Is there a crackdown on speculative posts?

[chronon]

I've noticed a recent tendency against speculative posts. This seems odd, since this was the main reason I joined PF. For instance Arctic Fox asked what seems to be a reasonable question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=621169#post621169 only to be told that it isn't worth discussing.

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

 

[Moonbear]

Well, for some time now there has been moderation and locking of overly-speculative posts, and yes, the forum is being kept focused on standard physics, if by "standard" you mean peer-reviewed, published physics. Just see the thread just above or below yours here on Theory Development, where this has been discussed ad nauseum.

As for the thread you provided as an example, it starts right out with "Forget Einstein..." People in that thread seem to be asking, "why?" However, you'll note that the thread is not locked or the poster banned, the folks posting seem to be trying to get clarification on what the point of such an exercise is and to ask people to justify their answers. Otherwise, if someone wants to have a science fiction poll (i.e., if anything was possible, what would you prefer), then it belongs in General Discussion, not one of the more serious science forums.

I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.

You'll notice that Theory Development is a closed forum. Once in a while a post or two is moved there and tentatively allowed to remain open to give a poster benefit of the doubt, but generally, the decision was made that those types of topics are too time-consuming for the mentors and don't have enough of a benefit to justify that additional time. If people can post those topics for discussion someplace else, then let them discuss them there.

There is a difference between speculation based on sound evidence and over-speculation based on no scientific foundation, or a very poor foundation.

 

[arildno]

The thread in question has neither been locked nor moved to TD; chroot must be allowed to express his opinion about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard". All you need to do is check her understanding of basic physics, which she FREELY admits, isn't much. And don't let her fool you into believing that she's trying to restore the classical light picture - she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).

Point I'm trying to get across: there is no such thing as worthwhile non-standard ideas when they are based on utter ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

IMO, unless the Arctic Fox provides some justification for listing option #2, that thread belongs in GD. Moreover, he asks that specific tools of science that deal directly with his question not be used or talked about. In short, that thread is not about science...yet. If he does provide a justification, the thread should go to either S&D or TD.

 

[Gokul43201]

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

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 an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

 

[chronon]

I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.

True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going. I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.

she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

 

[juvenal]

I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

Is this some attempt at a guilt trip? The sky is not falling, quite frankly.

 

[quantumdude]

True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF.

Just out of curiosity, why would your decision to post a question here have anything to do with our policies against crackpottery?

I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

Firstly, I don't see Caroline or her ilk stinking up SPR either, so I'm not exactly sure of what you are talking about. And secondly, I don't know why you would not think that PF has the same authority as SPR (whatever that means), but even if it were true it is still not the case that outside influences do or should determine our policies here at PF. And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.

I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.

She wasn't rejected out of hand. She was heard and answered before she was banned.

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093

And as for Eugene Shubert, his ideas are routinely torn to pieces on SPR and the like. If they want to allow this "I proved you wrong", "No you didn't", "Yes I did" nonsense to go on ad infinitum then that is their problem, not ours.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

But YOU were the one who brought up the comparison with OTHER physics forums. Thus, you opened the door to that avenue and I'm just using the same tactic as you did. Furthermore, I am pointing out EVIDENCE that her point of view is not entirely kosher - she's a quack who knows how to disguise her ignorance of physics through cleverly-manipulated sentences so that physicists have a hard time deciphering what she's trying to say. Read her Chaotic Ball paper, or am I again bringing up external sources that has no relevence here?

Your claim that she was banned simply for the singular reason that her ideas were "non-mainstream" is just plain wrong.

Zz.

 

[chroot]

One extra data point: Caroline Thompson has been forcibly evicted from many other venues on the web. She has been a nuisance on wikipedia for the better part of a year, and frankly is not at all a rational person. This is more than evident by watching her behavior among other professional scientists working on the encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_test_experiments

We do not intend to copy-cat the moderation of other venues. We do not intend to welcome any and all persons with open arms. We do not intend to be used as a soapbox. The majority of us are happy to have carved out a (relatively) sane haven on the web to discuss real physics, and we'd like to keep it that way. If our ideals are not compatible with yours, please vote with your feet.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

And conversely, even if someone is permitted to post elsewhere, even on the slim chance they have multiple personality disorder and post cogently everywhere else and only exhibit crackpot tendencies here, we can only judge them by their posts here. What they post out in sci.physics.* is irrelevant to how PF is run. We have our objectives and they have theirs, and there's no reason for one site to need to emulate the other.

