Is there a crackdown on speculative posts?

[chronon]

I've noticed a recent tendency against speculative posts. This seems odd, since this was the main reason I joined PF. For instance Arctic Fox asked what seems to be a reasonable question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=621169#post621169 only to be told that it isn't worth discussing.

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

 

[Moonbear]

Well, for some time now there has been moderation and locking of overly-speculative posts, and yes, the forum is being kept focused on standard physics, if by "standard" you mean peer-reviewed, published physics. Just see the thread just above or below yours here on Theory Development, where this has been discussed ad nauseum.

As for the thread you provided as an example, it starts right out with "Forget Einstein..." People in that thread seem to be asking, "why?" However, you'll note that the thread is not locked or the poster banned, the folks posting seem to be trying to get clarification on what the point of such an exercise is and to ask people to justify their answers. Otherwise, if someone wants to have a science fiction poll (i.e., if anything was possible, what would you prefer), then it belongs in General Discussion, not one of the more serious science forums.

I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.

You'll notice that Theory Development is a closed forum. Once in a while a post or two is moved there and tentatively allowed to remain open to give a poster benefit of the doubt, but generally, the decision was made that those types of topics are too time-consuming for the mentors and don't have enough of a benefit to justify that additional time. If people can post those topics for discussion someplace else, then let them discuss them there.

There is a difference between speculation based on sound evidence and over-speculation based on no scientific foundation, or a very poor foundation.

 

[arildno]

The thread in question has neither been locked nor moved to TD; chroot must be allowed to express his opinion about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard". All you need to do is check her understanding of basic physics, which she FREELY admits, isn't much. And don't let her fool you into believing that she's trying to restore the classical light picture - she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).

Point I'm trying to get across: there is no such thing as worthwhile non-standard ideas when they are based on utter ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

IMO, unless the Arctic Fox provides some justification for listing option #2, that thread belongs in GD. Moreover, he asks that specific tools of science that deal directly with his question not be used or talked about. In short, that thread is not about science...yet. If he does provide a justification, the thread should go to either S&D or TD.

 

[Gokul43201]

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Overly Speculative Posts:

Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

 

[chronon]

I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.

True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going. I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.

she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

 

[juvenal]

I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

Is this some attempt at a guilt trip? The sky is not falling, quite frankly.

 

[quantumdude]

True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF.

Just out of curiosity, why would your decision to post a question here have anything to do with our policies against crackpottery?

I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

Firstly, I don't see Caroline or her ilk stinking up SPR either, so I'm not exactly sure of what you are talking about. And secondly, I don't know why you would not think that PF has the same authority as SPR (whatever that means), but even if it were true it is still not the case that outside influences do or should determine our policies here at PF. And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.

I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.

She wasn't rejected out of hand. She was heard and answered before she was banned.

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093

And as for Eugene Shubert, his ideas are routinely torn to pieces on SPR and the like. If they want to allow this "I proved you wrong", "No you didn't", "Yes I did" nonsense to go on ad infinitum then that is their problem, not ours.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

But YOU were the one who brought up the comparison with OTHER physics forums. Thus, you opened the door to that avenue and I'm just using the same tactic as you did. Furthermore, I am pointing out EVIDENCE that her point of view is not entirely kosher - she's a quack who knows how to disguise her ignorance of physics through cleverly-manipulated sentences so that physicists have a hard time deciphering what she's trying to say. Read her Chaotic Ball paper, or am I again bringing up external sources that has no relevence here?

Your claim that she was banned simply for the singular reason that her ideas were "non-mainstream" is just plain wrong.

Zz.

 

[chroot]

One extra data point: Caroline Thompson has been forcibly evicted from many other venues on the web. She has been a nuisance on wikipedia for the better part of a year, and frankly is not at all a rational person. This is more than evident by watching her behavior among other professional scientists working on the encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_test_experiments

We do not intend to copy-cat the moderation of other venues. We do not intend to welcome any and all persons with open arms. We do not intend to be used as a soapbox. The majority of us are happy to have carved out a (relatively) sane haven on the web to discuss real physics, and we'd like to keep it that way. If our ideals are not compatible with yours, please vote with your feet.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).

