Announcement: New Rules for the PF Philosophy forum beginning January 1, 2011 [Archive]

Math Is Hard

Dec27-10, 10:02 PM

Rules for the PF Philosophy forum beginning January 1, 2011

Beginning in January, we are implementing a theme for the Philosophy Forum. These new rules were developed in the spirit of making the Philosophy forum of PF a more academically-oriented discussion place. We are looking to get away from the Philosophy forum as an "anything that pops into my head" discussion section, and similar to the homework help forums, require effort from those posting new topics.

There are three guidelines:

1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.

ex. In A Treatise of Human Nature, What did David Hume mean when he said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them"?

Also, when discussing the philosophical implications of some piece of scientific work, references are required for both the underlying scientific content as well as the resulting philosophical discussion.

ex. The research of Benjamin Libet suggests that our decisions to act occur before our conscious awareness of them. Isn't this a serious problem for the idea of free will?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

ex. I am researching human moral instincts for a paper for my class. Where can I find more information on this?

3) Requests for help with standard definitions and terminology are perfectly acceptable.

ex. I am trying to understand the difference between epistemological and ontological questions. Can you advise?

Note: All the same previous rules will still apply to both new posts and replies. Symbolic logic questions should be placed in the appropriate Homework Section or the Set Theory/Logic/Probability/Statistics subforum.

EnumaElish

Dec27-10, 10:59 PM

I applaud these rules and suggest a similar set of rules for Social Sciences, History & Humanities.

cobalt124

Dec28-10, 05:24 AM

A definite step forward, what I've come to expect from PF, thanks.

M Grandin

Dec29-10, 07:08 PM

I must admit I first thought this was seriously meant :mad: and was on my way suggest corresponding rules regarding anything in this "Physics Forum" - for instance when suggesting a new kind of dish for dinner you must name a reknown cook having suggested something aquainted.

Then I understood (blame my limited sense of humour) it was just a misplaced joke -
aimed at the section "Fun, Photos & Games" at position "Science Jokes". :rofl:

Math Is Hard

Dec29-10, 07:23 PM

I applaud these rules and suggest a similar set of rules for Social Sciences, History & Humanities.

A definite step forward, what I've come to expect from PF, thanks.

Thanks for the encouraging feedback. :smile:

I must admit I first thought this was seriously meant :mad: and was on my way suggest corresponding rules regarding anything in this "Physics Forum" - for instance when suggesting a new kind of dish for dinner you must name a reknowned cook having suggested something aquainted.

Then I understood (blame my limited sense of humour) it was just a misplaced joke -
aimed at the section "Fun, Photos and Games" at position "Science Jokes". :rofl:

No joke. The new rules go into effect January 1 and apply to the Philosophy Forum exclusively. These rules were not created capriciously, but took months of planning, and are in response to years of complaints about the quality level of the PF Philosophy forum. This is being done in an effort to serve the members here who want to maintain a serious discussion place. I realize the new policies are very restrictive, but it's a starting point, and we can adjust later on as needed.

Math Is Hard

Dec29-10, 07:31 PM

One other thing I should mention: we also plan to do a mass-locking of all existing threads in Philosophy when the changeover takes place. We have many,many threads that don't meet the new (or even current) criteria, and necroposting has always been a problem. It's easiest just to do a clean sweep with the locking, and we have done this in the past concurrently with a rule change.

There are a few current threads that meet the new guidelines and may be worth keeping open, however, so we will individually unlock these as needed.

Char. Limit

Jan4-11, 12:51 AM

Can we please use similar rules for the P&WA forum?

Ivan Seeking

Jan4-11, 01:25 AM

Can we please use similar rules for the P&WA forum?

That would be more appropriate for political science discussions in the social sciences. P&WA is not a formal discipline like Philosophy. What's more, it is relevant to current events, which means that in many or most cases, it isn't possible for there to be papers available, much less papers available for free.

Ivan Seeking

Jan4-11, 01:40 AM

Political philosophy [as a formal subject] can be discussed in the philosophy forum.

Evo

Jan4-11, 08:31 AM

Can we please use similar rules for the P&WA forum?I would love similar rules for P&WA. People should show a knowledge of what they're talking about and that they are aware of current events, and not with a blog as their only source. It is currently a rule that claims must be cited with valid, mainstream sources.

ecsspace

Jan5-11, 07:07 AM

Rules for the PF Philosophy forum beginning January 1, 2011
We are looking to get away from the Philosophy forum as an "anything that pops into my head" discussion section, .