 

[Nereid]

I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.

chronon, you may or may not agree with Tom as to where you think PF should be going.

Let's assume for the moment that some of us do want to head in the direction Tom summarises.

Would you please be kind enough to tell us how (in your mind) we can best get to that goal? If it helps, imagine the content scope is principally physics, astronomy, cosmology, and mathematics. In particular, what stance should PF take to 'non-mainstream' ideas? How much should we insist that such ideas are self-consistent? consistent with good experimental and observational results? quantitative?

Kind Regards
Nereid

 

[chronon]

Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

 

[chroot]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic, and that topic was non-mainstream, and thus against the guidelines that she agreed to follow when she signed up. She had ample time to get in line.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

There is no reason why PF should not attract more and more professionals. Nor is there any reason why PF should not try to become "something it is not." We have a large membership and a strong leadership. We can become anything we want to become, whether or not you like it.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.

Check out sciforums, and see for yourself how well that approach works on the internet.

2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.

We have redirects, so there's no harm in moving a thread to its appropriate forum.

3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)

Some people will never stop arguing, even after every conceivable argument has already been made dozens of times. When our staff decides a thread is "done," it's done.

4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

Non-mainstream posts are generally dealt with by splitting or deleting. If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.

- Warren

 

[chronon]

She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic,and that topic was non-mainstream,

I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard".

There seems to be some confusion as to whether posting non-mainstream ideas deserves to get you banned

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

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 an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

Except that it isn't. I have always found it strange that PF doesn't have a TOS link, but this is what you get when you sign up

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

 

[Janus]

Except that it isn't. I have always found it strange that PF doesn't have a TOS link, but this is what you get when you sign up

What Gokul43201 quoted is found in the Forum Feedback & Announcements forums as a sticky named:

"Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines"

Found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=66018#post66018

 

[quantumdude]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning.

As has been emphasized over and over: She wasn't banned for anyone thread or post. But the posts in that thread are unquestionably cranky, and therefore against the policies of this website. Mix 1 part ignorance with 1 part arrogance and 1 part persistence, bake for a month, and you've got a perfectly cooked banned crackpot.

What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

She demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what physics is and how it is done. That in itself is not worthy of a ban, but the authoritative tone she takes while being so badly mistaken is not good. Its presence damages the educational credibility of PF, and is worthy of a ban IMO.

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

No one is threatened by anything she wrote. The problem here is that she attempted to supplant a well-established theory with some half baked idea that sounds good to her. We don't stand for that here, and I dare say that any forum that does stand for it cannot hold a candle to our "authority", if I read your meaning of that term correctly.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not.

Baloney. ZapperZ is at Argonne, Ahrkron is at CERN (and he was at Fermilab until last year), Reilly is a retired physicist, and the list goes on and on. We have many outstanding professionals here, and the list gets larger all the time.

I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

You said in a previous post that you would be more likely to ask serious questoins about physics on SPR. Why do you ask serious questions at all? Why don't you settle for just not knowing? Why don't you just accept it, rather than try to make yourself something which you are not?

See what a dumb question that is?

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

With all due respect, your ideas are a recipe for certain failure.

 

[chronon]

What Gokul43201 quoted is found in the Forum Feedback & Announcements forums as a sticky named:

"Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines"

Found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=66018#post66018

Silly me, the fourth thread in the second forum from the bottom of the list, the obvious place for the Forum Guidelines.

All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years

 

[quantumdude]

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.

I have to agree with chronon that those guidelines/rules are not as prominent as they should be. When this thread showed up, I didn't even know where to find them. I went looking in the FAQs thinking that would be the most likely place to find rules. Maybe a link to that sticky thread in the FAQs would be an appropriate location to remind people of the rules. Afterall, even if someone read and agreed to rules when they signed in, who saves that page to remember it much further down the road?

As I'm reading this thread, the general topic of why people are or aren't banned for certain types of posts is, or at least might be, helpful to folks, but I don't think it's helpful or fair to be discussing one specific banned individual who is not here to defend herself, even if this is only being used as an example. Banning doesn't always occur due to the threads/posts left on the board, but may have involved threads/posts that were deleted or discussions via PM, and it doesn't seem very appropriate to expect the moderators to dredge that information up to justify the banning. That is between the banned member and the administration.

