Questions regarding moderation on this forum

[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.

 

[Rive]

... and I think that's the way.

 

[berkeman]

I can't recall a case when any kind of 'proof of education' was requested from anybody

Agreed. The closest thing here at PF is the thread prefix system: B/I/A. We try to encourage the OP to set the level of their thread at the level of the replies that they are looking for in the discussion. As Mentors, we also watch the thread prefixes to try to spot when an OP has either not understood what the prefix represents, or has set the prefix either way high or way low for their apparent background.

When we see a thread marked "A" Advanced/Graduate School level and it's obvious that the OP is not there yet, we'll bump it down a notch to try to line up the discussion with the OP's background better.

Not all the forums use the thread prefix system (the Engineering forums so far have not needed them), but they serve a good purpose in the forums where they are turned on, IMO.

 

[TeethWhitener]

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.

Edison wasn’t even that generous. The actual quote is “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.”

 

[pinball1970]

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

I have read your posts back...

Homeopathy,
Pseudoscience,
Politics.

On a physics forum site.

That's a thinker for me.

 

[Moes]

Is a discussion about panpsychism allowed?

 

[russ_watters]

Is a discussion about panpsychism allowed?

No.

 

[jtbell]

Panpsychism would apparently fall under philosophy, which we generally don't allow here.