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

[JaredJames]

I see that the angry hordes have quieted down.

The general pattern is "beat the troll, uh I mean complaint maker, into submission, get bored, leave". That about covers it for the 'angry horde'.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see that the angry hordes have quieted down.

You poor persecuted dear, I didn't realize we'd traumatized you so much, but I'm glad to hear it!


Seriously, your "horde" is about as interested in you as a cat in a mouse; stop moving and all interest is lost. In your case you took it as, "shut up" rather than the intended, "say meaningful things and not blather".

Don't listen to Jared though... you haven't bored me yet!

 

[JaredJames]

Don't listen to Jared though... you haven't bored me yet!

I'm bored, but it was the lack of replies not you dear PF member!

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm bored, but it was the lack of replies not you dear PF member!

Here buddy, I have some catnip for you... actually... I'm kinda tapped out too. Anyway, good to see you prowling on padded feet once again.

 

[mistergrinch]

Deleted -- sorry, wrong thread

 

[nismaratwork]

Deleted -- sorry, wrong thread

Hit edit, then choose delete, select the delete "circle", and delete.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, I think that most philosophical ideas have been discussed by some major recognized philosopher and that most new ideas most likely are not rooted in something that can be debated without ending up on one of those philosophers. Thus I think it is a good thing that the thread creation requirements are restrictive. On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet. I realize this is what the second rule is for. But in "opposition" to these new rules I also think it might be a good idea to give new threads a chance if the original post is not crackpot and can be directed in a positive direction that complies with the rules by another poster who can direct the OP rather than closing the thread outright simply because the OP didn't say the magic phrase "where can I find more resources on this?"

 

[JaredJames]

Well, I think that most philosophical ideas have been discussed by some major recognized philosopher and that most new ideas most likely are not rooted in something that can be debated without ending up on one of those philosophers. Thus I think it is a good thing that the thread creation requirements are restrictive. On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet. I realize this is what the second rule is for. But in "opposition" to these new rules I also think it might be a good idea to give new threads a chance if the original post is not crackpot and can be directed in a positive direction that complies with the rules by another poster who can direct the OP rather than closing the thread outright simply because the OP didn't say the magic phrase "where can I find more resources on this?"

I understand what you're saying, but as per any other part of the site you either post something meaningful and in conjunction with the mainstream or you ask for help. It's really not that difficult.

If you aren't doing either of those you're almost certainly pushing some non-mainstream idea or simply on a 3am, I know the meaning of life rant.

 

[Gokul43201]

On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet.

How much effort would you say it takes to get to the necessary point?

My own opinion, is that if you are going to start a thread and invite the efforts of potentially dozens of responders, that it is not overly demanding to ask that the OP at least spend a few minutes looking at any background material that may be out there ... even if it's no more than reading the Wikipedia page on <blah>, though I'd personally prefer at least a follow up reading on whatever is the most relevant and reasonably accessible source cited on the wiki page. And if several minutes of searching have failed to produce any meaningful results, then using the thread to seek help would be fine. However, it is threads that show no indication of having done some minimal level of groundwork that, I believe, the new policy protects against.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd add, GD is a place to ask anything, and if it then rises to the task nothing keeps it from being moved to Phil.

 

[eextreme]

Well, I just posted a thread in the philosophy section, and it got locked ASAP.
Philosophy in my opinion is thinking beyond the norm and considering all sorts of idea (new and old ones alike).

When there is a need to "reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic" you are limiting all new threads to old ideas (or approaching an idea with the same perspective as someone who has written about it before), and that degrades the cornerstone of philosophy.

Also, not every philosophical idea can be referenced even though there is a very high chance that it exists somewhere in a tome, book, or non-electronic format.

I feel the new rules severely limits starting threads while people commenting can write whatever they want (even if it is completely off topic) and still be consider okay.

 

[Char. Limit]

When there is a need to "reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic" you are limiting all new threads to old ideas (or approaching an idea with the same perspective as someone who has written about it before), and that degrades the cornerstone of philosophy.

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals

The purpose of PF isn't to discuss new ideas. Sorry to let you know this.

 

[eextreme]

The purpose of PF isn't to discuss new ideas. Sorry to let you know this.

Hurray for semi-SOPA. Well, time to look for a close reference and hope that it will suffice to get the topic unlock...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Hurray for semi-SOPA. Well, time to look for a close reference and hope that it will suffice to get the topic unlock...

We look forward to that, thanks!

 

[harrylin]

Rules for the PF Philosophy forum beginning January 1, 2011

Beginning in January, we are implementing a theme for the Philosophy Forum. These new rules were developed in the spirit of making the Philosophy forum of PF a more academically-oriented discussion place. We are looking to get away from the Philosophy forum as an "anything that pops into my head" discussion section, and similar to the homework help forums, require effort from those posting new topics.

