Proposal: Sociology Threads Should Have Their Own Subforum

[nrqed]

I agree it is a slippery slope. Since threads about politics haven't been showing up here, I don't see why this is an issue. It doesn't seem to have been going quite that far.

---

But that's the key point. If you allow talking about citations, number of books sold, who should be hired by whom, etc, then you have no justification to remove a thread from someone talking about politics.

Physicsforums needs to decide whether it wants to be an informal version of a journal article or a formal version of a "physicist's conversation by the coffee maker"

But there is already a subforum General Discussion for coffee maker type of conversations.

Some of us think the latter would be more valuable, some clearly the former. I don't really see why the conversations can't coexist on the same subforum. Surely if you want to make a good impression on a passing newcomer the best way to do that would be to post more of the threads you find interesting, not prevent others from posting what they find interesting.

I think that this is flawed logic. Let's apply the same logic to a different situation. Let's say there are crackpots posting on a forum and someone wants to ban their posts. Applying your logic, you might say "don't ban crackpot posts, simply post more posts than the crackpots"!

 

[George Jones]

I don't think so.

Zz.

These days, BPS states usually arise in the context of supersymmetry and D-branes. In this context, their natural home is the Beyond the Standard Model forum.

The latest thread on BPS states in the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics forum, doesn't appear to be in this context, but I'm not entirely sure. Even if this latest thread is in the "right" forum, it might have a better shot at being answered in the Beyond the Standard Model by people knowledgeable about BPS states.

It's not always clear where a thread belongs.

 

[robphy]

It is my humble opinion that threads about the social aspects of a subject are not only merely appropriate for a forum dedicated to that subject but that they should be actively encouraged.

One reason I like physicsforums (and don't like sci.physics.* ) is because there is some organization of topics... and, if a forum gets too diluted, some reorganization may occur.

I personally think that there is distinction between a discussion of PHYSICS and a discussion of PHYSICISTS (which includes the history and sociology of how the field of PHYSICS develops). Both are important (with PHYSICS more important for me)... but if there is sufficient interest in both, it might be better to split things off and restore the organization.

Here, I prefer the focus to stay on physics and would be willing to see an occasional discussion or two on physicists... as one would probably see in a future physics textbook on this subject, with occasional sprinkles of history and sociology. If I want to read more about the history or sociology, I'll try to find a different subforum (or book).

Maybe some threads need a label indicating it is more about PHYSICISTS than about PHYSICS.

 

[Cincinnatus]

These days, BPS states usually arise in the context of supersymmetry and D-branes. In this context, their natural home is the Beyond the Standard Model forum.

The latest thread on BPS states in the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics forum, doesn't appear to be in this context, but I'm not entirely sure. Even if this latest thread is in the "right" forum, it might have a better shot at being answered in the Beyond the Standard Model by people knowledgeable about BPS states.

It's not always clear where a thread belongs.

and posts about social issues in theoretical physics have a better chance of being answered here (where the theoretical physicists are) than they do in the social sciences forum or general discussion...Maybe the original proposal of the first post in this thread is best. Why not create a sub-sub forum of beyond the standard model to house these posts? That way these conversations would be seen by knowledgeable people since there would be an explicit button you could click on when you want to find such a conversation. This would probably work much better than just requiring them to go in the social sciences forum which we know professional physicists are much less likely to click on.

 

[arivero]

About moving threads, again... are the blogs fully functional now? I tried to limit controversial topics by using the blog for the more speculative entries, this is an advantage we have over newsgroups. But they were not working... people reported of garbaged TeX and so. That was some months ago, so let's asume the problem is fixed. Then it could be possible to give admins the right to move threads not only to other subforums but also to the blog of the Original Poster. Given that the threads under discussion, say "stats of..." or "masses of..." are perceived by PF veterans as "oh, another Marcus's thread", "another arivero's thread", etc, they could be moved to the respective blogs AND marked as moved in the initial subforum.

 

[humanino]

Why not create a sub-sub forum of beyond the standard model to house these posts?

That's by far the best solution. However, it will require a lot of work and I am not sure admins will consider it worth.

 

[arivero]

And all these comments do not even involve the even more irrelevant comments such as "who did his PhD with whom and who is a rising star and deserves a postdoc at such and such institution" which , IMHO constitute noise which lowers the credibility of the forum.

Again, I think it is my fault here. Time ago I did some queries about the PhD advisor/student relationships in theoretical physics; in fact it is also my fault the existence of a "tree mode" in SPIRES HEPnames database (Not that I programmed it, but I suggested it). When my page on this genealogy was about to dissapear, it was transplanted into the wikipedia.

