Discussion of PF Policy on Valid References

[russ_watters]

My experience as a moderator of this forum has been that the rare cases where a pop science source actually sparks a good question...

Just note that that's not quite in alignment with what @Tom.G said. What you are saying is clearly true about the signal to noise ratio in threads/on PF, but @Tom.G was talking about engagement. Pop-sci is a common - perhaps the most common - source of engagement between the public and "science". Pop-sci reduces the apparent barrier to entry into science and is what prompts many to come here and ask questions....or even, later, become scientists themselves.

In my opinion our goal should be to bring as many into the fold as possible while maintaining as high of standards as possible. Yes, that's a tough balance/tradeoff. For the record I did think the original response in the thread was pretty benign ("You would be better served...") but I also think that encouraging people to go from zero to a college text instantly has the feel of raising the barrier back up. We may only get five minutes or less of initial attention for such people and offering a fun-sized piece of candy (a factoid) at least to start with is more likely to draw them in (or send them away satisfied with their snack) than suggesting they put on a coat and clear their schedule for a 9 course meal (a college text).

 

[PeterDonis]

I don’t often come across pop sci discussion that can’t be traced fairly straightforwardly to the literature

Bear in mind that you don't see the ones that get deleted by the moderators.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't think we need a change of the general PF rules on "acceptable sources". I only think one should not completely ban discussion of popular-science sources

These two statements are contradictory. Which do you pick if push comes to shove?

 

[PeterDonis]

In my opinion our goal should be to bring as many into the fold as possible while maintaining as high of standards as possible.

So you are saying PF's goal should change? The "About PF" Insights article currently says:

Our goal is to provide a community for people (whether students, professional scientists, or hobbyists) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

That says nothing about bringing as many people into the field as possible.

Plus, what does "bringing as many people into the field as possible" mean? Does it mean we want them to become scientists? Or just PF members?

 

[PeterDonis]

Last but not least there are also quite reliable (semi-)popular sources like Wikipedia

I have already mentioned Wikipedia more than once. A Wikipedia article that footnotes valid sources (textbooks or peer-reviewed papers) for its key claims (which most articles in scientific areas do) meets the "traceable" requirement and is therefore acceptable as a reference.

 

[PeterDonis]

some kind of recognition should be granted for valid questions originating from some (!) popsci sources as starting point

I think the "traceable" language in the rules covers this.

 

[PeterDonis]

if the question nevertheless makes sense but op is not advanced enough to understand a highly technical discussion, it is preferable to attempt a level appropriate answer to the extent it is possible, or say that you have no way to answer it in a level appropriate manner and point to the required background

I think the "traceable" language covers this too, because for a question to "nevertheless make sense", the source it is coming from is going to have a reference to actual literature somewhere. At least that's what I would expect based on my experience.

For cases where the OP clearly doesn't have the background for a higher level answer, we typically lower the thread level if possible, or we explain why that isn't possible. So I think we're handling questions deemed to be valid but with a potential level mismatch the way you describe.

 

[PeterDonis]

if the question does not make any sense, it's still instructive to tell someone their question doesn't make sense and why.

"Does not make any sense" is a very wide category. Yes, some questions will not make sense in a way that can be explained. But most won't. The distinction here is the one Pauli was getting at with his phrase "not even wrong". A question that doesn't make any sense in a way that is wrong might be repairable. A question that is not even wrong, not so much.

 

[russ_watters]

So you are saying PF's goal should change? The "About PF" Insights article currently says:
"Our goal is to provide a community for people (whether students, professional scientists, or hobbyists) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community."

Yes. But in my opinion that statement is narrower than the reality already, and misleading. Even contradictory. The second line implies this is a forum intended for professionals only, and that isn't the case. How does k-12 homework help fit with that second line?

That says nothing about bringing as many people into the field as possible.

Plus, what does "bringing as many people into the field as possible" mean? Does it mean we want them to become scientists? Or just PF members?

The word was "fold". Not caring about our membership/post rate numbers is a good way to kill the forum. In my opinion, too high of a quality bar is pointless if the forum disappears because of it.

I don't want to go much further along this line of discussion until I have something more concrete to propose, and not here - in the private forum.

