Accept ideas that are not in the form of specific questions

[Grossglockner]

Summary: I would like to see the forum also accept ideas from colleagues that are not in the form of specific questions. Other members could criticize and discuss these ideas.

I would like to see the forum accept ideas from colleagues that are not in the form of specific questions. Colleagues should be able to post ideas that are not ready for publication for other colleagues to criticize and make suggestion. Groups of participants might cluster around an idea of interest at a time. Also, don't censor ideas. If the ideas are too unscientific the discussion will die by itself. There are many phenomena out there that have no scientific explanations. There is plenty of room for new theories and ideas.

Currently there are way too many scientific models enshrined like religious laws by editors and scientific establishment management.

I think this forum could do both, have colleagues answer questions and discuss ideas. People, including me, would learn a lot from other people's ideas.

Philipp Kornreich

 

[fresh_42]

Hello Philipp!

I am one of a few who like this idea and think of it as some dinner talk as it happens e.g. on conferences. And we have had discussed it a couple of times. Unfortunately there are some obstacles which we couldn't solve:

• colleague:
  What makes a member a colleague and even more important: How can we know? You basically ask for a protected area on an otherwise public forum, or at least restricted access. This is not only unfair, it is also not a sufficient criterion. A young Tao could have more right to be considered colleague than a late Atiyah suggesting he had proven the RH.
• crackpottery:
  This is the most critical point: Where has the line to be drawn between a tri-sectionist or circle-squarer and a valid scientific discussion. Maybe I should have taken the RH as example because we frequently get posts which claim a solution. What sounds crazy to one might not be crazy to others, but who is to judge?
• check:
  One of our main qualities is error correction. Members can rely on expertise and the fact that mistakes are corrected quickly. However, we cannot check and validate statements in such a discussion you proposed. As a consequence members couldn't rely anymore to the same extent on what is said on PF.
• chaos:
  I have been told that we had something similar at times when I wasn't a member and it turned out to be a nightmare. I have no reason to doubt this, even if I didn't experience it. But I can imagine - have a look at the Foundations of Quantum Physics forum!

As mentioned we had debated this from time to time before, so there is no need to repeat such a discussion publically. PF is simply not meant to discuss personal theories.