Proposal: Sociology Threads Should Have Their Own Subforum

[BenTheMan]

In light of the many threads in this forum that discuss the sociolgy of physics, as opposed to the physics itself, I would like to propose that threads of the former type be separated from threads of the latter type, perhaps being moved to a different forum.

PhysicsForums has a very admirable purpose---to facilitate the exchange of ideas (about physics) among the very knowledgeable and the layman alike. I have come here with questions before, as I know others have, and this is one of the main reasons that I like posting here so much. This forum distinguishes itself from the dozen or so other physics forums that I've come across because of this atmosphere.

What is not useful, or helpful, or even pertinent to physics is threads lauding the impact of some book, or pointing out irrelevant data about which people cited which papers. In the end, this is not a discussion about physics at all, but about something else.

As a concerned member of these fora, I would truly appreciate some moderator comment on this manner. Is there any reason why such off-topic threads should be allowed to continue? Should this forum be a fan club or a classroom?

 

[cristo]

]I would truly appreciate some moderator comment on this manner.

I'll bring this issue up with the other mentors.

 

[ZapperZ]

In light of the many threads in this forum that discuss the sociolgy of physics, as opposed to the physics itself, I would like to propose that threads of the former type be separated from threads of the latter type, perhaps being moved to a different forum.

PhysicsForums has a very admirable purpose---to facilitate the exchange of ideas (about physics) among the very knowledgeable and the layman alike. I have come here with questions before, as I know others have, and this is one of the main reasons that I like posting here so much. This forum distinguishes itself from the dozen or so other physics forums that I've come across because of this atmosphere.

What is not useful, or helpful, or even pertinent to physics is threads lauding the impact of some book, or pointing out irrelevant data about which people cited which papers. In the end, this is not a discussion about physics at all, but about something else.

As a concerned member of these fora, I would truly appreciate some moderator comment on this manner. Is there any reason why such off-topic threads should be allowed to continue? Should this forum be a fan club or a classroom?

If you see a thread that does fit into the forum, you should have reported it.

You will notice that such "diversion" isn't tolerated in the other physics sub-forum here. So if anyone ever question why we are "strict" in adhering to the on-topic discussion, let what happened in this sub-forum be the prime example of what happens if we don't.

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

Proposal: Sociology Threads Should Have Their Own Subforum

Like the one entitled -

Social Sciences Forum - https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=85
Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics, Economics...

OK - it's Sociology in general broad terms, but that's where discussion on sociology belong.

Some aspects, such as discussion of personalities, may be better suited for GD.

 

[Moonbear]

Like the one entitled -

Social Sciences Forum - https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=85
Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics, Economics...

OK - it's Sociology in general broad terms, but that's where discussion on sociology belong.

Some aspects, such as discussion of personalities, may be better suited for GD.

Precisely. We already have a forum for sociology discussions; please use it if that is something you wish to discuss.

 

[shoehorn]

BenTheMan's point is both valid and important. A quick look at the front page in this sub-forum reveals forty threads, of which roughly ten are either explicitly concerned with sociologal matters in physics or which have degenerated into discussions of sociology after otherwise promising starts. This is the only dataset I have but I'd be surprised if the mean ratio of relevant to non-relevant posts differs appreciably.

In short, approximately 25% of the posts on the first page are, at best, off-topic for this forum and, at worst, bandwagon-jumping junk. That's a pretty dubious S/N ratio for what is otherwise an interesting sub-forum.

 

[humanino]

As far as I think I understand what is triggering this discussion, I must say I agree with BenTheMan, and share the same kind of annoyance feeling. Being myself an experimentalist, I am very happy to have PF (and people such as BenTheMan !) when I need theoretical guidance. It would be pretty unfortunate if a trend that also bother me freaked away this precious crowd.

I however do not expect that this problem can easily been resolved.

 

[marcus]

I however do not expect that this problem can easily been resolved.

I think that information about current research directions, and published output,both in Quantum Gravity and stringy areas, are some of the most interesting kinds of information on these fields. This and data on citations are valuable in getting an overview of what is going on.

