I enjoy participating in the philosophy section of the forums here, but I think its current location and format are greatly detracting from its potential. Philosophy is an established and complex field, with it's own textbooks and PhDs, etc. There are established bodies of knowledge and plenty of active research. Unlike the other subsections, however, posters in the philosophy forum are not asked to adhere to established theories. The result of this is that much of what could be thoughtful and informative philosophical discussion seems to be drowned out by off the cuff personal thoughts, which people are often very passionate about, but which can bear little resemblance to what is considered to be in the realm of possibility philosophically. The philosophical discussions that are more like what one would find in a philosophy of science or philosophy of math program are contained in the other forums and not found in the philosophy section. For example, interpretations of quantum mechanics fall in the realm of academic philosophy. Philosophers of science argue over Bohr and Bohm and the ontology of quantum field theory, etc. On PF, interpretation threads are mixed in with the other quantum physics threads. On the quantum physics forum you can find different people who only post in those interpretation threads or who avoid them entirely despite being active on the others. Similarly, to a lesser degree, the same thing happens with set/number theory, the meaning of time in relativity, etc. I believe much of this problem is that, unlike even sociology or history, philosophy is stuck as a subsection of general discussion in the lounge. Those people interested in learning about or discussing interpretations of quantum mechanics or the nature of time are probably not aware that those areas are actually philosophy. If they are not aware of this fact, they surely won't be looking at a subsection of the lounge for intelligent answers. The rules of the philosophy forum also reflect its standing as a lounge topic. The rules require adherence to established science, but not to established philosophy. While I'm not saying that established philosophy is immune to revision, we do amateur readers a disservice by allowing posters to state definitively, for example, that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5. Part of the philosophy major is a required logic sequence, and I can assure you that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4 and nothing else. Anyone claiming otherwise would fail their philosophy class. We don't allow such posts on a math forum, why allow them in philosophy? My suggestion is that we pull philosophy out of the lounge and make it a real subject. Allow a venue for discussions of interpretations and ontological meanings. Create new rules, and moderate the forum to bring it closer to the quality level of the science forums. By moderating accordingly, discussions of QM and relativity interpretations, etc, could easily create a worthwhile posting volume from the beginning. The current forum could remain where it is as "Other Philosophy," or it could be made a subforum of the new philosophy forum. Also, by keeping the main, moderated forum limited to philosophy of physics (or science), it would not at all be out of place on the front page of PF and would synergize quite well. Providing a quality philosophy forum would give a proper introduction to philosophy to amateurs and perhaps get them involved in real philosophy. I think this would be a great thing, as physicists especially are usually interested in issues of ontology and have the analytical mind to add to the discussions. It would also attract philosophers of science from elsewhere on the internet. Frankly, the typical philosophy focused website looks like PFs S&D forum. There are also a lot of philosophers interested in and focused on physics. Finally, I direct you to some contemporary philosophy of physics for an example of what more advanced discussion topics could look like. From http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/physics.html: "On Tensorial Concomitants and the Non-Existence of a Gravitational Stress-Energy Tensor." "The modal nature of structures in ontic structural realism." "Reduction and Emergence in Bose-Einstein Condensates." "Entanglement Exchange and Bohmian Mechanics." "On the Explanatory Role of Mathematics in Empirical Science." See also http://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/papers/ for some philosophy of physics papers primarily published in leading physics journals. To summarize my suggestion: 1) Create a new forum: "Philosophy of Physics" or "Philosophy of Science." 2) Moderate the forum like a science forum so that definitive unsupported claims must conform with a major contemporary theory and all other claims must be well supported or framed as speculation (don't allow anything that would clearly earn a failing grade in a philosophy class). 3) Move topics on QM interpretations, the existence of numbers, etc, to the new forum to immediately raise the level of quality and awareness and set a new quality bar. 4) Rename the current philosophy forum to "Other Philosophy" and keep it where it is or make it a subsection of the new forum so it attracts less academic discussions away from the main forum. Keep the same, relatively relaxed, rules on this forum.