Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A member wants a change

Vote for your preference

Poll closed Jun 12, 2007.
  1. Leave P&WA as it is

    26 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. Restrict scientific discussion and links only to peer reviewed journals

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Jun 7, 2007 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A member has complained that all scientific references should ONLY be made to articles in peer reviewed journals.

    He claims (and this is in reference to P&WA)
    Based on P&WA's guidelines this does not apply. But since I am a fair person I will let everyone vote.

    Do you want to do away with opinions and links to valid news sources, blogs and websites by reputable sources, etc... and only discuss and link to peer reviewed articles?

    It sure will make my life easier. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2007 #2

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I abstain from voting since I don't participate in this forum, but it seems to me that such a restriction would eliminate any reference to current affairs. Journals are not really published in a timely manner.
     
  4. Jun 7, 2007 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I vote for option three: Link to peer reviewed journals and reputable news sources, and opinions can be stated as opinions. Linking to opinions is not allowed.

    And of course this only applies to scientific issues. There is no clear black and white in politics.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  5. Jun 7, 2007 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I believe that's already in the guidelines, except I believe we allow linking to reputable opinions by reliable sources as long as it is known to be an opinion site. For example the OP Ed sections of WSJ and NY Times are considered ok to link to. Perhaps that should be reinforced.

    And yes, this is for scientific opinions. Thanks Ivan.
     
  6. Jun 7, 2007 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Evo, I love you dearly, but if you think that the next breakthrough can only come from publicly-funded academia (as opposed to the Swiss patent office model), I think you ought to spend the rest of your career making stock picks. The standard model is fraught with problems, and I will be willing to address them here if you wish. Some of them are that the z>6 quasars show no evolution in absolute nor relative metallicities, nor any redshift-related evolution in any and characteristic that the SDSS team could find. Also, since luminosity falls off as a function of the square of the distance, z>6 quasars must be powered by hungry multi-billion solar mass BHs residing in galaxies of trillions of solar masses. Michael Strauss is not an idiot - he is an observational astronomer. At what point must theory comply with observation? We're a bit long on this one....
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  7. Jun 8, 2007 #6
    Option 1. This member is taking himself way too serious. :rolleyes:

    marlon
     
  8. Jun 8, 2007 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ah, setting an example of democracy.
     
  9. Jun 8, 2007 #8
    If we had a referendum every time a minority complained our political system would be crippled beyond repair...
    :rofl:
     
  10. Jun 8, 2007 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I voted for the first option (along with everyone else)...
    I had a history prof in high school who told us that until we are working on our phd thesis, we don't have the expertise to form our own opinions independent of an expert's. Every opinion/position we took in a paper had to be supported/argued by an expert. I tend to agree with that position.

    It can, of course, be difficult to evaluate what constitutes a "reliable" opinion, though.
     
  11. Jun 8, 2007 #10
    as a poli sci student I have to say that this poll is hardly a legitimate use of authority. I will abstain from voting. Also, I'm not a physicist.
     
  12. Jun 8, 2007 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't want to derail the thread, but the Einstein-was-a-maverick thing is a real pet peve of mine. Einstein was not a maverick, he was very much a member of the scientific mainstream, just coming out of university physics training. The fact that he wasn't able to find a teaching job does not make him or his theories outside-the-mainstream. The Einstein example actually supports the opposite of what people who use it intend. Great advances in science are far and away more likely to come from "publicly-funded academia" than rogue, untraned laymen working out of their basements. The Skepticism and Debunking forum is littered with the trash of the latter.
     
  13. Jun 8, 2007 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That would be an interesting idea. Using that philosophy:

    George Will has the expertise to form his own opinion of world events.
    Edward Murrow doesn't.
    Bill Kristol does.
    Irving Kristol doesn't.
    Charles Krauthammer does.
    William F Buckley doesn't.
    Paul Krugman (NY Times) does.
    David Brooks (NY Times) doesn't.

    Bill O'Reilley doesn't.... but, with a master's degree, at least he's more qualified than ...
    Keith Olbermann doesn't.
    Chris Matthews doesn't.

    Pat Buchanon isn't (no surprise), but neither is....
    Tony Snow doesn't.

    Of course, all of the above are more qualified than Marilyn Mach Vos Savant, who's a college dropout that publishes a column titled, "Ask Marilyn", where readers ask her questions about science.
     
  14. Jun 8, 2007 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not a maverick? Pls define mainstream. I'm reading Isaacson now and I can't say (so far) that this is the case. In fact Issacson is stuffed with 'screw authority' and 'I love being a rebel' anecdotes. Certainly at the time of creation his theories were well outside 'the mainstream'

    How so? Perhaps so if you mean they intend that any crackpot can succeed, even though he can't bothered to seriously study the discipline.

    Strawman. The ivory tower of academia is not quite surrounded by a barbarian horde of crack pots. Private funding and industry lies out there too. Bardeen, Shockley at Bell Labs for instance.
     
  15. Jun 8, 2007 #14

    Art

    User Avatar

    It's lucky Bill Gates and Michael Dell didn't know they had no right to an opinion on how to run a business unless they had business qualifications as both dropped out of college without graduating.
     
  16. Jun 8, 2007 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ironic response. Bardeen and Shockley both had PhDs and worked in a research laboratory, even if privately funded vs. publicly funded academia. Neither were exactly untrained laymen working out of their basements.

    And, it is true that advances in science are a lot more likely to come from "academia" than untrained laymen even if you could come up with one or two examples.
     
  17. Jun 8, 2007 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Will a nickel and dime do? I've got some pennies too! :biggrin:

    Or maybe he/she wants quarters?

    Is this for the laundromat?

    :rofl:
     
  18. Jun 8, 2007 #17
    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

    Nobody has the right to an opinion, unless it is funded by some lobby group, has the backing of a major politic party and of course has been scrunitinised by a major press agency and by the ***elite*** of political thought of the day/week

    But seriously.. Is this (this internet site) *supposed* to be taken seriously or not?
     
  19. Jun 8, 2007 #18
    The same could be said about politics, right?? No wait the Greek 2500 years ago were right...
     
  20. Jun 8, 2007 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Back to the false choice again. I don't say that Einstein or B & S were cranks in the basement. I do say: a) there's a roomy continuum of work conditions and education that contribute to science, though admittedly the peak of the curve is with the top training, good resources, and hard work. b) Regardless of resources and training, many of the big advances were not from researchers considered to be 'main stream' at the time, Einstein exhibit one. c) The 'Phd's and academia' only plea is subject to scrutiny as a justification for increased funding from the public purse.

    Again Ive never said untrained laymen. And I don't know that is simply 'true' that academia cranks out more useful advances than say industry. With regards to Phd's vs the all the rest since you brought it up, then, yes ( Kilby ), I can name ( Faraday ) more than one ( Edison ) or two ( Tesla ) that were sans doctorate.
     
  21. Jun 9, 2007 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It wasn't exactly a fully-developed theory. Certainly you could give points for experience too.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A member wants a change
  1. What Israel wants? (Replies: 26)

  2. Aunt Condi wants you! (Replies: 1)

Loading...