Okay, then to cull the kooks, why not start a forum specifically for 'anything that pops into my head', but give it definite topic threads that must be addressed to and cannot be deviated from without creative rationalization(or if you will, a storyline), no matter how kooky that storyline is.
Perhaps an idea for a thread: "The Wheel: How Was It Invented?" and let anyone post anything, but every post has to describe how the poster surmises/guesses/theorizes/daydreams/postulates the wheel was invented.
You have to make room for it somewhere, otherwise you are just 'man will never fly' self packaged within increasingly elaborate wrapping paper.
Remember, Isaac Newton's math stuff was a back burner issue for him. He really was quite 'spiritual' in the work that was of primary interest to him.
Personally I wonder if the achievement of a C+ spacecraft-with-no-time-dilation will be achieved not with a complicated collated ordering of multi-caveated models but with a short quick succession of silly jokes that paint the clear mechanical image in anyone's head.
If this post gets me banned I don't see it as any great loss for either party. Sticking noses so close to grindstones may occlude the inspirational scent of flowers.
The scent of BS can also be inspirational, heh
Build a forum called 'The Latrine" and you might be surprised at how many stand in line just to get a whiff of the flowers growing round it... or just to read the hilariously lewd things scrawled on the wall. Lots of fertilizer therein; but in it's place.
Herein high hats? Lest the laughter of babies ring instead to your ears as willful scornful jeers?

JaredJames

Jan5-11, 09:44 AM

ecsspace

Jan5-11, 10:32 AM

ecsspace, the forum needs to maintain standards. There is a reason personal theories and speculation isn't welcomed.

The moment you open a place for people to put, well, what ever they fancy you open the place up to a whole host of crackpots. This only serves to lower the standards of the forum. There are plenty of other forums out there for things like you suggest.

Then maintain the standards as you are doing, but create one specific forum for those ideas that fall way outside your standards. Incorporate one loony standard and then define what and where it is by example. Where it belongs through a process of inclusion rather than exclusion.
If there is a specific place for it within your forum, then you won't lose business to the loony forums. Makes sense that if you gather all the fruits and nuts then the loony forum guy will be left wanting. It's like opening the plastic surgery wing at the hospital. The money you make in that one wing pays for all the work you do elsewhere. (hint: ad space in the loony forum?) This way you can have your utopia and eat it too. Not to mention having a place to go slum. Having to avoid future instances of heavy lifting, like the Jan 1, 2011 redefining of the philosophy forum rules.
How many times has that happened?
Isaac Newton took quite seriously many of the topics that are outside of the standards. Don't any of you wake up screaming at the prospect of some newly revealed modern day Isaac Newton showing up on Letterman and when Dave asks why it took so long Isaac 2011 replies, well, I tried this really great place on the internet called Physics Forum but they kept waving this book of rules at my monitor... I don't know Dave, I guess they all watch Leno?
Not to mention the loonies you may convert...

JaredJames

Jan5-11, 10:36 AM

Firstly, GD is the "place to go slum".

As before, there are many places you can go to discuss personal theories and speculative ideas, but PF isn't it. There are rules specifically designed to ensure all discussion that takes place on the site falls within "mainstream".

That is what makes the site of high value and quality.

The moment you start allowing people to post all kinds of crap on here, regardless of where, you invite the crackpots and the standards drop (it all appears in Google after all) and not everyone realises they aren't viewing 'the main site'.

And for the record, you can't convert the "loonies" (aka crackpots), that's one of the things that makes them what they are.

ecsspace

Jan5-11, 11:19 AM

Firstly, GD is the "place to go slum".
And for the record, you can't convert the "loonies" (aka crackpots), that's one of the things that makes them what they are.

Isaac Newton was a crackpot, but it was not the only thing he was, and what lay in the balance of his character has been of tremendous value to the rest of us. If you exclude all crackpots, you may miss the chance to inspire by your example in one of them the brilliant observation that hides amidst their cracked pots. I think another term is 'diamond in the rough'. Build a hole into where the rough may tumble within earshot.
I doubt that anyone here would go so far to suggest that they are possessed of their own light that shines so bright that it will cast no shadow. We're all a little bit crackpotted? You may discount discussion of divine intervention or influence...but better the devil you know?
The rigor of your discipline may inspire one of those crackpots, having never been exposed to it;
some example that there is the possibility of an implicit mathematical order to the universe.
(I like to believe there is).
Einstein's quote was redacted by the press: "God does not play dice with the universe.. his game is mumbletypeg."

JaredJames

Jan5-11, 11:30 AM

but better the devil you know?

No.
The rigor of your discipline may inspire one of those crackpots, having never been exposed to it;

Crackpots are routinely noted to disregard anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs. They won't accept any evidence that goes against their claims - people who claim to have built over unity devices, despite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and defend this claim to the end.

So far, all you have tried to do is justify allowing all sorts of non-sense discussions in PF. Like I've said, there are places for that and if you want it, go there instead.

PF specifically draws the line in this regard.

jtbell

Jan5-11, 11:58 AM

Then maintain the standards as you are doing, but create one specific forum for those ideas that fall way outside your standards.

We once had a forum like that: the Theory Development forum. About five years ago, we decided it didn't fit with the rest of PF and replaced it with the moderated Independent Research forum.

ecsspace

Jan5-11, 12:28 PM

No.

Crackpots are routinely noted to disregard anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs. They won't accept any evidence that goes against their claims - people who claim to have built over unity devices, despite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and defend this claim to the end.

.