I don't see it as a problem----the subforum is broad enough to address diverse interests.

This is information provided by Arxiv.org, also SLAC-Stanford Spires, and by the Harvard abstract database. It is the kind of thing which is of considerable interest to science administrators, hiring committees, NSF advisory panels etc. I would be reluctant to dismiss it as "sociology" since it is part of an informed overview of the whole research animal. :-)

Also I doubt that having some threads discussing these things would "freak" or scare away anyone who really wants to discuss some other aspects of physics.

 

[jal]

This discussion should not be happening in this forum.
Never-the-less.
If you do not wish to have the inclusion of “amateurs” (all those not in your field of expertise) then you would use the traditional methods of communications. (journals, PM, e-mail, etc.)
As a result, there would be no pubic forum. No students … no amateurs.

What is irrelevant information to the “expert” may be the next important step in the learning curve of a student.

If all that this forum wants is input from the authors of published papers then you would have almost no inputs. (historical observation)

Even with the use of pen names, I have found that few people will venture into giving their opinions of any of the approaches presented by published authors. (D8 and Garrett Lisi being an exception)

These forums are NOW an important learning tool for more than "experts".

jal

 

[BenTheMan]

If you do not wish to have the inclusion of “amateurs” (all those not in your field of expertise) then you would use the traditional methods of communications. (journals, PM, e-mail, etc.)
As a result, there would be no pubic forum. No students … no amateurs.

What is irrelevant information to the “expert” may be the next important step in the learning curve of a student.

If all that this forum wants is input from the authors of published papers then you would have almost no inputs. (historical observation)

Even with the use of pen names, I have found that few people will venture into giving their opinions of any of the approaches presented by published authors. (D8 and Garrett Lisi being an exception)

These forums are NOW an important learning tool for more than "experts".

Perhaps you misunderstand my point:

I love talking to amateurs about physics, and I don't know anyone who posts in fora such as these who DOESN'T. The point is, I want to talk about physics, not about whos book is selling how many copies. Nor do I believe that such discussions have any pretenses of actually discussing physics, which is why they don't belong in this forum.

If you are assuming (?) that laypeople ONLY want to discuss some citation count or sales figure, then I believe you are mistaken.

 

[Fra]

I personally am not very interested in sales or citation ratings, but I can understand Marcus point that if you consider science from the point of view of the scientific community (which I assume is pretty relevant if you are part of it), then scientists judge each other, and in that scientific process citations are I presume a relevant indicator. I think what might be called sociology of the scientific community is part of the effective scientific method, in particular if you are dependent on funding. The scheduling of funding, and all variables that affect that seems to be a fundamental part of the scientific process in this context. This sure is a lot of sociology and politics even, but that seems to be the game, to play or not to play.

Personally I think a focus on the scientific method is important. But I am not a player in the above game. I see the scientific method from the point of view of reasoning. The sociology and politics of science as described above is what make me chose not to play the game - I found another game that I rather play.

But I like this forum, even though I have no interest in every thread. And I think discussing physics can probably be made from different views. And that's part of what I find stimulating here, to see how different people choose to formulate, and attack the open questions that unites us.

From my experience with other forums, I think it's ideal to keep a certain "activity level" per subforum. Because if the activity drops the subforum kind of dies. People don't post in a subforum where it's one post a month, because they think no one will read it. At least from my point of view, the load in this subforum isn't that high. Wether it's high enough to motivate a split is possibly a matter of preference, but for me the activity level is good.

/Fredirk

 

[Thomas Larsson]

The canonical example of a dead forum is sci.physics.strings, which died due to lack of interest, despite the explicit endorsement of 140 or so people, many of which are famous professors. The trick is not to keep unwanted posts out, but to perpetually keep attracting wanted posts.

 

[arivero]

The canonical example of a dead forum is sci.physics.strings, which died due to lack of interest, despite the explicit endorsement of 140 or so people, many of which are famous professors. The trick is not to keep unwanted posts out, but to perpetually keep attracting wanted posts.

