Personal theory forum/less ridicule

[Isaac0427]

I get that on PF we value real scientific discussion, however I do have some suggestions to make this place more welcoming. These, I have noticed, attack the roots of problems that some people have with PF.

1. Have a separate forum for personal theories. A lot of people have them. While you may think it is nonsense a lot of people value it as a learning source.

The bigger one is

2. Less ridicule...for everything. Sometimes on PF, those of us who are less educated say something an expert would deem stupid, such as throwing in a bad term or just outright getting a concept wrong. Making these mistakes make you subject to all types of ridicule on the forum, such as people talking to you as if you were an idiot, people being very rude to you (sometimes outright calling you an idiot) and even a warning for spreading false information. While PF is a wonderful community, this sometimes makes me stray from it, and I can tell from many posts that it does the same to other people.

As for the part about adding a bad term in, people will spend an entire post saying that you can't, for example, "derive" the Schrodinger equation. However, when I ask how to derive the Schrodinger equation, you definitely know what I mean: I want to know where it comes from, how Schrodinger came up with it, etc. People get so caught up on the technicalities that they focus their entire post on them and not answer the implied question.

This is just my feedback on problems with PF so that the moderators and Greg can make this site a better place (not that it is not great, but as with everything there is always room for improvement).

Thanks!

 

[Evo]

1. Have a separate forum for personal theories. A lot of people have them. While you may think it is nonsense a lot of people value it as a learning source.

We had that in the past and it was a disaster. We have a niche, we stick to known, mainstream, accepted science so that we do not confuse students and people that want to learn. If you have a personal theory, once you get it published in an accepted peer reviewed journal, then you may discuss it here.

2. Less ridicule...for everything. Sometimes on PF, those of us who are less educated say something an expert would deem stupid, such as throwing in a bad term or just outright getting a concept wrong.

Since this would be different with every post, my suggestion is if you are not positive of what you are saying, (you do not have an accepted peer reviewed journal or school textbook to link to as your source), then do not state it as a fact, say that you have nothing to back it up and are wondering if it is correct, this should prevent criticism. It is when you say something incorrect, but perhaps come across as if you believe it to be true that you are most likely to run into criticism.

 

[jtbell]

1. Have a separate forum for personal theories. A lot of people have them. While you may think it is nonsense a lot of people value it as a learning source.

We did have this in our earlier days, first an unmoderated version, then a moderated version. It didn't work out. In our experience, the people who wanted to use their personal theories as a learning tool were far outnumbered by the people who had no interest in learning, but were convinced that established science was wrong and were out to make us recognize the "truth." You can see a summary of our history in this area here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/speculation/

Making these mistakes make you subject to all types of ridicule on the forum, such as people talking to you as if you were an idiot, people being very rude to you (sometimes outright calling you an idiot)

Please use the "Report" link on such posts when you see them. This gets the mentors' attention pretty quickly.

 

[PeroK]

I think the second point @Isaac0427 makes is worthy of more consideration. There are frequently cases where a response to a naive question by someone who is obviously not a physics student is unencouraging, to say the least. The replies are perhaps short of what one may want to report, but clearly give the impression of "not wanted here".

That said, PF is free of the typical online descent into heated argument, so this is very much a suggestion to improve an already exceptional forum.

 

[ZapperZ]

I get that on PF we value real scientific discussion, however I do have some suggestions to make this place more welcoming. These, I have noticed, attack the roots of problems that some people have with PF.

1. Have a separate forum for personal theories. A lot of people have them. While you may think it is nonsense a lot of people value it as a learning source.

I disagree, and I challenge you to show me evidence that such a forum is a "learning source" for "a lot of people". This is part of science, providing evidence to support your claim. You simply stated something, and made a speculation. What you seem to not be aware of is that we have tried such a thing. In fact, we even tried it at least a couple of different times and different ways!

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...y-forum-like-we-need-a-computer-virus.765736/

The fact that we had tried it many times, and saw no clear benefits from it, is my evidence to contradict your claim.