Whatever. The observation of this genealogy is that about one half of the Nobel Prizes are awarded to people whose "family" has already a Nobel Prize. And also the same seems to apply to minor rewards, as "topcites".

The interpretation is that it happens because there are only a few groups leading, across time, the research on key topics of fundamental/theoretical/particle physics. Why does it happen, that should be worth of a real sociology discussion. But the point is that adscription to one of the "key families" is a hint of possible hotness of a topic.

This was discussed a lot of time ago, and perhaps not even in PF. So when some mention of this kind appears here, it lacks context, I am afraid.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Again, I think it is my fault here. Time ago I did some queries about the PhD advisor/student relationships in theoretical physics; in fact it is also my fault the existence of a "tree mode" in SPIRES HEPnames database (Not that I programmed it, but I suggested it). When my page on this genealogy was about to dissapear, it was transplanted into the wikipedia.

Whatever. The observation of this genealogy is that about one half of the Nobel Prizes are awarded to people whose "family" has already a Nobel Prize. And also the same seems to apply to minor rewards, as "topcites".

The interpretation is that it happens because there are only a few groups leading, across time, the research on key topics of fundamental/theoretical/particle physics. Why does it happen, that should be worth of a real sociology discussion. But the point is that adscription to one of the "key families" is a hint of possible hotness of a topic.

This was discussed a lot of time ago, and perhaps not even in PF. So when some mention of this kind appears here, it lacks context, I am afraid.

This is really interesting, I wonder if the same is true for citations in theoretical neuroscience. I'll definitely look into it when I have time...

 

[josh1]

A compromise solution might be a sticky. But the initiating post would have to make quite clear the sociological and therefore fundamentally unscientific and even meaningless nature of the thread. It might even be a kind of trash thread.

 

[Cincinnatus]

A compromise solution might be a sticky. But the initiating post would have to make quite clear the sociological and therefore fundamentally unscientific and even meaningless nature of the thread. It might even be a kind of trash thread.

Hey now, that might be an ok compromise.

but why claim social issues are "meaningless"? Just because you aren't interested in them? Clearly some of the members of this forum are interested enough to track down real statistics and data on these matters.

Discussion of social issues in theoretical physics may not be appropriate for this forum but that certainly doesn't make them meaningless.

 

[humanino]

but why claim social issues are "meaningless"? Just because you aren't interested in them? Clearly some of the members of this forum are interested enough to track down real statistics and data on these matters.

One can be interested in those issues and still feel that they are innapropriate as such.

 

[ZapperZ]

These days, BPS states usually arise in the context of supersymmetry and D-branes. In this context, their natural home is the Beyond the Standard Model forum.

Then hit the REPORT button and suggests that it be moved.

We (the Mentors) do this all the time, moving threads into forums that are more suitable. There's zero issue here.

Zz.

 

[arivero]

Then hit the REPORT button and suggests that it be moved.

We (the Mentors) do this all the time, moving threads into forums that are more suitable. There's zero issue here.

Zz.

Then the remark
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.
should be also be enhanced to "unappropiated".

 

[Gokul43201]

Then the remark
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.
should be also be enhanced to "unappropiated".

Unfortunately, that description can not be changed. But it is to be understood that any issue with a post/thread that you believe requires moderation can be addressed by the REPORT feature.What do the Mentors say about a subforum under BtSM, or a sticky thread?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Unfortunately, that description can not be changed. But it is to be understood that any issue with a post/thread that you believe requires moderation can be addressed by the REPORT feature.

It can, and it has :)

 

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm...I was under the impression that this was a difficult change to implement. Well, I'm sure rivero's happy to make full use of it now!

 

[josh1]

...but why claim social issues are "meaningless"?

Sorry. I meant meaningless in the sense that sociological considerations cannot be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories. Maybe "useless" would have been a better choice.

 

[arivero]

Sorry. I meant meaningless in the sense that sociological considerations cannot be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories. Maybe "useless" would have been a better choice.

Well the difference between mathematical considerations and sociological considerations, both of which can not be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories, is that mathematical considerations show "causes", while sociological considerations show "symptoms". A problem in theoretical physics is that very frequently these symptoms reflect the math, not the physics.

 

[Fra]

We have done it for all the other physics forums. So far, it has worked very well that philosophical issues are moved to the Philosophy forum. It doesn't relegate them to anything less, other than in the minds of some people here. It certainly doesn't impede the "progress" by any stretch of the imagination.