And conversely, even if someone is permitted to post elsewhere, even on the slim chance they have multiple personality disorder and post cogently everywhere else and only exhibit crackpot tendencies here, we can only judge them by their posts here. What they post out in sci.physics.* is irrelevant to how PF is run. We have our objectives and they have theirs, and there's no reason for one site to need to emulate the other.

 

[Nereid]

I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.

And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.

chronon, you may or may not agree with Tom as to where you think PF should be going.

Let's assume for the moment that some of us do want to head in the direction Tom summarises.

Would you please be kind enough to tell us how (in your mind) we can best get to that goal? If it helps, imagine the content scope is principally physics, astronomy, cosmology, and mathematics. In particular, what stance should PF take to 'non-mainstream' ideas? How much should we insist that such ideas are self-consistent? consistent with good experimental and observational results? quantitative?

Kind Regards
Nereid

 

[chronon]

Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

 

[chroot]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic, and that topic was non-mainstream, and thus against the guidelines that she agreed to follow when she signed up. She had ample time to get in line.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

There is no reason why PF should not attract more and more professionals. Nor is there any reason why PF should not try to become "something it is not." We have a large membership and a strong leadership. We can become anything we want to become, whether or not you like it.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.

Check out sciforums, and see for yourself how well that approach works on the internet.

2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.

We have redirects, so there's no harm in moving a thread to its appropriate forum.

3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)

Some people will never stop arguing, even after every conceivable argument has already been made dozens of times. When our staff decides a thread is "done," it's done.

4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

Non-mainstream posts are generally dealt with by splitting or deleting. If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.

- Warren

 

[chronon]

She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic,and that topic was non-mainstream,

I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard".

There seems to be some confusion as to whether posting non-mainstream ideas deserves to get you banned

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Overly Speculative Posts:

Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.

Except that it isn't. I have always found it strange that PF doesn't have a TOS link, but this is what you get when you sign up

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

 

[Janus]

Except that it isn't. I have always found it strange that PF doesn't have a TOS link, but this is what you get when you sign up

What Gokul43201 quoted is found in the Forum Feedback & Announcements forums as a sticky named:

"Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines"

Found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=66018#post66018

 

[quantumdude]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning.

As has been emphasized over and over: She wasn't banned for anyone thread or post. But the posts in that thread are unquestionably cranky, and therefore against the policies of this website. Mix 1 part ignorance with 1 part arrogance and 1 part persistence, bake for a month, and you've got a perfectly cooked banned crackpot.

What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

She demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what physics is and how it is done. That in itself is not worthy of a ban, but the authoritative tone she takes while being so badly mistaken is not good. Its presence damages the educational credibility of PF, and is worthy of a ban IMO.

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

No one is threatened by anything she wrote. The problem here is that she attempted to supplant a well-established theory with some half baked idea that sounds good to her. We don't stand for that here, and I dare say that any forum that does stand for it cannot hold a candle to our "authority", if I read your meaning of that term correctly.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not.

Baloney. ZapperZ is at Argonne, Ahrkron is at CERN (and he was at Fermilab until last year), Reilly is a retired physicist, and the list goes on and on. We have many outstanding professionals here, and the list gets larger all the time.

I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

You said in a previous post that you would be more likely to ask serious questoins about physics on SPR. Why do you ask serious questions at all? Why don't you settle for just not knowing? Why don't you just accept it, rather than try to make yourself something which you are not?

See what a dumb question that is?

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

With all due respect, your ideas are a recipe for certain failure.

 

[chronon]

What Gokul43201 quoted is found in the Forum Feedback & Announcements forums as a sticky named:

"Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines"

Found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=66018#post66018

Silly me, the fourth thread in the second forum from the bottom of the list, the obvious place for the Forum Guidelines.

