PF Needs A Personal Theory Forum Like We Need A Computer Virus
During my participation on PF (which has been quite a number of years already), I've seen a couple of incarnations of this particular forum. It was called "Theory Development" when I first joined. Then, it became "Independent Research" forum. Whatever it is called, it was one way PF is trying to do two things:
1. to provide a forum for someone to present/work out his/her own personal theory and ideas, and
2. to prevent such a topic from being in the main forums where legitimate/established physics are discussed.
The TD forum was nothing more than where crackpots were allowed to "flourish". Unfortunately, it provided a severe blemish to the central mission of PF, which is to discuss legitimate science and not having to continually deal with trying to educate people who think they've solve the mysteries of the universe, but can't work their way out of a paper bag. Not only that, crackpots, and crackpottery, tend to attract more crackpots and crackpottery. It was something that was getting way out of hand.
It was then decided that TD had to go, and in the spirit of still providing a legitimate avenue for someone who wants to work out his/her own ideas, the IR forum was created with a set of rules that must be satisfied for a submission to be accepted. While an acceptance doesn't imply a stamp of approval from PF, it also means that what is being discussed is clear enough (i.e. it is not even wrong) and it isn't an obvious crackpottery.
We get complaints in our Feedback forum frequently from people (crackpots?) complaining about the IR forum, and about our policy of not allowing speculative, personal posts in our main forum. The most common reasons given to counter our policy is that the history of physics has given examples such as Galileo and Einstein, whose ideas were first rejected by the scientific community. Thus, new ideas should be allowed since, who knows where that would lead to.
Often, people who bring up this point lose sight of one very important thing. Galileo and Einstein challenged the established science NOT BASED ON IGNORANCE of the subject matter. Galileo and Einstein had proper knowledge of what they were doing. Einstein, especially, had a degree in physics. In fact, for them to do what they did, they had to know their subject areas in intimate details. Einstein had to know classical E&M extremely well to be aware of the problem of the non-covariant of Maxwell equations under Galilean transformation.
Unfortunately, most crackpots can't boast the same level of knowledge of the subject matter that they seem to think they know. So to compare them with these giants in physics is especially bogus. Besides, Galileo and Einstein didn't go to the public to "sell" their ideas. They published it for experts in their fields. So if these crackpots want to follow in those giants' footsteps, they shouldn't be advertising their ideas on a public forum, but instead, send them in to the various journals!
In other words, the often-used comparison is utterly invalid.
But what about "amateur" physicists, someone who do not have a formal education, and working on his/her own to come up with something? Should we give them a place to work out their ideas, such as the IR forum? The worthiness of such a place is still debatable. The common argument, again, is that we just can't tell if something is going to mean anything if we don't give it a chance.
Well, let's look at it closely. In business, we often hear of someone who didn't go to business school, didn't have much of a formal education, or a school dropout, and yet, become highly successful in his/her own enterprise. While it isn't very common, it is also not highly unusual. So yes, one CAN become financially successful without formal education and training in business/financial sector.
So is that a valid situation for the same argument in physics? I would say no. During the last 50 years, let's say, how many "amateurs" have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics? Think about it. We're not talking just a small number here, we're talking about either a negligible number, or a non-existent quantity! In other words, a forum to cater to these people implies that we are providing an avenue for people to do something that doesn't occur. That is like keeping a broken vase, rather than throwing it out, with the hope that it will reassemble into its original self! Sure, the phase space for that happening isn't zero, but I'll be darn if it has happened before! There is a difference between "optimism" and "delusional", and you can guess which one I am categorizing this one.
My view on this is that, there has been ZERO convincing justification given why we have to cater to such things. The TD/IR forum that we have, have produced nothing. Is it educational? Is it a "learning" experience"? I don't see it. People who want such forums, or to be able to express their own personal ideas have not given a single convincing argument why they should be allowed to do such a thing on here.
Zz.
1. to provide a forum for someone to present/work out his/her own personal theory and ideas, and
2. to prevent such a topic from being in the main forums where legitimate/established physics are discussed.
The TD forum was nothing more than where crackpots were allowed to "flourish". Unfortunately, it provided a severe blemish to the central mission of PF, which is to discuss legitimate science and not having to continually deal with trying to educate people who think they've solve the mysteries of the universe, but can't work their way out of a paper bag. Not only that, crackpots, and crackpottery, tend to attract more crackpots and crackpottery. It was something that was getting way out of hand.
It was then decided that TD had to go, and in the spirit of still providing a legitimate avenue for someone who wants to work out his/her own ideas, the IR forum was created with a set of rules that must be satisfied for a submission to be accepted. While an acceptance doesn't imply a stamp of approval from PF, it also means that what is being discussed is clear enough (i.e. it is not even wrong) and it isn't an obvious crackpottery.