As for the part about adding a bad term in, people will spend an entire post saying that you can't, for example, "derive" the Schrodinger equation. However, when I ask how to derive the Schrodinger equation, you definitely know what I mean: I want to know where it comes from, how Schrodinger came up with it, etc. People get so caught up on the technicalities that they focus their entire post on them and not answer the implied question.

But see, rather than using this as a learning experience, you turned this into a negative, I-am-not-going-to-learn-from-it experience. I've always stressed that one of the most valuable things one can learn from PF is the nature of asking a question, and how things needs to be precise. Otherwise, what you are asking is vague, and what you'll get in return will be equally vague! So for this case, at the very least, you should then learn that the word "derive" has a very precise meaning, and to know when and how to use it.

You may think that we should know what you mean, but we don't! Especially if you're new, we can't tell what background you already have and cannot predict what you already know, and what you don't. Assuming that we should know what you mean is extremely presumptuous of you, and it implies that you expect us to do a lot more than just answer your question.

But more than that, you are ignoring the fact that you get to learn a bit about the science "culture" and how it is often done. You get to learn that the handwaving, vague, imprecise description that one gets away with in ordinary settings are just simply inadequate in a scientific discussion. This is part of doing science, and it is why we make sure we choose our description carefully. I hear all the time of how many people are very curious about how science is done. There are books and documentaries on this. You are getting a valuable, first-hand look at one aspect of it, for free!

Rather than learning from it, you are complaining about it.

Zz.

 

[Isaac0427]

Here is an example:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-it-possible-to-squash-an-atom.886812/#post-5578423
Just looking at the question, it is very obvious that the OP was not a professional. The question was "what happens if you try to confine an atom into a place smaller than the atom. There were some technicalities in there that did not make sense, but looking in the comments, almost everyone understood the actual question, and the OP confirmed that my interpretation of the question was correct. Instead of dedicating a post on the technicalities, have a post about the implied question and then mention the technicalities. I am not denying the importance of the technicalities, but people come here to ask their question, and they deserve an answer.

Also, somebody once posted a personal theory. He mentioned that he was a teenager interested in physics. I can't find the link and I don't remember his username but I remember looking at the thread. He received the link to "are you a quack?" Very discouraging at the least.

 

[PeroK]

Without wanting to get into an argument about this, post #5 is a good example.

@Evo said all that needed to be said simply and politely, so why the need to flame an enthusiastic young member of our community?

If someone persists with a contrary point of view, fair enough, but make a suggestion and you risk getting your head bitten off!

 

[ZapperZ]

Here is an example:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-it-possible-to-squash-an-atom.886812/#post-5578423
Just looking at the question, it is very obvious that the OP was not a professional. The question was "what happens if you try to confine an atom into a place smaller than the atom. There were some technicalities in there that did not make sense, but looking in the comments, almost everyone understood the actual question, and the OP confirmed that my interpretation of the question was correct. Instead of dedicating a post on the technicalities, have a post about the implied question and then mention the technicalities. I am not denying the importance of the technicalities, but people come here to ask their question, and they deserve an answer.

Also, somebody once posted a personal theory. He mentioned that he was a teenager interested in physics. I can't find the link and I don't remember his username but I remember looking at the thread. He received the link to "are you a quack?" Very discouraging at the least.

And for each post that you can cite for this, I can cite another post in which what the OP intended is not what others understood! Your posts come to mind immediately!

Either we treat each post on a case-by-case basis, or we will make an over-reaching generalization that everyone should know the intention of all members making these types of posts every single time. Do you think this is a rational assumption?

I am still waiting for your evidence that such personal theory forum is an effective learning source.

Zz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@Isaac0427 let's put the personal theory forum idea to rest, it's not going to happen. However, we can always step back and look how we treat each other. We should strive to encourage good science and education in members of all ages and experience. Let's all take a minute to reflect and consider more clear, patient and caring approaches towards members. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Isaac. I'm happy you're part of this community!

