Is it time to rethink the name of Theory Development in the Physics section?

[ZapperZ]

Is there a reason why we do not rename Theory Development section for what it really is - Quackeries (or Crackpots, or Cranks, etc)? The name, as it stands, is false advertisement. There are more "guesses" than theories, and there's barely anything "developing" other than making its way into oblivion.

I would also suggest that TD be moved out of the main Physics section and into the PF Lounge section (I would rather it be removed, but that's not going to happen). It doesn't belong in General Physics - a lot of the stuff in there can't even be called physics. It certainly should not be listed above the legitimate postings of the General Physics section.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Well, you COULD say, that since it is under DEVELOPMENT, it certainly can't be called a theory to speak of..
Alternatively, I wish TD a very good riddance.

 

[dextercioby]

Well, you COULD say, that since it is under DEVELOPMENT, it certainly can't be called a theory to speak of..
Alternatively, I wish TD a very good riddance.

You have spoken the truth,young man...

Do we really care whether the name is inaccurate...?I mean,how many of your really read the posts from TD...?

Daniel.

 

[arildno]

Actually, I find ZapperZ's objection to its placement (and also, IMO, its existence) very appropriate.

 

[wolram]

ZapperZ
The public have many misconceptions about science, as i am a
member of this group i am one of them,i have read many of the
threads you have contributed to, you come across as a knowledgeable
no nonsense type, which i like, but how do you define a crackpot?
some of them are intelligent well read people who just want attention,
some may believe in there theories but can not get them past peer
review, and then there are the religious crackpots who refuse to
listen to logic.
I support getting rid of miss guiding science or just wrong science
but where do you draw the line?

 

[chroot]

wolram,

The vast majority of cases of crackpottery on the web are black and white cases. For example, when someone starts a discussion with a dimensionally-incorrect equation (distance = time * mass!), or uses words without defining them ("the dimension of the shadow vortex resulting in gravity is inside the dimension of time"), it is obvious even at a cursory glance that it's crackpot work.

In the very few cases where a viable yet non-mainstream theory has been presented here, we have banished neither the theory or the member. Our purpose is not to stifle all inquiry, only clearly non-scientific inquiry.

Zapper's right, TD is a misnomer. We used to call it Theory Development in a sort of tongue-in-cheek, condescendingly-polite way. On the other hand, I don't really want to call it "Crackpot Crap" or similar, because it has been said before that our forum is already rather intimidating to those who are new to science, and I want to avoid furthering that image. We intend to warmly welcome people with all levels of experience, and asking questions, even quite silly ones, is a great way to learn.

- Warren

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ
The public have many misconceptions about science, as i am a
member of this group i am one of them,i have read many of the
threads you have contributed to, you come across as a knowledgeable
no nonsense type, which i like, but how do you define a crackpot?
some of them are intelligent well read people who just want attention,
some may believe in there theories but can not get them past peer
review, and then there are the religious crackpots who refuse to
listen to logic.
I support getting rid of miss guiding science or just wrong science
but where do you draw the line?

Honestly, unlike some grey area of knowledge, in 95% of the time, such distinction is OBVIOUS, at least to anyone who has had any training in physics. I can spot a quack 10 miles away... at the age of 8!

Here's what you can use as a measuring stick: Check if that person has produced any peer-reviewed paper, especially in the area that he/she is trying to sell. If no, then this person has no business in espousing any personal theory. PERIOD. This is an automatic quackery.

However, if you care to use a more "gentile" scale, then you are welcome to go to either of these two sites:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Have fun!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper's right, TD is a misnomer. We used to call it Theory Development in a sort of tongue-in-cheek, condescendingly-polite way. On the other hand, I don't really want to call it "Crackpot Crap" or similar, because it has been said before that our forum is already rather intimidating to those who are new to science, and I want to avoid furthering that image. We intend to warmly welcome people with all levels of experience, and asking questions, even quite silly ones, is a great way to learn.

- Warren

Then can we at least shove it down the display chain a bit so that it isn't THAT obvious, especially when it is listed above the General Physics section? I think having it listed in the PF lounge is a fair compromise, don't you think?

Zz.

 

[wolram]

Chroot, zapper z, i think you are talking along the right lines, please
do away with all the crap that miss guides all the non profesionals,
but please leave the improbale but possible.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Chroot has pretty much explained why we have it and how we try to maintain a diplomatic balance with it. For the meantime I did see something we could change to highlight it less, I took down the link on the homepage pointing to it under the sub-forum links for the physics forum.

 

[marlon]

Chroot has pretty much explained why we have it and how we try to maintain a diplomatic balance with it. For the meantime I did see something we could change to highlight it less, I took down the link on the homepage pointing to it under the sub-forum links for the physics forum.

