etc.? But it seems that the rules here don't permit any discussion of certain beliefs, simply because they have been debunked.
Wallace
Dec14-09, 09:54 AM
I'm just echoing what has been said many times already (here and elsewhere) but mikelepore, the reason the rules are in place is because it makes PF the kind of place the people who run it want it to be. If you want a different sort of forum, make one (or post on one that is closer to your desires). The list of closed topics to me reads like a list of bollocks that I'd hate to have to endlessly refute, so it's far easier to simply blacklist obviously useless topics. It's not like any of these are marginal or debateable, they are unredeemable non-sense.
I came to PF and I stick around precisely because of the way its run and the rules and guidelines that are in place ( and the adept way they are put into practice by the staff).
DaveC426913
Dec14-09, 01:09 PM
I came to PF and I stick around precisely because of the way its run and the rules and guidelines that are in place ( and the adept way they are put into practice by the staff).
And this is the reason many people stay - professionals that are experts in their field and valuable contributors - who could otherwise not take the forum seriously and would go elsewhere.
JasonRox
Dec14-09, 02:17 PM
I never read the PF guidelines. I just follow a simple rule of like... "Don't be an idiot."
I don't follow any Physics forums or anything right now, but when I did, it was clear many people didn't know of the concept "Ask and learn."
People would ask questions out of curiousity, and then disregard ANY reasonable answer. And then after a few pages of arguments about the OP ignoring any intelligent answer, the OP will POST his answer to HIS OWN QUESTION while admitting he's not an expert in the OP. And then claim their is a conspiracy that moderators don't accept their theory. And then they reference books like "A Brief History of Time", or "Science of Star Wars".
That my friend is a crackpot.
n!kofeyn
Dec15-09, 04:38 PM
What about this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288393)? I myself am a huge fan of Tesla and have done quite a bit of research looking for any mention of Tesla's theory of gravity, but have not been able to find any further evidence of any such theory existing. However, at the time I first came across this post, I could have learned something of some value. This person posted a quite sane and legitimate question and was immediately shut down. Why couldn't this have been a discussion, where someone of knowledge could have given the poster a thoughtful and respectful answer? For example, it is most likely that Tesla included this theory in his released statement, but didn't have a fully developed theory. It is likely however that he may have some decent thoughts about gravity, especially considering the fact that he was also a brief student of Ernst Mach, an influential thinker on Einstein. Instead, the poster asked a question in a very decent manner and was basically told to shut up and go away by a person who was obviously not very well knowledgeable on the subject, other than the fact that we would have heard about it by now. This is a disturbing response when speaking of Tesla, because despite his highly revolutionary and well founded contributions, I haven't seen a reference to him in any textbook other than the use of Tesla units to denote magnetic field strength.
Just because PF allows a thread on a slightly fringe topic doesn't mean it's supporting crackpots. If a person hears something about a so-called fringe theory, asks a question about it, and then is shut down, how has that helped explain away these fringe theories? Instead, in my opinion, this further supports a person's idea that a fringe theory is correct against mainstream science because it is flatly ignored.
I have seen instances of where a supposed expert on PF went off on such tangents and self-indulged responses that he may as well been considered a crank in the context of the thread, but is instead seemingly worshiped.
Although, I do understand there are some instances, such as the user Nigel, in which the poster is incorrigible.
ZapperZ
Dec15-09, 06:47 PM
What about this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288393)? I myself am a huge fan of Tesla and have done quite a bit of research looking for any mention of Tesla's theory of gravity, but have not been able to find any further evidence of any such theory existing. However, at the time I first came across this post, I could have learned something of some value. This person posted a quite sane and legitimate question and was immediately shut down. Why couldn't this have been a discussion, where someone of knowledge could have given the poster a thoughtful and respectful answer? For example, it is most likely that Tesla included this theory in his released statement, but didn't have a fully developed theory. It is likely however that he may have some decent thoughts about gravity, especially considering the fact that he was also a brief student of Ernst Mach, an influential thinker on Einstein. Instead, the poster asked a question in a very decent manner and was basically told to shut up and go away by a person who was obviously not very well knowledgeable on the subject, other than the fact that we would have heard about it by now. This is a disturbing response when speaking of Tesla, because despite his highly revolutionary and well founded contributions, I haven't seen a reference to him in any textbook other than the use of Tesla units to denote magnetic field strength.
Just because PF allows a thread on a slightly fringe topic doesn't mean it's supporting crackpots. If a person hears something about a so-called fringe theory, asks a question about it, and then is shut down, how has that helped explain away these fringe theories? Instead, in my opinion, this further supports a person's idea that a fringe theory is correct against mainstream science because it is flatly ignored.
