- #36
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
arildno said:I'd say it remains on its foetal stage.
(shed) inventors arildno. make them spend their time money, before any one
(buys) their invention.
arildno said:I'd say it remains on its foetal stage.
Right on.arildno said:Well, I wish sciencer good luck with his site, but I think his policy will make his forum degenerate pretty quickly into a crackpots' haven.
Astronuc said:
I like quiet places but not that quiet!Astronuc said:
DaveC426913 said:Well, now that you mention it...
I have often wondered if that poor reaction is due to the policy and procedure of how an offending post is initially dealt with. This is usually the user's first practical experience with the board's policies, and I imagine it feels surprisingly brusque. I suspect that the user's experience is that of being confronted by a cop, when what they were expecting to be greeted by was a mentor.
sprinklehopper said:That about sums up the problems i have had since i came here. The "mentors" seem to have developed crackpot paranioa to the point they can't deal with someone who is attempting mixing a structured learning process, tied into to solving an original problem (its ok by me that its prevented from being posted as I'm advised not to present it online anyway ) Hypothesus already gets a backseat in the scientific process, so I resorted to using a more basic and general analogy as a template for the concept needing a solution through learning.
I would say there is a definite problem here in regards to overeactivity. I get it now from reading the history of the forum. My suggestion is upgrade the reactions to newcomers, and stop using extreme language. For me i'll just stand my ground and debate in this regard, but what is this process doing for younger people coming through here. I can imagine they would go away quietly feelingl pretty ShFit. is this what you want.
In regards to "creativity" or "crackpot" terms, (usually the usuage of the term indicates the creative potential of the user) Well this has probably been said a million times. Strange how it repeatedly falls on dead ears.
Now what would happen if we reflected on how much of the top percentile of what dominates the science texts we slavishly adhere to today on this forum, derives from those considered "crackpots", at the stage where they incubated their ideas. Mendel, Faraday, Einstein, Darwin etc. etc.
That list could go on and on as well as modern equivalents, dawkings, blackmore, penrose / hammeroff, walter freeman etc. Things have definately got worse in regards to receptivity, and scientific publication itself has now become a tower of babel, mostly as the community consists of more and more piling in on the growing, career, status, job racket.
Elsevier are trying to solve this with journals which encourage hypothesus and do away with peer review. Governments are getting fed up with the worrying profit increases in the journal racket. Complexity experts such as Ruggins are called in just to deal with developing clustering programs to deal with the sheer amount of papers on single subjects, that PHD students cannot deal with.
In science, personal theories refer to ideas or hypotheses that are based on personal beliefs or opinions rather than on empirical evidence or scientific principles. Therefore, when it is stated that personal theories are not welcome, it means that they are not considered valid or acceptable in the scientific community.
Personal theories are not accepted in science because they lack the rigorous testing and evidence-based support that is required for a theory to be considered valid. In science, theories are constantly subject to scrutiny and must be supported by empirical evidence in order to be accepted.
In rare cases, personal theories may be considered valid in science if they are able to withstand rigorous testing and are supported by strong empirical evidence. However, this is a rare occurrence and most personal theories do not meet the standards of scientific validity.
A scientifically accepted theory is based on empirical evidence, has been extensively tested and supported by multiple studies, and is widely accepted by the scientific community. Personal theories, on the other hand, are based on personal beliefs or opinions and lack the same level of evidence and support.
Yes, it is important to reject personal theories in science because they can hinder the progress of scientific knowledge and understanding. By rejecting personal theories, scientists are able to focus on theories that have been rigorously tested and supported by evidence, leading to a more accurate understanding of the natural world.