There are three guidelines:

1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.

ex. In A Treatise of Human Nature, What did David Hume mean when he said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them"?

Also, when discussing the philosophical implications of some piece of scientific work, references are required for both the underlying scientific content as well as the resulting philosophical discussion.

ex. The research of Benjamin Libet suggests that our decisions to act occur before our conscious awareness of them. Isn't this a serious problem for the idea of free will?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet


2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

ex. I am researching human moral instincts for a paper for my class. Where can I find more information on this?

3) Requests for help with standard definitions and terminology are perfectly acceptable.

ex. I am trying to understand the difference between epistemological and ontological questions. Can you advise?


Note: All the same previous rules will still apply to both new posts and replies. Symbolic logic questions should be placed in the appropriate Homework Section or the Set Theory/Logic/Probability/Statistics subforum.

There evidently is some ambiguity left!
See my discussion with Dave here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=621763

 

[Evo]

The rules are very clear, you seem to have formed your own interpretation of them. You forgot page two and the global guidelines. Creationism is a banned topic.

 

[harrylin]

The rules are very clear, you seem to have formed your own interpretation of them. You forgot page two and the global guidelines. Creationism is a banned topic.

I didn't understand that no suggestions about references to publications against creationism are allowed, sorry for that! However, that's irrelevant for that topic (and no problem to leave that word out) as well as for the discussion here about the New rules, so I'll leave that aside.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: According to New rule 1 a pertinent reference must be provided which the OP did not have, and neither did I have one that exactly fitted. However, New rule 2 provides an obvious and reasonable exception to New rule 1 (at least, that's how I interpret it):

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

So I tried to apply New rule 2 and referred to it in my post, and I also tried to apply what was left of New rule 1: "focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought" by referring to literature about the scientific method.

Upon which Dave responded:
Please read the Philosophy rules before posting.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350
1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.

And you added:
"Dave is correct, this does not meet the guidelines."

Evidently there is an ambiguity about the application of New rule 2; I can't believe that New rule 2 is invalid because of New rule 1.

Note: It may well be that mentors think that comparing science and religion in general (even without value judgment) is a too sensitive issue for discussion on any of the forums, and that is of course up to their judgment. However, that's again another topic.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree. If an OP doesn't have a single reference from which to build on then they haven't done their research properly. We do not exist as a pre-cursor to google, OPs are required to have done some research of their own first to outline the issue they wish to discuss. In the philosophy forum owing to the tighter rules (thanks to the propensity of people to see philosophy as a place where they can circumvent our rules on overly-speculative/personal theory/crackpot posts) this means that in addition to doing basic research an OP is expected to find and highlight academics for which this is an actual topic of discussion.

 

[harrylin]

I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree. If an OP doesn't have a single reference from which to build on then they haven't done their research properly. We do not exist as a pre-cursor to google, OPs are required to have done some research of their own first to outline the issue they wish to discuss. In the philosophy forum owing to the tighter rules (thanks to the propensity of people to see philosophy as a place where they can circumvent our rules on overly-speculative/personal theory/crackpot posts) this means that in addition to doing basic research an OP is expected to find and highlight academics for which this is an actual topic of discussion.

I have no issue with that, although in this particular case I even linked to my reference to Popper about the scientific method, which is certainly relevant for the OP's question. My question here remains what that leaves for applying New rule 2. Or is New rule 2 dead? If so, please scrap or modify it so that I and others don't waste our and your time on dead rules!

 

[Evo]

You are not reading rule #2. It says

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

This means that you can ask for links to books, websites, etc... on the philosophical topic, that's all, no discussion of the topic. It's extremely clear.

It evens give an example

ex. I am researching human moral instincts for a paper for my class. Where can I find more information on this?

I have added a clarification that these are the three OPTIONS for how a thread can be started, incase that wasn't obvious. Hopefully that helps.

 

[harrylin]

You are not reading rule #2. It says This means that you can ask for links to books, websites, etc... on the philosophical topic, that's all, no discussion of the topic. It's extremely clear.

It evens give an example

I have added a clarification that these are the three OPTIONS for how a thread can be started, incase that wasn't obvious. Hopefully that helps.

That's clearer!

Not everyone understood that we have the option to apply rule 2 instead of rule 1; thanks for improving the text on that point.

However, I presented my post as a request for resources and just added a few general comments and background information. So I suppose that if a thread is started to request for resources then no comments are allowed at all, and if proper resources are found then a new thread must be started based on that resource, for discussion of that resource. Right?

So, what is still missing is the clarification that no comments are allowed at all - "that's strictly all" isn't clarified in the rule and is only obvious if it is already understood what is intended.