Navigating Forum Rules: Challenging Mainstream Science Not Allowed

  • Thread starter The Fool
  • Start date
In summary, the guidelines on Physicsforums.com do not allow for unfounded challenges of mainstream science. The forum strives for academic integrity and welcomes discussions on open questions in physics as long as they remain intellectually sound. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a staff member and an invitation to resubmit following the Independent Research Guidelines. The forum primarily focuses on content for students and limits discussion to that found in the mainstream scientific literature, with the exception of the Independent Research forum. The forum does not entertain discussions on wild speculation or crackpottery.
  • #1
The Fool
3
0
Since my first post on your esteemed forums appears to have attracted reactions varying from hostile to condescending; and since I have no wish to compound my earlier transgressions: and since, specifically, my attention has been drawn to your guidelines, could you please clarify the following:

challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You left out the word "unfounded."

The full text of that section of the guidelines is:
Overly Speculative Posts:
Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of a speculative nature that lack substantial support or well-considered argumentation will be deleted. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, with an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

Seems pretty self-explanatory.
 
  • #3
Self-explanatory guidelines are like self-increasing bank balances; desirable but seldom found. If that particular phrase had explained itself to me I would not have troubled you for clarification.

I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science". I don't need to point out the tautology, the word "unfounded" is redundant and the phrase is accurate as I presented it.

Challenges are the life blood of science. The ability to dream, to speculate, to envisage new ideas, these are the qualities that open new dimensions. And scientific thought advances, surely, where people can speculate in a supportive and receptive environment. Or have I missed something important?
 
  • #4
The Fool said:
Or have I missed something important?

You've missed the past five years of PFs existence. Rules are not arbitrarily thoughtup. They are the result of experiences we've had in the past. In the past we allowed such discussions and found that for every sincere and honorable person that holds such dicussion there are 50 nuts and creeps that aren't and don't. We don't have time to police discussions. So basicly we aren't against the idea of such colorful and creative brainstorming, but we've decided for the sake of our audience (high school, college...) it's better to leave those discussions at the door.
 
  • #5
The Fool said:
I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science". I don't need to point out the tautology, the word "unfounded" is redundant and the phrase is accurate as I presented it.
No, it is not. One can challenge hypotheses and conclusions in mainstream science if it is based on solid reasoning or facts, or discuss controversial issues, such as publications presenting opposing hypotheses. It's done all the time among scientists. Unfounded is the key word there. If you have no basis for your challenge, it's just bunk.

Challenges are the life blood of science.
But challenges based on wild speculation with no factual or experimental support are useless.

Because there are far too many people who can't distinguish between unfounded speculation and legitimate challenges, and because we primarily focus our content for students here who would be confused by such speculation when distinctions are not made clear, we limit discussion to that found in the mainstream scientific literature, namely, peer-reviewed journals. Scientific conferences and direct discussion with scientific colleagues and collaborators are the more appropriate place to discuss the bleeding edge research that might challenge the conclusions of prior studies.

The independent research forum is the one place here that we permit work that is original or outside the mainstream, provided it adheres to all of our posting requirements.
 
  • #6
OK that seems fair enough. Maybe I just caught people having a bad day yesterday.
 
  • #7
I deleted the post and issued the warning. I would be willing to remove the warning if you abide by the forum guidelines. Push gravity, however, is about the worst kind of physics crackpottery there is and we will not entertain discussion of it here.
 
  • #8
I was treading on eggshells at breakfast. Took me the whole morning to clean it up!
 
  • #9
The Fool said:
I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science".

Facts are not defined by mainstream science. Facts are, well, facts. If for instance you wish to discuss the troubling (in some sense) fact that theories of a quantum nature are not good at taking gravity into account please feel free. That is not wild speculation. If you want to start a discussion about how Ideal Gas Laws are practically useless for small systems then I'm sure there would be a lively debate about stochastic physics.
 
  • #10
You may also not be creating an impression that you wish to seriously discuss scientific theory with a name such as 'The Fool'.
 

1. What is the purpose of having forum rules that restrict discussion of challenging mainstream science?

The purpose of having forum rules that restrict discussion of challenging mainstream science is to maintain the integrity and credibility of the forum as a platform for scientific discussion. By limiting the discussion to accepted and evidence-based scientific theories, the forum can avoid spreading misinformation and pseudoscience.

2. How do the forum moderators determine what constitutes "challenging mainstream science"?

The forum moderators rely on established scientific consensus and evidence-based research to determine what constitutes "challenging mainstream science". They may also consult with experts in the relevant field to evaluate the validity and credibility of the claims being made.

3. Can I still express my opinions or personal beliefs about challenging mainstream science on the forum?

While the forum does not allow discussion of challenging mainstream science, you are still free to express your opinions and personal beliefs in a respectful manner. However, these opinions should not be presented as scientific facts and should not be used to discredit or attack mainstream scientific theories.

4. What should I do if I come across a post that violates the forum rules about challenging mainstream science?

If you come across a post that violates the forum rules about challenging mainstream science, you can report it to the moderators. They will review the post and take appropriate action, which may include removing the post and issuing a warning to the user.

5. Why is it important for scientific forums to have rules about challenging mainstream science?

Having rules about challenging mainstream science is important for scientific forums because it helps maintain the quality and reliability of the information being shared. By promoting evidence-based discussions, these forums can foster a better understanding of scientific concepts and prevent the spread of misinformation and pseudoscience.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
19K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top