Actually, my point was that one of those guys may have something on the back burner that
really works, but most of us will never know it because we stop looking when he starts howling
his protests to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I am also guilty of turning a deaf ear to magnet / free energy guys, whoever.
Agree, there is only so much of our time and energy to go around
and you gotta draw the line somewhere.

thanks, adieu for now.

ZapperZ

Jan5-11, 04:14 PM

Actually, my point was that one of those guys may have something on the back burner that
really works, but most of us will never know it because we stop looking when he starts howling
his protests to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This is pure speculation not backed by any kind of evidence. I too can make such speculation, but I have evidence - none of these internet crackpot has ever produced any significant advancement in physics knowledge - EVER! That's my evidence.

And considering that they've overran most of the forum on the 'net, you cannot say that they haven't had their chances of being heard. Yet, what have they done for us lately?

Considering that forums that cater to such thing are in such high abundance, complain that PF does not cater to them is like complaining about the presence of one vegetarian restaurant among a sea of steak houses. You want steak? Go elsewhere where there's plenty of them. Why would you complain about the lone vegetarian restaurant?

Zz.

lisab

Jan5-11, 04:47 PM

This is pure speculation not backed by any kind of evidence. I too can make such speculation, but I have evidence - none of these internet crackpot has ever produced any significant advancement in physics knowledge - EVER! That's my evidence.

And considering that they've overran most of the forum on the 'net, you cannot say that they haven't had their chances of being heard. Yet, what have they done for us lately?

Considering that forums that cater to such thing are in such high abundance, complain that PF does not cater to them is like complaining about the presence of one vegetarian restaurant among a sea of steak houses. You want steak? Go elsewhere where there's plenty of them. Why would you complain about the lone vegetarian restaurant?

Zz.

Hmm. I prefer to think of PF as a fantastic steak house in a sea of vegetarian restaurants, but to each his own :wink:.

DanP

Jan5-11, 06:22 PM

Philosophy is a royal waste of time, and will never be even remotely a science, and even consecrated philosophizers are more often than not complete crackpots, so whatever ... Enjoy the rules

Redbelly98

Jan6-11, 07:08 AM

Philosophy is a royal waste of time, and will never be even remotely a science, and even consecrated philosophizers are more often than not complete crackpots, so whatever ... Enjoy the rules
It's not a science, but it is an academic discipline. And there's a difference between being a waste of time for 99.5% of our members vs. a waste for 90-95% of our members. If is can be worthwhile for 5 to 10%, then it's worth having guidelines that make it so.

DanP

Jan6-11, 07:18 AM

It's not a science, but it is an academic discipline. And there's a difference between being a waste of time for 99.5% of our members vs. a waste for 90-95% of our members. If is can be worthwhile for 5 to 10%, then it's worth having guidelines that make it so.

The trouble with philosophy is that it doesn't brings anything on the table IMO. So much brainpower lost for random taught and questions without answers during the centuries, which would have been much better spent in whatever hard science , engineering disciplines , life sciences.

Probably 90% of the philosophy, even in academia, is crackpot with no base whatsoever in any science. It's "luft".

JaredJames

Jan6-11, 07:22 AM

DanP, you seem to share the same views on philosophy as me.

I find contemplating the question of "do we really exist" and all that stuff to be a complete and utter waste of brain power. But it's down to the person.

My biggest problem is with the language. Everywhere in this forum you get a relatively standard level of language used and yet the moment you enter philosophy it's like someone swallowed a dictionary (this applies to everywhere, not just on PF).

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 12:34 PM

personally, i do not like the rule change. the way it is now, the forum should at least be moved up to the other sciences section. at least not in the pf lounge, beside games and relationships.

and the name of the forum should be changed to "discussing known philosophers, cuz anyone who is not known has no right to have a philosophy of his own".

while there may be some posts that are somewhat "crackpot" (they can be deleted), there are also many other threads that have some real thought behind it. this is the pf LOUNGE.

JaredJames

Jan9-11, 12:55 PM

Physics-Learner, PF has rules regarding citing sources. Little, if nothing in the philosophy section was ever given with citations and most of it was just people putting what ever came into their minds.

The new rules force that section to be brought into line with the rest of the site.

I don't see why philosophy shouldn't have to cite sources any less than other parts of the site.

Regarding your "discussing known philosophers, cuz anyone who is not known has no right to have a philosophy of his own" statement, again, this isn't allowed in any other parts of the site (personal theories etc), even in GD, so why in philosophy?

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 01:25 PM

will i need to start using "dear abby" in the relationships section ? or will i still be able to use my own brain ?

how about the games section ? will i need to start quoting someone famous for his game playing ?

to me, it tells me not to think for myself.

when i want to know something, i will do research on the topic from many sources. so it is not like i just pick an idea out that i think, and stick with it. but after viewing these sources, i combine them with my experience, my thought processes, etc. - regarding formulating an opinion of my own.

i can see that a topic like physics and math would be more restricting, since these are more exacting and scientific.

but philosophy ? i guess we need to agree to disagree. i have no thought process at all that the rule change will be changed back. so this is merely MY POINT OF VIEW.

luckily, we can still think for ourselves here in the feedback forum, without having to cite a famous feedback person.

