Medals on PhysicsForums: Thank You!

[Tom McCurdy]

hahaha I just spent 35 minutes recording one of my lectures on string theory and it didnt work

 

[pervect]

wow, a spiffy medal - I'm not sure what to say, but thanks

 

[BlackVision]

The recipients of these medals are chosen by the PF staff, comprised of 20+ people with strong scientific backgrounds and credentials, by that recipient's long history of factual correctness and excellent presentation.

Since it's only by nomination and not by any real qualifications, I feel these "medals" will be given to only those that share the perspectives of the staff. Both scientific and political. Not necessarily those that have the most expertise in science. For example, I see hitssquad as quite adept in science but I can't see Monique ever nominating him because they have conflicting viewpoints. She would likely instead nominate someone that is close to her viewpoints.

You can trust that a member with a medal is, in general, a reliable source of information.

Even the mentors aren't always the most reliable when it comes to information and I suspect "science experts" will be no different.

 

[Dr Transport]

An unsolicited honor, what a novel concept. Thank you very much, I am honored and hope that I can live up to the standards the PF staff have set.

DT

 

[ZapperZ]

Since it's only by nomination and not by any real qualifications, I feel these "medals" will be given to only those that share the perspectives of the staff. Both scientific and political. Not necessarily those that have the most expertise in science. For example, I see hitssquad as quite adept in science but I can't see Monique ever nominating him because they have conflicting viewpoints. She would likely instead nominate someone that is close to her viewpoints.

Hope you don't take this any other way, because your comment is rather insulting. You seemed to have lumped all of us as nothing more than "yes man" or "yes woman". Integral can verify this, but I have had disagreement with him on a few issues before. I have also posted other comments that disagree with other mentors. It is insulting to both them and the "Science experts" to insinuate that this system is simply based on nothing more than a buddy system.

I challenge you to scour everything that I've posted where I have grossly misrepresented what have been established.

Even the mentors aren't always the most reliable when it comes to information and I suspect "science experts" will be no different.

The only difference here being that you can be certain that someone who is a "science expert" isn't a quack based on a track record. Of course, to another quack, this isn't necessarily a desirable quality in another person because you then can't simply spew out incomprehensible ideas based on ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

Even the mentors aren't always the most reliable when it comes to information and I suspect "science experts" will be no different.

Someone is reliable when they realize when to say they're not sure of their answer.

 

[Monique]

For example, I see hitssquad as quite adept in science but I can't see Monique ever nominating him because they have conflicting viewpoints. She would likely instead nominate someone that is close to her viewpoints.

Bad example since he was one of the first to cross my mind. The medals are for people able to gather scientific information, carry on a balanced debate and give guiding information.

I'd like to see the title changed from 'science expert', to something more general.. maybe just 'science medal' under their name, before I start nominating people. Ofcourse there are a few deservent of the title science expert, since they are professionals in their field.

 

[Dr Transport]

Monique has hit the nail on the head, reliability depends on knowing when to keep quiet.

I, Zapper, Monique, Chroot, and the others who regularly contribute to this forum have on more than one occasion held our tongues or keyboards at bay if we couldn't write something substantial and correct I am sure. If I know an answer to a post I will spend time putting it down in a well thought out manner. The others who have gotten these kudos have written well for as long as I have been here and are deserving.

 

[quantumdude]

Since it's only by nomination and not by any real qualifications, I feel these "medals" will be given to only those that share the perspectives of the staff. Both scientific and political. Not necessarily those that have the most expertise in science.

The qualifications come from the posts themselves, which we feel is enough. Our entire science/math/engineering staff are either postgraduates or professionals. As for myself, I teach mathematics and engineering at a small college, and I evaluate the work of others every day. Would you say that I am not qualified to do it here also?

For example, I see hitssquad as quite adept in science but I can't see Monique ever nominating him because they have conflicting viewpoints. She would likely instead nominate someone that is close to her viewpoints.

Straight from the Mentor's Private Forum:

Ok, I'd like to nominate hitssquad.

Moving on...

Even the mentors aren't always the most reliable when it comes to information and I suspect "science experts" will be no different.

I'd be surprised to learn that any staff member or medalist would not admit to a mistake when it was pointed out to them. In fact, one of my nominees (Reilly) got my attention when he pointed out one of my mistakes to me, and I considered it a valuable learning experience.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

It just seems like people are jealous of the people who got medals. Quite honestly saying that they make mistakes every once in awhile is no reason to deprive these hard working people of a little recogniztion of something they do for free. These are the people who spend a great deal of time comming up with detailed responses to our query's, and to say they aren't deserving of them because of a mistake or two here and there is bollucks. (i have always wanted to use that word) Anyway the point is as we were taught in elementary school, No One will ever be Perfect.

 

[Clausius2]

20 medals for everyone!.