 

[PeterDonis]

telling people to basically come back when they finish their Masters

Btw, since this sort of comment has been made by several posters in this thread, please note that in the original thread that spawned this one, this was not done. I responded to the OP by pointing out that the book they referenced was a pop science book, and posted a link to the Wikipedia article on false vacuum decay. I recommended reading the sources linked to in that article as well, but the link I posted was to the article (which, as has already been said, meets the requirements for a valid reference since it footnotes its claims to the relevant literature). (I also gave a basic answer to the general question.)

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't want to go much further along this line of discussion until I have something more concrete to propose, and not here - in the private forum.

Fair enough.

 

[PeterDonis]

Something can be traceable even if the op doesn't or can't trace it though.

Traceable means the source has to have references explicitly stated somewhere. If the only way to "trace" something in a pop science source to the literature is a combination of guessing and Googling, that's not traceable in any useful sense.

 

[StandardsGuy]

What if there is no such explanation? What if every possible "pop-sci-like" attempt at an explanation is wrong, or leads to misunderstanding instead of actual understanding?

How many times in the history of science has the current understanding been wrong, only to be changed by future discoveries? Take the Big Bang theory for instance. The recent JWST discoveries have challenged that.

 

[StandardsGuy]

Bear in mind that you don't see the ones that get deleted by the moderators.

As one who has had posts deleted, this is a strong put off. That's why I seldom get on this site. I think it would be better to reply to the person, "this did not contribute to the thread" rather than delete the post and the thumbs up that came with it.

 

[berkeman]

As one who has had posts deleted, this is a strong put off. That's why I seldom get on this site. I think it would be better to reply to the person, "this did not contribute to the thread" rather than delete the post and the thumbs up that came with it.

I did a quick check of 3 such instances -- your posts that were deleted were reported by other members, not cherry-picked by the Mentors. It's always important to try your best to find good sources for assertions in posts in the technical forums.

 

[PeterDonis]

How many times in the history of science has the current understanding been wrong, only to be changed by future discoveries?

Wrong? Almost never once a field becomes a science (i.e., based on experimental testing).

An approximation that gets refined by further discoveries? Lots of times.

Take the Big Bang theory for instance. The recent JWST discoveries have challenged that.

No, they haven't. They have led to quite a bit of discussion about the precise values of some of the parameters, but they have not challenged the framework of the theory itself.

 

[russ_watters]

How many times in the history of science has the current understanding been wrong, only to be changed by future discoveries? Take the Big Bang theory for instance. The recent JWST discoveries have challenged that.

Wrong? Almost never once a field becomes a science (i.e., based on experimental testing).

An approximation that gets refined by further discoveries? Lots of times.

No, they haven't. They have led to quite a bit of discussion about the precise values of some of the parameters, but they have not challenged the framework of the theory itself.

This is, in fact, a built-in flaw in pop-sci; it's over-hyping of new discoveries or even past ones to generate interest. Clickbait.

 

[vanhees71]

"Does not make any sense" is a very wide category. Yes, some questions will not make sense in a way that can be explained. But most won't. The distinction here is the one Pauli was getting at with his phrase "not even wrong". A question that doesn't make any sense in a way that is wrong might be repairable. A question that is not even wrong, not so much.

Questions can neither make sense nor making no sense. They are questions! If a question indicates a misconception of the questioner, one can point that out as well.

 

[PeterDonis]

If a question indicates a misconception of the questioner, one can point that out as well.

My point is that for some questions, "misconception" is too generous a term: they are so far off base that it is not even possible to point out a misconception or reframe the question. That's what the phrase "not even wrong" is intended to convey. There has to be a point at which the only reasonable moderation decision is to delete the thread to keep the signal to noise ratio of the forums acceptable.

 

[vanhees71]

Of course. As I said, I'd keep the rules and the moderation practice as they are.

 

[Bystander]

Are we "there?"

 

[Vanadium 50]

How many times in the history of science has the current understanding been wrong, only to be changed by future discoveries? Take the Big Bang theory for instance. The recent JWST discoveries have challenged that.

First, no it hasn't.

But PF's mission is not to teach The Truth. It's to teach science at is currently practiced and constituted. In 1986 had we been around, we would have said "supernova progenitors are thought to be red". In 1987 we would have changed our mind., So what?

But allowing crackpot sources is not going to fix that.