Discussion of PF Policy on Valid References

[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.