I see and understand the good point about this and about rights. I agree that if a particular discussion are moved from here to there, it doesn't matter. And no subforum is inferior of another of course. That's great.

But is that the way it works?

I see the chance is that if some discussions are banned here, they might not move, but change/disappear. Because who would expect discussions of funding and trends in research in the sociology section? Not me at least. I don't look for things that interest me in places where I don't expect to find it.

It seems desirable that potential participants in discussions are to be likely to locate them. If there is too much partitioning and too low activity in each subforum I think at least I would tend to miss it.

Except for obvious spam/crack-posts, which as I understand is not the topic here, I personally see the topics as a pure matter of effiency of indexing, so that the users can find what they are interested in?

/Fredrik

 

[nrqed]

As evinced by the recent shambles of "Where should Lisi do a postdoc" or some other such gormless nonsense. Quite how anyone could post such a topic with a straight face is beyond me.

I would really like people to comment on this.

Because this shows how things can degenerate into once we start letting sociological discussions flourish in a science forum.

 

[BenTheMan]

I would really like people to comment on this.

Because this shows how things can degenerate into once we start letting sociological discussions flourish in a science forum.

I was pretty disgusted about that thread---I would hate the field to descend into some damned soap opera with ``good guys'' and ``bad guys'' and the evil twin who we thaught died in Namiba, etc.

I think that I started this thread because the things I saw posted somehow reached a critical mass in my mind, and the whole thing kind of made my head explode.

I don't mind talking about the sociology of the field occasionally---exactly as someone pointed out, by the coffee maker. But I also don't mind talking about politics occasionally. That doesn't mean that I want to see it in this forum. The value of Physics Forums is that there IS a place to discuss physics in a serious manner, among serious people. I remember one of the earlier posts I made here was in trying to prove that N=4 SYM theory WAS conformally invariant---and in fact it was Garrett Lisi who answered my question.

The problem is that there are some people here whose whole contribution here can be sumarized as "captain of the Lee Smolin fan club". And I personally would rather have a place to talk about physics. If you want to tell me WHY spin foams reproduce the standard model, or WHY the new Smolin paper (which predicts four neutrinos) isn't ruled out by electroweak data, I would LOVE to hear. But I don't care, and judging by the response many here don't care, about how many people cite that paper.

 

[ZapperZ]

I see and understand the good point about this and about rights. I agree that if a particular discussion are moved from here to there, it doesn't matter. And no subforum is inferior of another of course. That's great.

But is that the way it works?

I see the chance is that if some discussions are banned here, they might not move, but change/disappear. Because who would expect discussions of funding and trends in research in the sociology section? Not me at least. I don't look for things that interest me in places where I don't expect to find it.

It seems desirable that potential participants in discussions are to be likely to locate them. If there is too much partitioning and too low activity in each subforum I think at least I would tend to miss it.

Except for obvious spam/crack-posts, which as I understand is not the topic here, I personally see the topics as a pure matter of effiency of indexing, so that the users can find what they are interested in?

/Fredrik

And I don't see it that way. I can easily argue that you've also missed several other "important" issues in various other physics forums. Why not simply have just ONE big physics forums so that no one would miss anything?

I have seen how a forum gets bogged down with peripheral issues unrelated to the actual physics. Since these physics forums are meant to discuss physics in the first place, we are trying to bring it back to where it should be, not trying to change it. All the other physics forums follow that rule. Why should be one be any different?

If you do not read other forums and missed what might interest you, that's your loss. No forum can protect you from your own choices and decisions. And no forum can be everything to everyone. We had similar complaint when we got rid of "crackpot forum" a while back, that we are stunting "creativity" and that no one would want to be here. Look at where this forum is now!

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would really like people to comment on this.

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, though I'm sure the intended audience would never find it there. I can empathize with the regulars who fear the loss of a coffee table, but I think they should just learn to find their way to the one in GD.

The main forums are not meant for coffee table discussion, and any such threads should be allowed only at the discretion of Mentors.

Having said that, I recognize that there is definitely the need for permitting some kinds of threads not directly discussing physics, such as announcements of conferences, seminars, etc. that are relevant to the community. I imagine the Mentors will have no problems with such communication residing within the subforum.

 

[Kea]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum...

As an old poetry loving, only-BtSM regular, who doesn't come here much any more, I say Thank You for doing something about this. It is with great dismay that I have watched the deterioration in the general quality of posts since people like Careful stopped coming here, and people like selfAdjoint (RIP) passed on.

 

[marcus]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, ...
The main forums are not meant for coffee table discussion, and any such threads should be allowed only at the discretion of Mentors...

