I understand what you're saying, but as per any other part of the site you either post something meaningful and in conjunction with the mainstream or you ask for help. It's really not that difficult.Well, I think that most philosophical ideas have been discussed by some major recognized philosopher and that most new ideas most likely are not rooted in something that can be debated without ending up on one of those philosophers. Thus I think it is a good thing that the thread creation requirements are restrictive. On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet. I realize this is what the second rule is for. But in "opposition" to these new rules I also think it might be a good idea to give new threads a chance if the original post is not crackpot and can be directed in a positive direction that complies with the rules by another poster who can direct the OP rather than closing the thread outright simply because the OP didn't say the magic phrase "where can I find more resources on this?"
How much effort would you say it takes to get to the necessary point?On the other hand there are many people out there who are not crackpots but are only curious about ideas they have but do not have references to established philosophy because they haven't gotten to that point yet.
When there is a need to "reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic" you are limiting all new threads to old ideas (or approaching an idea with the same perspective as someone who has written about it before), and that degrades the cornerstone of philosophy.
The purpose of PF isn't to discuss new ideas. Sorry to let you know this.The Rules said:It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals
There evidently is some ambiguity left!Rules for the PF Philosophy forum beginning January 1, 2011
Beginning in January, we are implementing a theme for the Philosophy Forum. These new rules were developed in the spirit of making the Philosophy forum of PF a more academically-oriented discussion place. We are looking to get away from the Philosophy forum as an "anything that pops into my head" discussion section, and similar to the homework help forums, require effort from those posting new topics.
There are three guidelines:
1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.
ex. In A Treatise of Human Nature, What did David Hume mean when he said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them"?
Also, when discussing the philosophical implications of some piece of scientific work, references are required for both the underlying scientific content as well as the resulting philosophical discussion.
ex. The research of Benjamin Libet suggests that our decisions to act occur before our conscious awareness of them. Isn't this a serious problem for the idea of free will?
2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"
ex. I am researching human moral instincts for a paper for my class. Where can I find more information on this?
3) Requests for help with standard definitions and terminology are perfectly acceptable.
ex. I am trying to understand the difference between epistemological and ontological questions. Can you advise?
Note: All the same previous rules will still apply to both new posts and replies. Symbolic logic questions should be placed in the appropriate Homework Section or the Set Theory/Logic/Probability/Statistics subforum.
I didn't understand that no suggestions about references to publications against creationism are allowed, sorry for that! However, that's irrelevant for that topic (and no problem to leave that word out) as well as for the discussion here about the New rules, so I'll leave that aside.The rules are very clear, you seem to have formed your own interpretation of them. You forgot page two and the global guidelines. Creationism is a banned topic.
I have no issue with that, although in this particular case I even linked to my reference to Popper about the scientific method, which is certainly relevant for the OP's question. My question here remains what that leaves for applying New rule 2. Or is New rule 2 dead? If so, please scrap or modify it so that I and others don't waste our and your time on dead rules!I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree. If an OP doesn't have a single reference from which to build on then they haven't done their research properly. We do not exist as a pre-cursor to google, OPs are required to have done some research of their own first to outline the issue they wish to discuss. In the philosophy forum owing to the tighter rules (thanks to the propensity of people to see philosophy as a place where they can circumvent our rules on overly-speculative/personal theory/crackpot posts) this means that in addition to doing basic research an OP is expected to find and highlight academics for which this is an actual topic of discussion.
This means that you can ask for links to books, websites, etc... on the philosophical topic, that's all, no discussion of the topic. It's extremely clear.2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"
I have added a clarification that these are the three OPTIONS for how a thread can be started, incase that wasn't obvious. Hopefully that helps.ex. I am researching human moral instincts for a paper for my class. Where can I find more information on this?
That's clearer!You are not reading rule #2. It says This means that you can ask for links to books, websites, etc... on the philosophical topic, that's all, no discussion of the topic. It's extremely clear.
It evens give an example
I have added a clarification that these are the three OPTIONS for how a thread can be started, incase that wasn't obvious. Hopefully that helps.