Indeed. The mayor problem is not the excess of sociometrics posts, but the lack of scientific post.

It could be argued that sociometric posts should be better grouped. My feeling is that there is not an excess of posts, but an excess of threads. All the posts about a same kind of metric should be in the same thread, instead of starting a new one. We worked it very well three years ago for the numerology and the preon threads, in the other subforum. Software could help if the subject of the last post were visualized, besides the name of the last poster, and/or if the title of the thread could be edited by the original poster.

As for how to attract good posts, nobody knows. It could be that the endemic problem in the internet of physics is lack of interest. It could be that the internet tools are not suited for public collaboration on research topics (note that the most sucessful internet tool, the wikipedia, explicitly forbids research). In turn, it could be because of ego issues: do your homework, read the f manual, that is a lamer question, etc... pretty internetty. It could be that science (not divulgation) is thought suitable only in private rooms between consenting adults. It could be that at the end the motivations of everyone to participate in an internet forum are not scientific but, ahem, social.

 

[ZapperZ]

... Or the people who regularly participates in this sub-forum can REPORT a post or thread that appears to be similar to the ones that already existed, so that a Mentor can merge them.

Again, if you see something that shouldn't be here, or something that is only a repetition of a topic that has already been discussed, etc.. etc., then LET US KNOW! If this sub-forum means that much to you, then you also bears some responsibility in making sure that it runs smoothly.

Zz.

 

[ccdantas]

I agree with BenTheMan.

I think there should be a "Sociology of Physics" subforum (I don't think the general "sociology" forum mentioned would be adequate, though). Or perhaps something like a "Professional Researchers and Research Lines" subforum, to discuss what they are doing, where, who went to work with who, cite number publications, things of that sort.

PF is an excellent place to discuss and learn physics.

 

[arivero]

... Or the people who regularly participates in this sub-forum can REPORT a post or thread that appears to be similar to the ones that already existed, so that a Mentor can merge them.

Hmm but is it possible? I thought the merge was forcefully by hand (copy the posts from one thread to the other, delete the former).

 

[cristo]

Hmm but is it possible? I thought the merge was forcefully by hand (copy the posts from one thread to the other, delete the former).

It's not a manual job; merging threads is quite a simple thing to do.

 

[Gokul43201]

I too agree with Ben. I think a Sociology of Physics subforum somewhere might be a good idea, perhaps even under General Physics. That way there's a clear delineation by content between threads that talk about physics and those that talk about policy/sociology/psychology.

 

[nrqed]

I have to agree with BenTheMan.

For several reasons, some of them more subjective and personal than others.

One reason that I deem important is that if I was an actual researcher in one of those fields (whether it's string, lqg or anything else) and would stop by the Beyond The Standard Model forum out of curiosity...and then see a bunch of threads on "how many books this or that author have been sold" and "who should hire whom" and "which of lqg or string theory is winning the war on citations" and etc... I think that I would say to myself "oh, there is not much serious physics discussion going on here so it's not a good place to discuss physics or to explain stuff to people trying to learn" and I might not get back.

One only has one chance of making a first time impression. I went to another forum recently and looked at posts in the string theory subsection and since the level of discussion was very basic, more at the layman level, I might not stop by again.
And I would really hate it if we would lose first time knowledgeable visitors this way. Or if we would lose knowledgeable people that are around now. I want to learn string theory and lqg and I want those people around when I need help!

And I may be wrong on this also, but I think that if these types of threads would appear constantly in some other subforums (quantum physics or relativity), they would get locked pretty quickly.

It's one thing to say "Hey, this recent paper has led to many citations" and then to go on discussing the physics of the paper and trying to understand the ideas and maths. It's another thing to make a whol ethread just about number of citations, and who is doing what at what institution, and who is attending what conference and who is a brilliant rising star that deserve to be hired by whom and on and on.

 

[ZapperZ]

I too agree with Ben. I think a Sociology of Physics subforum somewhere might be a good idea, perhaps even under General Physics.