All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years

 

[quantumdude]

From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.

I have to agree with chronon that those guidelines/rules are not as prominent as they should be. When this thread showed up, I didn't even know where to find them. I went looking in the FAQs thinking that would be the most likely place to find rules. Maybe a link to that sticky thread in the FAQs would be an appropriate location to remind people of the rules. Afterall, even if someone read and agreed to rules when they signed in, who saves that page to remember it much further down the road?

As I'm reading this thread, the general topic of why people are or aren't banned for certain types of posts is, or at least might be, helpful to folks, but I don't think it's helpful or fair to be discussing one specific banned individual who is not here to defend herself, even if this is only being used as an example. Banning doesn't always occur due to the threads/posts left on the board, but may have involved threads/posts that were deleted or discussions via PM, and it doesn't seem very appropriate to expect the moderators to dredge that information up to justify the banning. That is between the banned member and the administration.

A single post is unlikely to get someone banned (unless it's an especially egregious violation of board rules), but a pattern of posting and disregard for warnings to change that pattern will.

 

[Danger]

If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.

Happens to me at a disgusting rate; I'll try to help some kid out in GP or Engineering only to be corrected by someone because it turned out that I didn't understand it as well as I thought I did. It's embarrassing, but educational, and I don't expect to be banned or even warned for it. If, on the other hand, I responded to such a correction by insisting that I was right and everyone else was wrong, I wouldn't deserve to be welcome here.

 

[Arctic Fox]

I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves. I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts, and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun. I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily acquired anti-matter. :)

 

[Chronos]

You have missed the point, Arctic Fox. This forum is about real science. Chroot is trying to remind you of that in a nice way. If you ask honest questions here, you will get very good answers. But if you insist on promoting yourself as some sort of genius, you will get very predictable replies. Most of us here are here to learn, not proseletize.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.

Good grief, you're a drama queen. :-D

Look, the opening post of that thread of yours that chronon linked to really does more closely resemble science fiction than science. Why not try to learn something about why that is, instead of taking it as a rejection?

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Ah, but see, herein lies the rub. You know those professionals who answered your questions about nuclear matierials? Well by and large they are not interested in reading naively formulated speculations about science (not singling you out, just making a general observation). It rubs most people the wrong way when someone who is not trained to do a job comes along and makes comments that imply that he can do the job better than the professionals can do it. Can you imagine someone with no flight time walking into a room full of airline pilots and insisting that he can fly a plane better than they can? It is no less preposturous when someone does similar things with a (virtual) roomful of physicists and engineers.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves.

Oh yeah? Well then you shouldn't make comments such as the ones in the opening post of this thread, which is incidentally one of the threads that earned you one of those warnings.

I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts,

Hmmm, it's good to have goals.

and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

If chroot bans you for wanting to tell everyone here how wrong they are, without knowing what you are talking about yourself, then he will have the backing of the entire staff, and most likely a grateful membership as well.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun.

Questions are fine, that's our main business here. But if you start spouting off uninformed opinions then you will leave us with no choice but to silence you like a misbehaved kid in a classroom. I'm saying this to let you know that it's not just chroot who feels this way. The leadership of this website is firmly committed to this sentiment.

I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.

I applaud your curiosity and wish you the best of luck.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily acquired anti-matter. :)

Well, a lesson to be learned here is that if you persist in telling trained, professional scientists "how it is", then what you've described above is the only audience you are going to get.

 

[chroot]

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Yes, yes, that's par for the course. Crackpots never want to be relegated to crackpot sites, because they do not believe they are crackpots. Almost all crackpots share this form of self-aggrandizement.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves. I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts, and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

We currently have over 25,000 members on this site. Do you think I have time to single you out? I issue warnings when I see posts that deserve warnings. If you stop making such posts, you are welcome to stay as long as you'd like.

