Complaint A science forum which does not allow proper method?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Menaus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived censorship in a science forum regarding critiques of mainstream scientific theories. A user expressed frustration after receiving warnings for questioning established concepts like time and dimensional theories, arguing that such critiques are essential for scientific progress. Forum moderators clarified that the platform is intended for mainstream science discussions and does not welcome speculative or non-expert opinions. They emphasized that only informed critiques from qualified individuals are valued, dismissing the notion that unrestricted criticism fosters scientific advancement. The conversation highlights the tension between open discourse and maintaining a focus on established scientific principles.
Menaus
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
I made a post in the thread "Can time really be slowed?", talking about my idea that time is only part of our imagination.

I received a warning.

I made a post in the thread "Who said the fourth Dimension has to be time?", talking about my opinion of the nonsensicality of dimensional theories.

I received a infraction.

I was told they do not tolerate "anti-science comments like this". Tell me, what is anti-science about it? One of the MAIN IDEAS of science is to reason, rationalize, and critisize theories. Here I see censorship, with no room to think freely, this forum itself is the very anti-science that it does not allow.

One should be allowed to give their own critisisms on theories and ideas; how can science move forward unless it is kept checked and balanced by critisization? What is peer-review? Some would say that only the 'experts' can peer-review, but these 'experts' have grown up all their lives, puting tons of money into being educated in the standard model, how else will they react when someone critiques it? There is a bias which exists towards the standard model which disallowed any sort of growth, and this is why physics has become so stagnant (compared to, say, the 1940s) since the 1980s; with the exception of the Higgs, what major discovery has been made?

I believe that those who want to give their ideas ought to do so, otherwise you undermind one of the main ideas of science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When doing science, then giving and accepting criticism is very important. I agree that in order to advance science, you need to reason through some ideas and criticize the ideas.

However, what you seem to miss is that this forum is not meant to advance science. We are not a forum for professional scientists who wish to discuss their new theory. We are a forum that wishes to discuss mainstream science. We want to help students with their science homework and we wish to help them in their studies. Therefore, we welcome only opinions that are mainstream science.

Yes, there is a significant amount of censorship on this forum. This censorship ensures that no crackpottery is discussed.

Your post here is some kind of conspiracy theory that claims that professional scientists are very defensive of their theories and that they do not welcome new ideas. Such opinions are not welcome on this forum.
 
We believe in well-thought out, INFORMED ideas, not random, made-up, thoughts devoid of actual understanding of the physics required. We do not condone speculative discussion such as those, which you should already know when you agreed to abide by the PF Rules.

This is like someone walking into a vegetarian restaurant and complaining that they don't serve steak!

Complaints such as this has been addressed ad nauseum in this Feedback forum. You're welcome to see the responses that had already been given. My opinion and response to something like this has been perfectly clear:

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Menaus said:
One should be allowed to give their own critisisms on theories and ideas;
No, only those qualified should be allowed to critique.

You aren't even making any sense. People without the appropriate background cannot possibly critique what they do not understand. There is absolutely no value in random people spewing out irrelevant ideas.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
Back
Top