Oh no you don't! :)

If there's no problem with having a discussion on the Philosophy of science/physics in the Philosophy forum, why would there be an issue with discussing the Sociology of physics in the Social Science forum? What's so special about the latter that it needs a sub-forum all to itself? It is not as if the social science forum has huge amount of traffic that such discussion would be buried.

I'm generally opposed to a sub-forum discussing ABOUT physics, in any of the physics main forums.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

I really don't see why these discussions can't be held in the social sciences forum. They certainly won't be drowned out by other discussion, as that forum is rather underutilized already. It might even be interesting to draw in a different group of people interested in the sociological aspects who may not wander into the BTSM forum because they expect it to be more science than social science.

We're not stopping people from having the discussions, just suggesting they be held in a forum more appropriate for the topic.

From reading through the concerns here, I think it would be a large effort to dissect out those discussions from existing threads, so for the sake of not disrupting the flow, perhaps a policy where the older discussions are sort of grandfathered in and allowed to continue in this forum until they die of natural causes (or get so out of hand they would be shut down in any forum), while newer discussions involving sociological considerations or book sales data would be placed in another more appropriate forum (social sciences).

 

[BenTheMan]

From reading through the concerns here, I think it would be a large effort to dissect out those discussions from existing threads, so for the sake of not disrupting the flow, perhaps a policy where the older discussions are sort of grandfathered in and allowed to continue in this forum until they die of natural causes (or get so out of hand they would be shut down in any forum), while newer discussions involving sociological considerations or book sales data would be placed in another more appropriate forum (social sciences).

I think that this is a good idea.

 

[marcus]

... where the older discussions are sort of grandfathered in and allowed to continue in this forum until they die of natural causes (or get so out of hand they would be shut down in any forum), while newer discussions involving sociological considerations or book sales data would be placed in another more appropriate forum (social sciences).

Hi Moonbear,
I'm not interested in sociology or psychology and the threads I start here are not related to social or psychological issues. They are not about human behavior but about shifts in theoretical physics----the health and growth of various research lines. I think there are historic changes in progress and that it is interesting to watch. Some lines of investigation have run into dead-ends, others have gotten bogged down, new approaches are getting tried. Since people often disagree, we need some objective measures that reflect changes in the research picture and gauge what is going on.

Publication rates and citation counts---as well as reallocation of funding and faculty positions---have, as I see it, everything to do with directions in fundamental physics, and little or nothing to do with human nature or social psychology.

I would like the freedom to continue to speak about research publication rates and citation counts, which I think is an essential part of reporting on research beyond the Standard Model.

Book sales are not a big deal---I have been tracking the gradual decline in sales of Smolin's book relative to a benchmark average. It is a minor index of how things are going and not especially meaningful. However when new books come along that have to do with Beyond the Standard Model topics I would like the freedom to discuss them in the BSM subforum and to report their sales. I did this with Roger Penrose's book, which was not only a good book (Road to Reality) but reached a wide audience. I have also started a thread about Beyond the Big Bang (ed. R. Vaas) and if that happened to sell widely I'd want to report it. Not a big deal, but I see it as part of BSM journalism.

"Grandfathering" permission to have certain kinds of discussion relevant to BSM is certainly a constructive suggestion! Thanks. It may or may not provide adequate journalistic freedom.

 

[gogins]

I think that summaries of papers, book sales figures, and various indicators of which scientists are succeeding or not in gaining interest and adherents to their views are in fact a vital part of the scientific process. Such things are indirect evidence of what practicing scientists think is actually worth following up or working through. I am sure that those who hire or evaluate scientists are paying attention to such things.

There is of course a vital difference between interest shown by practicing researchers, especially but by no means exclusively those in respected institutions, and some other sorts of people (like me) who also are welcome on this list.

Regards,
Mike Gogins

 

[shoehorn]

I think that summaries of papers, book sales figures, and various indicators of which scientists are succeeding or not in gaining interest and adherents to their views are in fact a vital part of the scientific process. Such things are indirect evidence of what practicing scientists think is actually worth following up or working through.

