swampwiz said:
I am quite dismayed that the moderators here consider PBS to be such trash.
We don't. Or at least I don't.
Per PF rules:
- We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.
and:
- Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.
I've always taken these to mean:
1. The topic under discussion should be a mainstream science topic. For example, discussion of perpetual motion machines, even for debunking them, is generally not allowed since they aren't part of mainstream science. I believe my very first post on the forum, way back when, was deleted and I was given an infraction because I didn't know this.
2. Asking a question about a mainstream topic doesn't require that you provide an acceptable reference, though if you post a poor one you will likely encounter some difficulty in your discussion with others if you continue to use it after being told it is poor. After all, most people without an in-depth understanding of science simply aren't going to be able to tell the difference between PBS, a mainstream journal, or a random youtube channel that spouts crackpot ideas. PF also has very, very different 'etiquette' than just about any other place online, something which new members aren't going to be accustomed to. It would be silly to require new members to already know what an acceptable reference is and to use one when simply asking a question.
3. Answering questions or taking part in a discussion requires that you be able to cite an acceptable reference
if you are asked for one. I often don't post a reference if I can quickly answer someone's question based on my own knowledge or a quick internet search. However, if someone pushes for a reference then I will give them one. This doesn't mean that you MUST have a reference if you answer a question, it means that you don't really have something to fall back on if someone challenges your answer. It is fine to tell someone, "I think X is the answer, but I don't have a refence to back that up at the moment." It's
not okay to make a half dozen posts insisting that five other people are wrong and you are right if you don't have a reference to back you up.
4. The 'professionalism' of the reference you should provide scales proportionally with the complexity of the topic under discussion. Wikipedia and a thousand other websites are perfectly acceptable sources if someone is curious about gravitational potential energy or some other basic physics topic. But if you're discussing the time evolution of an electron's wavefunction or the detailed behavior of charge carriers in a solid state device then you're probably going to need to break out a textbook if someone asks for a reference.
PBS itself is not 'bad'. Their science shows gets people interested in science and serves as an enjoyable way to learn facts about science without having to delve into textbooks and papers. I believe that not only are they 'good', they are required if we are to keep people involved in science and engineering. The issue arises when people don't understand that something someone said on a PBS show may not be accurate, even if the person saying it is a famous, reputable scientist. A PBS show, and others like it, are the least desirable of the acceptable references in my opinion. You can use them, and I myself have done so before, but I advise doing so only when you don't have another reference handy.
Also remember that how you say something matters just as much as what you say. An answer of, "No, you're wrong, Cosmos said X" is going to get a very different response vs saying, "I don't know for sure, but Cosmos said X about this topic."
Finally, note that this is my personal take on the rules. Others might have a somewhat different opinion.
