Two word titles may be deleted aka Constructive Feedback

  • Thread starter Thread starter nothanks
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the censorship of unconventional ideas in scientific forums, particularly regarding the treatment of "crackpot" theories. The original poster expresses frustration over the lack of open dialogue for controversial scientific questions, citing historical examples of individuals who were initially dismissed but later validated. Respondents emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on established science to facilitate learning for the majority of users, arguing that the forum's strict moderation is necessary to prevent misinformation. They clarify that while some unconventional ideas may eventually gain acceptance, they must first undergo rigorous scientific validation. The thread ultimately underscores the balance between encouraging exploration and adhering to established scientific principles within the community.
  • #31


To put it this way: if crackpot posts were allowed here, then I would probably stop posting here. I'm very sure others also feel this way. I adore these forums exactly because the mentors do such a good job here. It may sound harsh, but it's for the better.

Stick around and post some things. I'm sure you will start to appreciate our way of handling things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


nothanks said:
for example:
Crackpot: "Chem-Trail blah blah blah..."
Legitimate: "Its not valid because of condensation laws etc..etc..etc... but it makes me think - do aircraft condensation trails increase the likelihood of higher pollutants raining down in acid rain? hum... I think I'll look that idea up or start some research."

Just food for thought.
That does happen on PF. How dare you come onto a site with absolutely no knowledge of how it operates and presume to lecture everyone on how to run it? We lock threads and infract users when they make crackpot claims and refuse to learn. There is a big difference between;

Member1: I've heard that the exhaust of planes contains chemicals...
Member2: This is a conspiracy theory. It is not true because...
Member1: Ah ok, Thanks!

And

Member1: Everyone knows that there are chemicals in plane exhausts. I believe that these chemicals are what is causing the rise in homosexuality in America...
Member2: This doesn't make sense because [insert long post]...
Member1: [Ignores the response and continues to make crazy claims]

If someone comes onto the site with a willingness to learn and asks a legitimate question then there is no problem. If someone comes on purely to have a platform to spout their crazy ideas then it is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes there is a possibility that someone posts a very speculative personal theory that in decades hence turns out to be true. But it is impossible to know this without having some sort of evidence to support the claim. That's not to say however that people can't come on and say things like "what experiments would determine if X is the cause of Y?" but that is a world away from "I believe that X causes Y and once mankind realizes this we could do Z".
 
  • #33


nothanks said:
Well I just had to stop by to say that I'm sorry the PhysicsForums.com
community forgot one of the most fundamental necessities of
exploration, discovery, and experimentation...

Imagination.
Please substantiate that claim.

The requirement for a title to a thread: (be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!): is reasonable.

We prohibit crackpottery and overly-speculative posts in order to prevent misrepresentation, misinformation or disinformation, which are contrary to the scientific method/process. We do not tolerate nonsense.

We do accept and encourage new ideas and legitimate dissent, but we have strict criteria in such endeavors.

With regard to new ideas or ideas contrary to established principles, one simply has to provide peer-reviewed papers from legitimate scientific or technical journals in support of those ideas. However, that's no guarantee of acceptance at PF, since we have observed some cranky material being slipped into some journals.

The staff are professionals in various fields of mathematics, science, engineering and technology, and many members are students who are planning to practice in these fields. We also volunteer our time and efforts. We will keep PF as it is with regard to the exclusion of nonsense and crackpottery.


And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600) have to do with any this?
 
Last edited:
  • #34


Astronuc said:
And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600) have to do with any this?
Actually, the wiki article that the OP links to says that Bruno was condemned for the heresy of pantheism, not for his scientific views. Of course, wiki cannot be the arbiter of what is correct, but I would have expected the OP to link to a page that supported his viewpoint, not one that disputes it. The 'scientific heresy" interpretation seems to have started some 200 years after the event.
 
  • #35


Astronuc,

I must say yours has been the most fulfilling and insightful of replies to my post.
While others have become defensive, generalized, hostile, vague, touching on flaming, or
poorly expressed; your reply as been the most specific, professional, and respectful.