It is nonetheless only very indirectly related to the stated purpose of this forum. Hence it doesn't belong here.

 

[BenTheMan]

I think that summaries of papers, book sales figures, and various indicators of which scientists are succeeding or not in gaining interest and adherents to their views are in fact a vital part of the scientific process. Such things are indirect evidence of what practicing scientists think is actually worth following up or working through. I am sure that those who hire or evaluate scientists are paying attention to such things.

Hi Mike---

I agree with one third of what you said. If one wants to sumarize some paper (from the perspetive of actually having read and understood that paper), then I agree whole-heartedly. The other issues that you mentioned (sales figures and citation counts) have absolutely nothing to do with physics. I could go into the Biology forum and post sales figures of the latest Intelligent Design diatribe---it proves nothing.

And I would point out that most of what you said specifically relates to the sociology of the issue, vs. the science.

 

[humanino]

I could go into the Biology forum and post sales figures of the latest Intelligent Design diatribe---it proves nothing.

Franckly I do not see how anybody could argue with this very good point.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh no you don't! :)

If there's no problem with having a discussion on the Philosophy of science/physics in the Philosophy forum, why would there be an issue with discussing the Sociology of physics in the Social Science forum?

I really don't see why these discussions can't be held in the social sciences forum. They certainly won't be drowned out by other discussion, as that forum is rather underutilized already.

I, personally do not have a problem with this. I imagine that others would, though! Not a lot of folks that discuss BTSM physics - the primary audience for discussions of BTSM sociology - visit the Sociology forum. It is likely the specificity of the audience (in addition to the existing String/QG feud) that led to threads on sociology being started in this forum, something I'm not particularly happy with.

 

[founding]

I think that limiting this forum to LQG, string theory, and garret lisi inevitably directs the conversations away from physics and towards sociology, fanboyism, and book sales counts, as neither LQG, nor string theory, nor lisi's theory have any definitive equations that make definitive predictions about the physical world. So alas, without physics, this forum turns torwards sociology/smolinology. There are theories out there with physical equations such as moving dimensions theory (dx4/dt=ic) which is being discussed heavily at michio kaku's forums (I'm skeptical of the theory, but it makes sense as far as I can tell, and the polite, scientific discussion at Michio Kaku's forums is at least something to be emulated!). Maybe such physical theories with physical models and physical equations by physics phds would help get this forum back on track.

 

[marcus]

I think that summaries of papers, book sales figures, and various indicators of which scientists are succeeding or not in gaining interest and adherents to their views are in fact a vital part of the scientific process. Such things are indirect evidence of what practicing scientists think is actually worth following up or working through. I am sure that those who hire or evaluate scientists are paying attention to such things.
...

Thanks for the supportive comment, Mike. We seem to be outnumbered here
I agree. Rates of publication in scholarly journals, and citation counts, are very important to getting perspective on the progress and directions of research. I don't think that sort of information should be bannished or suppressed. It is hardly proper to call it "sociology" and it forms a common part of academic discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think that limiting this forum to LQG, string theory, and garret lisi

The subforum is not limited to these topics, and has several threads discussing much more than just these 3 topics.

inevitably directs the conversations away from physics and towards sociology, fanboyism, and book sales counts,

This is hardly inevitable as there is enough and more science to discuss within just say, String Theory.

as neither LQG, nor string theory, nor lisi's theory have any definitive equations that make definitive predictions about the physical world.

Again, not true. See, for instance, the RHIC quark-jet problem.

So alas, without physics, this forum turns torwards sociology/smolinology. There are theories out there with physical equations such as moving dimensions theory (dx4/dt=ic) which is being discussed heavily at michio kaku's forums (I'm skeptical of the theory, but it makes sense as far as I can tell, and the polite, scientific discussion at Michio Kaku's forums is at least something to be emulated!). Maybe such physical theories with physical models and physical equations by physics phds would help get this forum back on track.

If you are talking about Elliot McGucken's MDT, you might be tickled to hear that he was rightfully and repeatedly banned from this site for crackpottery and sockpuppetry.