Indeed, i think we should leave things as they are, since it's just fine like this. Moving TD to the PF-Lounge is a bit useless to me because it won't change nothing about the 'content' and that is the only thing that really 'matters'. Indeed most of the TD-content is just a clear manifestation of lack of physical knowledge but who is going to care whether subforum it is in, really ? If you don't like it, then don't visit it...'Point final'

regards
marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

Indeed, i think we should leave things as they are, since it's just fine like this. Moving TD to the PF-Lounge is a bit useless to me because it won't change nothing about the 'content' and that is the only thing that really 'matters'. Indeed most of the TD-content is just a clear manifestation of lack of physical knowledge but who is going to care whether subforum it is in, really ? If you don't like it, then don't visit it...'Point final'

regards
marlon

There are actually cranks out there that will find it insulting to post what they believe is genuine science in a non-science section of the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to find crackpottery dying some by moving TD to a less "serious" place.

 

[Moonbear]

There are actually cranks out there that will find it insulting to post what they believe is genuine science in a non-science section of the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to find crackpottery dying some by moving TD to a less "serious" place.

Of course the feedback forum would then become a very popular place as they all ran over here to complain (or had their complaints in other forums moved here). They get a bit miffed when you pull back the curtain and reveal them for the crackpots they are.

 

[arildno]

PF has, compared to most openly accessible science-interested sites I have seen, just about the lowest activity of pot-cracking.
This is the result of good mentorship at PF.

While TD remains an irritant, I found chroot's post particularly relevant here:
Suppose a young guy comes along who has some questions or ideas about science:
If he sees that unconventional posts are summarily deleted with no one even answering them, would we scare off a person who might be genuinely science interested, but still has not developed sufficient knowledge/understanding to sift the bad from the good?

If, however, TD remains open for view, with mostly closed threads as it is today, that young person has the opportunity to COMPARE the quality of posts in TD with the quality of posts elsewhere on PF.
He may come to understand WHY those threads have been closed.

 

[Chronos]

I doubt any mentor would summarily dismiss a genuinely interesting post on regular forums. Besides, some of us enjoy torturing prisoners before executing them.

 

[Reshma]

Anyway most members don't have sufficient privileges to post a thread in the 'Theory and Development forum'.

 

[dextercioby]

It would be quite interesting (read "abnormal"),if one of the staff members were to open a thread in TD (just because he/she can),wouldn't u say...?

Daniel.

 

[dextercioby]

I don't have a clue what you're talking about...Could u provide the mortals with a link to the non peer-reviewed article...?

Daniel.

 

[arildno]

I don't have a clue what you're talking about...Could u provide the mortals with a link to the non peer-reviewed article...?

Daniel.

Nope, I don't have that.

 

[dextercioby]

Then u diserve at least a warning.:tongue:

Daniel.

EDIT:Lucky i didn't quote you... :tongue2: We'll see... :uhh: :tongue2:

 

[arildno]

Then u diserve at least a warning.:tongue:

Daniel.

I have too many, I didn't dare to invoke Integral's wrath on this, so I removed the offending post before he could see it..
(I hope he doesn't have rights to see deleted posts..)

 

[ZapperZ]

If he sees that unconventional posts are summarily deleted with no one even answering them, would we scare off a person who might be genuinely science interested, but still has not developed sufficient knowledge/understanding to sift the bad from the good?

There are two distinct issues here:

1. 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 differnt 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. I just wish the latter is labelled for what it is into a section that would clearly indicates that it is quackery and not given some esoteric name. New members just don't know that "Theory Development" is our polite term for "losers". (well, wolram DID say that I'm the "no nonsense" type of person) :)

2. How many cases do we have where someone got scared off because such posts were deleted? I have seen similar types of arguments being put forth by the quacks when their posts are deleted. They're claiming that we MIGHT be cutting off something that could be fruitful. When I ask them to show even ONE single instance where something produced entirely outside the realm of peer-reviewed journals within the past 100 years or so that has produced any significant advancement in physics, they balk and suddenly became "deaf, dumb, and blind". We can't speculate ad nauseum of all the possible things that could happen to try to cater to everyone. That is just not possible.

I see PF as an extremely valuable physics resource with a very high signal-to-noise ratio. I'm just offering a simple suggestion in trying to increase this ratio by lowering the noise.

Zz.

 

[cronxeh]

hehe.. my first ever theory in HS was..

IF E=m*c^2 and F=m*a, then E=(F*c^2)/a. Obviously my HS teacher was pissed at me for about 5 minutes trying to explain why its incorrect :rofl:

 

[ZapperZ]

hehe.. my first ever theory in HS was..

IF E=m*c^2 and F=m*a, then E=(F*c^2)/a. Obviously my HS teacher was pissed at me for about 5 minutes trying to explain why its incorrect :rofl:

I'm surprised that your teacher didn't move you into a "Theory Development" class! :)

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I see PF as an extremely valuable physics resource with a very high signal-to-noise ratio.

Beautiful ! Spoken like a true experimentalist !

 

[quantumdude]

I have too many,

What are you talking about? Your warning count is zero.

I didn't dare to invoke Integral's wrath on this, so I removed the offending post before he could see it..
(I hope he doesn't have rights to see deleted posts..)

He does, and so do the rest of us. Muhahahahahaha!

 

[Davorak]

Yeah I remember the first time I saw theory development in General Physics. Now I was in general impressed by the quality of posts and the signal to nose ratio on physicsforums. So when I saw TD I thought to myself how in hell can you have serious theory development on a public online forum.

