Resigning from Forum: My Experience with Moderators and Discussion Limits

[RGClark]

I am resigning from this forum. I have found the moderators do not wish posters to present their own ideas for discussion. They prefer only if questions are asked so that can impress the readers with their knowledge.


Take Care,

Bob Clark

 

[plutoisacomet]

You are 100% right. I can understand what Michael Faraday went through in his day; having to deal with the Ivy Tower Nay-sayers of his day.

 

[plutoisacomet]

Thats also a reason why some people don't get tenure.

 

[Kurdt]

The reason overly speculative ideas are not allowed is to preserve the educative nature of the forum. If you do wish to present your own ideas there are independent research forums in which to post. Your ideas have to undergo scrutiny however to maintain and ensure the scientific integrity of the ideas and forums.

I don't think this is unreasonable.

 

[Astronuc]

I have found the moderators do not wish posters to present their own ideas for discussion. They prefer only if questions are asked so that can impress the readers with their knowledge.

False! We simply discourage exotic speculation, misleading information, general silliness and nonsense.

Use of the scientific method and evidentiary process is encouraged. This also means adherence to the forum Guidelines to which every member agrees as a condition for participation.

Take Care

 

[G01]

Bye Bye

 

[OmCheeto]

False! We simply discourage exotic speculation, misleading information, general silliness and nonsense.

Use of the scientific method and evidentiary process is encouraged. This also means adherence to the forum Guidelines to which every member agrees as a condition for participation.

Take Care

What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?
So far, I've found one thread that has debunked one of my kook theories.
I really appreciate the fact that I no longer have to research something which I thought was a new idea but has actually been around for 80 years or so and was disproven about 40 years ago.
It's such a waste of time having an overactive imagination.

 

[ZapperZ]

What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?
So far, I've found one thread that has debunked one of my kook theories.
I really appreciate the fact that I no longer have to research something which I thought was a new idea but has actually been around for 80 years or so and was disproven about 40 years ago.
It's such a waste of time having an overactive imagination.

You either formulate it in the best possible manner and submit it to the IR forum according to its requirement, or post it elsewhere.

PF just cannot be everything to everyone. It has tried to entertain such a thing before, and it choked our resources because it attracted a lot of crackpots and their grandmothers. The fact that one of our major selling point is our high signal-to-noise ratio means that we have the enviable ability to attract many experts in various area of studies. Many forums just do not have this kind of expertise in their members.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What should us kooks do when we see evidence that leads to exotic speculation?

Taking a slightly different slant on what Zapper said, we probably have at least one expert here for any subject of science that you might consider. The key is to ask the relevant questions without promoting a theory. For example, we have many people who have no understanding of Einstein's work, but who, nonetheless, have theories that contradict not only Relativity, but also well established facts. In order to come up with their own theory, they almost always ignore the reasons for the existing theory used to explain things. If they would simply ask about the relevant aspects of Relativity theory, they would save themselves a great deal of time and perhaps embarrassment.

It is a big world without many bright minds, and physics has been around for 500 years [depending on how you choose to define things]. It is quite difficult to produce a truly new idea. If you can think of it, then in the extreme it is quite likely that many before you have considered the same idea. It is important to remember this.

The short answer is to ask for an explanation for the evidence. We almost certainly have one.

 

[OmCheeto]

You either formulate it in the best possible manner and submit it to the IR forum according to its requirement, or post it elsewhere.

It seems odd that I should have to write up a thesis when all I want to know is; "Why is this a stupid thought?" that can be answered with a single hyperlink.

PF just cannot be everything to everyone. It has tried to entertain such a thing before, and it choked our resources because it attracted a lot of crackpots and their grandmothers. The fact that one of our major selling point is our high signal-to-noise ratio means that we have the enviable ability to attract many experts in various area of studies. Many forums just do not have this kind of expertise in their members.

Zz.

I guess that's why I'm a contributor.

The key is to ask the relevant questions without promoting a theory.

Ok. I'll try that.

 

[Astronuc]

I emphasize Ivan's point -

The short answer is to ask for an explanation for the evidence.

Arrange the evidence, then ask - "Does this mean . . . .?"

The problem comes when someone presents a 'theory' that contradicts or ignores the evidence.

While the staff are professional, we do this gratis, i.e. on a volunteer basis, and we simply cannot spend time debunking nonsense. Instead, we invest our time in assisting folks in understanding the mathematics, physics and science in a variety of areas.

New ideas are discussed within the proper context based on a well-established scientific process, and certainly there are many new ideas dicussed among the mainstream.

 

[Danger]

It's such a waste of time having an overactive imagination.

Wrong! Overactive imaginations have led to most of the world's greatest discoveries (next to plain dumb luck). The trick is to temper your imagination with reality. Certainly look at a goal and think outside of the box if necessary to achieve it, but when your ideas conflict with established fact, back up a couple of steps and approach from a different angle.
And even if you never manage to get a grasp of what you're trying to achieve, you can still channel that imagination into something like writing novels or screenplays. The guidelines there are considerably less stringent, and you might prove to be an inspiration to others. I don't believe in Asimov's 'positronic brain' any more than I believe in putting Cheeze Whiz on a pizza, but he inspired me to seek out scientific facts.

 

[G01]

Wrong! Overactive imaginations have led to most of the world's greatest discoveries (next to plain dumb luck). The trick is to temper your imagination with reality. Certainly look at a goal and think outside of the box if necessary to achieve it, but when your ideas conflict with established fact, back up a couple of steps and approach from a different angle.
And even if you never manage to get a grasp of what you're trying to achieve, you can still channel that imagination into something like writing novels or screenplays. The guidelines there are considerably less stringent, and you might prove to be an inspiration to others. I don't believe in Asimov's 'positronic brain' any more than I believe in putting Cheeze Whiz on a pizza, but he inspired me to seek out scientific facts.

Well said Danger!

 

[Astronuc]

Well said Danger!

Yeah!

 

[Danger]

Stop before I pull a Sally Field here...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are 100% right. I can understand what Michael Faraday went through in his day; having to deal with the Ivy Tower Nay-sayers of his day.

That is the ivory tower and Ivy League schools.