Outside the Mainstream Forum

  1. Tom Mattson

    Tom Mattson 5,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Outside the Mainstream" Forum

    To the members of the PF community,

    As the next step in the growth of Physics Forums, we are updating our policy concerning the development of personal theories at this website. We will be creating a new, moderated Forum entitled Outside the Mainstream, wherein such theories can be submitted for approval by the Staff and Science Advisors of Physics Forums. We will implement this new policy in such a way as to be of maximum benefit first to Physics Forums and second to you, the theorist. The policy change will take effect on July 15, 2005, and the new Forum will be a Subforum of Scepticism and Debunking.

    To guarantee that the scientific and academic integrity of Physics Forums is not compromised we will only accept independent research that conforms to strict guidelines, which will be posted at the top of the new Forum.

    To guarantee sufficient latitude to the independent theorist guidelines will not be imposed as to the probable truth or falsity of the submitted theory. Rather, the guidelines will be constraints on methodology and format.

    As a consequence of this upgrade, all non mainstream posts and threads that were formerly moved to Theory Development will henceforth be deleted. If your post or thread is deleted under this policy you will receive a Private Message indicating such, and you will be invited to resubmit to the new Outside the Mainstream Forum, according to the guidelines of that Forum. All submissions will be sent to a moderation queue, where they will be discussed by the Staff and Science Advisors. We will notify you with a decision within 7 days. If your submission is rejected, you will be told the reason, and you will be given one opportunity to resubmit.

    We believe that this new feature will serve as the next step in PF's upward development, and that it will be enjoyable for our most original, creative members.

    The following new Theory Development Guidelines will be posted at the top of the new Forum and will Take Effect July 15, 2005

    We welcome your questions and feedback.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Math Is Hard

    Math Is Hard 4,915
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Does this mean that the old TD subforum will completely go away?
     
  4. Tom Mattson

    Tom Mattson 5,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The current TD subforum will be locked and moved out of the Physics area, but it will still be readable.
     
  5. Moonbear

    Moonbear 12,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think this is a great solution to the issues we've been addressing. Just one question; how will science advisors either be chosen or given the opportunity to view such posts prior to their approval in order to discuss whether they meet the guidelines? Will they have the ability to view the queued submissions, or will they be invited to view certain ones deemed to be within their area of expertise? Or does science advisor in this context refer to something different from these little medals we have over on the left here?

    Well, I guess that was more than just one question, but pretty much all just trying to clarify the same thing.
     
  6. Tom Mattson

    Tom Mattson 5,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    All Science Advisors, along with the Staff, will be able to view and post to the screening forum. The only exceptions will be those threads that are submitted by either Science Advisors or Staff Members. In those cases the author will refrain from the discussion, despite their status.

    I am indeed talking about Science Advisor Medalists, but none of you will be under any obligation to participate.
     
  7. Moonbear

    Moonbear 12,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So it will be sort of like a study section review, where those reviewing a topic will be known to each other and able to openly discuss concerns or support for a topic, but then once a decision is made, the summary or consensus decision will be presented anonymously to the poster? If so, that sounds reasonable.
     
  8. Tom Mattson

    Tom Mattson 5,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, that's right. I will be identified as the Forum Leader, and I will deliver all rejections. I will only indicate the reasons for rejection, not who said what.

    The only instances in which there won't be anonymity is in those cases in which a Staff Member or Science Advisor submits a thread for consideration, because he or she will have access to the screening forum.
     
  9. PerennialII

    PerennialII 1,102
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A solution worthy of applauds ... preserving the 'out of the box' creativity and providing a clearly defined venue for it, all the while sustaining and strengthening the integrity of PF .... :!!) .
     
  10. I think this is a great initiative and i believe lots of new people will be attracted or repelled by the way real science actually works. This initiative will certainly illustrate that.

    regards
    marlon
     
  11. jtbell

    Staff: Mentor

    It will be interesting to see how many people actually submit threads for this new forum, and how many of them are accepted!
     
  12. I don't know. What would you do with my mainstrean conflict example here. When digging into the strenghts and weakenesses of the both, you may stumble upon big surprises ending up
    with rock solid evidence -clear to everybody- that the political popular "main" mainstream appears to be flawed whilst the little mainstream looks to be right. Not something you get sold to proper paper easily.
     
  13. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 30,440
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I didn't comment on this before, but since you brought up your postings once more, here goes.

    There is this "myth", or maybe a fallacy, that ALL stuff published in peer-reviewed journals all follow one line of thought. This is absolutely FALSE. Case in point: the origin of the pairing symmetry and "kink" in the ARPES spectra along the nodal direction of high-Tc cuprate. You have 2/3 of the community pointing it to the magnetic/spin fluctuation origin, while the remaining 1/3 pointing to phonons. BOTH sides are getting their papers published, both experimental and theoretical! Not only that, there are splinter groups also publishing other models.

    There is very seldom "rock solid evidence" at the research front, and ESPECIALLY in fields that tend to have lower degree of certainty in terms of experimental evidence. I would be very skeptical at claims that (i) you have a "homerun" theory in such a field of study and (ii) that such "non-mainstream" idea with that kind of certainty to be "correct" is not publishable based on what I have mentioned above. I don't see how "debating" it on PF would contribute to the body of knowledge.