A single post is unlikely to get someone banned (unless it's an especially egregious violation of board rules), but a pattern of posting and disregard for warnings to change that pattern will.

 

[Danger]

If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.

Happens to me at a disgusting rate; I'll try to help some kid out in GP or Engineering only to be corrected by someone because it turned out that I didn't understand it as well as I thought I did. It's embarrassing, but educational, and I don't expect to be banned or even warned for it. If, on the other hand, I responded to such a correction by insisting that I was right and everyone else was wrong, I wouldn't deserve to be welcome here.

 

[Arctic Fox]

I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves. I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts, and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun. I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily acquired anti-matter. :)

 

[Chronos]

You have missed the point, Arctic Fox. This forum is about real science. Chroot is trying to remind you of that in a nice way. If you ask honest questions here, you will get very good answers. But if you insist on promoting yourself as some sort of genius, you will get very predictable replies. Most of us here are here to learn, not proseletize.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.

Good grief, you're a drama queen. :-D

Look, the opening post of that thread of yours that chronon linked to really does more closely resemble science fiction than science. Why not try to learn something about why that is, instead of taking it as a rejection?

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Ah, but see, herein lies the rub. You know those professionals who answered your questions about nuclear matierials? Well by and large they are not interested in reading naively formulated speculations about science (not singling you out, just making a general observation). It rubs most people the wrong way when someone who is not trained to do a job comes along and makes comments that imply that he can do the job better than the professionals can do it. Can you imagine someone with no flight time walking into a room full of airline pilots and insisting that he can fly a plane better than they can? It is no less preposturous when someone does similar things with a (virtual) roomful of physicists and engineers.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves.

Oh yeah? Well then you shouldn't make comments such as the ones in the opening post of this thread, which is incidentally one of the threads that earned you one of those warnings.

I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts,

Hmmm, it's good to have goals.

and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

If chroot bans you for wanting to tell everyone here how wrong they are, without knowing what you are talking about yourself, then he will have the backing of the entire staff, and most likely a grateful membership as well.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun.

Questions are fine, that's our main business here. But if you start spouting off uninformed opinions then you will leave us with no choice but to silence you like a misbehaved kid in a classroom. I'm saying this to let you know that it's not just chroot who feels this way. The leadership of this website is firmly committed to this sentiment.

I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.

I applaud your curiosity and wish you the best of luck.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily acquired anti-matter. :)

Well, a lesson to be learned here is that if you persist in telling trained, professional scientists "how it is", then what you've described above is the only audience you are going to get.

 

[chroot]

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Yes, yes, that's par for the course. Crackpots never want to be relegated to crackpot sites, because they do not believe they are crackpots. Almost all crackpots share this form of self-aggrandizement.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves. I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts, and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

We currently have over 25,000 members on this site. Do you think I have time to single you out? I issue warnings when I see posts that deserve warnings. If you stop making such posts, you are welcome to stay as long as you'd like.

- Warren

 

[Arctic Fox]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Thanks, Chroot. You're a god.

 

[Janus]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Nereid]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

Thank you chronon.

Assume, for the moment, that PF wishes to be primarily a forum for providing homework help in, discussion of careers in, and discussions of mainstream physics, astronomy, etc ... Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream. PF would also like to be very clear in its guidelines as to its primary aims, what constitutes unacceptable posts, and under what circumstances we will ban someone. In all these guidelines, we also wish to be crystal clear that it is the owner, Admin and moderators of this site who will make decisions (and act on them) re moving posts, deleting them, warning posters, banning them, etc.

Would you be kind enough to help us with these aims? In particular, what - specifically - should our guidelines say?

ArticFox: if you are still with us, would you mind answering the questions I asked chronon?

 

[Moonbear]

Assume, for the moment, that PF wishes to be primarily a forum for providing homework help in, discussion of careers in, and discussions of mainstream physics, astronomy, etc ... Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream. PF would also like to be very clear in its guidelines as to its primary aims, what constitutes unacceptable posts, and under what circumstances we will ban someone. In all these guidelines, we also wish to be crystal clear that it is the owner, Admin and moderators of this site who will make decisions (and act on them) re moving posts, deleting them, warning posters, banning them, etc.

