Suppose I had a hypothetical blog entry which I deemed a personal theory.

[checkitagain]

Suppose I had a hypothetical blog entry which I deemed a "personal theory."

As a hypothetical example, here is the link:


http://www.boulder.swri.edu/clark/ncar799.html

It concerns asteroid/comet impacts, including 40
references.


And, hypothetically I state something along the lines of:


"My personal theory, based along the information in the
above peer-review, is that there would be an X effect
to a Y section of the Earth with a Z-type asteroid.
The following are my reasons, based on established
scientific principles."

-----------------------------

Would this be permitted in a blog?

 

[Drakkith]

A scientific theory is a very specific thing. If you are simply saying that an asteroid of X mass impacting on a point on the Earth would do Y amount of damage, there is nothing wrong with that and it is not a personal theory. Using established scientific principles is perfectly ok.

 

[AlephZero]

What you have is a personal opinion, not a personal theory.

You could check how plausible your opinion is using accepted scientific theories, if you had enough knowledge and enough computing power to run the simulations.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

From the PF rules (emphasis mine)

PF welcomes you to take advantage of its blog feature. We recognize that blog entries are inherently personal; accordingly, more flexibility is permitted there than would be suitable in the main forums. Nonetheless, blog entries are subject to the same overall guidelines in effect throughout PF, as appropriate. Personal theories are not permitted in blogs. Obscenity, hate speeches, religious screeds, personal attacks on other members, and promotion of crackpottery are not welcome anywhere on PF. Be aware that "Private" blog entries are viewable by Mentors and Admin.

Again from the rules (emphasis mine)

One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

 

[checkitagain]

What you have is a personal opinion,
not a personal theory.

You could check how plausible your opinion is using accepted
scientific theories, if you had enough knowledge and enough
computing power to run the simulations.

From the PF rules (emphasis mine)

Again from the rules (emphasis mine)

Then, as my hypothetical example would be a personal opinion

(but not a personal theory, as posted to me by AlephZero), I would

feel free to post this personal opinion in my own blog.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In the rules the term "theory" is used in the colloquial not scientific sense. If your theory, opinion, hypothesis or whatever breaches the rules regarding personal theories, non-mainstream science and overly-speculative posts then it is not allowed.

 

[JaredJames]

I wouldn't advise being cocky using technicalities to post something which disagrees with the science behind it.

As long as the science agrees with it, then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[checkitagain]

I wouldn't advise being cocky using technicalities to post something which disagrees with the science behind it.

As long as the science agrees with it, then there shouldn't be a problem.

No, this whole site and its extensive list of rules forces users to be

very discriminating with their ideas and terms, lest they upset

the status quo of what users, mentors, and admin deem to their liking.

So, I wouldn't claim someone to be "cocky," because they are getting

clarification on words, their meanings, and usage in the forum.



\text{Note: JaredJames's message in post #9 is noted by me.}

 

[JaredJames]

The site forces people to adhere to scientific standards. Period.

I'm always amused that people come here, decide they don't like it and then complain over and over or try to work around the rules rather than just going elsewhere. Private site, private rules. If you don't like it, tough.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

this whole site and its extensive list of rules forces users to be very discriminating with their ideas and terms, lest they upset the status quo of what users, mentors, and admin deem to their liking.

The rules of this site exist to maintain the high standard of quality teaching and discussion of science that we have. Our decision to strictly not allow personal theories or overly speculative posts exists to make sure that this site does not get bogged down and ruined with pointless, pseudo-scientific and crackpot threads. There are plenty of similar sites to ours that allow that kind of thing and they are crammed full of rubbish to the point where it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion regarding real science.

Something to bear in mind is that if you lack the knowledge to distinguish whether or not your idea, opinion or theory is in line with mainstream science then it you probably lack the knowledge to make a good theory.

 

[checkitagain]

The site forces people to adhere to scientific standards. Period.

I'm always amused that people come here, decide they don't like it and then complain over and over or try to work around the rules rather than just going elsewhere. Private site, private rules. If you don't like it, tough.

And <b>I</b> am always amused by hypocrital veteran users<br /> who <i>violate</i> their own rules by attacking users with sarcasm<br /> or uses of words such as &quot;prattling&quot; to squash polite, relevant <br /> discussion, lest it hurt their egos.<br /> <br /> The fact that this is a private site is irrelevant to all the users being<br /> held accountable to not disparaging other users by violating the <b>rules.</b>

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And <b>I</b> am always amused by hypocrital veteran users<br /> who <i>violate</i> their own rules by attacking users with sarcasm<br /> or uses of words such as &quot;prattling&quot; to squash polite, relevant <br /> discussion, lest it hurt their egos.<br /> <br /> The fact that this is a private site is irrelevant to all the users being<br /> held accountable to not disparaging other users by violating the <b>rules.</b>

<br /> If you see a post that you think breaks the rules then report it, simple as that. There is no need to talk about it more, we do not discuss mentor decisions.

 

[checkitagain]

...in mind is that if you lack the knowledge to distinguish whether or not your idea,
opinion or theory is in line with mainstream science then it you probably
lack the knowledge to make a good theory.

A personal blog defeats its purpose if user has to call into question
every minute detail as to whether or not they adhered to using
scientific methods every time. I can really try to do that.



> > Edit: I just read the post of Ryan m b to not discuss this anymore.


> > 2nd Edit: I just read the post by micromass in post # 14 below.

 

[micromass]

A personal blog defeats its purpose if user has to call into question
every minute detail as to whether or not they adhered to using
scientific methods every time. I can really try to do that.

You know that is how science works right?? If you don't follow the scientific method in your blog, then you're not doing science. Not doing science is not allowed in this forum. If you want to discuss a personal theory/opinion, then you are free to do so but not on this forum.

I have especially created a blog on this: https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3751

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A personal blog defeats its purpose if user has to call into question
every minute detail as to whether or not they adhered to using
scientific methods every time. I can really try to do that.

This is a science forum with rules to enforce that. These rules apply to the blogs, this is not unreasonable.

I just read the post of Ryan m b to not discuss this anymore.

I was not saying that we cannot discuss this anymore, I was saying that if you have a problem with the posts of other users then report them but we will not discuss them openly.

 

[JaredJames]

I was not saying that we cannot discuss this anymore, I was saying that if you have a problem with the posts of other users then report them but we will not discuss them openly.

Oh, one does enjoy a good public flogging...

 

[micromass]

This question has been answered.