Should We Revisit Debunked Topics with New Evidence?

[dgtech]

Debunking a "debunkment"

Is it acceptable for all the topics that are in the "already debunked" list that is not supposed to be discussed?

And by that I don't mean explaining why the theory is true, but why the "debunkment" (is that even a word in English?) is inadequate for missing some fundamental points, through a logical process that involves known facts that build upon a consistent theory? That includes explaining exactly how points of the debunk can be still valid despite its inadequateness

It would be appropriate such topics to be open to discussion if logical truth is a priority, otherwise it would be just the censoring out of them with a few excuses why, literally ignoring all the available scientific evidence that might have appeared after they got debunked the last time, viewing the whole concept as a predetermined dogma instead of a scientific question.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All closed topics were closed with the approval of the staff. If there exists credible information suggesting that a topic should be opened again, it can be opened with the approval of the staff. Generally this means that one would need to produce a paper or papers published in a mainstream, academic journal. In that event, the relevant information should be forwarded to the respective moderator - subject appropriate - using the private message system.

 

[dgtech]

But that creates a paradox, those threads are literally closed by the mainstream , logically papers indicating otherwise won't be published by the mainstream.

Doesn't that create a form of gestapo, or an inquisition, looking even further back in time? Like enforcing certain views and censoring out anything pointing otherwise?

Do we really need something to be mainstream in order to be true? The definition of "mainstream" is "the prevailing current of thought" - not the right one, not the true one, but the prevailing. Not to mention a lot of people accept the mainstream because it is mainstream, and let's be honest, it's not like the majority is always right. Plus if the majority of people were that smart, the world wouldn't be such a mess :)

Everyone seems to agree with the mainstream views and 99% of the time it is taken for granted and viewed as a dogma. Maybe here we can actually do better?


I am not after any debunking, I am just interested in the policy of the forum.

Not that I don't look forward to someone explaining how exactly high temperature jet engine alloy gets EVAPORATED by the very same fuel it is designed to operate on, and whose burning temperature is too low to even melt the alloy, let alone evaporate it.

 

[russ_watters]

But that creates a paradox, those threads are literally closed by the mainstream , logically papers indicating otherwise won't be published by the mainstream.

Doesn't that create a form of gestapo, or an inquisition, looking even further back in time? Like enforcing certain views and censoring out anything pointing otherwise?

This is an internet forum, not a technical journal. We are a reflection of the scientific mainstream, not the creators of the mainstream views.

Not that I don't look forward to someone explaining how exactly high temperature jet engine alloy gets EVAPORATED by the very same fuel it is designed to operate on, and whose burning temperature is too low to even melt the alloy, let alone evaporate it.

I'm guessing you have a 9/11 conspiracy theory to forward? I can save you the trouble of PMing a moderator with the specifics of your concern (as Ivan suggested): this isn't an issue that is going to be reopened here.

 

[dgtech]

So it's about conformity then. BTW I did not mention 911, I was just wondering about a simple physical process ;)

 

[russ_watters]

So it's about conformity then.

No, it's about teaching. We can't teach people real science if the forum is inundated with crackpottery. It confuses people who are here to learn and can't tell the difference.

 

[dgtech]

LOL chill out, no need to call the CIA
This place is no better than communist China (that was an invitation for a permanent ban - there is nothing new to learn in this fortress of conformity)

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure you can find your way to the door. Anyway, I think we've got this topic pretty well covered.

Locked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It should be noted that journals do the job of sorting real science, from crackpottery and unsatisfactory work. If there is a solid scientific basis for a claim, the evidence will eventually be published. There is no reason for us to duplicate the job done far better by professional journals.