Can't speak for others but my interest in BtSM is approximately that of science journalist or contemporary science historian. I try to keep track of the shifting approaches to QG. Incidentally this involves keeping track of rates of peer-reviewed publication and rates of citation. But, as you suggested, I also watch the lineup of topics and invited speakers at major conferences. And I read as many papers as I have time for, in a number of different QG approaches. I am skeptical of all the approaches, they all have problems, but alert for signs of progress. This is not a merely social or "coffee-table" interest---although occasionally I start or join a lighthearted thread for fun---I'm primarily trying to get an accurate overview of the rapid changes occurring in BtSM.

I get invaluable help in this from interacting with certain other people at the subforum and thinking about what they have said----others who are open to various QG approaches and trying to get a whole picture...

don't have time to complete this or edit. Thanks for some of your expressions of understanding, Gokul.

 

[Kea]

Marcus, get real. You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

 

[marcus]

As an old poetry loving, only-BtSM regular,..

you should come around more, Kea. Both you and Sabine H. started your own blogs and almost immediately cut back on participating here.

people like selfAdjoint (RIP)...

loved the guy. civility, humor, grace, understood several different approaches. brought out the best in us.

...You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not shown. My interest do go outside loop-foam-CDT. I try. Baez stuff comes to mind. We've had several threads where he participated actively. But not since he started his blog. (n-category cafe)

 

[josh1]

Marcus, get real. You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

You know what's really funny about this thread? It's that it's largely about the devisive influence of one member on this forum, without which there would never have been any need for this thread.

 

[Fra]

Why not simply have just ONE big physics forums so that no one would miss anything?

Then people would certainly miss things, because the filtering time gets significant, and people don't want to spend their days filtering. People get sick of sorting out things and go elsewhere. It's not efficient either nor favourable.

If you do not read other forums and missed what might interest you, that's your loss.

Yes that is true. I accept that responsibility. But OTOH, any forum is dependent on the collective, the sum of the participants.

My impression is that in this case, we are not near overload here? The point seems to be to keep some people from beeing annoyed by certain posts because they take on different views. The sorting times are hardly the issue?

We had similar complaint when we got rid of "crackpot forum" a while back, that we are stunting "creativity" and that no one would want to be here. Look at where this forum is now!

Is that a trick question? I didn't know there was one? All I'm aware of is the independent research forum?

I'll stop arging here, and I indirectly appreciate posts that doesn't interest me directly in the sense that I want to participate, because it gives an image of the interest of the collective. That does interest me. It gives an overview over the reasoning of the other participants.

I appreciate this forum and you are all doing a great job to keep the signal to noise ratio high that's for sure. I just recall an analogt to the dolby noise reduction systems who got rid of some noise but also introduced a good distortion of the original signal and I could never decide which I like better. The original noisy signal, or the distorted noisefree one.

/Fredrik

 

[vanesch]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, though I'm sure the intended audience would never find it there. I can empathize with the regulars who fear the loss of a coffee table, but I think they should just learn to find their way to the one in GD.

I fully agree with you. I can also say that BTSM regularly gives grey hair to the mentors, because many practices here are used as arguments with crackpots about our policies not being uniform throughout PF. Regularly the suggestion comes up to simply close down BTSM, simply because it seems to fit into a totally different spirit than all the rest of PF, where we tend to ban the "highly speculative" and to stick to "generally accepted science". The nature of BTSM means of course that there is no "generally accepted science". Now, as long as BTSM is just a discussion between knowledgeable people in these speculative fields, this is part of physics of course, but it gives us problems as where to draw the line. Hence the "loose moderation" of this forum, and hence sometimes the accusations of double standard.

To all those interested in the "social" and "chatty" part of this forum, as Gokul points out, we have a good place for that, which is GD. If the social study is to be more serious, then we have "social sciences". If it has to do with career choices, we have "career guidance". If it is philosophical, we have the philosophy forum.

Now, of course, a thread can evolve, and something that was purely physical can get some social or philosophical twist. So be it.

But the "congratulations for your paper" is not so different from "happy birthday", and should go in the GD forum. However, the "in paper this and that, it is said that, blah blah, but I would think that so and this...", THAT belongs here.

Things like "there are only 3 postdoc positions open for this and that kind of research" belongs more in the career advice section.

And finally and most importantly, most mentors, if not all, just get nervous at "string bashing" versus "LQG bashing", openly or hidden.

The point about wandering about in different fora is also that other people would see a bit about this world (and that the regulars here would see something about the others :-)