JaredJames

Jan9-11, 01:33 PM

You can post whatever you like so far as "your own opinions" go etc, but you need to cite sources.

This site isn't about developing new theories, it's a place for discussion of current topics / mainstream areas.

There are plenty of other sites out there that don't require sources and allow discussion of whatever you like.

You cannot compare the subject of philosophy with the games, relationships and feedback forums. Let's not make ridiculous statements.

Who said anything about "anyone famous" for sources? It has to be mainstream. AKA, accepted. That is all.

No one is saying not to think for yourself. We've had this topic in the past with another member.

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 01:55 PM

in case you havent noticed, philosophy is in between games and relationships. if they want to use these rules, at least the forum should be moved in the menus.

and of course you could make those same rules, regarding relationships. this is why there are "dear abbys" - because there tends to be mainstream acceptance of ideas. whenever i have read these sorts of columnists in the past, i am shocked at some of their ridiculous advice. but there are a whole host of "accepted ideas" that could be made to be cited.

accepted ? just who made it accepted ? usually someone who is now well known.

so what you are saying is that an idea is no good until it is accepted. and yet everything that is accepted started out as an idea.

so once again, i go back to "thinking for one's self".

as i recall, einstein was not accepted by his teachers. good thing he did not revert to citing sources for his thoughts. he chose to create thoughts himself.

TO ME, (i have no source to cite) philosophy is about attempting to answer questions that science can not answer. i dont think that famous philosophers, or mainstream (if you want to use that term) is necessarily any smarter than a lot of other people.

i have read many of the threads in the old philosophy forum. okay, there are some posts that seem way out there. but there are also a lot of them that are interesting.

i would much prefer to see logic brought in to one's thinking, as opposed to citing some mainstream idea.

this is what i typically do with my "personal opinions". i very rarely base them on any sort of philosophy or philosopher, or mainstream thought. i look at science and what we do know, try to combine logic, and then make some educated guesses at what it is that i dont know. and that is all that philosophy can ever be - educated guesses.

in fact, much of science is just educated guesses. but with much higher probabilities attached to them. if we look down the ages, an awful lot of science has been proven to be incorrect, as we get better information with which to formulate our theories.

JaredJames

Jan9-11, 02:05 PM

Look, I've said it plenty of times before so this is the last time.

PF isn't about coming up with new theories. They specifically don't allow them.

You can make a post about whatever you want, but any claims you make must be backed up.

To be accepted it must be published / mainstream. It's really not that difficult. The guidelines for this are already in place.

There is a difference between posting your new theory / speculating and making a post about your thoughts / opinion on a specific subject.

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 02:20 PM

There is a difference between posting your new theory / speculating and making a post about your thoughts / opinion on a specific subject.

this last sentence is not clear to me on what you are comparing when you say there is a difference.

according to the rules that you just posted, the relationships forum should be eliminated.

so a last time to you - philosophy is not the same as the theory of relativity.

i actually enjoyed some of the relationship threads. as i used to enjoy some of the philosophy threads - for the exact opposite reason that i like the other threads.

if i want to know about relativity, i am asking for specific scientific knowledge about a specific topic. i dont want someone's personal opinion.

if i happen to ask a question regarding so and so's philosophy, then i am not asking for a personal opinion.

but TO ME, one is limiting philosophy too much to use only mainstream ideas. i dont think i will ever use the philosophy forum as it is now. i have very little interest in what so and so thinks, just cuz he was the starter of some accepted idea.

so rename the forum to something like "formalized philosophy", and place it somewhere other than the LOUNGE, where games and relationships exist.

and then perhaps have a more relaxed "philosophy" in the lounge section.

i have no source to cite, this is just my personal opinion, which i am still allowed to present here in the feedback forum.

Evo

Jan9-11, 02:28 PM

The Philosophy forum used to be in other sciences, but it was so bad that it was moved.

The current rules are an attempt to see if the level of discussion can be brought up to be acceptable. If you have a post that is truely philosophical, then it should not be a problem to support that. If you can't, then maybe it's suitable for GD.

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 02:44 PM

hi evo,

i guess i was not aware of GD. i was thinking that was a description of a set of forums, not that it was a forum in itself.

i have what i think (and have already presented) philosophies about the creation of the universe, time, the existence of god, etc.

i truly dont know if they are acceptable under the current rules or not. i can say that i almost never develop a philosophical opinion based upon some mainstream philosophical thought process.

it may turn out that it is in tune with something mainstream, or it may not. for the most part, i would not know whether my "personal opinion" was mainstream or not.

for example - the existence of god. i dont think we can look beyond the black box (our universe) that we exist in. our very definition of god is the creator of our universe, which specifically implies that god "was around" when our universe was not. therefore, god is not a part of this universe. so we do not have, nor will we ever have one iota of scientific information about "god".

therefore i find that theism and atheism are both irrational thought processes, cuz neither is based on any evidence.

the way that you want to do the philosophy forum is fine, as i understand your intentions. i just think it would be much better to move it, since the rules are already in place. i personally have no interest in the new philosophy forum, so i wont look there.

but if it is helpful to others, then great.