- Warren

 

[Arctic Fox]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Thanks, Chroot. You're a god.

 

[Janus]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Nereid]

I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply

Thank you chronon.

Assume, for the moment, that PF wishes to be primarily a forum for providing homework help in, discussion of careers in, and discussions of mainstream physics, astronomy, etc ... Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream. PF would also like to be very clear in its guidelines as to its primary aims, what constitutes unacceptable posts, and under what circumstances we will ban someone. In all these guidelines, we also wish to be crystal clear that it is the owner, Admin and moderators of this site who will make decisions (and act on them) re moving posts, deleting them, warning posters, banning them, etc.

Would you be kind enough to help us with these aims? In particular, what - specifically - should our guidelines say?

ArticFox: if you are still with us, would you mind answering the questions I asked chronon?

 

[Moonbear]

Assume, for the moment, that PF wishes to be primarily a forum for providing homework help in, discussion of careers in, and discussions of mainstream physics, astronomy, etc ... Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream. PF would also like to be very clear in its guidelines as to its primary aims, what constitutes unacceptable posts, and under what circumstances we will ban someone. In all these guidelines, we also wish to be crystal clear that it is the owner, Admin and moderators of this site who will make decisions (and act on them) re moving posts, deleting them, warning posters, banning them, etc.

These statements have been made many times, particularly in threads over here in feedback and regarding theory development, and we do seem to have to continue repeating this information. It seems that a clear mission statement in conjunction with the forum rules would be helpful and could be added to the top of the forum rules post. I think your statement above makes a good dent in writing that as well. If we have a clear mission statement, then there is no confusion as to why non-mainstream posts are not permitted; they simply do not fit within the mission of this particular site. If there is a need/desire on the internet for a site that welcomes non-mainstream topics, then anyone is welcome to set up their own site somewhere for that and moderate it to the degree they prefer, but this is not the place for it.

So, working from what you've already written, here's my suggested wording:

Mission Statement
PhysicsForums is primarily a forum that provides 1) homework help, 2) discussion of careers and educational opportunities, and 3) subject-specific discussions of research and issues in science, math and engineering, with the main emphasis on physics.

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, or 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books. Non-mainstream topics, including personal theories, will not be permitted on PhysicsForums. The exception is in the "Skepticism and Debunking" forum, where non-mainstream topics may be presented by those seeking assistance in verifying or refuting claims made in non-peer-reviewed sources.

In all areas of PhysicsForums, any non-mainstream topics posted will be locked to further discussion and/or deleted at the discretion of the admins and mentors. All decisions regarding whether topics posted fall within the mission of this site and how threads containing those topics will be handled will be made at the discretion of the moderators (i.e., admins and mentors). A warning will be issued to a member if a non-mainstream topic is posted by them. Further clarification of the reasons for the warning, if necessary, can be obtained by contacting the moderator(s) via Private Message or E-mail. If a member continues to post non-mainstream topics after the initial warning, further action will be taken, including temporary banning from posting or permanent termination of membership.

Other Forum Rules and Code of Conduct
(The rest of the rules already posted regarding obscenities, flaming, spamming, etc. would go here.)

Did I miss anything, or is there anything else that needs to be changed to better reflect the site mission and rules?

 

[jma2001]

For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, or 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books. Non-mainstream topics, including personal theories, will not be permitted on PhysicsForums.

I think it is going a bit too far to say that any idea outside of a peer-reviewed publication cannot be discussed, period. From having read many threads on PF, I have come to the conclusion that the "non-mainstream" ideas are not what is causing the problem. Rather, it is the people who continue to defend their ideas, usually in a combative manner, after obvious flaws have been pointed out by the mentors and other knowledgeable participants.