These statements have been made many times, particularly in threads over here in feedback and regarding theory development, and we do seem to have to continue repeating this information. It seems that a clear mission statement in conjunction with the forum rules would be helpful and could be added to the top of the forum rules post. I think your statement above makes a good dent in writing that as well. If we have a clear mission statement, then there is no confusion as to why non-mainstream posts are not permitted; they simply do not fit within the mission of this particular site. If there is a need/desire on the internet for a site that welcomes non-mainstream topics, then anyone is welcome to set up their own site somewhere for that and moderate it to the degree they prefer, but this is not the place for it.

So, working from what you've already written, here's my suggested wording:

Mission Statement
PhysicsForums is primarily a forum that provides 1) homework help, 2) discussion of careers and educational opportunities, and 3) subject-specific discussions of research and issues in science, math and engineering, with the main emphasis on physics.

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, or 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books. Non-mainstream topics, including personal theories, will not be permitted on PhysicsForums. The exception is in the "Skepticism and Debunking" forum, where non-mainstream topics may be presented by those seeking assistance in verifying or refuting claims made in non-peer-reviewed sources.

In all areas of PhysicsForums, any non-mainstream topics posted will be locked to further discussion and/or deleted at the discretion of the admins and mentors. All decisions regarding whether topics posted fall within the mission of this site and how threads containing those topics will be handled will be made at the discretion of the moderators (i.e., admins and mentors). A warning will be issued to a member if a non-mainstream topic is posted by them. Further clarification of the reasons for the warning, if necessary, can be obtained by contacting the moderator(s) via Private Message or E-mail. If a member continues to post non-mainstream topics after the initial warning, further action will be taken, including temporary banning from posting or permanent termination of membership.

Other Forum Rules and Code of Conduct
(The rest of the rules already posted regarding obscenities, flaming, spamming, etc. would go here.)

Did I miss anything, or is there anything else that needs to be changed to better reflect the site mission and rules?

 

[jma2001]

For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, or 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books. Non-mainstream topics, including personal theories, will not be permitted on PhysicsForums.

I think it is going a bit too far to say that any idea outside of a peer-reviewed publication cannot be discussed, period. From having read many threads on PF, I have come to the conclusion that the "non-mainstream" ideas are not what is causing the problem. Rather, it is the people who continue to defend their ideas, usually in a combative manner, after obvious flaws have been pointed out by the mentors and other knowledgeable participants.

Going back to something ZapperZ said in another thread: "A genuine question is NOT the same as spewing off a theory out of ignorance. Someone coming in here and asking "Look, I think I have this idea of moving faster than c, but can you tell me why this can't work?" is different than "I have a unified theory of physics using the same principle as the mechanics of grooming cat hairs". I have seen both types (and I'm guessing you have too), and I believe they have been handled accordingly."

It seems to me that Moonbear's proposed guidelines would prohibit genuine questions of the first type. That is, it should be possible for people to ask honest questions about non-mainstream ideas, so long as they do it with a humble attitude, and are willing to admit when they are wrong.

Instead of trying to define which ideas are not permitted, it might be better to define which behaviors are not permitted.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks...

Are there not states now where ID appears as a science in high school "textbooks" ? And who's to tell what may be found in textbooks around the world...but I can see the motivation for this clause.

In fact, (and this may be taking an extreme view, but) I don't think there is a need to define "mainstream" as anything other than what the site owner considers sound; and for the most part these include things enumerated in your above 2 points.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks for added suggestions/critiques. I didn't expect to get it right on a first draft, and I'm sure not the one to dictate site rules, just trying to offer suggestions (if they end up too far off-base, don't use them ).

Are there not states now where ID appears as a science in high school "textbooks" ? And who's to tell what may be found in textbooks around the world...but I can see the motivation for this clause.

I don't know if it's specifically covered in textbooks, but it certainly does come up as a topic for discussion in the biology forum, and is quickly refuted. This is a good point, because I DO want to see questions on ID if students are being taught it in school. If non-mainstream stuff is showing up in textbooks, I really do want to see the questions show up here so we have a chance to provide the education the schools aren't (or correct the damage they are doing). So, maybe mainstream vs non-mainstream isn't the right terminology to use.