Math Is Hard

Jan9-11, 02:48 PM

Physics-Learner, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. This is still in the experimental phase and your feedback is very important to how we shape this is the future.

You are absolutely right that the forum is in an odd area. One of our science sections would be inappropriate, though.

I am all for original ideas, but it seems unlikely that there will be a well-reasoned and meaningful philosophical post that no philosopher has ever addressed.

But let's say that a member feels that she has come up with a completely original approach to a problem that no one has ever worked on. She can still post that, but we would require that she follow the rule that asks for references. Several different things could happen through the responses:

1) She might find that her approach is completely novel.
2) She might find that her approach is nonsensical.
3) She might find that there are others who worked on the problem and approached it in the same way.
4) She might find that there are others who worked on the problem but that her approach is a little bit different (for better or for worse).

The only problem with this is it requires a substantial base of knowledgeable members. We had trouble building that, and it has been suggested by many members that we can't grow that base until this becomes a serious discussion forum and we restrict the lazy thinking and verbal diarrhea. Building that serious base has always been the biggest part of the problem, IMHO.

Physics-Learner

Jan9-11, 03:05 PM

thank you math,

as i said, i dont know whether my idea is "accepted" or not. and truly, i dont care.

i consider myself to be a highly logical person, so i think you will find a definite reasoning to my statements.

but to be truthful, at this point (in the philosophy forum) i would feel like i am always having to walk on eggshells, not knowing whether i am gonna get reprimanded or not for not following the rules.

i have made quite a number of posts on "philosophical" topics, so one could look back and make judgments about them, regarding suitability for the current forum.

but i can always make a post in the gd area. it is just that i dont know how many "good reasoners" ever go there.

i enjoy a good logical discussion. whenever i give an opinion, i always state the thought processes i used, when formulating that opinion. that way, it can give others a better way to give me feedback.

at this point, i wont use the philosophy forum, because i dont feel comfortable being there. i am all for following the rules of a system. but when i am not sure whether i am following the rules or not, i choose to abstain.

thanks for your feedback, as well.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 12:29 PM

I mainly peruse the Cosmology and Beyond the Standard Model portions of the physics Forums but I do go to the philosophy forum on many of occasion. In the past I have found things discussed that I had wondered what others had thought about. I recently have been reading the philosophy forums the past couple of weeks and noticed that what has been a lot of interesting threads have been locked. I understand that the Philosophy forum Moderators have decided to focus on improving the caliber of discussion on the forum to focus on referenced works of philosophy and limited new ideas. I must say I am not sure I agree with that approach. Although some of the discussion tends to stray from traditional philosophy to more religious and metaphysical I have found this forum, in the past, to be an excellent potpourri of free thought. It has given me a lot of ideas and thoughts that I have pondered on over the years irregardless of whether they have any scientific or philosophic rigor behind them or not. There are accusations of crackpots and kooks dialoguing on this forum. Well so be it. Many of the worlds greatest scientists and philosophers had mental issues also. I rarely post on these forums. I just read and absorb. I find it to be educational and entertaining at the same time. I am sorry to see that the we are tending toward the "Peoples Republic of Physics Forums."

JaredJames

Mar8-11, 01:34 PM

Many of the worlds greatest scientists and philosophers had mental issues also.

You do realise you don't need to have mental issues to be a crackpot?
I just read and absorb.

Yep, something that kids do a lot and something you really don't want when there is little "scientific or philosophic rigor behind them".

You don't want people assimilating BS.
I am sorry to see that the we are tending toward the "Peoples Republic of Physics Forums."

I'm curious why you believe this is anything but a private forum? It is run how the owners dictate. No one else.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 02:08 PM

ptalar

Mar8-11, 02:24 PM

You do realise you don't need to have mental issues to be a crackpot?

Yep, something that kids do a lot and something you really don't want when there is little "scientific or philosophic rigor behind them".

You don't want people assimilating BS.

I'm curious why you believe this is anything but a private forum? It is run how the owners dictate. No one else.

I just find it to be an interesting place to read. Yes, the forum does give me things to think about once in a while. That is why I sort of like it the way it was.

I realize its a private forum. And they can do what they want. I will probably stop reading this forum as the amount of threads will probably get reduced to zero with only a few threads remaining among the a few tried and true philosophers. I guess I will see if those threads are worth reading.

And yes, I am like a child, I do read and absorb. I will probably never stop, until I die.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 02:27 PM

I generally would consider a crackpot to meet the legal definition of sanity... otherwise I'd say, "nut", or in a professional setting, "mentally ill", "disturbed", or "unstable". The whole idea behind a crackpot to my thinking isn't a delusional process beyond self-delusion; I like your distinction JnJ.