 

[S.G. Janssens]

let's put the personal theory forum idea to rest, it's not going to happen.

I think this is good.

However, we can always step back and look how we treat each other. We should strive to encourage good science and education in members of all ages and experience. Let's all take a minute to reflect and consider more clear, patient and caring approaches towards members.

I think this is good, too.

I remember that at some point, because of the snark that I sometimes see on PF, I became rather snarky myself. (Sorry for using the word "snark" again. I like it a lot, because to me it is almost an onomatopoeia.) An example is this post of mine, of which I am not terribly proud in spite of its scientific correctness. Actually, I felt a bit ashamed afterwards when I received a "like" and a "thank you" message from the person to which I was directly responding.

On the other hand, when I see that an OP does not want to make any effort and behaves as an entitled "consumer", I can still be quite ironic at times, but I try to keep it together.

All in all, when it is clear that the intentions of the OP are good and constructive (such as in the present thread) and there is the willingness to make an effort, I don't see any reason to react with... snark.

 

[Isaac0427]

And for each post that you can cite for this, I can cite another post in which what the OP intended is not what others understood! Your posts come to mind immediately!

There is no need to make this about any particular person's post. This is exactly what I am talking about. While my last example was about your post, I do not think all your posts are like that. You add very important contributions to the community.

I get the thing about personal theories, however I agree that if somebody says something about it with good intentions, they should be met with less snark, and NOT a link about being a quack. That can really make somebody trying to learn feel bad. Maybe just a simple "hey, we don't really like personal theories on this forum." I get snark when they think science is completely wrong, but a simple theory "adding to science" shouldn't be met with rudeness.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One of the worst habits of the PF Membership is the response to unclear posts. Instead of waiting for the OP to clarify, people get into all sorts of arguments about what he or she must have meant. I wish the forum software had a feature "lock until a specified member replies" - then a Mentor could simply ask for clarification, and put the thread on hold until it was provided.

As far as personal theories, the proper response is to report the thread. If that were not the response, ridicule would be entirely appropriate. The person agreed not to do this when they joined, and as far as the rest of the argument, as usual the great Steve Dutch does a much better job that I could https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/SelfApptdExp.htm. One quick quote: "If you think I'm disrespecting you, you're right. I have no respect for people who are uninformed, get angry when someone contradicts them, but are too lazy to get informed, and too cowardly to face failure, criticism, and the possibility they might have to change their minds."

 

[Collin237]

As far as personal theories, the proper response is to report the thread.

I didn't post any personal theory. You did. You theorized about what I was going to type next. I reported you, and the report was rejected.

 

[Charles Link]

There is no need to make this about any particular person's post. This is exactly what I am talking about. While my last example was about your post, I do not think all your posts are like that. You add very important contributions to the community.

I get the thing about personal theories, however I agree that if somebody says something about it with good intentions, they should be met with less snark, and NOT a link about being a quack. That can really make somebody trying to learn feel bad. Maybe just a simple "hey, we don't really like personal theories on this forum." I get snark when they think science is completely wrong, but a simple theory "adding to science" shouldn't be met with rudeness.

@Isaac0427 I found your OP above quite interesting. One problem I think any physics website faces is there are an awful lot of "wannabees" out there=when they have no physics or math background whatsoever and start making a claim such as how they believe time comes in discrete segments, it is necessary that the mentors weed these out as quickly as possible. I think they encounter quite a number of these, many of which get deleted before we even get the chance to see them. $\\$ On your second point, some of this comes with the very nature of their make-up. Physics people are often perfectionists, and in the process, some of them can come across as being a little snooty at times. I found that to be the case with a number of university professors in my college days, and it requires extra patience and taking their comments with as much levity as possible.

 

[StevieTNZ]

If questions are unclear, there should not be a whole page in that thread dedicated to members wondering and posting 'what exactly is the OP's question(s)?' A simple, and polite, way forward would be to ask, kindly, for an elaboration etc.