In fact, (and this may be taking an extreme view, but) I don't think there is a need to define "mainstream" as anything other than what the site owner considers sound; and for the most part these include things enumerated in your above 2 points.

Okay, since both you and jma2001 object that the definition of "mainstream" is too restrictive, I'll change that. You and I and a lot of others here have a good feeling for what is "sound," but for someone who isn't making sound arguments, without some examples of what is and isn't okay, they can't see for themselves why their topic is inappropriate for this forum. For now, I've left "mainstream" as the term, but based on the above point, it probably needs to be replaced with a more accurate term for what we're trying to do here. Suggestions anyone?

So, here's the next revision. Better, worse, scrap the whole idea?

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of[/color] "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles. N.B., I think some form of definition or examples is necessary for clarity, but am open to suggestions for alternative examples to include here; the list need not be all-inclusive. I removed the statement on not permitting non-mainstream topics as it is more restrictive than the following paragraph that leaves the decision to moderator discretion.[/color]

In all areas of PhysicsForums, any non-mainstream topics posted will be locked to further discussion and/or deleted at the discretion of the admins and mentors. All decisions regarding whether topics posted fall within the mission of this site and how threads containing those topics will be handled will be made at the discretion of the moderators (i.e., admins and mentors). A warning will be issued to a member if a non-mainstream topic is posted by them. Further clarification of the reasons for the warning, if necessary, can be obtained by contacting the moderator(s) via Private Message or E-mail. If a member continues to post non-mainstream topics after the initial warning, further action will be taken, such as[/color] temporary banning from posting or permanent termination of membership.


Any thoughts on the mission statement itself? Greg, are you around? Does that adequately cover what you want PF to be? The rules and guidelines are somewhat secondary. If there is at least a clear mission statement, then when someone posts something that just doesn't belong here, when it's closed or deleted, all you need to do is point to the mission statement and say, "It's not allowed to remain open for discussion on this forum because it is not consistent with our mission." And, of course, if the site evolves over time and takes on a new purpose, that mission statement can be revised to accommodate those changes.

 

[jtbell]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

 

[jma2001]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

Yes, thank you, I agree completely. Your distinction between "discussion" and "advocacy" is exactly what I was trying to say, re: defining inappropriate behavior, rather than inappropriate ideas.

 

[Evo]

Questions or misconceptions about mainstream science can be discussed in a scientific or academic forum as there is merit in discussing and pointing out errors. I don't know if we want to be discussing topics which have no scientific basis in a mainstream section of the forum, that would be more appropriate in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.

 

[Danger]

For now, I've left "mainstream" as the term, but based on the above point, it probably needs to be replaced with a more accurate term for what we're trying to do here. Suggestions anyone?

Rational maybe, although that's a pretty subjective term?

 

[Nereid]

Thanks to all who responded to my post, and an especially big thanks to Moonbear - as I may not have said this elsewhere, I think you make great contributions to the success of this site, and your selfless devotion of time and energy is much appreciated. That you are obviously enjoying yourself and having fun at the same time is even more wonderful!

If chronon or Arctic Fox are still reading this thread, would you mind contributing your thoughts? To repeat; I'm not asking what you think PF should be all about, merely that IF my characterisation of our mission is more or on target, how - in your view - should we write the guidelines (etc)?

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

 

[Moonbear]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

Good point. I'm not sure how to incorporate it just yet. It's going to take some careful wording to make sure people know they have the opportunity to ask questions about why certain non-mainstream theories are NOT accepted by mainstream science without leaving the door wide open to all sorts of crazy discussion of non-mainstream theories. I could rewrite to mention something along the lines of (rough wording here), "Discussion of non-mainstream topics for the purpose of understanding why they are not currently accepted scientific theories or models is permitted in the Skepticism and Debunking forum."

However, this depends on whether the admins here want all of those topics in S&D. It might be a good thing to try as it does clearly demarcate those topics as non-mainstream by their placement in that forum. I just wouldn't want to see this suggestion backfire such that it turns into open-season for crackpots in S&D instead of TD.

The easier modification here is addressing the historical context.

Also, are any of these suggestions excluding any of our forums? Have we accounted for Philosophy or Politics for example? I don't want to get so narrow that we exclude appropriate topics, but at the same time, I don't want to be too vague as to be unhelpful and right back where we started.