@ptalar: Go somewhere else, it's still a free internet, but any given destinatino is subject to moderation. If you want to see what it's like in the wild west, go to a usenet chat, or irc channel. Keep your firewall up though...

Yeah, I probably will go away but it won't be because of your request. The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest. I rarely post on this forum so I have already gone. I mainly read the threads.

And who do you think you are to tell me to go away? Why don't you go away? What makes you so important?

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 02:30 PM

Yeah, I probably will go away but it won't be because of your request. The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest. I rarely post on this forum so I have already gone. I mainly read the threads.

And who do you think you are to tell me to go away? Why don't you go away? What makes you so important?

True, it would of course be a result of your behavior.

I'd add, mine wasn't a request, it was a suggestion that you find some clarity in contrast. Anyway, once you leave or are banned, you'll still be able to read the threads as a guest so... no big loss right? :smile:

edit: Are you at all ashamed to have used the equivalent of, "I'm going to bed because I WANT to, not because you TELL me to." ? I'm a little embarrassed for you, and I don't even know you.

JaredJames

Mar8-11, 02:30 PM

Yeah, I probably will go away but it won't be because of your request. The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest. I rarely post on this forum so I have already gone. I mainly read the threads.

If it's of no interest, there's no reason to stick around. There are plenty of people here who enjoy the place.
And who do you think you are to tell me to go away? Why don't you go away? What makes you so important?

That attitude isn't welcome here. Nismar pointed out your options, he didn't tell you to go away.

However, if you're only reason for sticking around is this thread and this nonsense then you might as well leave right now.

Just something to think about, consider the number of members and then look at how many complain - ooh look, it's a tiny percentage - must be doing something right after all.

Char. Limit

Mar8-11, 02:41 PM

The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest. I rarely post on this forum so I have already gone.

I wonder if you'd be willing to lay some money on your claim that this forum will be closed by the end of the year. Because I'd put my life and everything I own (which isn't much) on the fact that it won't.

And who do you think you are to tell me to go away? Why don't you go away? What makes you so important?

He made a suggestion, not a command. Quit acting all high and mighty, seriously.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 02:42 PM

I only posted my opinion. Not to be harangued by you self appointed keepers of the faith.

I only posted because MIH suggested I post my opinion.

As far as stats go most people don't complain one way or another. I just felt there was some precious rhetoric going on and I hated to see it go. If you take the population signed on as members vs those that actively participate in this forum you will see a much smaller population.

This was just one of those things where I hate to see change.

And get a thick skin please. If you can't take a little pushback you should not be on the forum either.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 02:46 PM

I wonder if you'd be willing to lay some money on your claim that this forum will be closed by the end of the year. Because I'd put my life and everything I own (which isn't much) on the fact that it won't.

He made a suggestion, not a command. Quit acting all high and mighty, seriously.

Oh it probably won't I was just challenging the old philosophy masters. I just hope there is enough interesting discussion to keep me reading.

You do realize there will probably be reduced traffic on the thread for a while until a better reputation can get around. Not to say it had a bad reputation to begin with.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 03:01 PM

You really think that after 10 years of steady growth, a change in sub-forum rules will reduce traffic? :rofl:

You have a very high opinion of yourself, and really, it's not about thick skin; please stop acting like a petulant child.

Evo

Mar8-11, 03:06 PM

We've had major overhauls in Philosophy before. The last time we decided to raise the bar, the pack that was ruling the philosophy forum left and traffic increased. It seems that an occasional purge when the forum goes downhill has a positive effect in the long run.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 03:08 PM

We've had major overhauls in Philosophy before. The last time we decided to raise the bar, the pack that was ruling the philosophy forum left and traffic increased.

Well, if ptalar's ironclad logic and dispassionate analysis is correct...

...Oh wait, none of that! I know that I've begun to frequent the Phil forum only AFTER these new rules. The bar is raised, and it makes that forum IMO. I don't see the major thinkers there being hindered in any way.

edit: Ptalar: You might find this thread to be useful in your case: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=478815

Now THAT was a suggestion, as opposed to simply offering a notion. :smile:

Evo

Mar8-11, 03:16 PM

Let's not bicker.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 03:28 PM

Yes'm!

cobalt124

Mar8-11, 03:48 PM

I'm curious why you believe this is anything but a private forum? It is run how the owners dictate. No one else.

And if you don't like it, you don't take part.

The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest.

Not a chance, and definitely not caused by the forum rules.

There are no self appointed keepers of the faith here, maybe a lot of loyalty towards a forum that is important, that matters to members. Members state what they think and how they feel, nothing else. There may be other forums to go to that are like that, but I bet there are not many.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 03:53 PM

I am sorry I even stated my opinion here. Let me set the record straight. The Physics Forums is one of my favorite places to visit on the internet. All the forums are absolutely interesting reads. And yes the Phil forum was one of my favorites along with the cosmology forum.

I am done already.

Maybe Evo is right a purge now and then is like refreshing your computer. It makes it run better.

