Complaint Step two of scientific method banned on this forum

  • Thread starter Thread starter dclewis85
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A user received a warning for posting a hypothesis about the expanding universe, highlighting a restriction on discussing certain scientific methods in the forum. The forum's mission is to facilitate discussions based on established scientific understanding and practices. Peer-reviewed publications are emphasized as the standard for validating scientific ideas, which underpins the forum's rules. The moderators assert that maintaining these guidelines is crucial for preserving the forum's unique environment for non-specialists to engage with professional scientists. Consequently, the thread was closed due to existing discussions on the topic.
dclewis85
I got a warning for posting a hypothesis about the expanding universe earlier. Apparently step two of the scientific method isn't allowed here. Great forum mods.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the purpose of the forum is:
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.
Peer-reviewed publication is the way the professional scientific community identifies and propagates the good ideas while weeding out the ones that don't work, and that's why we have this rule. The forum guidelines I linked to explain some of the rationale for this rule, and you will find many discussions in the "Feedback" subforum... but the summary is that for almost twenty years Physics Forums has been just about the only place on the internet where non-specialists can interact with real practicing scientists, and that rule is essential to making it that way.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander, Wrichik Basu, DaveE and 3 others
We already have many threads covering this ground, so this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu and bhobba
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
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
66
Views
5K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top