 

[Drakkith]

I get the thing about personal theories, however I agree that if somebody says something about it with good intentions, they should be met with less snark, and NOT a link about being a quack.

Indeed. I think this is something that can be worked on. I just wish it were easier to tell when someone posts something with 'good intentions' vs when they post something with no intention of listening to the other members.

 

[Bystander]

I just wish it were easier to tell when someone posts something with 'good intentions' vs when they post something with no intention of listening to the other members.

Matter of experience --- look over previous posts. No previous posts? You have to take your chances.

 

[BillTre]

I just wish it were easier to tell when someone posts something with 'good intentions' vs when they post something with no intention of listening to the other members.

Probe them with a revealing question, in a nice way.
Problem is it may take time for them to reply. Additional replies pile up, which might make the OP seem non-respondent, creating more emotional issues.

This favors @Vanadium 50 's suggestion above about putting it on temporary hold:

forum software had a feature "lock until a specified member replies" - then a Mentor could simply ask for clarification, and put the thread on hold until it was provided.

 

[phinds]

I really like Vanadium's suggestion of adding a feature to report posts that need clarification and have a mod lock them until the OP provides that clarification, BUT ... I recognize that that's easy for me to say since I'm not a moderator and doing it would not make any more work for me. The mods here do a great job and I'd love it if they would take this on but if they view it as too onerous, I would respect that.

 

[Bystander]

I really like Vanadium's suggestion of adding a feature to report posts that need clarification and have a mod lock them until the OP provides that clarification,

Seconded. Could it be "automated?"

 

[phinds]

Seconded. Could it be "automated?"

I would think it would require a fair amount of moderator intervention. Upon getting a report that a post needed to be clarified they would need to
- verify that they AGREE that it needs clarifiction
- lock the thread
- notify the OP that he has to provide clarification
- GET that clarification from the OP
- make sure they are satisfied that it is sufficient clarification (which could involve more PMs w/ the OP
- post that clarification in the thread
- unlock the thread

Seems like a lot of work to me and I don't see much room for automation.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't support this idea that a thread should be locked until a mentor can attend to it just because a question is a little vague. While it certainly leads to some minor issues, it is also introduces a lot of extra work for the mentors and takes away from the "community" aspect of PF.

 

[Chronos]

It is often said mathematics is the language of science and any assertion or conclusion devoid of mathematics is, by definition, unscientific. Few questions or conclusions here are properly phrased in the 'language of science', yet, we still entertain them and usually attempt a level appropriate response. Bear in mind any and all assertions and interpretations are unfounded until mathematically demonstrated or attributed to an appropriate expert. When the OP pushes too far or appears to be leading the discussion down some dark alley, that's where the trouble usually starts and remarks like 'show the math' or 'cite your references', become to appropriate. Veterans here have seen enough dark alleys to recognize a potential mugging. Snarks like these are not a personal affront, rather an attempt to properly clarify a relevant issue. Use the 'report' button for a truly egregious offense, but, expect little sympathy for requests to legitimize a point of contention.

 

[BillTre]

Seems like the first three actions are the equivalent to those used for closing a thread:

- verify that they AGREE that it needs clarifiction
- lock the thread
- notify the OP that he has to provide clarification

Also seems (to me, but I am not familiar with the forum software) that they could be combined into a single action (click a secrete moderator button) based on the original post and the original poster's contact info.

after the OP responds (step #4) and the moderator is informed of the response:

- GET that clarification from the OP

The most difficult and time consuming step is:
- make sure they are satisfied that it is sufficient clarification (which could involve more PMs w/ the OP
This is the step which would involve the most judgement.
Presumably equivalent thought would go into just closing a thread, but this might be easier since some doubts might be resolved.

the last two

- post that clarification in the thread
- unlock the thread

could also be a single action.

