How do mods combat pseudoscientific misunderstandings among users

[Trollfaz]

The internet is full of nonsensical ideas and conspiracy theories which is why sometimes those nonsense ends up on PF. Let's be fair some trolls post pseudoscience on PF intentionally while there are many who post them here unintentionally, like me five years ago. So according to the rules pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are banned on this forum but what does the mod do if someone post a conspiracy theory here without knowing that it is pseudoscience. Try to correct them and explain why is it debunked? Then if they persistently post those pseudoscience again then give them warnings before banning them? Because everyone makes mistakes so if someone talks about pseudoscience topics unknowingly here I feel that we must use the scientific methodology to correct them and only take action against them if they are rigid on their crackpot views.

 

[Baluncore]

The moderator, or a member, asks for a reference to a peer reviewed source of the claim.

 

[Trollfaz]

But what happens that the user gives a link to a non credible source but doesn't know that it's questionable, will users get banned or infractions for giving links to questionable sources if they do not know about the credibility of the source

 

[Trollfaz]

There are some offences that carries an immediate permenant ban on this forum but for those who brings up conspiracy theories I think we should try to correct them first before taking action against them

 

[Drakkith]

Typically we inform them that the topic is pseudoscience or misinformation. Unfortunately this often involves locking or deleting the thread, as keeping it open would just invite more discussion of a banned topic. If the member is generally polite and open to being corrected, nothing else happens. If we get someone who staunchly defends their position, or someone who immediately gets defensive and starts making further posts accusing us of censorship, abuse of authority, or similar things then we may have to take further action.

But what happens that the user gives a link to a non credible source but doesn't know that it's questionable, will users get banned or infractions for giving links to questionable sources if they do not know about the credibility of the source

That depends almost entirely on their attitude when informed that their source isn't credible. Again, if someone simply says something along the lines of, "Sorry, I'll try to do better in the future", then generally nothing else happens.

There are some offences that carries an immediate permenant ban on this forum but for those who brings up conspiracy theories I think we should try to correct them first before taking action against them

That is generally how things occur. Even new members that turn out to have entire websites devoted to conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are rarely banned immediately. They are, however, often 'given enough rope to hang themselves'.

 

[topsquark]

There are some offences that carries an immediate permenant ban on this forum but for those who brings up conspiracy theories I think we should try to correct them first before taking action against them

It would depend on the conspiracy theory and how hard the member was trying to promote it. There are levels of severity.

My understanding is:
If someone comes on and asks if cold fusion works, they might be given information about cold fusion and the scams that have been done in it. I doubt they would be banned.

If someone comes on and insists that cold fusion works and tries to spell out the theory, they will be corrected (and maybe not banned if they don't fight about it.)

If someone comes on and tries to sell us a cold fusion water heater, then it's off to "banned camp."

The Forum Rules are pretty well spelled out on this. If you break the rules, you stand a chance of getting banned.

-Dan

 

[Wrichik Basu]

for those who brings up conspiracy theories I think we should try to correct them first before taking action against them

Our experience says that it is impossible to educate conspiracy theorists on what is correct. That's the fundamental difference between a conspiracy theory and a misunderstanding — misunderstandings arise when a person has read a mainstream textbook that has enough math, but has not been able to infer correctly what the text wanted to say. Conspiracy theorists, OTOH, seldom read any mainstream textbooks or do any math. They conjure up their theories and assert that they are correct, without offering any mathematical perspective of how it stands with the currently published theories. If someone can do the math for their new theory, they will definitely try to get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Once published in a good journal, that will no longer remain a conspiracy theory. Hence, it is useless to educate conspiracy theorists, and our mods can effortlessly distinguish between an honest misunderstanding and a conspiracy theory, and take action accordingly.

 

[Rive]

we should try to correct them first

Debunking in general is usually just the modern version of fighting giants Don Quixote-style.
If it's not done in a few posts, then it won't be done in thousands either => not in line with the Mission Statement and waste of bits and electrons to let it run.

 

[Nugatory]

My understanding is:
If someone comes on and asks if cold fusion works, they might be given information about cold fusion and the scams that have been done in it. I doubt they would be banned.

If someone comes on and insists that cold fusion works and tries to spell out the theory, they will be corrected (and maybe not banned if they don't fight about it.)

If someone comes on and tries to sell us a cold fusion water heater, then it's off to "banned camp."

