Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[chroot]

Do you like the new "crackpot" policy?

A number of people have told the staff that they liked the site better before the new "no-crackpot" policy was implemented. Those people are largely the same people whose behavior we were trying to change, so, overall, the staff feels the new policy has been a success.

What do you think?

- Warren

 

[meteor]

I think that keeping the crackpots in the TD forum could be interesting, so they wouldn't spread to other sections. it could be like a kind of zoo where you can see them, and laugh at them sometimes
But I respect the actual policy

 

[arildno]

I think it's great with the new policy.
Not allowing crankish theories is, I believe, crucial in order to build a reputation of a solid physics forum.
Such forums as PF are extremely rare compared to crackpot infested sites.

 

[Moonbear]

Definitely better without crackpots...well...except they did amuse me at times. They're sort of like court jesters. I wouldn't mind if we could make them wear hats with bells :rofl:

 

[anti_crank]

I think it's fair to say that I had as much fun engaging the crackpots as anyone else. In fact, I probably had more fun than anyone else. Yet in spite of that, I salute the new policy. TD was an eyesore on this site, and there were too many newbies replying to crackpot posts along the lines of "Really?? That's not what my physics book says, can you expain?". The way I see it, we lend crackpots legitimacy at the expense of ours if we don't take prompt measures to shut them down. There's plenty of sites out there that will host such posts. Try [PLAIN]http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59 [/URL]

 

[Pyrrhus]

Damn, i didn't get a chance to post my paper about why time travel can only be achieved with cream pie :rofl:

 

[Moonbear]

Damn, i didn't get a chance to post my paper about why time travel can only be achieved with cream pie :rofl:

What?! You mean I can't time travel with pumpkin pie? Forget it then, no point in bothering with time travel if I can't take pumpkin pie with me! :rofl:

 

[Gokul43201]

When I was a newb here, (and had grandiose visions of a higher calling to help eliminate stupidity ) I kinda enjoyed debunking crackpot theories. Very rapidly, I tired of it, and anyways, the crackpots never admit to having been debunked...so I'm not sure any of that was worth the time.

I just hope that pottery magic is not contagious, lest we find ourselves with an epidemic in the future.

 

[arildno]

Why is 8+4+1+6=12?

 

[Gokul43201]

Because 9 is God.

You are sentenced to life without parole in TD.

 

[quantumdude]

I voted "eyesore".

 

[Math Is Hard]

I do miss the crack-pots - there was some very funny stuff in TD, but I realize keeping them managed and quarantined was a big drain on resources.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why is 8+4+1+6=12?

That didn't frighten me, at all.

"8+4+1+6=12 and here's the proof...", would have.

 

[arildno]

Well, the proof is:
Look at how the numbers of pollers add up..

 

[Bystander]

Obviously, the forum staff count as "zeroes" in the "total vote" column --- somebody's got a "feature" in his programming.

 

[plover]

8+4+1+6=12 and here's the proof:

the equation is in base 17.

 

[plover]

As for the strange addition on the vote results page, I suspect it arises from the fact that the poll is check boxes rather than radio buttons and thus people can vote for more than one thing. In other words the total is "total voters" rather than "total votes" (as, indeed, it says).

 

[russ_watters]

I voted for the first and 4th. Figure that one out...

 

[arildno]

What?
Could I have voted more, AAARGH!
I've cheated myself out of influence!
The indignity of it...

 

[Moonbear]

I didn't realize I could vote more than one choice either! Someone should explain these things in advance.

 

[Philocrat]

A number of people have told the staff that they liked the site better before the new "no-crackpot" policy was implemented. Those people are largely the same people whose behavior we were trying to change, so, overall, the staff feels the new policy has been a success.

What do you think?

- Warren

But there is one mystery that is known only to the 'devil' himself. I mean this in a nice way. And that is why you lock them up. Yes, locking them up is mysterious!

 

[Philocrat]

Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up? Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake! Afterall, most truths have erroneous origins!

 

[ZapperZ]

Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up? Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake! Afterall, most truths have erroneous origins!

You're ignoring the obvious fact that they have the freedom to post these ELSEWHERE in so many other places. It is LEGITIMATE physics that is being DROWNED and pushed aside in other open forums such as this.

And let's get this straight - "erroneous origins" have nothing to do with quackery that is based on ignorance and laziness. There have been ZERO instances of quackeries in open forums that have made any contribution to the body of knowledge in physics. NONE. So the probability that these so called "erroneous origins" turning into something worthwhile is absolutely zero.

So remind me again what we are being deprived by restricting such a thing?

Zz.

 

[Philocrat]

You're ignoring the obvious fact that they have the freedom to post these ELSEWHERE in so many other places. It is LEGITIMATE physics that is being DROWNED and pushed aside in other open forums such as this.

And let's get this straight - "erroneous origins" have nothing to do with quackery that is based on ignorance and laziness. There have been ZERO instances of quackeries in open forums that have made any contribution to the body of knowledge in physics. NONE. So the probability that these so called "erroneous origins" turning into something worthwhile is absolutely zero.

So remind me again what we are being deprived by restricting such a thing?

Zz.

Are you suggesting that all the postings locked up by the gatekeeper are completely useless? Well, then just delete them all. You are the judge and jury. No one else can contest that. I for one do not feel offended as I have never claimed to have a theory. I do like PF though.