I have seen instances of where a supposed expert on PF went off on such tangents and self-indulged responses that he may as well been considered a crank in the context of the thread, but is instead seemingly worshiped.
Although, I do understand there are some instances, such as the user Nigel, in which the poster is incorrigible.
Here's the problem. A thread on some marginally fringe topic may start off fine, but we have seen WAY to many instances where not only did it deteriorate very quickly, but topics like that tend to attract other crackpots to the forum. I've lost count on how many times I've seen thread in which, after just the first post, I could have predicted that it will go south very quickly.
PF cannot be everything to everyone. That is very clear. I'm sure we will be deprived of budding geniuses who want to tackle the various problems in physics that we simply will not cater too. That, I'm sure, is our loss. But for what we aim to do, we darn well intend to do it as best we can. Having been on the 'net for a very many years (since 1987), I can easily tell you that this is one of, if not THE, best physics discussion from that I've been a part of.
Zz.
russ_watters
Dec15-09, 07:23 PM
....and for that thread in particular, how can you have a reasonable discussion of something that doesn't exist?!
MacLaddy
Dec16-09, 12:35 AM
PF cannot be everything to everyone. That is very clear. I'm sure we will be deprived of budding geniuses who want to tackle the various problems in physics that we simply will not cater too. That, I'm sure, is our loss. But for what we aim to do, we darn well intend to do it as best we can. Having been on the 'net for a very many years (since 1987), I can easily tell you that this is one of, if not THE, best physics discussion from that I've been a part of.
Zz.
Now don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the services offered by this site; and the knowledge I come away with. However, that whole statement above seems to contradict what I believe this site is about. To me this site is about a community of people who love to learn, and in some cases, love to teach.
With that being said, I do have to wonder about the direction that this website is heading. While the direction of the "Science Education" forum seems to be sound, I feel that the rest of the boards are becoming more and more private. Each forum having a group of individuals that maintain the board to their own personal standards...
I feel that much of this website is becoming "a private club for members."
Anyhow, just my two cents. (or 8, but who's counting). I understand completely that the founders of the board, and the staff who maintains it, have every imaginable right to operate this website as they see fit; and I truly appreciate the opportunity to be a part of it.
Someday, when I know what I'm talking about, I will actually try to contribute something helpful... In the meantime I'll continue to absorb what information I can, and probably spout off random bits of nothingness here and there.
Mac
ZapperZ
Dec16-09, 06:41 AM
The rules of the forum just didn't spring over night, and none of us here, contrary to the beliefs of some of the members, are not psychotic enough to come up with the rules out of thin air. The forum has evolved for several years, and practically ALL of the variations of openness, everything-goes policy, etc. have been tried at one point or another. In fact, the strict rules that we currently have here are MORE WORK for the moderators/mentors than you can ever imagine. We can either take the easy way out and simply let anything goes and let the signal-to-noise ratio suffer, or we can take the hard way and demand quality of posts, very low signal-to-noise ratio, and a LOT of work for us. We chose the latter even if to the detriment for many of the mentors who inevitably have and will suffer from burn-out periodically from trying to maintain the standard.
As far as the various forums resembling a members only forum, other than making some generalized, superficial criticism, maybe you should show your evidence (after all, this being a science forum, that's what we demand and expect). Show evidence that (i) there is a "members only" attitude and (ii) that this is prevalent and common throughout PF. Until I see valid evidence of what you meant, it is difficult for any of us not only to comment, but also to take appropriate actions.
Zz.
Wallace
Dec16-09, 06:49 AM
I think there are some Mountains bursting forth from molehills here. You don't actually see that many threads needing moderator attention, and in the vast majority of cases the threads locked or posts deleted are obviously useless.
On the odd occassion there are threads and/or posts which are somewhat lineball, being argueably against the rules and arguably okay. In these situations, in my experience, the staff exercise very good judgement. But it's still pretty uncommon.
I hardly see the presence of moderation as being overbearing, for the most part I don't even notice it (I'm sure it's like the Duck analogy for the staff though; looks like smooth sailing from the surface but requires frantic unseen paddling going on below :) ).
ZapperZ
Dec16-09, 10:05 AM
Trust me. Often, there ARE a lot of "frantic, unseen paddling" going on. In many instances, we disagree with each other. Just because we are mentors does not mean we are lemmings all going in the same directions. It is not uncommon for us to disagree when discussing certain policies or actions taken. It is why, when we act on something, we better be darn sure of our reasons because we are expected to be able to defend such actions.