As G. Orwell said: We are all of us equal!.

I imagine this forum being crowded of medals in a few time.

And Monique, forget the guy that appears in your public profile web. It is not worth of nothing compared with me.

 

[BlackVision]

Hope you don't take this any other way, because your comment is rather insulting. You seemed to have lumped all of us as nothing more than "yes man" or "yes woman". Integral can verify this, but I have had disagreement with him on a few issues before. I have also posted other comments that disagree with other mentors. It is insulting to both them and the "Science experts" to insinuate that this system is simply based on nothing more than a buddy system.

I'm just throwing an alternative perspective out there. Be glad that at least someone is willing to challenge the status quo. Perhaps I should change my wording. It has the potential and the possibility to end up on a "buddy buddy" system since no requirement is necessary other than nomination by the staff. I'm sure the staff is filled with bright minded individuals. But intelligent people were never free of bias.

I don't believe Stephen Jay Gould would of ever nominated Arthur Jensen for anything. Nor Arthur Jensen nominate Stephen Jay Gould for anything as they have a bitter history. But both are highly intelligent individuals with great knowledge of science in their fields.

 

[Integral]

One could say that the medals do form a sort of "good ol boy" club. The members of this club are those who have shown, through their posts, a knowledge of the current state of science. One thing that I have observed over my years with this forum is that it is very easy to identify someone who knows what they are talking about. You cannot simply claim to have a PhD, the knowledge that accompanies that level of education cannot be faked. The level of education you have in a field effects how you answer questions and the questions you ask. Once you have joined the "good ol boy" club by being educated in a field, it is easy to spot posts that contain that level of knowledge.

I believe that this first round of medals were the obvious ones, there are others who are deserving but did not get their medal...yet. I believe that as deserving individuals are identified more medals will be awarded.

I see these medals as a way for those who are learning to identify the "PF approved" side of a discussion. It is also assumed that medal holders will not venture outside of their field of expertise and make a fool of themselves.

It should also be recognized that there are some fields (Politics?) in which there are only fools, and no experts!

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm just throwing an alternative perspective out there. Be glad that at least someone is willing to challenge the status quo. Perhaps I should change my wording. It has the potential and the possibility to end up on a "buddy buddy" system since no requirement is necessary other than nomination by the staff. I'm sure the staff is filled with bright minded individuals. But intelligent people were never free of bias.

But look at it from THIS point of view: Most open forums such as this on the internet are DOMINATED by quackery! In fact, this kind of forum that insists on at least basing answers on VALID phyisics is an EXTREME MINORITY. I don't know about you, but this in itself IS a challenge to the status quo: the status quo of mediocrity and utter nonsense that permeate all open forums. So using your argument, I would say that you should be GLAD that at least one website is willing to challenge that status quo.

Quacks and charlatans are not happy when there is a chance that some unsuspecting reader might easily find on the 'net something that might remotely expose them for what they are. This is the only explanation I can think of for them to want to complain and invade even a small minority of sites that try to discuss established physics and other sciences. This medal designation is simply another obstacle for them to being able to disguise their ideas.

Zz.

 

[Clausius2]

I'm going to gain myself a lot of enemies here with these words:

Something is going wrong in this forum and with these medals. Although Monique does not answered to my last post, I'm not disappointed. Baby, you have another opportunity ...

To be honest, here there are a lot of members who never had started a thread (included some PF mentors). To start an original and brainy thread is more important than going over there answering the questions. I've tried to balance my answers and new threads starting.

If all of us had the same behaviour than this answer-men, this forum could not exist without new posts. Posting a new and interesting thread is as important as answering the homeworks, and it requires more brain-squeezing.

Sorry if I am too sincere.

 

[ZapperZ]

To be honest, here there are a lot of members who never had started a thread (included some PF mentors). To start an original and brainy thread is more important than going over there answering the questions. I've tried to balance my answers and new threads starting.

If all of us had the same behaviour than this answer-men, this forum could not exist without new posts. Posting a new and interesting thread is as important as answering the homeworks, and it requires more brain-squeezing.

Sorry if I am too sincere.

I'm puzzled. Do you see a problem with a SHORTAGE of new threads on PF? Or do you see a trend that the frequency of new threads is dropping? Yes? No? If no, then isn't your point (complaint) above rather moot?

Personally, I'd prefer not to post anything new just simply for the sake of starting a thread, rather than post something stupid. There are already a huge clutter of new posts. And a lot of the mentors, etc. already have their hands full in dealing with the existing ones. The last thing we need is to admonish them for not starting new ones!

Some people are just never happy with anything...

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

Quality not quantity is the key to the reason why the medalists were chosen. I answer far more questions than I pose, I am assuming that the other medalists are of this frame of mind also. I will not throw stones, but I have seen members of this forum who have been online here for a couple of weeks who have posted far more than I or some of the others, I will not say that their posts are not valid, any question os a good one, but some of these people it appears just like to hear themselves type.

