Why no speculative posting

  • Thread starter Thread starter dwlink
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Physics Forums prohibits speculative posting to maintain the quality and credibility of discussions, focusing on established scientific principles rather than unsupported theories. This policy is intended to prevent the dilution of valuable scientific discourse, as past experiences showed that allowing speculation led to a decline in the site's overall quality and engagement from knowledgeable members. The forum aims to serve as a resource for learning and understanding existing science, rather than a platform for developing new or speculative ideas. While some argue for a space for such discussions, the consensus is that it detracts from the educational mission of the forum. Ultimately, the site prioritizes credible science and encourages users to seek out other platforms for speculative discussions.
  • #31
dwlink said:
I think the forum should make a real attempt at allowing such discussions - heck put it in a sub-forum called junk science.
We did make a real attempt at allowing this:

Integral said:
Been there, done that. It don't work. The forum was called Theory Development, any crankish post was simply dumped there. This was a feature for several years, it lasted until we finally got fed up with trying to teach to those who already knew everything. We found that it was an attractant to crack pots who were not content to stay in the crack pot forum. They were continually bringing their nonsense into the main forums. It has been a significant improvement without the big welcome mat for cranks of all sorts. We will NOT repeat this mistake.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Baluncore said:
Maybe PF needs an “Original Fairy Tales” forum for personal theories.
Maybe Tiffany's needs a "flea-market junk" bin too.
 
  • #33
DaleSpam said:
Maybe Tiffany's needs a "flea-market junk" bin too.


:smile:
 
  • #34
Unfortunately, this subject triggers a barrage of emotive response and a great dumping of previous baggage.

Having read the previous discussion I believed that it was all in the name.
“Theory Development” suggested credibility = factual. That encouraged critical attack.
“Fairy Tale” suggests incredibility = fiction.

I am interested in the way people think, (or don't), and the multiple different interpretations possible. On reflection, there is a subliminal fear that physics can itself be interpreted as an internally consistent fairy tale, that is still under development. There must be very many people who are unable to tell the difference between a science and a fairy tale. I guess PF must draw a line in the sand somewhere.

The imaginative human mind seems quite happy to come up with what we call science fiction. The next generation then researches the science necessary to make it happen. Fiction leads science by 90°, they may be orthogonal but they are in the same plane.
 
  • #35
We are working on a FAQ entry to cover this question. This thread is closed for now.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K