However, another missing aspect in all of this is science advisors like you who have contributed and enhanced the forum MORE than you'll ever know. Often, the involvement of these members can correct a thread about to go off the deep end and save it from either being locked or deleted. In those cases, a borderline thread can become an educational/informational tool that more than fulfills the PF mission.
Zz.
arildno
Dec16-09, 10:44 AM
I think there are some Mountains bursting forth from molehills here. You don't actually see that many threads needing moderator attention, and in the vast majority of cases the threads locked or posts deleted are obviously useless.
Eeh?
Over the years, I've personally alerted to the mentors tens (probably not hundreds) of posts that are so wacky they are simply deleted very fast by mentor activity.
Now, there are lots of members like myself patrolling the forums, and using the report button frequently.
There are easily thousands of crackpot threads that have been quashed, due to prompt action whose transient presence is not noticed by members in general for that very reason.
Astronuc
Dec16-09, 12:24 PM
With that being said, I do have to wonder about the direction that this website is heading. While the direction of the "Science Education" forum seems to be sound, I feel that the rest of the boards are becoming more and more private. Each forum having a group of individuals that maintain the board to their own personal standards... How so?!
The PF guidelines have developed over 6 years or so, and a based on experience and careful deliberation. There's plenty of room to discuss all matters of mathematics and physics.
We necessarily restrict non-mainstream ideas in the main forums, but we have a special section, Independent Research, for those to propose new ideas - BUT, we have standards (acceptance criteria) there as well, and new ideas must be based on sound physics, and the submitter must demonstrate familiarity and correct understanding of the state-of-the-art, which is often not the case.
PF is devoted to promoting a sound approach to learning and exploration of science. We are opposed to pseudo-science and nonsense.
The staff are largely practising scientists (including mathematicians and physicists), engineers and professionals in applied technology.
George Jones
Dec16-09, 01:18 PM
Trust me. Often, there ARE a lot of "frantic, unseen paddling" going on.
This is usually an eye-opener when a new Mentor comes on board; it certainly was for me.
In many instances, we disagree with each other. Just because we are mentors does not mean we are lemmings all going in the same directions. It is not uncommon for us to disagree when discussing certain policies or actions taken. It is why, when we act on something, we better be darn sure of our reasons because we are expected to be able to defend such actions.
At times, behind-the-scenes discussions are quite spirited, but at other times, agreement is reached quickly.
However, another missing aspect in all of this is science advisors like you who have contributed and enhanced the forum MORE than you'll ever know. Often, the involvement of these members can correct a thread about to go off the deep end and save it from either being locked or deleted. In those cases, a borderline thread can become an educational/informational tool that more than fulfills the PF mission.
Hear! Hear! Every report about a post or thread is read, usually by several Mentors. This can result in: unilateral action by a single Mentor; discussion and action after a consensus is reached among several Mentors; no action.
Vanadium 50
Dec16-09, 04:08 PM
or we can take the hard way and demand quality of posts, very low signal-to-noise ratio, and a LOT of work for us.
Or....maybe we could demand high signal to noise ratio instead. :biggrin:
(Lest anyone thing we are mindless lemmings who never disagree with each other)
ZapperZ
Dec16-09, 05:57 PM
Or....maybe we could demand high signal to noise ratio instead. :biggrin:
(Lest anyone thing we are mindless lemmings who never disagree with each other)
At least they know that you can read my mind!
:)
Zz.
Chronos
Dec17-09, 02:18 AM
Publish a paper accepted by Arxiv, that is generally accepted as worthy of discussion.
ZapperZ
Dec17-09, 06:19 AM
Publish a paper accepted by Arxiv, that is generally accepted as worthy of discussion.
Not necessarily. I can point to you many Arxiv "publications" that are borderline crackpottery.
For High energy physics and String/etc. community, citing Arxiv uploads is a common practice, and so, we allow such citations as well for those forums and subject matter. However, for other fields of physics, this isn't so. Published work in peer-reviewed journals are still the predominant source of citations. So again, we will go with the prevailing practice within those communities and will skew our preference for sources from peer-reviewed journals.
Zz.
Wallace
Dec17-09, 06:25 AM
In practice though, does the distinction need to be invoked very often? How many line-ball discussions are there which get saved from the banhammer because someone could provide a link to an appropriate paper?
I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)
ZapperZ
Dec18-09, 05:38 PM
I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)
Not every "article" that appears in Arxiv were on their way to a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, not everyone updates the preprint into the same form as that which finally appeared in print. I know I didn't update the preprint that I uploaded when I had my papers published.