That’s pretty much the idea, although the “maybe not banned” would be better stated as “almost never banned - yet”. We cut a lot of slack for new members as long as they seem to be acting in good faith. To get an immediate ban for pseudoscience you’d have to do something like posting a 38-page single-spaced screed with hand-drawn illustrations numerologically relating quark charges to Bible verses, otherwise we just delete the post and point the user at the relevant section of the rules.

 

[topsquark]

That’s pretty much the idea, although the “maybe not banned” would be better stated as “almost never banned - yet”. We cut a lot of slack for new members as long as they seem to be acting in good faith. To get an immediate ban for pseudoscience you’d have to do something like posting a 38-page single-spaced screed with hand-drawn illustrations numerologically relating quark charges to Bible verses, otherwise we just delete the post and point the user at the relevant section of the rules.

Actually, I did meet a guy once that said he believed that gravity waves don't exist. It took me some three or four replies to find out just why, but his reasoning was that the LIGO measurement couldn't be right because the event that triggered the waves happened long before God created the Universe, therefore it couldn't have happened, therefore we haven't actually measured any gravity waves. At least his logic was sound, if only from his point of view.

He didn't last long on the Forum. (Not this one.) My rules on this don't differ all that much to the ones here. (In fact, the rules on PF are a bit stricter.)

-Dan

 

[berkeman]

I did meet a guy once that said he believed that gravity waves don't exist.

I guess he wasn't a surfer, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_wave_surfing

 

[Nugatory]

I guess he wasn't a surfer, then?

For those who sometimes find Berk's sense of humor inscrutable...
Gravity waves are waves in the surface of a liquid body. Gravitational waves are the cool general relativity colliding black holes thing that LIGO detects.

 

[Algr]

What does the strike through in Trollfaz name mean? It is a little unnerving to think that someone might have been banned for asking this question. We all need to do our parts to combat misinformation, but it can't just be the stick. That plays into the con by making it look like established science has something to hide.

 

[Drakkith]

What does the strike through in Trollfaz name mean? It is a little unnerving to think that someone might have been banned for asking this question. We all need to do our parts to combat misinformation, but it can't just be the stick. That plays into the con by making it look like established science has something to hide.

Trollfaz is on a temporary ban. I won't go into too many details, but it certainly wasn't because of this thread.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but his reasoning was that the LIGO measurement couldn't be right because the event that triggered the waves happened long before God created the Universw

Hmmm...why couldn't He have created the gravitational waves in midflight, the way He did with starlight? This sounds like a model that needs work.

 

[jtbell]

why couldn't He have created the gravitational waves in midflight, the way He did with starlight?

Or rocks with fossils already embedded in them.

 

[weirdoguy]

It is a little unnerving to think that someone might have been banned for asking this question

Why on earth would one even think that he was banned for that reason?

 

[Frabjous]

Why on earth would one even think that he was banned for that reason?

The posts one gets banned for are sometimes moderated away.

 

[Nugatory]

Why on earth would one even think that he was banned for that reason?

There are forums out there that will ban you for protesting a moderator’s actions. We aren’t one of them.

Unless the complaint is something like

Are you serious dude? **** you. This is a personal theory I want to share for people to discuss. I don't want to spend months publishing to a peer reviewed journal.

The fact that you shut me down, makes me think you are an einstein worshipper whos afraid to even contemplate any other variations, and gasp, consider that einstein maybe was wrong.

You are a true piece of dang. Ban me i don't give a ****. My thread made complete logical sense and was sound. I could have enligthened people and instead you decided to keep them in the dark believing just Einsteins version of relativity, you piece of ****ing dang. I can't stand "scientists" like you that are always desperate and will even kill someone to maintain the ****ing status quo because they can't stand to be embarassed that they have been wrong for years or decades and all the textbooks are wrong. piece of scumm

We banned the member who posted that after a personal theory warning.

 

[phinds]

Well, that's why Greg pays you guys the big bucks, right ?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Are you serious dude? *** you. This is a personal theory I want to share for people to discuss. I don't want to spend months publishing to a peer reviewed journal.

The fact that you shut me down, makes me think you are an einstein worshipper whos afraid to even contemplate any other variations, and gasp, consider that einstein maybe was wrong.