I don't think it is necessary to go through this sequence rapidly for it to work well enough to satisfy people.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Personal theories by persons with some sophistication are interesting - I think some of the forum's "Insights" are examples of this.

Naive personal theories and naive questions bring up similar issues. ( I notice the subject of naive questions had arisen in this thread about personal theories.) A person who asks an naive question often reveals a personal viewpoint. If a person who asks a naive question refuses or is unable to discard a their initial viewpoint, they can be accused of have a naive "personal theory".

Naive questions often create some very interesting threads when the experts answering them digress or progress to discussing various details. We could consider putting naive questions in separate section - with a more polite title than "Naive questions".

 

[Collin237]

Actually, I felt a bit ashamed afterwards when I received a "like" and a "thank you" message from the person to which I was directly responding.

I was shocked when I first noticed the Likes on this forum (I don't recall the circumstance). But I realized that Like here means something different -- and IMHO much more useful -- than anywhere else.

 

[HyperStrings]

There is a lot of obtuse orthodoxy in this forum and I am very saddened by it. The current paradigm of education actually shows that you should let people build their own theory, then challenge it. It starts people into a research minded state at younger ages. The old world of repetition and memory, with one answer is falling to the wayside.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184540/

I can cite hundreds of examples and papers about it but, I feel I would probably be silenced, banned or blocked. The real problem is that while some on this site help for certain things, it can be very deconstructive and actually create more frustration and difficulty for not only the mentor or peer but the student or alternate peer. In many aspects, its straight up cyber bullying. I feel moderators suffer from their own biases as well and have problems working with new concepts. We are the peer reviewers, To block Arxiv papers is going to extremes. I don't really view this as a helpful, friendly, educational atmosphere. More like a listen to me because I know everything and I'm never wrong. (You are wrong. Quite often) You have to be able to have an open discussion otherwise it is draconian law and non educational. I'm really am sorry for providing such a rude posting, but since Vanadium seems to approve of ridicule, then I'm going to ridicule your irrational logic, feeble understanding of psychology and education and fascist policy. Happy holidays...

 

[Charles Link]

There is a lot of obtuse orthodoxy in this forum and I am very saddened by it. The current paradigm of education actually shows that you should let people build their own theory, then challenge it. It starts people into a research minded state at younger ages. The old world of repetition and memory, with one answer is falling to the wayside.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184540/

I can cite hundreds of examples and papers about it but, I feel I would probably be silenced, banned or blocked. The real problem is that while some on this site help for certain things, it can be very deconstructive and actually create more frustration and difficulty for not only the mentor or peer but the student or alternate peer. In many aspects, its straight up cyber bullying. I feel moderators suffer from their own biases as well and have problems working with new concepts. We are the peer reviewers, To block Arxiv papers is going to extremes. I don't really view this as a helpful, friendly, educational atmosphere. More like a listen to me because I know everything and I'm never wrong. (You are wrong. Quite often) You have to be able to have an open discussion otherwise it is draconian law and non educational. I'm really am sorry for providing such a rude posting, but since Vanadium seems to approve of ridicule, then I'm going to ridicule your irrational logic, feeble understanding of psychology and education and fascist policy. Happy holidays...

@HyperStrings I see you just signed up yesterday as a member. I recommend you try to be patient with what may seem to be a few unnecessary rules. You will likely get the chance to discuss all kinds of physics if you stay with the website. The rules that the Physics Forums has in place may appear to be an obstacle, but after a while, I think you might see that they are there to preserve order and not to discourage free thinking.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is a lot of obtuse orthodoxy in this forum and I am very saddened by it. The current paradigm of education actually shows that you should let people build their own theory, then challenge it.

Thank you for your feedback. I would sincerely encourage you to develop your own community based around your mission. Our mission is different. Good luck!

 

[Dale]

2. Less ridicule...for everything

I do agree with this. I am trying to work on it for my part, but I do admit that my personal fatigue level at the moment of response is still a factor.

