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


by Math Is Hard
Tags: evo
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#19
Jan5-11, 04:14 PM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,788
Quote Quote by ecsspace View Post
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
lisab is offline
#20
Jan5-11, 04:47 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,914
Quote Quote by ZapperZ View Post
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 .
DanP
DanP is offline
#21
Jan5-11, 06:22 PM
P: 630
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
Redbelly98 is offline
#22
Jan6-11, 07:08 AM
Mentor
Redbelly98's Avatar
P: 11,984
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
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
DanP is offline
#23
Jan6-11, 07:18 AM
P: 630
Quote Quote by Redbelly98 View Post
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
JaredJames is offline
#24
Jan6-11, 07:22 AM
P: 3,390
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#25
Jan9-11, 12:34 PM
P: 298
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
JaredJames is offline
#26
Jan9-11, 12:55 PM
P: 3,390
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#27
Jan9-11, 01:25 PM
P: 298
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
JaredJames is offline
#28
Jan9-11, 01:33 PM
P: 3,390
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#29
Jan9-11, 01:55 PM
P: 298
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
JaredJames is offline
#30
Jan9-11, 02:05 PM
P: 3,390
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#31
Jan9-11, 02:20 PM
P: 298
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post

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
Evo is offline
#32
Jan9-11, 02:28 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,925
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#33
Jan9-11, 02:44 PM
P: 298
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
Math Is Hard is offline
#34
Jan9-11, 02:48 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,921
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
Physics-Learner is offline
#35
Jan9-11, 03:05 PM
P: 298
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
ptalar is offline
#36
Mar8-11, 12:29 PM
P: 69
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."


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Philosophy Forum Forum Feedback & Announcements 9
Announcement: Mind & Brain Sciences forum Biology 0
Announcement: Philosophy Forums Guidelines update General Discussion 0