    Zz.
     
    John M. Carr likes this.
  14. Concurring with the rock solid part, the jury remains out of course.But the example is at the lower end of the complexity of science, no longer interesting for the cutting edge seekers, done deals. Not to be discussed again. However, was to path getting along there too narrow? Were the conclusions too quick and too dirty? Have new devellopments been looked at? So if you happen to walk the same path years later, something that cutting edge guys usually don't do, but being able to see much more to the left and the right now, would you want to discuss that?

    [Drat! I accidentally edited your posting. I have tried to restore it to its original version, sorry - Zz]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2005
  15. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 30,440
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Then I criticize you for making such statements in the first place. The impression left by such things cannot be left alone, which is why I intruded into this in the first place. You are giving the impression that science IGNORES "rock solid" evidence just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Nothing could be further than the truth here.

    I again would point out the SAME situation developing in condensed matter physics that is causing us to look again at the BCS theory and to what extent it is valid. The BCS theory is one of, if not THE, most tested and verified theory in existence. Yet, it doesn't stop us from re-examining to what extent it will work based on "rock solid" emperical evidence from high-Tc superconductors.

    So I do not buy this apparent scenario that we do not go back and retrace our steps when the occassion warrants such a thing. Nothing is sacred in physics.

    Zz.
     
  16. Most probably true in the hard physics branches. But I know better for the Earth/climate related branches. Perhaps you have not followed the hockeystick debate in climate science which is a long story of selective data mining and ignoring evidence. The biggest evidence that is categorically ignored for instance is the Mammoth steppe controversy.

    Then I withdraw my concurrence. We were talking about falsifying. I believe that circumstancial evidence can never proof a soft earth/climate hypothesis to be right but it can falsify it. That's the rock solid part, equivalent to rock solid evidence that the Earth isn't flat. That was what I was talking about. If we accept that the two papers are in conflict then one is probably more right than the other. We can find out which one by looking at all the evidence, including mammoths.

    Edit: now, before continuing the discussion it may be advisable to take note of this thread and this one. It would help explaining what my point is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2005
  17. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 30,440
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Then may I suggest that you confine your criticism to, and make it explicitly clear of, the area of science you are dealing with? Like I said, I would not have jumped into this in the first place till the overall impression left upon science in general is being smeared. As someone who is a part of it, and works in it, I simply could not let something like this slip by that implicates me indirectly.

    Zz.
     
  18. Tom Mattson

    Tom Mattson 5,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think reasonable path would be the following. If you are discussing work that appears in journals or textbooks, whether to agree or disagree with it, it should go in the Earth forum for discussion. But if you are presenting your own positive claims, then it should go to the new forum when it opens.
     
  19. Moonbear

    Moonbear 12,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There can certainly be controversial topics for which neither view is outside the mainstream. If you're discussing something that has proponents on two different sides of the issue in the published literature (sometimes journals even manage to get publications submitted close enough to one another that they can print them back-to-back in the same issue to really highlight the controversy; or they invite certain authors to write articles to accomplish this), then there is no reason that discussion of the two (or more) commonly held explanations can't be discussed in the open forums. If someone isn't sure about such a topic and submits it to the "Outside the Mainstream" forum, then I see no reason such a topic couldn't be promptly moved out to another appropriate forum for discussion.

    If, however, you are saying the mainstream literature has mostly reached a consensus on a topic, but you don't agree for X, Y, Z reasons and instead think you have a better explanation/theory, that should go in the "Outside the Mainstream" (OTM) forum. But, if one of those reasons you don't agree is that you think the published literature, particularly key studies forming the basis of the other theory, is flawed in its methodology, that's when we're saying take it to the journals (if you identify flawed methodology in a published work, the appropriate action is to write a letter to the editor of the journal that published it identifying the problems and letting them handle it either by contacting the authors for further clarification and publication of erratum as necessary, publishing your letter that raises the issues, or formally retracting the article) rather than here; that's because the editors and authors need to be given the opportunity to respond when flaws are suspected in their work. And if you can't or refuse to offer support for your own theory, then we will reject it from further discussion.
     
  20. Gokul43201

    Gokul43201 11,141
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmmm...reading that post, I feel the new forum should just be called TD, after all. Really, it is just a place where members can go to, if they wish to "publish" their original research on PF. How does it matter whether or not it is "mainstream" ? Is any other part of PF appropriate for discussing original theories ? I think not.
     
  21. You are right, Gokul

    Yeah, just let TD for what it is...I mean, we should also not expect too much of PF. Most of the members are not your average PhD students, professors or professional researchers. Lot's of members are still high school students with a new-grown interest for science. It is perfectly normal they wanna 'publish' their ideas and it is up to us to tell where they are wrong or why a certain way of thinking is not conform the way science works and progresses.

    I really think all this whinning about TD, which was started by one specific member btw, is a pure manifestation of ego-centrism and bad judging . If a person has a problem with it, then just do not visit this thread. Also, the stupid and superfluous suggestion to rename TD is really useless. I wonder why we all care about what one member is whinning about the last few months.

    Do not change something that works perfectly fine.
    If it ain't broken, don't fix it...

    regards
    marlon
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?