 

[Evo]

Hyperstrings, we cannot be all things to all people, it's just that simple. We have a niche, and that niche is to stick to known, accepted, mainstream science. Sure there are other things going on, and once they fall into the former description, they are welcome to be discussed here.

There are many places on the internet where you can discuss anything, why don't you go to these places? Oh, they have crackpots? Oh, they aren't moderated to keep out nonsense? Oh you want to be part of a forum that holds to a high standard? Well, you can't have it all. If you find a forum where you can, please let me know. Until then, if you wish to be a member here and abide by our rules, you are welcome, otherwise, I suggest you quit complaining that we strive to maintain a quality science forum for KNOWN science. We do not pretend to be anything else.

 

[HyperStrings]

Thank you Charles, Greg and Dale. I did want to post the good points and where we agree first, but I felt I really had to say 'something'. Its quite possible, I am over-reacting, and you may find I agree with you more than you may think at the moment. Nevertheless, I will agree to the rules, so long as discussion is always allowable. I understand you have done so much for the forum and it may be something, 'sacred' to you. I only plee that you adhere to the ideal of democracy and open discourse and thus allow logic, philosophy of theory and scientific discourse, to be presented. The appeals to a non 'peer reviewed' paper are lavish, for you do not feel you can peer review a paper? You do have enough intelligence to find flaws in modern peer reviewed papers correct? This gives people a false identity of truth and valid research. As if millions of peer reviewed papers are just fact. It gives a false presentation to the new paradigm of science. You can observe extreme spectrum of misinterpretations, even 'mistakes' in virtually every paper, whether peer reviewed or not. From really bad papers, with outdated interpretations, that might be cited 1000 times, to a really good paper, with 1 citation and 2 reads. Even after all that, you still have to 'apply' the papers to a discussion. Why are we even talking about the papers in the first place? A mistake? Another 3 scientists solutions into a different equation that fixes the mistake? What are we even doing this science for if we aren't working together on what the paper is trying to do?

 

[Drakkith]

We are the peer reviewers, To block Arxiv papers is going to extremes.

We are not the peer reviewers. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people who visit this forum, both members and non-members, are not even close to being qualified to judge the validity and accuracy of an arxiv paper. Not even the science advisors and mentors are qualified to judge more than a very small percentage of papers on arxiv. That's why, when push comes to shove, we don't allow arxiv as a valid, peer-reviewed source. You can certainly find many high-quality papers on arxiv, but there are plenty of inaccurate, incoherent, or crank papers on arxiv.

 

[Evo]

Thank you Charles, Greg and Dale. I did want to post the good points and where we agree first, but I felt I really had to say 'something'. Its quite possible, I am over-reacting, and you may find I agree with you more than you may think at the moment. Nevertheless, I will agree to the rules, so long as discussion is always allowable. I understand you have done so much for the forum and it may be something, 'sacred' to you. I only plee that you adhere to the ideal of democracy and open discourse and thus allow logic, philosophy of theory and scientific discourse, to be presented. The appeals to a non 'peer reviewed' paper are lavish, for you do not feel you can peer review a paper? You do have enough intelligence to find flaws in modern peer reviewed papers correct? This gives people a false identity of truth and valid research. As if millions of peer reviewed papers are just fact. It gives a false presentation to the new paradigm of science. You can observe extreme spectrum of misinterpretations, even 'mistakes' in virtually every paper, whether peer reviewed or not. From really bad papers, with outdated interpretations, that might be cited 1000 times, to a really good paper, with 1 citation and 2 reads. Even after all that, you still have to 'apply' the papers to a discussion. Why are we even talking about the papers in the first place? A mistake? Another 3 scientists solutions into a different equation that fixes the mistake? What are we even doing this science for if we aren't working together on what the paper is trying to do?

We do not "peer review" papers. We do not allow personal theories or speculation. That is not what we do here as has been explained to you repeatedly.

There are approved journals for this purpose, if the papers haven't passed peer review in an accepted journal, they can not be discussed here.

This discussion is over.