Navigating Forum Rules: Challenging Mainstream Science Not Allowed

[The Fool]

Since my first post on your esteemed forums appears to have attracted reactions varying from hostile to condescending; and since I have no wish to compound my earlier transgressions: and since, specifically, my attention has been drawn to your guidelines, could you please clarify the following:

challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site

 

[Moonbear]

You left out the word "unfounded."

The full text of that section of the guidelines is:

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 a speculative nature that lack substantial support or well-considered argumentation will be deleted. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, with an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

Seems pretty self-explanatory.

 

[The Fool]

Self-explanatory guidelines are like self-increasing bank balances; desirable but seldom found. If that particular phrase had explained itself to me I would not have troubled you for clarification.

I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science". I don't need to point out the tautology, the word "unfounded" is redundant and the phrase is accurate as I presented it.

Challenges are the life blood of science. The ability to dream, to speculate, to envisage new ideas, these are the qualities that open new dimensions. And scientific thought advances, surely, where people can speculate in a supportive and receptive environment. Or have I missed something important?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Or have I missed something important?

You've missed the past five years of PFs existence. Rules are not arbitrarily thoughtup. They are the result of experiences we've had in the past. In the past we allowed such discussions and found that for every sincere and honorable person that holds such dicussion there are 50 nuts and creeps that aren't and don't. We don't have time to police discussions. So basicly we aren't against the idea of such colorful and creative brainstorming, but we've decided for the sake of our audience (high school, college...) it's better to leave those discussions at the door.

 

[Moonbear]

I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science". I don't need to point out the tautology, the word "unfounded" is redundant and the phrase is accurate as I presented it.

No, it is not. One can challenge hypotheses and conclusions in mainstream science if it is based on solid reasoning or facts, or discuss controversial issues, such as publications presenting opposing hypotheses. It's done all the time among scientists. Unfounded is the key word there. If you have no basis for your challenge, it's just bunk.

Challenges are the life blood of science.

But challenges based on wild speculation with no factual or experimental support are useless.

Because there are far too many people who can't distinguish between unfounded speculation and legitimate challenges, and because we primarily focus our content for students here who would be confused by such speculation when distinctions are not made clear, we limit discussion to that found in the mainstream scientific literature, namely, peer-reviewed journals. Scientific conferences and direct discussion with scientific colleagues and collaborators are the more appropriate place to discuss the bleeding edge research that might challenge the conclusions of prior studies.

The independent research forum is the one place here that we permit work that is original or outside the mainstream, provided it adheres to all of our posting requirements.

 

[The Fool]

OK that seems fair enough. Maybe I just caught people having a bad day yesterday.

 

[russ_watters]

I deleted the post and issued the warning. I would be willing to remove the warning if you abide by the forum guidelines. Push gravity, however, is about the worst kind of physics crackpottery there is and we will not entertain discussion of it here.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I was treading on eggshells at breakfast. Took me the whole morning to clean it up!

 

[matt grime]

I omitted the word "unfounded" deliberately. It means "not based on solid reasons or facts". As defined, of course, by "mainstream science".

Facts are not defined by mainstream science. Facts are, well, facts. If for instance you wish to discuss the troubling (in some sense) fact that theories of a quantum nature are not good at taking gravity into account please feel free. That is not wild speculation. If you want to start a discussion about how Ideal Gas Laws are practically useless for small systems then I'm sure there would be a lively debate about stochastic physics.

 

[Hootenanny]

You may also not be creating an impression that you wish to seriously discuss scientific theory with a name such as 'The Fool'.