Rather than be defensive such as Drakkith you are willing to hear out the point of view.
Rather than post mockery as DaveC426913's http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" , you are specific as to what you regard as a
"Crackpot" in a more recognizable criteria.
Rather than group all "CrackPottery" cause and effect together as Greg Bernhardt had, you
specified reasons, justifications, and limitations that are not so subjective or vague but
more "these are the guidelines" specific.
Better written than Ryan_m_b, more willing to speculate than Greg Bernhardt, more familiar
with the original post than russ_watters (you missed the point that great minds have often
been called crackpots, dear russ), and also a general pleasant read.

The requirement for a title to a thread:
(be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!):
is reasonable.
and when 2 words is enough to be descriptive?
We do accept and encourage new ideas and legitimate dissent,
but we have strict criteria in such endeavors. (...) peer-reviewed papers
from legitimate scientific or technical journals in support of those ideas.
Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or
recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment
to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for
someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."

And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600)
have to do with any this?
He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after
the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and
turned him over to the state

He was burned at the stake for crackpot idea that "God" and "Nature"
are the same... this ironically can also be applied to Darwin whom, to
paraphrase, stated that nature is the god that created us through
evolution and eons of environmental circumstance. To ban a crackpot
or to delete a crackpot post is, in Internet terms, the same as burning
someone at the stake or burning a book of ideas.

Though I do confess that I wouldn't miss Bill Kaysing's We Never Went
to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, I'd just hate to be
brandished as the like simply because an idea makes sense and i post up
seeking clarification.

Thanks to your objectivity to my post and well structured response, I'll likely
return in a month or two under a new name and ask some of those serious
questions on my mind (The result of too many Science News, Discover,
Scientific American, Sky And Telescope issues with no scientific education
worth mention).

-Seeking my CrackPot Inoculation Through Knowledge
no... Thank YOU!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36


nothanks said:
be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!):
and when 2 words is enough to be descriptive?
In that case they may not be deleted. I don't see any problem here.

edit: I found 3 threads on the home page with 2 word titles.
 
  • #37


nothanks said:
Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."
For many years we had this in the form of an independent research forum. However it was a nightmare to moderate and became packed full of crackpots seeking to prove their own crazy ideas and then crying censorship, lack of imagination and all sorts of other nonsense when they were removed.
nothanks said:
Rather than be defensive such as Drakkith you are willing to hear out the point of view.
Rather than post mockery as DaveC426913's http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" , you are specific as to what you regard as a
"Crackpot" in a more recognizable criteria.
Rather than group all "CrackPottery" cause and effect together as Greg Bernhardt had, you
specified reasons, justifications, and limitations that are not so subjective or vague but
more "these are the guidelines" specific.
Better written than Ryan_m_b, more willing to speculate than Greg Bernhardt, more familiar
with the original post than russ_watters (you missed the point that great minds have often
been called crackpots, dear russ), and also a general pleasant read.

So instead of replying to all the legitimate responses to your post you are just going to judge each one of us with a couple of words and pretend that we said nothing of value? :rolleyes: I'm out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38


nothanks said:
I must say yours has been the most fulfilling and insightful of replies to my post.
While others have become defensive, generalized, hostile, vague, touching on flaming, or
poorly expressed; your reply as been the most specific, professional, and respectful.
When you first started this post, you made a decision whether you wanted to engage in a discussion that was specific, professional and respectful - or complain and make accusations and tell us that you probably wouldn't stick around to discuss them.

So, you can say what you want however you want, but you expect responses to be respectful...
 
  • #39


nothanks said:
Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or
recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment
to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for
someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."
You seem to have misunderstood what astronuc said. You cannot post new ideas or dissent of established, mainstream science unless such is published in a well known, mainstream, peer reviewed journal. And as Astronuc pointed out, even that may not be allowed if the material is questionable. You would definitely not be able to post your own speculation.

I'll likely
return in a month or two under a new name and ask some of those serious
questions on my mind
Sorry, sockpuppets are not allowed and will be banned.

I suggest you read the rules.

Before there is any more misunderstanding of the rules, thread closed.