Amateur Theory Share - Physics, Biology, & More

[Darken-Sol]

Well... there might be more to it than that. Just ensure you read and follow the Philosophy Forum Guidelines. I think you'll find your post doesn't meet several other guidelines.

The new, more stringent rules for the Philosophy Forum are designed to focus it on rational, logical and scientific exploration of philosophical issues, and discourage people from using it as a catch-all to discuss any ideas that pop into their head that they can assert under the guise of philosophy.

This is still a science forum, first and foremost.

any advice on how to do that. ever since i started posting youve been very helpful.

 

[Evo]

i'v only had one thread locked, i don't understand exactly why. it illustrates my point though. it was a thread on karma in the philosophy forum. guideline issues, no feed back, no learning.

The feedback is that you didn't follow the guidelines and you were given links to the guidelines.

Also, please note that we don't discuss specific religious beliefs.

 

[micromass]

Indeed, sol, no single posts on religion or the like are allowed here on PF. And I can also imagine that there are probably better places to discuss things like karma then on a science forum.

Please read the following

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. It is also permissible to discuss concepts of God or gods, so long as these discussions proceed in a rigorous philosophical fashion and do not draw from or apply to any given religious belief system in particular. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what it not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.

You immediately stated that karma existed and asked how we could exploit it. It might have been safer (but I don't know if the mentors agree with me), to ask about whether karma existed, what the pro's and con's are relating to it's existence,... Perhaps that would be allowed...

I hope this has been helpful.

 

[JaredJames]

Surely the very nature of karma and the like precludes it from discussion here? That is certainly so for discussions relying on its existence.

You could question for evidence, but it would be a very short thread.

 

[micromass]

Surely the very nature of karma and the like precludes it from discussion here? That is certainly so for discussions relying on its existence.

You could question for evidence, but it would be a very short thread.

It actually depends on what you mean with karma. Historically, all karma meant was "cause and effect", in that everything that happens has a cause. This is a very philosophical idea that could very meet all the guidelines of PF. It is only very, very recent that people started seeing karma as "if I do good, then good things will be done to me", which was not the original meaning of karma.

 

[JaredJames]

It actually depends on what you mean with karma. Historically, all karma meant was "cause and effect", in that everything that happens has a cause. This is a very philosophical idea that could very meet all the guidelines of PF. It is only very, very recent that people started seeing karma as "if I do good, then good things will be done to me", which was not the original meaning of karma.

Really? Where'd you gleam that gem from?

I've never seen anything with that description. It's always referring to ones actions determining your future (good/bad etc). Most religions hold this concept.

RE Bolded: This part is engrained in many religions in fact, so it's hardly "very, very recent".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It actually depends on what you mean with karma. Historically, all karma meant was "cause and effect", in that everything that happens has a cause. This is a very philosophical idea that could very meet all the guidelines of PF. It is only very, very recent that people started seeing karma as "if I do good, then good things will be done to me", which was not the original meaning of karma.

Very true but originally Karma required a God(s) to enact the effects.

The only thing I can think of to relate this to philosophy is by discussing the ethics of things like this. But again that might be close to the line of discussing religious sentiments

 

[micromass]

Really? Where'd you gleam that gem from?

I've never seen anything with that description. It's always referring to ones actions determining your future (good/bad etc). Most religions hold this concept.

RE Bolded: This part is engrained in many religions in fact, so it's hardly "very, very recent".

My ideas on karma come straight from the bhagavad gita, the hindu holy book, which spend an entire chapter on karma. But the PF guidelines probably won't allow me to elaborate on that.

The point is that karma was seen as a mechanical process, something that simply happened. The humans simply needed to reconcile themself with the process, if that meant doing bad stuff, then they had to do bad stuff. It was certainly not meant in the way "I do good things, so good things will happen", which was not the original intent. It was certainly not meant to "exploit".

I may have exagerated that it's only very recent. But in a way it really is. If you talk about karma in eastern philosophies, then you'll see entirely different things then you'll see in the west. They say: "do good things and expect nothing(!) in return." This is certainly different then doing good things because you want to get good things done to you. I'll have to check when this "recent" idea of karma developed, it may be not so recent after all...

Also, I don't want to discuss karma and it's history here. I just want to clarify that these things can happen in a philosophy forum. So feel free to delete my post

 

[DaveC426913]

The point is that karma was seen as a mechanical process, something that simply happened.

Well, you could try it in the Skepticism and Debunking Forum...

I sure wouldn't. I am comfortable with the single rectum I have, and have no need of a new one...

 

[Redbelly98]

it would be a good candidate for the wild speculation forum then? . . .

We have no such forum.

Have you read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350".

 

[Darken-Sol]

i didn't want to jack a different thread to talk about karma. i was trying to get some feed back to help a friend write her paper. i ended up just googling a bunch of stuff that i thought she would like to hear. it is not even a theory. in fact it is something a practice every day. the reason i even wrote in this thread is i agree with the amateur thread idea. it would solve issues with people complaining about crackpot ideas. if you didnt want to look at it no one would force you to. it could just sit there allowing people to brain storm and build ideas. some people might even enjoy helping us lowly peasants.

 

[ZapperZ]

Again, as has been said so many times before in so many other threads, there are TONS of forums out there catering to such topics, and with no standards of quality to public posts. USE those!

I do not understand why, the one forum (or few forums) that actually does NOT allow for such type of posts, or the one that demand some quality of posts, is continually being asked to change its standard! Considering that there's so many other places to post such thing, why bother with the one that won't cater to such a thing? That's like complaining about a vegetarian restaurant not serving meat in an area that is surrounded by steak houses! It makes no sense!

