Questions regarding moderation on this forum

[mfb]

The question can be formulated as follows: if a person, not affiliated with scientific organizations, studies physics independently (with books, forums), and makes a discovery - how can he publish it? If not on the forums, then where?

In the same place all discoveries are published: In peer-reviewed journals (and potentially preprint servers and conference talks before). A person doesn't need to be affiliated with anything to do that. But it needs to be an actual discovery - and that's the challenge. How do you know it's an actual new discovery? You need to be very familiar with the existing research. Almost no one claiming to have made an independent "discovery" ever is. Often they are not even familiar with basic scientific principles.
The chance that someone who knows no expert in the field has made a new discovery is not just small. It's essentially non-existent.

 

[Rive]

The chance that someone who knows no expert in the field has made a new discovery is not just small. It's essentially non-existent.

I won't dare to say that, but maybe an equally relevant point is that the amount of people (*) who can discuss a really new theory is not that great to make it worth to post any of those 'Unification of Quantum and Relativity and Missing Socks' theories on a public forum in a hope of a deep discussion.

(*) As of now even the basic validation of a really new theory/big discovery would already require quite some teams of elite scientists and would take years (maybe decades).

 

[Spathi]

From the forum mission statement, with emphasis mine:
Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

I think that this is not right. When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.
It would be interesting to compare attitudes towards science and pseudoscience in Russia and in the West. It seems to me that the essence of the problem is that in the West science is sponsored by business, and business can only support applied research, for which there is no difference between “official science” and “pseudoscience”. A businessman will not finance fundamental research - not because it is not needed, but because when a fundamental discovery is made, everyone soon knows about it, and, accordingly, everyone benefits from it (not only those who funded it).

 

[weirdoguy]

I think that this is not right. When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

Experience of a lot of people show something different. Science is not done on any forum.

It seems to me that the essence of the problem is that in the West science is sponsored by business

Nonsense.

 

[mfb]

I think that this is not right. When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

That doesn't happen.

It seems to me that the essence of the problem is that in the West science is sponsored by business

In some cases, but not in general. Most of the crackpot nonsense we get is about things that have nothing to do with any business. There are no crackpots claiming that drug X should be 20% more effective than reported in age group Y under condition Z. There are tons of crackpots claiming relativity would be wrong or whatever else.

and business can only support applied research, for which there is no difference between “official science” and “pseudoscience”

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Nugatory]

When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

It’s impossible to prove a negative, but the observational evidence is strongly against that proposition. Can you point to even a single example of a layperson coming up with an idea that pushed physics in the right direction?

 

[hutchphd]

Can you point to even a single example of a layperson coming up with an idea that pushed physics in the right direction?

With respect I think this is a bit broad: depending upon your definition of layperson. The first example that popped into my head was Ben Franklin (yes long ago but many of the founding fathers were lay scientists). How about Srinvasa Rumanajan. Maybe Steve Wozniak. I had a math prof at Cornell who would have been digging coal in West Virginia except WW2 intervened and the army discovered a code-breaker.
Your thesis is very often correct: the simply delusional far outnumber the exceptional, but not always. It seems to me important to encourage the exceptional.

 

[pinball1970]

With respect I think this is a bit broad: depending upon your definition of layperson. The first example that popped into my head was Ben Franklin (yes long ago but many of the founding fathers were lay scientists). How about Srinvasa Rumanajan. Maybe Steve Wozniak. I had a math prof at Cornell who would have been digging coal in West Virginia except WW2 intervened and the army discovered a code-breaker.
Your thesis is very often correct: the simply delusional far outnumber the exceptional, but not always. It seems to me important to encourage the exceptional.

I saw a documentary on Stephen Hawking where one of his PhD collaborators wrote down what Hawking indicated using what movements he had left. It looked painfully slow and frustrating for both.

The student explained that he read Hawking’s paper first (black holes or something) before working with him and it took him a year to read it, “it was quite difficult.”

So a Cambridge PhD spends a year reading a paper but a layman has a possibility of coming up with something that those guys had not thought of? Without using maths? On par with that paper?

I do like this story however.Leonard Susskind recalls a discussion with his father that changed his career path:
"When I told my father I wanted to be a physicist, he said, 'Hell no, you ain't going to work in a drug store.'
I said, 'No, not a pharmacist.' I said, 'Like Einstein.' He poked me in the chest with a piece of plumbing pipe.
'You ain't going to be no engineer,' he said. 'You're going to be Einstein.'"
Susskind then studied at Cornell University under Peter A. Carruthers, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1965.

So he could have been one very smart plumber but unlikely to contribute to physics whilst doing it.

 

[anorlunda]

I think that this is not right. When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

I favor this quote from PF member @phinds.

Thinking outside the box only works well when you first understand what's IN the box.

PF's mission is to help people understand what's IN the box. That's the way we like it.

 

[Spathi]

In some cases, but not in general. Most of the crackpot nonsense we get is about things that have nothing to do with any business. There are no crackpots claiming that drug X should be 20% more effective than reported in age group Y under condition Z. There are tons of crackpots claiming relativity would be wrong or whatever else.