We get complaints in our Feedback forum frequently from people (crackpots?) complaining about the IR forum, and about our policy of not allowing speculative, personal posts in our main forum. The most common reasons given to counter our policy is that the history of physics has given examples such as Galileo and Einstein, whose ideas were first rejected by the scientific community. Thus, new ideas should be allowed since, who knows where that would lead to.
Often, people who bring up this point lose sight of one very important thing. Galileo and Einstein challenged the established science NOT BASED ON IGNORANCE of the subject matter. Galileo and Einstein had proper knowledge of what they were doing. Einstein, especially, had a degree in physics. In fact, for them to do what they did, they had to know their subject areas in intimate details. Einstein had to know classical E&M extremely well to be aware of the problem of the non-covariant of Maxwell equations under Galilean transformation.
Unfortunately, most crackpots can't boast the same level of knowledge of the subject matter that they seem to think they know. So to compare them with these giants in physics is especially bogus. Besides, Galileo and Einstein didn't go to the public to "sell" their ideas. They published it for experts in their fields. So if these crackpots want to follow in those giants' footsteps, they shouldn't be advertising their ideas on a public forum, but instead, send them in to the various journals!
In other words, the often-used comparison is utterly invalid.
But what about "amateur" physicists, someone who do not have a formal education, and working on his/her own to come up with something? Should we give them a place to work out their ideas, such as the IR forum? The worthiness of such a place is still debatable. The common argument, again, is that we just can't tell if something is going to mean anything if we don't give it a chance.
Well, let's look at it closely. In business, we often hear of someone who didn't go to business school, didn't have much of a formal education, or a school dropout, and yet, become highly successful in his/her own enterprise. While it isn't very common, it is also not highly unusual. So yes, one CAN become financially successful without formal education and training in business/financial sector.
So is that a valid situation for the same argument in physics? I would say no. During the last 50 years, let's say, how many "amateurs" have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics? Think about it. We're not talking just a small number here, we're talking about either a negligible number, or a non-existent quantity! In other words, a forum to cater to these people implies that we are providing an avenue for people to do something that doesn't occur. That is like keeping a broken vase, rather than throwing it out, with the hope that it will reassemble into its original self! Sure, the phase space for that happening isn't zero, but I'll be darn if it has happened before! There is a difference between "optimism" and "delusional", and you can guess which one I am categorizing this one.
My view on this is that, there has been ZERO convincing justification given why we have to cater to such things. The TD/IR forum that we have, have produced nothing. Is it educational? Is it a "learning" experience"? I don't see it. People who want such forums, or to be able to express their own personal ideas have not given a single convincing argument why they should be allowed to do such a thing on here.
Zz.
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
I could agree with you only if new ideas, especially if believed bizarre by the community, are finally discussed seriously when published on regular journals. Otherwise PF can only attract crackpots. This is the case of http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=307961
Let me also say that this is a general problem of modern physics. There is an overproduction of papers, too often without any original ideas. They increase only the level of confusion in physics. The main journals (especially those with a peer review period of the order of a month) often do not help, preferring to publish mediocre papers or results that cannot be verified uniquely in a reasonable laps of time (e.g. speculations about string theory, ...). The result is that nowadays nobody read really the papers, but only the abstracts.
The physics community, now more than in the past (many Nobel laureated had their paper rejected http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel/nobel.html) is not sufficiently receptive to the "black swans" promoter of new advances.
The risk is that possible breakthroughs could pass unobserved, covered by the noise of the "boys who cry wolf".
The question is: how many important ideas have passed unobserved? If the answer is equal or more than one, that number is already unacceptably too big.Posted May20-11 at 09:59 PM by naturale 
-
I don't buy that. The existence of many different tiers of physics journals means that even unorthodox ones can get published. Read Dan Koshland's article "Crazy but correct" (D.E. Koshland, Jr., Nature v.432, p.447 (2004)).
Zz.Quote:"The trouble is that journals can easily become too conservative, because editors find it easier to reject the unusual than to take a chance on the unthinkable...... The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society."Posted Jun20-11 at 09:20 AM by ZapperZ
-
How about this; I have a theory that I posted last night as a question and I received an infraction for it. I had already posed this question before to the editors at Journal of Cosmology, who replied back saying my ideas were thought provoking. Now I have a dilemma, I believe I have a scientific question but I got banned from NASA forums and here for posting it. Where as the forum title is still present on a serious site like spacefellowship. I need to reach people to find out if my idea is correct or whether I am asking the right questions or talking to the right people. How do you suggest I proceed?
Posted Mar13-12 at 11:59 AM by alphan
-
Go find a cosmologist who has the time and patience to talk to you.
BTW, if I were you, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the "polite" reply from journal editors. Often, it is a way for them to dismiss nonsensical submission.
Zz.Posted May25-12 at 07:14 AM by ZapperZ