 

[nrqed]

I think that limiting this forum to LQG, string theory, and garret lisi inevitably directs the conversations away from physics and towards sociology, fanboyism, and book sales counts, as neither LQG, nor string theory, nor lisi's theory have any definitive equations that make definitive predictions about the physical world.

:yuck:

What?

First: nobody is saying that the forum should be limited to those three topics.

Second: I don't understand the non sequitur that talking about those topics will inevitably drive the conversation away from physics and towards sociology. It makes no sense at all to me. If the actual theories of lqg, string theory, noncommutative geometry, etc were discussed here (and I mean the theories, not the number of publications, who the practicioners are, where they are, etc etc), the forum could be busy nonstop without ever sociology coming up. I am trying to understand supersymmetry, supergravity, branes, brane worlds, M theory, compactification, the quantization approach to lqg, BPS states, etc etc etc I could easily see myself posting questions for years without "being driven toward sociology"!

 

[founding]

Thanks for the supportive comment, Mike. We seem to be outnumbered here
I agree. Rates of publication in scholarly journals, and citation counts, are very important to getting perspective on the progress and directions of research. I don't think that sort of information should be bannished or suppressed. It is hardly proper to call it "sociology" and it forms a common part of academic discussion.

Yes--all this is true. I agree!

But it would help if Smolin's book THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS actually had physical equations, physical theories, and physics in it. Then its sales numbers would be of great interest to the advancement of physics. But because the book is by and large about sociology, then perhaps discussing it in a sociology forum would be better.

Perhaps some criterion could be set forth for this forum:

1) all threads ought pertain to definitive physical theories with definitive equations and definitive physical models
2) physical theories with definitive equations ought take precedence over sociology
3) math should be used to clarify, as Bohr, Einstein, Feynman et al used it; and not to obfuscate.
4) logic, reason, good-will, and truth ought be at the forefront of every post

hope this helps!

 

[jal]

I am trying to understand supersymmetry, supergravity, branes, brane worlds, M theory, compactification, the quantization approach to lqg, BPS states, etc etc etc I could easily see myself posting questions for years without "being driven toward sociology"!

The closer to the "cutting edge" the fewer the answers.
If authors would be willing to give answers and explanations ... this forum would be overwhelmed.
Does anyone wish to furnish any "show up enticement" for the authors?
jal

 

[founding]

Thanks for the supportive comment, Mike. We seem to be outnumbered here
I agree. Rates of publication in scholarly journals, and citation counts, are very important to getting perspective on the progress and directions of research. I don't think that sort of information should be bannished or suppressed. It is hardly proper to call it "sociology" and it forms a common part of academic discussion.

The subforum is not limited to these topics, and has several threads discussing much more than just these 3 topics.
This is hardly inevitable as there is enough and more science to discuss within just say, String Theory.
Again, not true. See, for instance, the RHIC quark-jet problem.

If you are talking about Elliot McGucken's MDT, you might be tickled to hear that he was rightfully and repeatedly banned from this site for crackpottery and sockpuppetry.

I'm not sure why Moving Dimensions Theory, with a definitive equation and physical model is labeled as such; while string theory, lqg, and garrett lisi, without physical equations and physical models, are exalted. Perhaps its because the vast amounts of funding the latter have received? Combined with the groupthink fanboyism that modern physics sometimes exalts? Well, namecalling never got us all that far--it would be fun to see a reasoned, friendly debate on MDT as I see at michio kaku's forums. There's no need to fear/disparage new ideas.

We all ought to be humble, as none of us has figured it out. :)

New theories have a way of coming from the least-expected places, like when Einstein wrote those five definitive papers as a patent examiner.

Humility, fairness, good-will to all!

Those classical Greek traits--respect for honesty, fellowship, honor, making word deed, simple math and logic. I kinda think that's what some people are suggesting this forum could use more of.

'Tis an irony of life.

Physics is so simple and beautiful--look at Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations... and yet its development... so much back-and-forth, personalities--so much sociology I suppose.

"All too human" is what Nietzsche said. :)?