Okay, let's try it this way:

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles. In addition to education/career guidance and discussion of published works, discussions of hot topics in science, the history of science, and ethical and political issues related to the sciences are welcome. [/color] (Tentatively follow with: Discussion of non-mainstream topics for the purpose of understanding why they are not currently accepted scientific theories or models is permitted in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.)[/color]

etc.

 

[Moonbear]

Rational maybe, although that's a pretty subjective term?

I don't think that would fly very well to distinguish between rational and irrational topics. We'd have to ban all of GD.

Would directing all non-mainstream topics to S&D make use of that terminology (mainstream vs non-mainstream) acceptable, or do those who raised the initial objections still find it a problem? Keep the comments and suggestions coming; I want these to reflect what PF really is, not just "PF According to Moonbear.

 

[chronon]

The trouble from my point of view is that there are often questions posted of the form 'I've read (in a popular science book), that such-and-such is the case, but it doesn't seem quite right'. My reply is generally, 'No it isn't right, don't always believe what you read in popular science books'. Unfortunately, this makes what I am writing look decidedly non-mainstream, and I often get into arguments with the "Science experts"

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do? I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse. People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation, especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Garth]

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

According to Moonbear's definition:

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles.

SCC is mainstream.

Physics Forums strength is the qualified expertise it keeps on board. This is possible because of a strict monitoring policy. There needs to be a 'crackpot' forum as TD at the moment, but also somewhere else where reasonable alternative theories and ideas may be cashed out and discussed. Either we say SCC, MOND etc. are mainstream as they are published work or, because they are not the consensus view, they have to be discussed in some 'maverick' forum so as not to confuse those who are unaware of their status.

Garth

 

[X-43D]

I've noticed a recent tendency against speculative posts. This seems odd, since this was the main reason I joined PF. For instance Arctic Fox asked what seems to be a reasonable question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=621169#post621169 only to be told that it isn't worth discussing.

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

Basically anyone who criticizes mainstream physics but isn't a physicist or a mathematician gets banned by the moderators. It happened to several people here before.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do? I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse. People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

I challenge you to give her the whole set of Maxwell Equations, and ask her to derive the wave equation from those WITHOUT resorting to anything else. This is VERY relevant to what she's trying to do because she is ADAMENT that only the wave picture of EM radiation is valid, not photons. Practically every undergraduate physics major has to know how to do what I just asked COLD.

When you can convince yourself that she can, then come back here and tell me that "she clearly does know enough physics". Till then, don't fool yourself by making such a statement.

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

But you have just countered your own argument. This is WHY we can't have an anything-goes forum. To be able to have experts in ALL areas of physics is IMPOSSIBLE. You don't get this even at the largest annual physics conferences in the world!

Bring your "non-mainstream" ideas to the relevant conference. Seek the expert in that field, etc... This is how it is done, and it is the most effective way to test one's ideas, NOT on PF, and certainly not on open internet forums. Is this such a novel concept? If it isn't, then I don't see what the complaining is all about?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them.

When I was in 2nd grade, my family moved and I had to change schools. In the first school, I learned to write a lower-case "t" with a straight stem and in the second, they tried to teach me to write it with a curved stem. I flat out refused to change and after a few weeks of battling with my teacher I had to change classes. That's arrogance. Its also immaturity.

But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

From the above anecdote the solution should be obvious: have the maturity to admit to yourself that you are lacking in knowledge and instead of choosing to question those who are trying to teach you, open your mind and learn from them. It really is a simple question of maturity.

 

[Gokul43201]

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

Take your ideas to a place where they are allowed and will be listened to. PF is not maintained for this purpose.

Ever tried ordering lasagna at a Chinese restaurant ?

 

[Andre]

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

Am I a non-mainstream or non-consensus person?

Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream

So what to do with the question about what constitutes mainstream (The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity)? It has been raised but you quickly get in trouble:

Allow me to give an example: (don’t click the links if you want to keep it abstract). This is a peer reviewed mainstream article, the author being undisputed and highly qualified. This is also derived from mainstream peer reviewed work with evenly highly qualified authors. Yet, their respective work is totally opposing each other. Notice how the second author tries all kind of -not substantiated- excuses to make it look less controversial. That’s it..err, avoid confrontation. Anyway, we may have a mystery here, my beloved terrain. So you work your way through a few tonnes of peer reviewed likewise material and then inevitably some conclusions emerge after applying some basic scientific method ideas.