Going back to something ZapperZ said in another thread: "A genuine question is NOT the same as spewing off a theory out of ignorance. Someone coming in here and asking "Look, I think I have this idea of moving faster than c, but can you tell me why this can't work?" is different than "I have a unified theory of physics using the same principle as the mechanics of grooming cat hairs". I have seen both types (and I'm guessing you have too), and I believe they have been handled accordingly."

It seems to me that Moonbear's proposed guidelines would prohibit genuine questions of the first type. That is, it should be possible for people to ask honest questions about non-mainstream ideas, so long as they do it with a humble attitude, and are willing to admit when they are wrong.

Instead of trying to define which ideas are not permitted, it might be better to define which behaviors are not permitted.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the purposes of this site, "mainstream" is defined as topics covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks...

Are there not states now where ID appears as a science in high school "textbooks" ? And who's to tell what may be found in textbooks around the world...but I can see the motivation for this clause.

In fact, (and this may be taking an extreme view, but) I don't think there is a need to define "mainstream" as anything other than what the site owner considers sound; and for the most part these include things enumerated in your above 2 points.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks for added suggestions/critiques. I didn't expect to get it right on a first draft, and I'm sure not the one to dictate site rules, just trying to offer suggestions (if they end up too far off-base, don't use them ).

Are there not states now where ID appears as a science in high school "textbooks" ? And who's to tell what may be found in textbooks around the world...but I can see the motivation for this clause.

I don't know if it's specifically covered in textbooks, but it certainly does come up as a topic for discussion in the biology forum, and is quickly refuted. This is a good point, because I DO want to see questions on ID if students are being taught it in school. If non-mainstream stuff is showing up in textbooks, I really do want to see the questions show up here so we have a chance to provide the education the schools aren't (or correct the damage they are doing). So, maybe mainstream vs non-mainstream isn't the right terminology to use.

In fact, (and this may be taking an extreme view, but) I don't think there is a need to define "mainstream" as anything other than what the site owner considers sound; and for the most part these include things enumerated in your above 2 points.

Okay, since both you and jma2001 object that the definition of "mainstream" is too restrictive, I'll change that. You and I and a lot of others here have a good feeling for what is "sound," but for someone who isn't making sound arguments, without some examples of what is and isn't okay, they can't see for themselves why their topic is inappropriate for this forum. For now, I've left "mainstream" as the term, but based on the above point, it probably needs to be replaced with a more accurate term for what we're trying to do here. Suggestions anyone?

So, here's the next revision. Better, worse, scrap the whole idea?

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles. N.B., I think some form of definition or examples is necessary for clarity, but am open to suggestions for alternative examples to include here; the list need not be all-inclusive. I removed the statement on not permitting non-mainstream topics as it is more restrictive than the following paragraph that leaves the decision to moderator discretion.

In all areas of PhysicsForums, any non-mainstream topics posted will be locked to further discussion and/or deleted at the discretion of the admins and mentors. All decisions regarding whether topics posted fall within the mission of this site and how threads containing those topics will be handled will be made at the discretion of the moderators (i.e., admins and mentors). A warning will be issued to a member if a non-mainstream topic is posted by them. Further clarification of the reasons for the warning, if necessary, can be obtained by contacting the moderator(s) via Private Message or E-mail. If a member continues to post non-mainstream topics after the initial warning, further action will be taken, such as temporary banning from posting or permanent termination of membership.


Any thoughts on the mission statement itself? Greg, are you around? Does that adequately cover what you want PF to be? The rules and guidelines are somewhat secondary. If there is at least a clear mission statement, then when someone posts something that just doesn't belong here, when it's closed or deleted, all you need to do is point to the mission statement and say, "It's not allowed to remain open for discussion on this forum because it is not consistent with our mission." And, of course, if the site evolves over time and takes on a new purpose, that mission statement can be revised to accommodate those changes.

 

[jtbell]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

 

[jma2001]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

Yes, thank you, I agree completely. Your distinction between "discussion" and "advocacy" is exactly what I was trying to say, re: defining inappropriate behavior, rather than inappropriate ideas.