What does it mean to be intellectually sound in discussing physics?

[Phrak]

In Locking a thread found unacceptable to one of the PF mentors, he quoted one of the PF rules"

Overly Speculative Posts: 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 most of 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. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, 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.

(The sentence put in boldface is from my own doing.)

Now, I like this idea very much. I want to discuss the unkowns in physics in an intellectually sound manner with this manner returned in kind. I like to think I have trained myself to do just this. But what does "Intellectually Sound" mean in the context of physics?

We seem to have developed a way of speaking properly, where anything outside this proper-speak is subject to criticism. Outsiders don't know the etiquette. There are some unspoken rules of the game of which I have no real intellectual awareness. What are they?

 

[Pythagorean]

well, in argument context, where you lay out your premises that lead to your conclusion, an argument is sound if:

a) the premises are true
b) the conclusions follow from the premises

In philosophy a) may be unfalsifiable (either permanently or temporarily), but b) must still be satisfied. The conclusion must follow from the premises.

So "intellectually sound" to me, means:

a) the premises are not false
b) the conclusions follow from the premises

I sometimes would like to see formal arguments in the format:

p1:
p2:
C:

but never bother to do it myself.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Note: moved from Philosophy to Feedback section

 

[micromass]

I don't do physics, but I think the question also applies to mathematics. When discussing open questions in mathematics (actually: when discussing everything in mathematics), I kind of expect this behaviour:

- do not hold statements which are widely seen to be false. Of course, you may ask why scientists think that statement A is false, but I don't like people claiming that they're right and every scientist out there is an idiot. For example, claiming that 1 does not equal 0.999... and so on.

- respect other peoples ideas. It's alright to criticize somebody else and to point out the flaws in an idea. But don't become defensive all of a sudden and claim that everything is a consparicay against you. For example, when somebody mentions that he thinks the Riemann hypothesis is true, saying that the guy is an idiot, because you've already proven it.

- show a willingness to learn. Everybody's wrong sometimes, but not learning from it gains you nothing.

The above three points define intellectually soundness for me. I hold myself and others to these standards.

I'm actually excited to see what others think of the term...

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't do physics, but I think the question also applies to mathematics. When discussing open questions in mathematics (actually: when discussing everything in mathematics), I kind of expect this behaviour:

- do not hold statements which are widely seen to be false. Of course, you may ask why scientists think that statement A is false, but I don't like people claiming that they're right and every scientist out there is an idiot. For example, claiming that 1 does not equal 0.999... and so on.

- respect other peoples ideas. It's alright to criticize somebody else and to point out the flaws in an idea. But don't become defensive all of a sudden and claim that everything is a consparicay against you. For example, when somebody mentions that he thinks the Riemann hypothesis is true, saying that the guy is an idiot, because you've already proven it.

- show a willingness to learn. Everybody's wrong sometimes, but not learning from it gains you nothing.

The above three points define intellectually soundness for me. I hold myself and others to these standards.

I'm actually excited to see what others think of the term...

There's no need for me to explain my views. They're already represented in this post.

 

[Phrak]

Note: moved from Philosophy to Feedback section

Well, this shuffeling and deleteing of my last three queries in quick succession seems to indicate that the governing mentors are too baffeled or fearful of the content. Should I slow down? Are you overworked?

PF needs a Rubbish Bin folder for queries that test the carrying capacity.

 

[russ_watters]

How could you possibly think that a question/complaint about a moderator action is philosophy and not feedback?

 

[Phrak]

How could you possibly think that a question/complaint about a moderator action is philosophy and not feedback?

What are you talking about. This is the Feedback Forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes... weren't you just complaining about this thread being moved?

 

[Phrak]

Yes... weren't you just complaining about this thread being moved?

Whatever you say. I've decided that if the philosophy forum is incapable of encompassing the philosophy of physics, then I will take the philosophy of physics to the physics forums when I am philosophically motivated.

 

[ZapperZ]

Whatever you say. I've decided that if the philosophy forum is incapable of encompassing the philosophy of physics, then I will take the philosophy of physics to the physics forums when I am philosophically motivated.

You try that, and it will be deleted.

The philosophy forum is definitely capable of discussing philosophy of physics. It may not allow some of YOUR discussion, but that has nothing to do with not allowing a discussion in philosophy of physics. Unless of course, you think you carry that banner for the whole field of philosophy of physics.

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

Please note it was not ZapperZ who deleted the most recent posts in this thread, which is now closed pending a moderation decision.