You are a true piece of dang. Ban me i don't give a ****. My thread made complete logical sense and was sound. I could have enligthened people and instead you decided to keep them in the dark believing just Einsteins version of relativity, you piece of ****ing dang. I can't stand "scientists" like you that are always desperate and will even kill someone to maintain the ****ing status quo because they can't stand to be embarassed that they have been wrong for years or decades and all the textbooks are wrong. piece of scumm

That reminds me of:

 

[jtbell]

Well, that's why Greg pays you guys the big bucks, right ?

And the retreats on Bora Bora.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rd-org-is-pf-blocking-it.682660/#post-4331960

 

[Vanadium 50]

Could have been worse. Could have ended a sentence with a preposition.

 

[Bandersnatch]

^That's the kind of crackpottery up with which we will not put.

 

[topsquark]

How about this kind of cracked pottery?

-Dan

 

[Haborix]

Assyrian crackpots only!

 

[Algr]

That reminds me of:

That's how I feel sometimes.

^{(Still the wrong response though.)}

 

[pinball1970]

That's how I feel sometimes.

^{(Still the wrong response though.)}

Totally fine if you are discussing science and technology on Facebook.

 

[exponent137]

It is not good to use the name "crackpottery" for ideas of people, who try to follow the scientific method and they quit when it is proved that they are wrong. This also happens. The scientific method is not so bad also for unorthodox scientists, but orthodox scientists also abuse it for the detriment of the unorthodox ones.

 

[exponent137]

That reminds me of:

View attachment 336585

It is not wrong how he thinks. It is wrong if he does not use the scientific method. (But also scientific method is not absolute truth.)

 

[Drakkith]

It is not good to use the name "crackpottery" for ideas of people, who try to follow the scientific method and they quit when it is proved that they are wrong. This also happens.

While I can't guarantee that no one is ever unjustly called a crackpot, I don't think I can ever remember seeing something or someone I considered to be a crackpot turn out not to be a crackpot later on. Take from that what you will.

The scientific method is not so bad also for unorthodox scientists, but orthodox scientists also abuse it for the detriment of the unorthodox ones.

Forgive me, but this is nonsense in my opinion. The scientific method encompasses every legitimate method of determining what happens in our universe. Or, to put it another way, if you can derive valid knowledge about the universe via some method then you can use it in the scientific method. That doesn't guarantee that you come to a valid conclusion of course, any more than using an accepted framework for writing a novel guarantees that you write a good novel.

A scientist, when you get right down to it, is just someone who works to advance knowledge about the physical universe using empirical methods. The 'empirical methods' is important, as it distinguishes a scientist from someone like a philosopher whose work commonly doesn't involve physical things. When someone uses the term 'unorthodox scientist' what they usually seem to mean is:

1. A professional scientist whose work isn't considered valid by the majority of their peers.
2. Someone who used to be a professional scientist, but whose work has been so poor quality or whose beliefs are so antithetical to mainstream science that they are no longer really considered to be a scientist.
3. Someone without professional training attempting to make progress using non-empirical or flawed methods or methods that are far too simple or crude for what they are attempting to measure.

'Unorthodox scientists' are not being 'abused' by the scientific method or anyone using it. They just don't know what they're doing. They are either bad at their job, thus using the scientific method and everything it encompasses badly, or they are not using valid means of finding knowledge about the universe, and so aren't using the scientific method at all.

It is not wrong how he thinks. It is wrong if he does not use the scientific method. (But also scientific method is not absolute truth.)

Your argument is flawed. The scientific method is not a simple fact, something which is true or false, it is a collection of methods by which to derive knowledge about the physical universe. It is something which can encompass any valid means of deriving that knowledge and thus new ways of thinking, observing, or measuring are incorporated into it as they are found.

It is similar to cooking in that any method of preparing food is considered cooking, even those that haven't been invented yet. And just like you can prepare a bad meal when cooking, you can come to bad conclusions when using the scientific method.

 

[DaveC426913]

That reminds me of:

You know, I always interpreted this the other way. The one rational thinker facing a crowd of social media "I did my own research"ers.

The guy who says "Yes, Climate Change / Spherical Earth / etc. is real. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, no matter how many of you there are."

 

[Drakkith]

You know, I always interpreted this the other way. The one rational thinker facing a crowd of social media "I did my own research"ers.

The guy who says "Yes, Climate Change / Spherical Earth / etc. is real. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, no matter how many of you there are."

The interpretations to that image are a perfect example of what happens when you don't have context.

 

[Bystander]

Totally fine if you are discussing science and technology on Farcebook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

 

[pinball1970]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Meaning Facebook and YouTube are not the best scientific environments I have been in.