Here's a fact: there's so many other forums out there that will cater to such quackery! In fact, there are forums of "like-minded" people who would welcome such things with open arms! You can get even re-affirmation of such thing there, rather than getting such skepticism in here. So why insisting of posting it here? Our PF Rules are VERY CLEAR on our policy on such a thing, and it should be something you are fully aware of when you joined. This should not come as a surprise!

And please don't get me started about the "need" or usefulness on having such "personal theory" forum.

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

Zz.

 

[JaredJames]

i didn't want to jack a different thread to talk about karma. i was trying to get some feed back to help a friend write her paper. i ended up just googling a bunch of stuff that i thought she would like to hear. it is not even a theory. in fact it is something a practice every day. the reason i even wrote in this thread is i agree with the amateur thread idea. it would solve issues with people complaining about crackpot ideas. if you didnt want to look at it no one would force you to. it could just sit there allowing people to brain storm and build ideas. some people might even enjoy helping us lowly peasants.

I do enjoy a dose of naivety.

Once again:
1) It has been tried and failed.
2) Why lower the quality of the site (the last thing you want is PF appearing in search results for crackpot ideas)?
3) It will attract crackpots.
4) There are literally thousands of other sites to discuss such matters, there's no need to have PF do so as well.
5) If people actually read the rules on signing up, they wouldn't come here and launch into such threads because they'd be aware it isn't part of this sites focus.
6) If you have legitimate questions, you can ask all you like and PF allows it. You are free to question anything here. However, you are not free to assert whatever you like and you certainly can't use fallacious ideas that go against mainstream science to build upon / work with.

Remember, what you are asking is akin to going to a Ford website and complaining that you can't discuss mobile phones and that they keep 'censoring you' for trying to do so, further complaining they only ever talk about cars, ignoring the millions of other phone sites out there.

 

[Darken-Sol]

# 4. i can find any number of people who agree with me, or sites that will tell me what i want to hear. how is that at all helpful?

 

[JaredJames]

# 4. i can find any number of people who agree with me, or sites that will tell me what i want to hear. how is that at all helpful?

So you want people to disagree with you? What?

This is non-sense. You either go somewhere where they believe in voodoo and discuss it with them or you stay here and don't discuss mystical things that go against the mainstream. It's really not a hard matter to understand.

 

[ZapperZ]

# 4. i can find any number of people who agree with me, or sites that will tell me what i want to hear. how is that at all helpful?

And this often brings out the glaring paradox.

Often, the common "reason" given on why people want to discuss such dubious subject on PF is because it is full of actual scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and other professionals. This is definitely true. The number of knowledgeable people we have as regular members on here is the envy of most other forums out there.

But here's the thing. I truly believe that the reason why we are able to attract such talents IS because we don't cater to such dubious topics, or restrict them severely. The fact that we demand quality in topics that are discussed (certainly in the physics forums), and that we do discuss legitimate topics that are very current, means that professionals can finally find a public forum where they don't have to keep battling crackpots. Even in the IR forum, if you wish to discuss something unpublished, then it must follow a set of rules that will allow such a thing to be falsified! You can't simply spew a ton of incoherent thought and expect the rest of us to wade through the garbage to find a "gem". Such an activity can get tiring very quickly. We've tried that! It didn't work.

So if you find PF to be an attractive forum because of the quality of content and people, your proposal will be the reason to kill what you so desire. I know that I'd rather quit this forum before I see it deteriorate and cater to such free-for-all topics.

Zz.

 

[Darken-Sol]

So you want people to disagree with you? What?

This is non-sense. You either go somewhere where they believe in voodoo and discuss it with them or you stay here and don't discuss mystical things that go against the mainstream. It's really not a hard matter to understand.

it wouldn't be much of a discussion if i stated something and you agreed over and over again. i havn't had an urge to study voodoo either. you make things mystic. i find nothing mystic about applying cause and effect in my daily life. it even happens without my consent, why?. one more time, i don't want to talk about karma here. i started a thread to do so, that didn't pan out.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, you seem to be taking things a bit literally. Relax.

However, take note of what ZZ has said, it's correct and it's something that I think a lot of people stand by. It's what makes this site what it is.

 

[micromass]

it wouldn't be much of a discussion if i stated something and you agreed over and over again. i havn't had an urge to study voodoo either. you make things mystic. i find nothing mystic about applying cause and effect in my daily life. it even happens without my consent, why?. one more time, i don't want to talk about karma here. i started a thread to do so, that didn't pan out.

Also, there are other forums out there where such an ideas are permitted and where certainly not everybody will agree with you. There certainly ARE forums out there to discuss "amateur theories", but PF is simply not the place to do so. The rules won't allow it, and it's good that they don't!

You seem like an honest guy who just wants to learn from the discussions, and if everybody were like you, maybe we could change the rules. But the point is that you are one of the excpetions. If we'd change the rules, there would come a LOT of people saying "this is my theory, if you disagree, you're a nazi". To prevent this, we have the rules we have today. I hope you can empathize with that...

 

[DaveC426913]

2) Why lower the quality of the site (the last thing you want is PF appearing in search results for crackpot ideas)?
3) It will attract crackpots.

In Darken's defense, he can't be expected to accept his own topic of interest as lowering the quality of the site and being crackpot material. i.e. asking him why he would want to lower the quality of the site is kinda unfair.

 

[JaredJames]

In Darken's defense, he can't be expected to accept his own topic of interest as lowering the quality of the site and being crackpot material. i.e. asking him why he would want to lower the quality of the site is kinda unfair.

The question wasn't aimed at any specific topic, it was meant to apply to general rule changes allowing a "free for all" to form. Rephrased: "why would you want to lower the quality of the site by having a free for all forum where the rules don't apply?".

There's no debating the point that such a place would lower the quality of the site. The rules are what maintain the standards.