You confirm what I said: in applied science there is no division into normal people and "crackpots", just as in everyday situations people always think the same way, regardless of whether they believe in evolution or in flat earth. I have experience in chemistry (I sell software for chemists), but this is not interesting for me, I want to do great things. I suppose a lot of "crackpots" also work as research assistants, but they are not interested in such work.

 

[Spathi]

It’s impossible to prove a negative, but the observational evidence is strongly against that proposition. Can you point to even a single example of a layperson coming up with an idea that pushed physics in the right direction?

I suppose there were such cases, but currently I cannot name them. I can cite as an example the idea of Richard Feynman that a positron is an electron moving backward in time. Technically, this is absurd, but such ideas are useful for science.

 

[anorlunda]

I want to do great things.

That's wonderful. But as Edison said, "Invention is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." The best way to do great things is to first work hard and study to understand what's in the box, not to begin with pontification.

 

[Spathi]

One more question: can members discuss politics there? Do you ban for it?

 

[Drakkith]

I think that this is not right. When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

While it is tempting to think this is true, as we all like to believe that anyone can contribute no matter who they are, the reality is that someone who is not heavily educated in mainstream physics has no chance at making a meaningful contribution. At least in the realms of new fundamental physics.

I can cite as an example the idea of Richard Feynman that a positron is an electron moving backward in time. Technically, this is absurd, but such ideas are useful for science.

Feynman was a professional scientist, not a layperson.

I suppose a lot of "crackpots" also work as research assistants, but they are not interested in such work.

'Crackpots' vary widely in both education and profession. Many are engineers or in other STEM fields. These are usually the type that write up fancy papers with fancy math that are occasionally used by other crackpots not educated in math and science. Some are simply random people with little science education.

You confirm what I said: in applied science there is no division into normal people and "crackpots", just as in everyday situations people always think the same way, regardless of whether they believe in evolution or in flat earth.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at.

I have experience in chemistry (I sell software for chemists), but this is not interesting for me, I want to do great things.

And I wanted to be an optical engineer and design telescopes, cameras, etc. But health problems forced me out of college a few years ago before I could graduate. Could I still design optical systems from home? Certainly. But they would be very poor quality and I would struggle to get anything meaningful done unless I spent another few years learning optical engineering on my own.

I'm not going to design a revolutionary optical system at home any more than you are going to invent a revolutionary theory at home. Not unless we spend a great amount of time learning the tools of the trade, learning what is already known (so we don't waste our time), and then applying ourselves to hone these skills.

 

[anorlunda]

One more question: can members discuss politics there? Do you ban for it?

The rules for General Discussions say:

1) Due to the emotionally charged issues concerning Israel/Palestine conflicts, discussions on this topic are banned until further notice.
2) Religious cartoons deemed offensive may be linked to (credible news agency) but not inserted into a post.
3) Political posts outside of education and science policy are banned. If reporting a science or education policy news story be sure to avoid any party or politician politics or your thread risks removal.

The reason for that is that experience has shown that those topics can't be moderated to keep things civil and rational. PF depends on volunteer moderators, and their abilities are finite. Most PF members love it that discussions here are civil and free from the ugliness of other online forums.

 

[PeterDonis]

When “freaks” submit their ideas on forums, those ideas can push thoughts in the right direction, even if the ideas are initially wrong.

Do you have any actual examples of this? I strongly suspect that you don't.

 

[PeterDonis]

It seems to me that the essence of the problem is that in the West science is sponsored by business

Much science in the West is funded by governments, not by businesses.

 

[PeterDonis]

The first example that popped into my head was Ben Franklin (yes long ago but many of the founding fathers were lay scientists).

"Lay scientists" is an oxymoron by the definitions we are using in this discussion. Either a person has taken the time to actually learn the science they are claiming to make a discovery about, or they haven't. If they have, they're a scientist; if they haven't, they're a lay person. Franklin, by this definition, was a scientist; he happened to be one in an area where what science existed was still in its early stages (electricity), but what there was of it, he knew. So Franklin is not an example of a lay person making an actual scientific discovery.

How about Srinvasa Rumanajan.

He was a mathematician, and a very gifted one, yes, who made a number of mathematical discoveries on his own before he had any formal training to speak of. But mathematics is not the same as science.

Maybe Steve Wozniak.

What scientific discovery did he make?

 

[PeterDonis]

in applied science there is no division into normal people and "crackpots"

Which simply means that what you are callling "applied science" is irrelevant to this discussion, since nobody ever makes any discoveries in it.

 

[symbolipoint]

A few months ago, I registered under the nickname Linkey, wrote here a post about the consumer society, and was banned for this with an explanation of “spam”. I'm not a spammer, I just wanted to talk not only about about physics. So far my first IP is still being blocked by the forum, can you fix that?

I would like to know more about how tough the moderation on this forum is, and for what reasons people are banned on it. Can I be banned, for example, if I will create many threads about time travel (Novikov's principle, etc.)?

The topic in the quote put into bold type might fit in the Lounge section, General Discussion -- maybe. Better, it does not honestly belong anywhere on physicsforums, mostly because it is not part of Natural Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science/Computer Technology.

