Physicsforums.com: Speculative Posts & Academic Integrity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Galahad
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Physicsforums.com enforces a strict policy against overly speculative posts to maintain high academic integrity and quality discussions. The site aims to foster intellectually sound conversations while discouraging poorly formulated personal theories and unfounded challenges to mainstream science. This policy was implemented after previous experiences showed that low-quality posts detracted from the forum's overall value. The moderators emphasize that while there are many forums for free-form discussions, Physicsforums.com seeks to fill a niche for serious academic discourse. The approach has proven successful, indicating a demand for such a structured environment in the online physics community.
Galahad
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I just have a quick question on the site guidelines:

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.

Just out of curiousity, what is the purpose of this policy? It just seems like this might prohibit or limit the free exchange of ideas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a matter of time and quality - quality of the forums and time the moderators have to spend sifting through and responding to crackpottery. We decided after several years of existence that it was not worth our time and the typical low-quality of such posts was bringing down the overall quality of the forum.

This is not public property, and we certainly can limit the exchange of ideas to those we consider to be up to the standards of the forum.
 
Galahad said:
I just have a quick question on the site guidelines:



Just out of curiousity, what is the purpose of this policy? It just seems like this might prohibit or limit the free exchange of ideas.

You are also not the first person to ask this. If you care to do a search in this section of PF, you'd see that the issue has been discussed to death.

1. We used to not have such policy. And it was choking us. This current policy has been in placed for about... oh, what, a year or two? And it is working out very well.

2. There is an extreme shortage of forums that strictly enforce such policy. In other words, you have an overwhelming choice of forums JUST for free-form, speculative, free-for-all, talk-anything-you-like medium. We just want to be different. You have more than ample avenue to pursue if you want that kind. If you want our kind, how many do you think there are? So let us be different and fill a niche that isn't filled very much out there in internet-land. Based on our sucess so far, it is obvious that there IS a need for such a format.

3. I've never seen "free exhance of ideas" in an open forum actually amounts to anything useful. Have you? Have you seen such activity resulting in a physics paper in a peer-reviewed physics journal?

Zz.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
22K
Replies
169
Views
29K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
502K
Back
Top