 

[Chronos]

I have no problem entertaining new ideas so long as they apply the scientific method. I don't think anyone else has a problem with that either. I do have a problem with cow pie theories that are little more than ad hoc deductions.

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you suggesting that all the postings locked up by the gatekeeper are completely useless? Well, then just delete them all. You are the judge and jury. No one else can contest that. I for one do not feel offended as I have never claimed to have a theory. I do like PF though.

I am not suggesting. I am pointing to the FACT that NONE, NADA, NOT EVEN ONE example of a so-called theory that only exists in a public forum has EVER made any contribution to the body of knowledge of physics. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong. If an idea or a discovery does not make it into a peer-reviewed journal, then it has ZERO probability based on just what we have seen in history, to make any dent in the body of knowledge. Now how many of these type of garbage, do you think, would make it even to a lower-tier peer-review journals?

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up?

Because there are about a dozen of us, and about 12,000 of you. It is not humanly possible for the staff to babysit each and every crackpot thread that comes along. However, we do feel obliged to counter those threads to maintain the scientific integrity of the site. Therein lies the dilemma.

Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake!

It is not in my power to either give or take anyone's freedom to err.

 

[arildno]

I feel obliged to make a comment here:
With the new, strict policy, I think PF may develop a reputation as a premier educational site on physics.
Such sites are NOT common, but they are definitely needed!

I would like to add another argument which supports the new policy:
There are lots of physicists/engineers who are deeply concerned about how physics ought to be TAUGHT, but who from a variety of reasons do not end up in positions as teachers/tutors.
(There exist some jobs for which they are qualified which is better paid, for example..)

As long as crackpots are allowed to thrive here, a lot of competent people will simply turn away in disgust, and PF will be deprived of their knowledge and willingness to help out students.
Now, by eradicating the crackpot threads, PF can become a forum which more easily will attract such individuals.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I completely agree with arildno, PF should help out in the education rather than correct some kids that just learned one concept and are trying to make a theory, which like Zapper said will probably be flawed, because probabilities are against the crackpots.

 

[Nereid]

Perhaps a slightly different take on this ...

Before I joined PF, while still just a guest, I thought that 'Theory Development' was a forum for folk who were developing theories to get an early critique of them, say a month or two before submitting their first paper for peer review. I felt it would also be a good place for an independent researcher to float some 'extension ideas', based on new work they were doing, after having laid the foundation with a PhD thesis, a one page letter paper, etc. And indeed, here at PF we have at least one such researcher, and previously had maybe one or two others.

What I wasn't at all prepared for was the disconnect between what I consider to be the basics in science and just about every post I read in TD! (I should say that there were some exceptions - perhaps only a half dozen, out of hundreds or maybe even thousands). This brought me down to Earth with a thud; if TD were to work as I had, in my naivety, imagined it should, then how to remove the nonsense from the 'real contents'?

Then there's the Pareto principle (a.k.a. the '80/20 rule') - those who have volunteered to help develop and maintain PF should be spending ~80% of the effort on PF's main goals; instead, I got the impression that several mentors and admins were spending ~80% of their time managing TD! I think the new policy will allow a better alignment of effort with goals; I'm all for it.

 

[arildno]

Nereid:
That was very interesting!
I agree that the intention of having a place where solid and new ideas can be scrutinized is very good; however, perhaps those places can thrive better on restricted nets rather than on the World Wide Web?

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps a slightly different take on this ...

Before I joined PF, while still just a guest, I thought that 'Theory Development' was a forum for folk who were developing theories to get an early critique of them, say a month or two before submitting their first paper for peer review. I felt it would also be a good place for an independent researcher to float some 'extension ideas', based on new work they were doing, after having laid the foundation with a PhD thesis, a one page letter paper, etc. And indeed, here at PF we have at least one such researcher, and previously had maybe one or two others.

I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.

Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.

Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.

Zz.

 

[Philocrat]

I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.

Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.

Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.

Zz.

Are you suggesting that people can nick ideas from your forum and you can do nothing about it? From most of the threads that I have participated in and read many postings in them, some of these threads, especially in the physics section, may contain new materials or useful conversational materials, how would you spot them, let alone protect them as copyright materials from your own forum? If this is the case, then why not secure TD and limit access to only your PF mentors and administrators and those with special membership?

 

[Bystander]

Intellectual property? TD?

Landfills serving metropolitan areas in this country contain millions of dollars worth of diamonds (loose settings into the gutter, down the sink, and up the streetsweeper, eventually to the fill) --- for ten bucks you can have every claim I might have to those diamonds. Same goes for TD --- you can have every Nobel prize to be found in that forum for another ten.

 

[4newton]

My understanding and experience on this forum is that you do not object to new theories if they can show substance and support for the theory.

I have posted theories with substance and support and have had some general acceptance of the posting. It was not called speculative and dumped into theory development. I have then posted the same theory in another thread without the detail substance and support and was dumped into theory development with a warning and told that I could not post any idea in this forum unless it had been published. This makes it very difficult to extend or apply a theory that had previously been accepted as a legitimate post elsewhere in the forum.

Are links to other postings that are not called speculative accepted on this forum in other threads the same as published or is there some way to have a review of a theory and have it proclaimed valid material for discussion.

To be required to post all supporting references every time you wish to use a new theory is unproductive for all.

As of this time I am not sure this is a forum for my support or me. I am not sure of your mission. Is it only to recall past theories and to answer questions for students? I am looking for a place where ideas with substance may be exchanged.