Should We Revisit Debunked Topics with New Evidence?

  • Thread starter dgtech
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether topics that have been debunked should be open for discussion if they can still be considered valid through a logical process. The forum's policy is that topics can be reopened if there is credible information published in mainstream academic journals. However, this can create a paradox as the mainstream is the one closing these topics. The conversation also touches on the issue of conformity and how the forum aims to teach real science rather than promoting crackpot theories. Ultimately, the forum's moderators have the authority to lock topics and prevent them from being discussed further.
  • #1
dgtech
70
1
Debunking a "debunkment"

Is it acceptable for all the topics that are in the "already debunked" list that is not supposed to be discussed?

And by that I don't mean explaining why the theory is true, but why the "debunkment" (is that even a word in English?) is inadequate for missing some fundamental points, through a logical process that involves known facts that build upon a consistent theory? That includes explaining exactly how points of the debunk can be still valid despite its inadequateness

It would be appropriate such topics to be open to discussion if logical truth is a priority, otherwise it would be just the censoring out of them with a few excuses why, literally ignoring all the available scientific evidence that might have appeared after they got debunked the last time, viewing the whole concept as a predetermined dogma instead of a scientific question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


All closed topics were closed with the approval of the staff. If there exists credible information suggesting that a topic should be opened again, it can be opened with the approval of the staff. Generally this means that one would need to produce a paper or papers published in a mainstream, academic journal. In that event, the relevant information should be forwarded to the respective moderator - subject appropriate - using the private message system.
 
  • #3


But that creates a paradox, those threads are literally closed by the mainstream , logically papers indicating otherwise won't be published by the mainstream.

Doesn't that create a form of gestapo, or an inquisition, looking even further back in time? Like enforcing certain views and censoring out anything pointing otherwise?

Do we really need something to be mainstream in order to be true? The definition of "mainstream" is "the prevailing current of thought" - not the right one, not the true one, but the prevailing. Not to mention a lot of people accept the mainstream because it is mainstream, and let's be honest, it's not like the majority is always right. Plus if the majority of people were that smart, the world wouldn't be such a mess :)

Everyone seems to agree with the mainstream views and 99% of the time it is taken for granted and viewed as a dogma. Maybe here we can actually do better?


I am not after any debunking, I am just interested in the policy of the forum.

Not that I don't look forward to someone explaining how exactly high temperature jet engine alloy gets EVAPORATED by the very same fuel it is designed to operate on, and whose burning temperature is too low to even melt the alloy, let alone evaporate it.
 
  • #4


dgtech said:
But that creates a paradox, those threads are literally closed by the mainstream , logically papers indicating otherwise won't be published by the mainstream.

Doesn't that create a form of gestapo, or an inquisition, looking even further back in time? Like enforcing certain views and censoring out anything pointing otherwise?
This is an internet forum, not a technical journal. We are a reflection of the scientific mainstream, not the creators of the mainstream views.
Not that I don't look forward to someone explaining how exactly high temperature jet engine alloy gets EVAPORATED by the very same fuel it is designed to operate on, and whose burning temperature is too low to even melt the alloy, let alone evaporate it.
I'm guessing you have a 9/11 conspiracy theory to forward? I can save you the trouble of PMing a moderator with the specifics of your concern (as Ivan suggested): this isn't an issue that is going to be reopened here.
 
  • #5


So it's about conformity then. BTW I did not mention 911, I was just wondering about a simple physical process ;)
 
  • #6


dgtech said:
So it's about conformity then.
No, it's about teaching. We can't teach people real science if the forum is inundated with crackpottery. It confuses people who are here to learn and can't tell the difference.
 
  • #7


LOL chill out, no need to call the CIA
This place is no better than communist China (that was an invitation for a permanent ban - there is nothing new to learn in this fortress of conformity)
 
  • #8


I'm sure you can find your way to the door. Anyway, I think we've got this topic pretty well covered.

Locked.
 
  • #9


It should be noted that journals do the job of sorting real science, from crackpottery and unsatisfactory work. If there is a solid scientific basis for a claim, the evidence will eventually be published. There is no reason for us to duplicate the job done far better by professional journals.
 

1. What is "debunking a debunkment"?

"Debunking a debunkment" refers to the process of disproving or discrediting a claim or belief that has already been debunked by someone else. It involves critically examining the evidence and arguments presented in the original debunkment and finding flaws or inconsistencies in them.

2. Why is "debunking a debunkment" important?

"Debunking a debunkment" is important because it helps prevent the spread of misinformation and false beliefs. By thoroughly examining and debunking false claims, we can promote a more accurate and evidence-based understanding of the world.

3. How do scientists approach "debunking a debunkment"?

Scientists approach "debunking a debunkment" by using the scientific method and critical thinking skills. This involves gathering and analyzing data, conducting experiments, and evaluating the validity of arguments and evidence presented in the debunkment.

4. Can "debunking a debunkment" ever be biased?

Yes, "debunking a debunkment" can be biased if the scientist has a personal or professional stake in the debunkment being true or false. To avoid bias, it is important for scientists to approach the process objectively and to be open to changing their beliefs based on the evidence.

5. What can the general public do to help with "debunking a debunkment"?

The general public can help with "debunking a debunkment" by being critical consumers of information and fact-checking claims before sharing them. They can also support and promote scientific literacy and education, which can help prevent the spread of false information.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
30
Views
7K
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
879
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
945
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top