 

[russ_watters]

With respect I think this is a bit broad: depending upon your definition of layperson. The first example that popped into my head was Ben Franklin (yes long ago but many of the founding fathers were lay scientists).

The problem with historical examples from the distant pat is that science was smaller and less formal then. I see Franklin as more of an inventor and tinkerer than formal scientist, but since many things he studied/tinkered with were poorly developed it was possible for him to contribute. Today the entry barrier is much higher. That's why more commonly people constrain the statement to the past 100 years or turn of the 20th century.

 

[anorlunda]

The problem with historical examples from the distant pat is that science was smaller and less formal then.

A more workable definition would be a person who first tries to learn what others have discovered or derived about science before making his/her own extensions. (Learn what's in the box before thinking out of the box.)

Historically, the written and spoken science literature was much less in volume and more difficult to access. A lucky few could go to university, but opportunities there depended on how well informed your professors were. So it took less time to learn everything available to you before going out on your own as "scientist."

Today, the body of knowledge is larger and the educational investment needed to approach the starting line is larger.

It might make a fun SF theme to imagine a future where science was so advanced that children need 100+ years of schooling before becoming research assistants. That would be challenging indeed if the life expectancy was not increased.

 

[hutchphd]

The problem with historical examples from the distant pat is that science was smaller and less formal then.

Yes

Today, the body of knowledge is larger and the educational investment needed to approach the starting line is larger.

Absolutely.
I was playing Devil's Advocate (somewhat). My concern is the regimentation of thought that obtains from only allowing the "educated" to join the conversation. I think every physicist has a niggling sense that the rate of interesting thought in the field is decreasing. Doctrine is not science, and I wonder whether these two observations are related.
It is always easier to fortify the walls to keep out the riff-raff. But one does need a safe space. I will simply quote Feynman's definition:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

I don't know how to make that always work, but it is vital.

 

[PeterDonis]

My concern is the regimentation of thought that obtains from only allowing the "educated" to join the conversation.

if "educated" means "having formal credentials", then I agree, the conversation should not be limited to that. But if "educated" means "took the time to learn what is known in the field, by whatever means", then I think that should be a requirement for someone to join the conversation. My personal heuristic for this is: can the person describe what is currently known in the field in terms that current experts in the field would agree with?

 

[Astronuc]

It would be interesting to compare attitudes towards science and pseudoscience in Russia and in the West. It seems to me that the essence of the problem is that in the West science is sponsored by business, and business can only support applied research, for which there is no difference between “official science” and “pseudoscience”. A businessman will not finance fundamental research - not because it is not needed, but because when a fundamental discovery is made, everyone soon knows about it, and, accordingly, everyone benefits from it (not only those who funded it).

These statements are fundamentally incorrect.

A counter example, IBM Almaden Research facility conducts a lot of fundamental research, as well as applied research. https://research.ibm.com/labs/almaden/ IBM has another research facility in Zurich.

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/...-observe-reactions-in-an-individual-molecule/

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2016/06/afm-pioneers-recognized-kavli-prize/

GE also has fundamental research facilities. https://www.ge.com/research/sectors

For pure or theoretical research, there are universities or private non-profit organizations. If one has a new theory, one can submit one's theory (paperwork) to a university physics (or other relevant) department and seek a review.

PF opposes pseudoscience, misinformation and disinformation.

 

[russ_watters]

A So it took less time to learn everything available to you before going out on your own as "scientist."...
It might make a fun SF theme to imagine a future where science was so advanced that children need 100+ years of schooling before becoming research assistants.

The solution is narrowing the focus. Without modifiers/specialties, there are no "Scientists" anymore. Heck, Einstein might have been the last "Physicist". Now it's "Particle Physicist", "Solid State Physicist", etc.

 

[hutchphd]

But this is ever such

Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.

-Konrad Lorenz

 

[anorlunda]

My concern is the regimentation of thought that obtains from only allowing the "educated" to join the conversation.

PF does not cover the universe of scientific conversations. We do not exclude anyone from all conversations, only PF conversations. That's consistent with our mission to teach science defined by textbooks and papers. That is a subset of science, not all of it.

 

[Rive]

My concern is the regimentation of thought that obtains from only allowing the "educated" to join the conversation.

This topic went a huge circle from 'who can submit' (a new theory) to 'who can join'.

Regarding the latter, as an user I can't recall a case when any kind of 'proof of education' was requested from anybody. Just doing/writing the right thing, just participating in a scientific discussion - participating, as the best sense of the word - was always enough, for both end (giving or receiving).

 

[PeterDonis]

Regarding the latter, as an user I can't recall a case when any kind of 'proof of education' was requested from anybody. Just doing/writing the right thing, just participating in a scientific discussion - participating, as the best sense of the word - was always enough, for both end (giving or receiving).

Here at PF we certainly don't require any "proof of education" in order to post a thread.

However, if you don't have the requisite background to meaningfully participate in the discussion that your thread leads to, that will generally get spotted fairly quickly, and will lead to either you learning a lot from other people's discussion, or your thread getting closed because you refuse to.