My thread was marked as of Substandard Quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kimberly D Caudle
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A new forum member expressed frustration after their thread on quantum mechanics and its real-life implications was removed by a moderator, fresh_42, who cited the philosophical nature of the question as inappropriate. The member questioned why philosophical and "why" questions are not allowed, arguing that forums should encourage debate and discussion. Responses clarified that the forum's guidelines prioritize mainstream science and avoid philosophical discussions due to past issues. The member felt that the quality standards are subjective and expressed disappointment in the community's approach. Ultimately, they indicated a reluctance to participate further in the forum.
Kimberly D Caudle
Hi,

I'm guilty of being new to this forum, and thought you guys were a group of friendly and accommodative folks.

Made a mistake of posting a question about QM and its impact on real life, and was punished through an immediate removal of the thread by a gentleman that goes by the name of fresh_42.

The title of the thread in question was: https://www.physicsforums.com/posts/5808052/

I asked this gentleman the reason of his actions, and this is what he responded:

"it hasn't been a bit philosophical, it was purely philosophical. In addition "why" questions are basically not to answer. They open up a debate about all and everything. Additionally the connection to QM has been rather artificial. It doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has an accident or not. Also what does "most of the time" or "almost 100%" mean?

Regards,
fresh_42"

My paltry take on this is that the quality standards are subject to personal opinion of the moderators/mentors of this forum. If it clicks them, it's acceptable, if not then it can be promptly deleted.

- Why can't we ask simple why questions?
- Why can't we ask philosophical questions?
- Why can't questions that are "open for debate" be debated?

I registered today, and being blunted out because it did not match the mood of a certain individual.

Bully behavior, that is what it is.

Kim.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We are friendly, but we try to keep away from philosophical and religious matters. There is, as of now, no quantum mechanical model of life in general and human conscience/will in particular, thus any discussion on this would be pointless.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
dextercioby said:
We are friendly, but we try to keep away from philosophical and religious matters. There is, as of now, no quantum mechanical model of life in general and human conscience/will in particular, thus any discussion on this would be pointless.

I apologize for my outburst. A bit unnecessary.

But coming to the topic, shouldn't the members decide on whether it is pointless or worth a point or two?

The whole mission of these forums is to talk and to get the debate going. There are plenty of science websites out there that provide information. Forums exist to encourage "friendly communities."

Either way, I believe I will be wasting my time, since you guys operate in a certain manner, which cannot be questioned.

I had to let my thoughts known here. Would rather not participate in the future.

Thank you.
Kim.
 
Kimberly D Caudle said:
Hi,

I'm guilty of being new to this forum, and thought you guys were a group of friendly and accommodative folks.

Made a mistake of posting a question about QM and its impact on real life, and was punished through an immediate removal of the thread by a gentleman that goes by the name of fresh_42.

The title of the thread in question was: https://www.physicsforums.com/posts/5808052/

I asked this gentleman the reason of his actions, and this is what he responded:

"it hasn't been a bit philosophical, it was purely philosophical. In addition "why" questions are basically not to answer. They open up a debate about all and everything. Additionally the connection to QM has been rather artificial. It doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has an accident or not. Also what does "most of the time" or "almost 100%" mean?

Regards,
fresh_42"

My paltry take on this is that the quality standards are subject to personal opinion of the moderators/mentors of this forum. If it clicks them, it's acceptable, if not then it can be promptly deleted.

- Why can't we ask simple why questions?
Physics isn't much concerned with "why" questions. For a good explanation, see this interview with Richard Feynman - .
Kimberly D Caudle said:
- Why can't we ask philosophical questions?
Because they aren't allowed at this site. We used to have a section that dealt with philosophy, but such questions produced so much heat and so little light, that the staff (mentors and administrators) decided to discontinue this section.
Kimberly D Caudle said:
- Why can't questions that are "open for debate" be debated?
Our guiding principle is this, taken from the rules and guidelines for this forum:
We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.
Kimberly D Caudle said:
I registered today, and being blunted out because it did not match the mood of a certain individual.

Bully behavior, that is what it is.

Kim.
It had nothing to do with the mood of an individual. When you registered at this site, you registered under the condition that you agreed with our rules and guidelines. Please take another look at them - https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995 and Evo
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
22K
Replies
0
Views
17K
Replies
1
Views
25K
Replies
0
Views
21K
Back
Top