For most people in this profession, based on my experience, Arxiv is used simply as an "advanced notice" of news to come. Most of us still waits for the final papers to be published before we make extensive citation of it. This is certainly true outside of high energy/string/etc. field. One only needs to look at a typical paper in condensed matter from, say, PRL. Look at how many Arxiv-only article that was been cited.
Zz.
TurtleMeister
Dec19-09, 01:11 PM
What about a private forum for non-mainstream science discussions? Admittance would be by request and could be restricted to members who have a minimum post count.
Integral
Dec19-09, 01:19 PM
We have been there done that. It requires a huge amount of moderation time and involves endless arguments with members who think that the only requirement for doing physics is a good bowl load.
It simply is not worth our time.
Our current place for this is the IR (independent research) forums. We have pretty high standards for starting threads.
DaveC426913
Dec19-09, 06:23 PM
I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.
Usually I just sic em on bautforum.com (http://www.bautforum.com/) :rolleyes:
I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.
Usually I just sic em on bautforum.com (http://www.bautforum.com/) :rolleyes:bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.
If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.
DaleSpam
Dec19-09, 07:51 PM
If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.:rofl: that is so true! That was my first vaguely-science-related online forum experience.
I got fed up with the cranks and decided to join PF instead precisely because of the mainstream science criterion. I think it is an indispensable part of what makes PF good and I hope it never goes away.
Can we change this thread from "Complaint" to "Praise"?
DaveC426913
Dec20-09, 12:58 AM
bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.
If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.
I said nothing about cranks, or about crank fora. What I said was: People who wish to discuss non-mainstream ideas will have a better chance there than here.
arildno
Dec20-09, 08:47 AM
If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.
We should use that place as a warning more often.
There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.
Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy.
Astronuc
Dec20-09, 09:36 AM
We should use that place as a warning more often.
There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.
Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy. Actually we do refer some people there. :biggrin:
arildno
Dec20-09, 10:18 AM
Actually we do refer some people there. :biggrin:
Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place? :smile:
Integral
Dec20-09, 03:59 PM
Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place? :smile:
It would be a fools errand. There is no way to win an online argument when logic and knowledge mean nothing.
DaveC426913
Dec20-09, 04:13 PM
It would be a fools errand. There is no way to win an online argument when logic and knowledge mean nothing.
Well, you wouldn't win any arguments; you'd enforce the rules and create new ones and eventually drive away the crackpots. But it would be a monumental task to virtually replace a large fraction of the membership.
Redbelly98
Dec20-09, 04:54 PM
Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place? :smile:
Be careful. I've often found that the person who suggests an idea ends up being the person who must implement it. :wink:
arildno
Dec20-09, 05:10 PM
Be careful. I've often found that the person who suggests an idea ends up being the person who must implement it. :wink:
Try to force me..:devil:
Astronuc
Dec20-09, 05:22 PM
Try to force me..:devil: You volunteered. :biggrin:
Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place? :smile:
Several of us are trying. We still have our fair share of crackpots, but we can now chase them out and as a result the science sections have improved. (Just don't look in the pseudoscience subforum.)
Given the reference in this post, perhaps siccing them on technologyreview.com might be a better bet.
Ivan Seeking
Dec24-09, 01:40 PM
Several of us are trying. We still have our fair share of crackpots, but we can now chase them out and as a result the science sections have improved.
Really? The mainstream criteria has been in place for at least five years now.
(Just don't look in the pseudoscience subforum.)
A cheap shot from the peanut gallery? The fact is that psuedoscience is not allowed. Did you know that? I suspect not. Do you object to the exploration of potentially unexplained phenomena - the heart and soul of science?
People experience strange things and we do our best qualify, quantify, or explain them. What a crime.
Whoa! Read the backchain, Ivan. I wasn't referring to this site. Trace the quotes fare enough back and you will get to this post.
dE_logics
Dec25-09, 01:15 AM
May be we should have another forums instead of locking the thread. Any thread that the mentors think are lockable will be transferred to this forums which will be untouched by people who don't want to hear such things...making both the set of people happy.
1) Thread ain't locked
2) It ain't in the main forum so you wont see it.
Generally people hate very basic questions...but we do have a separate forum for that, so that solves the issue.
DaveC426913
Dec25-09, 01:24 AM
May be we should have another forums instead of locking the thread. Any thread that the mentors think are lockable will be transferred to this forums which will be untouched by people who don't want to hear such things...making both the set of people happy.
Confucious say: The fox that chases two rabbits catches none.
No forum can be all things to all people and still succeed.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.