And by the way, I am mainly a reader. I don't post here very often. I am not even a philosopher. I am just a lowly engineer who works in Aerospace in SoCal.

Char. Limit

Mar8-11, 03:57 PM

I am sorry I even stated my opinion here.

Why the hell are you sorry? You stated your opinion, we said why we disagreed with it. There's nothing to be sorry about!

I can't stand it when people are sorry for things that they shouldn't be apologizing for.

ptalar

Mar8-11, 03:59 PM

Why the hell are you sorry? You stated your opinion, we said why we disagreed with it. There's nothing to be sorry about!

I can't stand it when people are sorry for things that they shouldn't be apologizing for.

LOL:smile:

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 04:07 PM

It's always a good thing to come to terms with, and then rationalize the inevitable.

Redbelly98

Mar8-11, 06:04 PM

The forum will probably be closed by the end of the year due to lack of interest.
You might mean just the Philosophy forum at PF, but others appear to interpret your statement about "the forum" as meaning the entirety of Physics Forums.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 07:50 PM

You might mean just the Philosophy forum at PF, but others appear to interpret your statement about "the forum" as meaning the entirety of Physics Forums.

Ooooohhhh... I hadn't considered that angle... thanks Redbelly98... although I still think that's incorrect (the conclusion of it closng), it is a different view.

Char. Limit

Mar8-11, 07:51 PM

You might mean just the Philosophy forum at PF, but others appear to interpret your statement about "the forum" as meaning the entirety of Physics Forums.

Oh. Yeah, that's how I was interpreting it. I guess I was wrong, heheh...

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 08:01 PM

That's why we have mento-
...
....
..... Redbelly... Why is your avatar not a bird with a red belly?

lisab

Mar8-11, 08:41 PM

That's why we have mento-
...
....
..... Redbelly... Why is your avatar not a bird with a red belly?

Oh you just can't see it in that shot...it's a bit further south. You could ask him to show it but beware, he's kind of shy :blushing:.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 10:43 PM

Oh you just can't see it in that shot...it's a bit further south. You could ask him to show it but beware, he's kind of shy :blushing:.

I retract my comment.

:rofl:

Physics-Learner

Mar8-11, 11:00 PM

as i stated earlier in the thread, i am of the same feeling as ptalar. i dont think of philosophy as a science. there are some topics that fit the mold of comparing studies or scientific journals. probably most of the forums at pf. certainly math and physics and other sciences. but philosophy ? with the current rules, i would take it out of the pf lounge, and put it in a "more serious" section.

i also wonder how many of these "highly regarded philosophers today" were thought of as crackpots by people of their time ?

my thinking is that there is no provable answer in philosophy. otherwise, it would be part of science.

nismaratwork

Mar8-11, 11:03 PM

Physics-Learner

Mar8-11, 11:14 PM

i dont agree with that logic. in the pf lounge, there is skepticism, games, relationships, and politics or world affairs.

to my thinking, it is the choice of pf to reach out and get more traffic to their site by having something other than math and science. and they are all in the pf lounge.

perhaps a good option is to have a rigourous philosophy forum in a serious section, and then a more relaxed one in the pf lounge.

some of the threads seemed sorta nutty to me, but then i simply didnt read on. many of the other threads were quite interesting. i dont necessarily value some philosopher's thought processes more than someone here. i listen to what they say, and want them to give me their reasoning, so i can understand their perspective.

but that is just my druthers. i no longer go to the forum. and as you stated, you have started going there. any time rules are changed such that it causes a big difference, you will also get different people going there.

but i tend to suspect that ptalar is correct in that there will be less traffic in the current philosophy forum than before. my reasoning is that because this is basically a math and physics forum, it attracts people who generally regard philosophy as a bunch of nonsense - simply because it IS NOT SCIENCE oriented.

Math Is Hard

Mar8-11, 11:22 PM

I am sorry I even stated my opinion here.

I'm not. I am appreciative that you did. I think we should hear what members are thinking, both positive and negative. The comments should not just go to me, but to Greg and everyone else on the forums.

Physics-Learner

Mar9-11, 12:03 AM

well, we all have different things that we enjoy. i enjoy a conversation that is based on logical reasoning. in most any topic.

a person's reasoning process can be examined, whereby feedback can be given, such that all participants may gain an insight. and not just in the current topic, but as a part of life, in general.

so much reasoning by the masses is not with correct logical processes. just look at advertising. most of advertising are truths that are told by someone who knows that the average person will take it out of context. and advertising people are paid big bucks to put forth such statements.

conversations with logical reasoning helps better our reasoning process, and therefore benefits us in all areas of life.

cobalt124

Mar9-11, 02:41 AM

a person's reasoning process can be examined, whereby feedback can be given, such that all participants may gain an insight. and not just in the current topic, but as a part of life, in general.

This, to me, is a very important part of PF, and any relaxing of the rules would undermine this feature of PF.

Redbelly98

Mar9-11, 06:06 AM

..... Redbelly... Why is your avatar not a bird with a red belly?

