Hmm an awfull lot of posts get deleted here?

  1. im of the opinion no matter how much is known about a subject something new could still be learnt or discovered.

    i dont understand this policy of deleting threads to stop people taking a second look at things they know.

    are we to asume we know everything? if you dont mind me saying that is called Pseudoscience, not physics

    Forming conclusions without debait or discusion or even considering new evidence is truely Pseudoscience at its worst:frown:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Hurkyl

    Hurkyl 16,089
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    (We do have a feedback forum which, presumably, would be a good place to post feedback)


    Well, several reasons for deleting posts were outlined in our global guidelines document to which you have agreed. You review the rules to which you've agreed in your control panel, but for quick reference, this particular one is found here.

    And your warnings log indicates that you've already been given a reason why your posts have been deleted: "We do not allow links to crackpot sites. Please refrain from such posts."
     
  4. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And, if PF does not suit you, we encourage you to find another forum that does.

    - Warren
     
  5. but how/where do you draw the line between a crackpot and a revolutionary inventer?

    no offence but there was appsolutly no discusion or examination of their work, what was this 'crackpot' conclusion based on?

    surely this is a fare question.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  6. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Professional scientists, who have intimate knowledge of their fields, generally have no real trouble differentiating crackpot science from valid science. Our staff is comprised almost entirely of professional scientists and graduate students, so we are well-prepared to make such decisions. If you can't find something in a textbook, classroom or journal, it's almost assuredly not valid science, and doesn't belong on this site.

    - Warren
     
  7. well i respect your opinion but im not sure i agree wiith that last part.
    what about the stuff thats clasified, or is in the process of being added, new research, new discoverys?, im sure alot of new things have apeared in todays books that wernt in those of the 80s, it doesnt necisarily make them invalid.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  8. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Journals are the primary vehicle with which legitimate scientists release new research, discoveries, and so on. There's also the preprint archive at arxiv.org, which contains bleeding-edge premature papers that aren't yet ready for journal submission. Anyone with anything legitimate to say can find an audience in one of the literally thousands of science journals printed today. Legitimacy is determined by peer-review, just as it is here. We even have a forum dedicated to amateur science, given that it adheres to the scientific method.

    What more do you want? If you're hoping our site will give up its standards so you can just post whatever you want, it's not going to happen. Our site is not that sort of venue, and you should go somewhere else.

    - Warren
     
  9. Moonbear

    Moonbear 12,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Classified stuff shouldn't be posted on the internet. Something in the process of being published can wait for the publication to come out before you discuss it here. If it's new research, you shouldn't risk posting your ideas on an internet forum where you can't be given credit for them and others can steal them. If it's a brand new discovery, the scientists making the discovery will release the details in published format when they are certain their findings are correct and replicable, thus, if it is not yet at that stage, it doesn't belong being disseminated to the public yet anyway. None of those above categories would be available on a website because that's not the appropriate means to disseminate the information, if dissemination is even appropriate at all.
     
  10. I just wanted an explanation of how the conclusion was reached, As it 'seemed' unfare, Looks like i need to pay more attention to those journal's :redface:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  11. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 30,155
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But you are latching onto them BEFORE they are established in peer-reviewed journals. How are YOU to know it isn't bogus?

    Even stuff in peer-reviewed journals aren't "established physics", but at the very least, it has been peer-reviewed with the very minimum standard of not being utterly nonsense. That is the standard we have adopted. So think about it, if something still hasn't even PASSED the very minimum standard of being at least has the possibility to be even CONSIDERED to be valid, what is there hope for one of these things that you scoured over the internet, or heaven forbid, that you stumbled upon yourself?

    Your complain is nothing new. I welcome you to look at the archived posts in this very section. There have been similar complaints, many by quacks, about our policy. It has been tried, and it didn't work. You were just not here to see the mess.

    Besides, I thought you have already dismissed this forum and about to migrate your talents to "a proper physics forum" where you can "debate in true scientific manner" (good luck in finding one)? Whatever happened to THAT?

    Zz.
     
  12. You may not like the suggestion but if you have any 'fringe' material you'd like to discuss you can likely do so in the Skepticism & Debunking section of this forum. I believe the concern is that students using PF as a resource may be side tracked and confused if they try to integrate information that is not fully accepted, if at all, so such things will be more appropriate in S&D.
     
  13. Moonbear

    Moonbear 12,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, that's not quite correct. S&D deals more with subjects that are on the "fringe" because they are dealing with things such as observed phenomenon with no clear physical explanation (not that they don't necessarily have an explanation, but the explanation is not obvious, such as UFO sightings, where someone definitely saw something, but does not know what and wants to see if they can find out what). Crackpot theories will not be permitted there anymore than any other place at PF.
     
  14. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 30,155
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Ivan may disagree with you on that! He keeps telling the rest of us Mentors that S&D is NOT the TD dumping ground!

    :)

    Zz.
     
  15. well, this is a big leep from deleting a post without explaining why, now i have heard the otherside i can see that you did actualy attempt to verify it first an this wasnt a botched conclusion, things sound alot more like the physics im formilier with :smile:
     
  16. this is the area of physics im interested in but please do not lump me in with 'ufologist fuzzy light nuts', im interested in real reproducable effects. not 'ogie boogie crap', one of my area's of interest has been

    the Huchison-Effect
    There is no question that john's views are 'Very far fetched' but accidental discoverys do happen.

    this effect apears real dispite his rambled explanation's.
    http://stream.osen.org/aag/Hutchison_RaceToZeroPoint.wmv
    I Want to know the real physics behind it.who else am i gunner ask?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  17. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The kind of material you just posted is not welcome here. If you want to discuss crank science, you need to find another website.

    - Warren
     
  18. discovery channel features cranks?, DAMIT!! that channels spost to be legit :mad:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  19. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, the Discovery Channel is absolutely not a reliable source of information. They have been known to show a variety of material ranging from "fringe" to downright quackery. They have shows about ghosts and hauntings and UFOs, after all.

    - Warren
     
  20. oh dear :redface: not much i can say to that :uhh: iv put my foot right init :grumpy:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
  21. by replicating their tests and verifying results,and formng an independant conclusion. to see if its correct.


    Very Very little, but there are times when one man is right and the rest of the world wrong...

    Tesla ,Galileo ,Einstein,The wright brothers, Sir Frank Whittle. i could go on an on but there's no need.

    though this posibilty is extreamly remote it still remains
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?