Mainstream science criterion

[turin]

I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)

Not every "article" that appears in Arxiv were on their way to a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, not everyone updates the preprint into the same form as that which finally appeared in print. I know I didn't update the preprint that I uploaded when I had my papers published.

For most people in this profession, based on my experience, Arxiv is used simply as an "advanced notice" of news to come. Most of us still waits for the final papers to be published before we make extensive citation of it. This is certainly true outside of high energy/string/etc. field. One only needs to look at a typical paper in condensed matter from, say, PRL. Look at how many Arxiv-only article that was been cited.

Zz.

 

[TurtleMeister]

What about a private forum for non-mainstream science discussions? Admittance would be by request and could be restricted to members who have a minimum post count.

 

[Integral]

We have been there done that. It requires a huge amount of moderation time and involves endless arguments with members who think that the only requirement for doing physics is a good bowl load.

It simply is not worth our time.

Our current place for this is the IR (independent research) forums. We have pretty high standards for starting threads.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.

Usually I just sic em on http://www.bautforum.com/"

 

[Evo]

I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.

Usually I just sic em on http://www.bautforum.com/"

bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

 

[Dale]

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

that is so true! That was my first vaguely-science-related online forum experience.

I got fed up with the cranks and decided to join PF instead precisely because of the mainstream science criterion. I think it is an indispensable part of what makes PF good and I hope it never goes away.

Can we change this thread from "Complaint" to "Praise"?

 

[DaveC426913]

bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

I said nothing about cranks, or about crank fora. What I said was: People who wish to discuss non-mainstream ideas will have a better chance there than here.

 

[arildno]

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

We should use that place as a warning more often.

There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.

Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy.

 

[Astronuc]

We should use that place as a warning more often.

There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.

Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy.

Actually we do refer some people there.

 

[arildno]

Actually we do refer some people there.

Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place?

 

[Integral]

Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place?

It would be a fools errand. There is no way to win an online argument when logic and knowledge mean nothing.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be a fools errand. There is no way to win an online argument when logic and knowledge mean nothing.

Well, you wouldn't win any arguments; you'd enforce the rules and create new ones and eventually drive away the crackpots. But it would be a monumental task to virtually replace a large fraction of the membership.

 

[Redbelly98]

Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place?

Be careful. I've often found that the person who suggests an idea ends up being the person who must implement it.

 

[arildno]

Be careful. I've often found that the person who suggests an idea ends up being the person who must implement it.

Try to force me..

 

[Astronuc]

Try to force me..

You volunteered.

 

[D H]

Perhaps somebody should venture there with a vocation to heal the place?

Several of us are trying. We still have our fair share of crackpots, but we can now chase them out and as a result the science sections have improved. (Just don't look in the pseudoscience subforum.)

Given the reference in [post=2496168]this post[/post], perhaps siccing them on technologyreview.com might be a better bet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Several of us are trying. We still have our fair share of crackpots, but we can now chase them out and as a result the science sections have improved.

Really? The mainstream criteria has been in place for at least five years now.

(Just don't look in the pseudoscience subforum.)

A cheap shot from the peanut gallery? The fact is that psuedoscience is not allowed. Did you know that? I suspect not. Do you object to the exploration of potentially unexplained phenomena - the heart and soul of science?

People experience strange things and we do our best qualify, quantify, or explain them. What a crime.

 

[D H]

Whoa! Read the backchain, Ivan. I wasn't referring to this site. Trace the quotes fare enough back and you will get to [post=2499196]this post[/post].

 

[dE_logics]

May be we should have another forums instead of locking the thread. Any thread that the mentors think are lockable will be transferred to this forums which will be untouched by people who don't want to hear such things...making both the set of people happy.


1) Thread ain't locked
2) It ain't in the main forum so you won't see it.


Generally people hate very basic questions...but we do have a separate forum for that, so that solves the issue.

 

[DaveC426913]

May be we should have another forums instead of locking the thread. Any thread that the mentors think are lockable will be transferred to this forums which will be untouched by people who don't want to hear such things...making both the set of people happy.

Confucious say: The fox that chases two rabbits catches none.

No forum can be all things to all people and still succeed.