Oh you just can't see it in that shot...it's a bit further south. You could ask him to show it but beware, he's kind of shy :blushing:.

Indeed. We prefer to have people wonder why our bellies aren't really red, rather than have a name like "the red-crotched woodpecker".

At the risk of getting an infraction for posting obscenity:
http://www.weeksbay.org/photo_gallery/woodpeckers/RED-BELLIED%20WOODPECKER2.jpg

(BTW, that's not me!)

nismaratwork

Mar9-11, 08:48 AM

Indeed. We prefer to have people wonder why our bellies aren't really red, rather than have a name like "the red-crotched woodpecker".

At the risk of getting an infraction for posting obscenity:
http://www.weeksbay.org/photo_gallery/woodpeckers/RED-BELLIED%20WOODPECKER2.jpg

(BTW, that's not me!)

Nothing so adorable as that little... pecker... could be infraction-worthy. Where I am, there are a few variegated woodpeckers, but they're busily tearing my mother's house to shreds. *sigh* I get a phone call followed by, "Can you hear that? *peckpeckpeckpeckpeck...* Can YOU?!"... yes... yes I can.

Still... your namesake is too cute to be annoyed with...

ptalar

Mar10-11, 08:36 PM

I see that the angry hordes have quieted down.

JaredJames

Mar10-11, 08:41 PM

I see that the angry hordes have quieted down.

The general pattern is "beat the troll, uh I mean complaint maker, into submission, get bored, leave". That about covers it for the 'angry horde'. :wink:

nismaratwork

Mar10-11, 08:46 PM

I see that the angry hordes have quieted down.

You poor persecuted dear, I didn't realize we'd traumatized you so much, but I'm glad to hear it! :wink:

Seriously, your "horde" is about as interested in you as a cat in a mouse; stop moving and all interest is lost. In your case you took it as, "shut up" rather than the intended, "say meaningful things and not blather".

Don't listen to Jared though... you haven't bored me yet! :smile:

JaredJames

Mar10-11, 08:58 PM

Don't listen to Jared though... you haven't bored me yet! :smile:

I'm bored, but it was the lack of replies not you dear PF member!

nismaratwork

Mar10-11, 08:59 PM

I'm bored, but it was the lack of replies not you dear PF member!

Here buddy, I have some catnip for you... actually... I'm kinda tapped out too. Anyway, good to see you prowling on padded feet once again. :wink:

mistergrinch

Mar11-11, 02:35 AM

Deleted -- sorry, wrong thread

nismaratwork

Mar11-11, 09:36 AM

Deleted -- sorry, wrong thread

Hit edit, then choose delete, select the delete "circle", and delete.

octelcogopod

Mar23-11, 10:35 PM

Well, I think that most philosophical ideas have been discussed by some major recognized philosopher and that most new ideas most likely are not rooted in something that can be debated without ending up on one of those philosophers. Thus I think it is a good thing that the thread creation requirements are restrictive. On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet. I realize this is what the second rule is for. But in "opposition" to these new rules I also think it might be a good idea to give new threads a chance if the original post is not crackpot and can be directed in a positive direction that complies with the rules by another poster who can direct the OP rather than closing the thread outright simply because the OP didn't say the magic phrase "where can I find more resources on this?"

JaredJames

Mar23-11, 11:02 PM

Gokul43201

Mar24-11, 12:09 AM

On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet.How much effort would you say it takes to get to the necessary point?

My own opinion, is that if you are going to start a thread and invite the efforts of potentially dozens of responders, that it is not overly demanding to ask that the OP at least spend a few minutes looking at any background material that may be out there ... even if it's no more than reading the Wikipedia page on <blah>, though I'd personally prefer at least a follow up reading on whatever is the most relevant and reasonably accessible source cited on the wiki page. And if several minutes of searching have failed to produce any meaningful results, then using the thread to seek help would be fine. However, it is threads that show no indication of having done some minimal level of groundwork that, I believe, the new policy protects against.

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 08:00 AM

I'd add, GD is a place to ask anything, and if it then rises to the task nothing keeps it from being moved to Phil.

eextreme

Jan19-12, 11:37 AM

Well, I just posted a thread in the philosophy section, and it got locked ASAP.
Philosophy in my opinion is thinking beyond the norm and considering all sorts of idea (new and old ones alike).

When there is a need to "reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic" you are limiting all new threads to old ideas (or approaching an idea with the same perspective as someone who has written about it before), and that degrades the cornerstone of philosophy.

Also, not every philosophical idea can be referenced even though there is a very high chance that it exists somewhere in a tome, book, or non-electronic format.

I feel the new rules severely limits starting threads while people commenting can write whatever they want (even if it is completely off topic) and still be consider okay.

Char. Limit

Jan19-12, 11:40 AM

When there is a need to "reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic" you are limiting all new threads to old ideas (or approaching an idea with the same perspective as someone who has written about it before), and that degrades the cornerstone of philosophy.

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals

The purpose of PF isn't to discuss new ideas. Sorry to let you know this.