Suggestion Personal theory forum/less ridicule

[Evo]

Hyperstrings, we cannot be all things to all people, it's just that simple. We have a niche, and that niche is to stick to known, accepted, mainstream science. Sure there are other things going on, and once they fall into the former description, they are welcome to be discussed here.

There are many places on the internet where you can discuss anything, why don't you go to these places? Oh, they have crackpots? Oh, they aren't moderated to keep out nonsense? Oh you want to be part of a forum that holds to a high standard? Well, you can't have it all. If you find a forum where you can, please let me know. Until then, if you wish to be a member here and abide by our rules, you are welcome, otherwise, I suggest you quit complaining that we strive to maintain a quality science forum for KNOWN science. We do not pretend to be anything else.

 

[HyperStrings]

Thank you Charles, Greg and Dale. I did want to post the good points and where we agree first, but I felt I really had to say 'something'. Its quite possible, I am over-reacting, and you may find I agree with you more than you may think at the moment. Nevertheless, I will agree to the rules, so long as discussion is always allowable. I understand you have done so much for the forum and it may be something, 'sacred' to you. I only plee that you adhere to the ideal of democracy and open discourse and thus allow logic, philosophy of theory and scientific discourse, to be presented. The appeals to a non 'peer reviewed' paper are lavish, for you do not feel you can peer review a paper? You do have enough intelligence to find flaws in modern peer reviewed papers correct? This gives people a false identity of truth and valid research. As if millions of peer reviewed papers are just fact. It gives a false presentation to the new paradigm of science. You can observe extreme spectrum of misinterpretations, even 'mistakes' in virtually every paper, whether peer reviewed or not. From really bad papers, with outdated interpretations, that might be cited 1000 times, to a really good paper, with 1 citation and 2 reads. Even after all that, you still have to 'apply' the papers to a discussion. Why are we even talking about the papers in the first place? A mistake? Another 3 scientists solutions into a different equation that fixes the mistake? What are we even doing this science for if we aren't working together on what the paper is trying to do?

 

[Drakkith]

We are the peer reviewers, To block Arxiv papers is going to extremes.

We are not the peer reviewers. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people who visit this forum, both members and non-members, are not even close to being qualified to judge the validity and accuracy of an arxiv paper. Not even the science advisors and mentors are qualified to judge more than a very small percentage of papers on arxiv. That's why, when push comes to shove, we don't allow arxiv as a valid, peer-reviewed source. You can certainly find many high-quality papers on arxiv, but there are plenty of inaccurate, incoherent, or crank papers on arxiv.

 

[Evo]

Thank you Charles, Greg and Dale. I did want to post the good points and where we agree first, but I felt I really had to say 'something'. Its quite possible, I am over-reacting, and you may find I agree with you more than you may think at the moment. Nevertheless, I will agree to the rules, so long as discussion is always allowable. I understand you have done so much for the forum and it may be something, 'sacred' to you. I only plee that you adhere to the ideal of democracy and open discourse and thus allow logic, philosophy of theory and scientific discourse, to be presented. The appeals to a non 'peer reviewed' paper are lavish, for you do not feel you can peer review a paper? You do have enough intelligence to find flaws in modern peer reviewed papers correct? This gives people a false identity of truth and valid research. As if millions of peer reviewed papers are just fact. It gives a false presentation to the new paradigm of science. You can observe extreme spectrum of misinterpretations, even 'mistakes' in virtually every paper, whether peer reviewed or not. From really bad papers, with outdated interpretations, that might be cited 1000 times, to a really good paper, with 1 citation and 2 reads. Even after all that, you still have to 'apply' the papers to a discussion. Why are we even talking about the papers in the first place? A mistake? Another 3 scientists solutions into a different equation that fixes the mistake? What are we even doing this science for if we aren't working together on what the paper is trying to do?

We do not "peer review" papers. We do not allow personal theories or speculation. That is not what we do here as has been explained to you repeatedly.

There are approved journals for this purpose, if the papers haven't passed peer review in an accepted journal, they can not be discussed here.

This discussion is over.