So, one of the authors is most definitely wrong while the other most certainly has a point, which, however, may be utterly in conflict with the usual consensus textbooks. So what is non-mainstream and what is non-consensus and what is the truth and what is it worth.

What does PF want? Avoiding this kind of conflict solving or have a nice juicy and detailed thread about the merit of both, with inputs of other critical thinkers that could lead to a much better synthesis?

With that spirit my suggestion for a mission statement for PF would be:

The aim of PF is to promote sound and neutral, unbiased, objective science.

That should be it and each step and rule, should be concurring with that statement. Consequently, you can ban non-scientific-method crackpottery, that’s easy. With regards to my example it quickly becomes clear that (non)-mainstream cannot be dismissed so simply though. Mainstream seem to have no meaning here. “Concurring with scientific methods” sounds much better.

 

[quantumdude]

Unfortunately, this makes what I am writing look decidedly non-mainstream, and I often get into arguments with the "Science experts"

They aren't called "Science experts". They are called "Science Advisors", and there's a reason for the difference. They were indeed originally called "Experts" but then we decided that we wanted to give the awards to people who are very talented graduate students (and in a couple of cases, undergraduates). Since graduate students cannot be considered "experts" we changed the name of the medal.

The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

Easy: You can not be arrogant.

Most laypeople who have a normal, healthy share of humility and who have ideas about physics that differ from the thousands of PhD's who work on it for 40+ hours a week would think, "Well, I must have something wrong here. I wonder what it is?" and then try to find out. I mentioned in the Theory Development thread that a layperson walking into a room full of professional physicists and telling them that they aren't doing their job correctly is every bit as ludicrous as a layperson walking into a room full of airline pilots (or open heart surgeons, or stuntment, or welders, or any other profession that requires great knowledge and skill) and telling them that they don't know how to do their jobs correctly. The only difference is that crackpottery in physics doesn't carry with it the dire consequences that crackpottery in jumbo jet piloting has.

I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse.

She clearly does not have a good handle on basic physics. And even if she did, that would not be nearly enough to warrant a revolution of physics. A person would have to be an expert to do something like that.

Also, her arguements didn't carry all that much force with vanesch or Dr. Chinese, two people who really are experts. What does that tell you?

People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

People with non-standard ideas at Physics Forums are routinely heard and answered. No arrogance involved, and if you do see it then you should report it.

I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better).

I beg to differ. We many have staff members and regular members who hold doctorates in physics (atomic, condensed matter, high energy, among other fields). What we lack (and we freely admit this) is comparable expertise Cosmology and Earth Sciences.

In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

If you ever believe that anyone is being unreasonable, hit the "Report Post" button and the staff members will have a look at it. You don't have to let yourself be pushed around by a Science Advisor who is wrong.

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation,

Again, I beg to differ. We are actively working on attracting more experts in our weak areas. And if we are successful, and those experts find an unmoderated free-for-all, they would certainly not stick around. That is why I maintain that your ideas on how PF should be run are a recipe for certain failure. We would not become what we want to become if we were to follow them.

especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

If you cite instances of inconsistent or arbitrary moderation you should report it. Everyone makes mistakes, but we will do our best to correct ours when we make them. If you feel victimized by Mentors or Science Advisors and fail to speak up about specific occurances, then you share part of the responsibility for the way you are treated.

 

[quantumdude]

Basically anyone who criticizes mainstream physics but isn't a physicist or a mathematician gets banned by the moderators. It happened to several people here before.

You are wrong. We ban people for the manner in which their challenges are presented, not for the challenges themselves. And we only do this after reasonable attempts have been made to point out weak points in the challenge.

The fact that members such as yogi and nightlight are still members serve as counterexamples to your claim.

 

[quantumdude]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Thanks, Chroot. You're a god.

I honestly don't understand people like you. People who have this "All-or-Nothing" attitude that think that either they should be allowed to use PF for both learning about physics and conducting pseudoscientific research, or they will refuse to use PF at all. Why not use PF for one and not the other? We're really good at teaching people about physics! If you follow through with your statement, you will just be just cutting off your nose to spite your face.