After glancing at a few threads I thought oh, “theory development.”

If TD was a gathering place for crackpots and other ne’er-do-wells then it would most defiantly need to be removed, but as it is, it is not.

In my mind getting rid of TD and deleting quackeries on site would perhaps attract a more experienced crowd while scaring off some of the inexperienced younger crowd.

From what I have seen I think the current set up strikes a good balance.

I think I understand you sentiment ZapperZ I am sure every one here would agree that it would be horrible for people to come along and connect what is in TD to solid science. The experienced crowd knows what TD is and would never connect what is there to legitimate physics. The inexperienced younger crowd however may not always be able to separate the legitimate physics and the quackeries.

Even though the younger crowd may no always be able to tell the difference, the number of closed threads and the mentors note at the end of each thread will leave the impression that this quackeries are not looked highly upon. This will also nude them gently to a more skeptical view point.

Critical and skeptical thinking is a learned behavior and exposure to quackeries, with the proper environment, fosters a skeptical view point rather then breading more quackeries. The proper environment in this case would be the rest of physics forums full of “knowledgeable no nonsense” types.

That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[arildno]

What are you talking about? Your warning count is zero.

Is it?
Am I good boy, then?
Oh dear..

 

[jtbell]

I like the idea of renaming Theory Development to more accurately describe its content. But we don't have to call it Crackpot's Corner or something like that. Surely we can come up with a description that's relatively neutral in tone. How about Speculative Ideas?

 

[Uno Lee]

How can we (you) develope new theories without theory development? Sure, you will always get crackpots (like me?) but they may cause you (us) to think latterly.
Who was that crackpot that came up with the theory of the Earth going around the sun? Wasn't he forced to recant his ideas because of attitudes like some of the ones on this thread?
This is an awesome site!

 

[ZapperZ]

How can we (you) develope new theories without theory development? Sure, you will always get crackpots (like me?) but they may cause you (us) to think latterly.
Who was that crackpot that came up with the theory of the Earth going around the sun? Wasn't he forced to recant his ideas because of attitudes like some of the ones on this thread?

You must obviously be a new member. If you care to do a search in this section of PF, your argument by bringing up Galileo as an example has been done and addressed on here. By equating what and HOW galileo did his work with crackpot, you are insulting him. And by doing this, you are providing a clear example of what I had said earlier, that some people cannot tell the difference between quackery and legitimate work.

Zz.

 

[Uno Lee]

I was thinking, wrongly, of Copernicus and I was not meaning in any way to speak ill of the dead. I think it is difficult for new ideas to surface in a climate of repression. Every idea, right or wrong could lead to another. A couple of years ago, people thought oil and water (on Earth) did not mix, turns out they do, if you de-gas them first. Could this new knowledge be applied to mixing liquid metals? What does immiscible mean any more? I am new here and still learning not learned...yet.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was thinking, wrongly, of Copernicus and I was not meaning in any way to speak ill of the dead. I think it is difficult for new ideas to surface in a climate of repression. Every idea, right or wrong could lead to another. A couple of years ago, people thought oil and water (on Earth) did not mix, turns out they do, if you de-gas them first. Could this new knowledge be applied to mixing liquid metals? What does immiscible mean any more? I am new here and still learning not learned...yet.

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.

If you can't, then what you just did is making a speculation of what MIGHT happen without any proof that such a thing CAN actually happen. I can take the pieces of a broken vase, and throw it onto the floor. Now there's a very miniscule chance that the vase can spontaneously reassemble itself into its original form. But I can tell you that I am not (and the society isn't) designed to operate around such possibility. What you just did was to speculate a scenario that has NEVER happened.

If someone has a brilliant idea, an open physics forum is NOT the place to do it. Find a knowledgeable person in that subject area, and get his/her review of that idea. Then if it passes that test, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. The fact that there are many different tiers of journals means if something has any smell of validity, it WILL get published somewhere even if it doesn't have the same caliber as Science, Nature, or PRL. If something has cranky as the Podkletnov's antigravity and Fleishman-Pons cold fusion can get published, then there's no excuse.

Zz.

 

[Uno Lee]

Thank you for your valuable time and advice.

 

[Andre]

All you need to do is, as I have repeatedly mentioned on here and elsewhere, is to show an example from within the past 100 years, of an idea that never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics.

So where does Afred Wegener(plate tectonics) fit in? and Michael Mann?

Wegener formulated the very obvious about the shapes of the continents fitting into each other. I don't recall a peer reviewed publication about that. Nevertheless acceptance of that idea took a few decades even though the hypothesis did not kill any pet idea of any leading "pope"-geologist.

Then we have "pope" Michael Mann, proposing the Hockeystick, disdaining the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Accepted by the IPCC with great joy within seconds, then in 1999. This was ultimately causing the enforcement of the Kyoto treaty and doomed the signees in the process. Mann´s work was highly biased and utterly falsified, however it did not make any difference, because this kind of science is politics and whatever politics require, science will produce.