I see no reason in limiting the number of posts, but if they are getting too numerous, or are getting repetitive, there needs to be some type of limint process. Maybe prior to an initial posting, if a search was performed, then maybe the number of new posts would go down.

DT

 

[Moonbear]

I agree with ZapperZ and Dr Transport. I don't see any problem with the number of threads here. There seem to be plenty of new threads every day, usually far too many to keep up with them all! Rather than start a new thread just for the sake of starting a thread, which in the busier topics could bump a still active thread off the first page and out of the attention of most posters, it's just as interesting and useful to post thoughtful replies in active threads regardless of who began the thread.

 

[Clausius2]

I'm puzzled. Do you see a problem with a SHORTAGE of new threads on PF? Or do you see a trend that the frequency of new threads is dropping? Yes? No? If no, then isn't your point (complaint) above rather moot?

Personally, I'd prefer not to post anything new just simply for the sake of starting a thread, rather than post something stupid. There are already a huge clutter of new posts. And a lot of the mentors, etc. already have their hands full in dealing with the existing ones. The last thing we need is to admonish them for not starting new ones!

Some people are just never happy with anything...

Zz.

Hey! Do not get angry. This is a democracy, isn't it?. I'm only said I've never seen some people starting the conversations. I think I'm enough clear and accurate saying that. I'm not complaining about the number or shortage, without doubts. But you can see there are some sections (specially in engineering) in which if you are waiting to reply you must wait for years. This is because the contents are more specific, and one who knows about engineering knows only how to solve the 25% of the questions (it is not like physics or maths, where the questions are typical and logical). To solve that situation, I try to give life to the section making a bit of effort starting a post and sharing my imagination with all people.

I'm trying to say you the most important thing in your academic (and not academic) life is not the answers you provide, but the questions you make. So that, it might be a new medal category for that. BUT I'm not saying I want a medal at all!. I've got all the medals I need nowadays .

ANYWAY, I'm so happy with the actual situation of this forum. This is a feedback post, so I have to say I've never found such useful and well-structured forum in the web. We must congratulate the forum commander in-chief. .

 

[arildno]

"I'm trying to say you the most important thing in your academic (and not academic) life is not the answers you provide, but the questions you make."

True.
And from what I've seen, you certainly live up to your own ideals of posting interesting threads

 

[Clausius2]

Arildno: thank you for your supporting. You know, Spain-Norway, it is almost the same! This is going to be the new alliance: Madrid-Oslo. Both together we will fight against darkness...

I've seen you're interested in fluid mechanics, like me. We might start our new diplomatic situation by claiming together for a numerical simulation forum, where people could expose their doubts with PDE or ODE's computer simulations, like a CFD forum. What do you think? Anyway, sure you are allowed to ask Mette-Marit about that, she would make mediatic pressure, and finally will persuade to Greg B.

 

[reilly]

So, I'm delighted to be a Science Advisor. Thanks and regards, Reilly Atkinson

 

[arildno]

I'd like to nominate Muzza and TALewis as "Science advisors"

 

[Gokul43201]

And I'd like to nominate shmoe.

 

[Moonbear]

Perhaps too soon to nominate, but I'd like to suggest putting Cogito on the "watch list" for future nominations. He/she is a fairly new member (just signed up this month), but already comes across as quite competent in philosophy.

 

[Chronos]

Nominations: 1] meteor; knowledgeable, makes excellent, sound arguments, and is bilingual. 2] Math is Hard; sensible, humble, kind and a true expert in her field of information technology.

 

[Math Is Hard]

gosh- that's extremely flattering, Chronos. Thanks! but the truth is that there isn't a medal yet that fits me. I'm not a scientist (I still have a couple of years to go before I even get my B.S. degree). I try to be a good Homework Helper, but I think for every question I respond to, I probably post two of my own, so I always have a negative "question balance."
But it sure made my day that someone I greatly respect and admire would give me a recommendation.

 

[Gokul43201]

Math is Hard; sensible, humble, kind and a true expert in her field of information technology...

...and she never loses her way !

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps too soon to nominate, but I'd like to suggest putting Cogito on the "watch list" for future nominations. He/she is a fairly new member (just signed up this month), but already comes across as quite competent in philosophy.

The criterion for medals that have been posted here seems to be science and math expertise, the willingness to help, and the ability to communicate that. I haven't seen philosophical competency etc. as in the running for medals.

 

[Moonbear]

The criterion for medals that have been posted here seems to be science and math expertise, the willingness to help, and the ability to communicate that. I haven't seen philosophical competency etc. as in the running for medals.

Well, then maybe we can call him/her a philosophy advisor. We do have philosophy forums and not many philosophers.