Mainstream science criterion

[arildno]

Crackpots are NOT the same as HTBIAPs (having totally bogus ideas about physics, "hattybiaps", colloquially)

A crackpot is a hattybiap convinced of having proven everybody else wrong, and that there is a large conspiracy out there to silence him.

Hattybiaps are welcome at PF!

 

[MacLaddy]

That sounds familiar... I wonder if someone has called me that before.

Oh well. Perhaps I can change MacLaddy to Hattybiaps. Has a nice ring to it I think.

 

[arildno]

Thanks, I made it up right now. It's my poetic vein, I think. Or perhaps the wine?

 

[DaveC426913]

HTBIAPs (having totally bogus ideas about physics, "hattybiaps", colloquially)

In five years on this board, I've never come across that term.

 

[MacLaddy]

Does that make the moderators Madtapbiap?
(Moderating and dispelling totally and preposterously bogus ideas about physics)


My poetic vein seems to have dried up. Perhaps you can spare some of that wine?

 

[arildno]

Does that make the moderators Madtapbiap?
(Moderating and dispelling totally and preposterously bogus ideas about physics)


My poetic vein seems to have dried up. Perhaps you can spare some of that wine?

Gulp. It's gone..

 

[mikelepore]

The policy of having a list of "closed subjects" on the rules page seems too strict to me. Even within the guideline that you are not sponsoring a forum for spreading crackpot ideas, there remain valid purposes for mentioning each crackpot idea. For example, a discussion about: If someone in the news media were to ask a scientist to comment on this or that crackpot belief, how could the scientist best answer it, for maximum public educational benefit? If a teacher wants to develop a lesson plan which includes the correction of certain misconceptions, including this crackpot belief, what would be a good approach? What place does this belief hold in the history of the transmission of rumors and popular fallacies, crowd psychology, the anthropological fact of myth-making, etc.? But it seems that the rules here don't permit any discussion of certain beliefs, simply because they have been debunked.

 

[Wallace]

I'm just echoing what has been said many times already (here and elsewhere) but mikelepore, the reason the rules are in place is because it makes PF the kind of place the people who run it want it to be. If you want a different sort of forum, make one (or post on one that is closer to your desires). The list of closed topics to me reads like a list of bollocks that I'd hate to have to endlessly refute, so it's far easier to simply blacklist obviously useless topics. It's not like any of these are marginal or debateable, they are unredeemable non-sense.

I came to PF and I stick around precisely because of the way its run and the rules and guidelines that are in place ( and the adept way they are put into practice by the staff).

 

[DaveC426913]

I came to PF and I stick around precisely because of the way its run and the rules and guidelines that are in place ( and the adept way they are put into practice by the staff).

And this is the reason many people stay - professionals that are experts in their field and valuable contributors - who could otherwise not take the forum seriously and would go elsewhere.

 

[JasonRox]

I never read the PF guidelines. I just follow a simple rule of like... "Don't be an idiot."

I don't follow any Physics forums or anything right now, but when I did, it was clear many people didn't know of the concept "Ask and learn."

People would ask questions out of curiousity, and then disregard ANY reasonable answer. And then after a few pages of arguments about the OP ignoring any intelligent answer, the OP will POST his answer to HIS OWN QUESTION while admitting he's not an expert in the OP. And then claim their is a conspiracy that moderators don't accept their theory. And then they reference books like "A Brief History of Time", or "Science of Star Wars".

That my friend is a crackpot.

 

[n!kofeyn]

What about this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288393"? I myself am a huge fan of Tesla and have done quite a bit of research looking for any mention of Tesla's theory of gravity, but have not been able to find any further evidence of any such theory existing. However, at the time I first came across this post, I could have learned something of some value. This person posted a quite sane and legitimate question and was immediately shut down. Why couldn't this have been a discussion, where someone of knowledge could have given the poster a thoughtful and respectful answer? For example, it is most likely that Tesla included this theory in his released statement, but didn't have a fully developed theory. It is likely however that he may have some decent thoughts about gravity, especially considering the fact that he was also a brief student of Ernst Mach, an influential thinker on Einstein. Instead, the poster asked a question in a very decent manner and was basically told to shut up and go away by a person who was obviously not very well knowledgeable on the subject, other than the fact that we would have heard about it by now. This is a disturbing response when speaking of Tesla, because despite his highly revolutionary and well founded contributions, I haven't seen a reference to him in any textbook other than the use of Tesla units to denote magnetic field strength.

Just because PF allows a thread on a slightly fringe topic doesn't mean it's supporting crackpots. If a person hears something about a so-called fringe theory, asks a question about it, and then is shut down, how has that helped explain away these fringe theories? Instead, in my opinion, this further supports a person's idea that a fringe theory is correct against mainstream science because it is flatly ignored.

I have seen instances of where a supposed expert on PF went off on such tangents and self-indulged responses that he may as well been considered a crank in the context of the thread, but is instead seemingly worshiped.

Although, I do understand there are some instances, such as the user Nigel, in which the poster is incorrigible.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288393"? I myself am a huge fan of Tesla and have done quite a bit of research looking for any mention of Tesla's theory of gravity, but have not been able to find any further evidence of any such theory existing. However, at the time I first came across this post, I could have learned something of some value. This person posted a quite sane and legitimate question and was immediately shut down. Why couldn't this have been a discussion, where someone of knowledge could have given the poster a thoughtful and respectful answer? For example, it is most likely that Tesla included this theory in his released statement, but didn't have a fully developed theory. It is likely however that he may have some decent thoughts about gravity, especially considering the fact that he was also a brief student of Ernst Mach, an influential thinker on Einstein. Instead, the poster asked a question in a very decent manner and was basically told to shut up and go away by a person who was obviously not very well knowledgeable on the subject, other than the fact that we would have heard about it by now. This is a disturbing response when speaking of Tesla, because despite his highly revolutionary and well founded contributions, I haven't seen a reference to him in any textbook other than the use of Tesla units to denote magnetic field strength.

Just because PF allows a thread on a slightly fringe topic doesn't mean it's supporting crackpots. If a person hears something about a so-called fringe theory, asks a question about it, and then is shut down, how has that helped explain away these fringe theories? Instead, in my opinion, this further supports a person's idea that a fringe theory is correct against mainstream science because it is flatly ignored.

I have seen instances of where a supposed expert on PF went off on such tangents and self-indulged responses that he may as well been considered a crank in the context of the thread, but is instead seemingly worshiped.

Although, I do understand there are some instances, such as the user Nigel, in which the poster is incorrigible.

Here's the problem. A thread on some marginally fringe topic may start off fine, but we have seen WAY to many instances where not only did it deteriorate very quickly, but topics like that tend to attract other crackpots to the forum. I've lost count on how many times I've seen thread in which, after just the first post, I could have predicted that it will go south very quickly.

PF cannot be everything to everyone. That is very clear. I'm sure we will be deprived of budding geniuses who want to tackle the various problems in physics that we simply will not cater too. That, I'm sure, is our loss. But for what we aim to do, we darn well intend to do it as best we can. Having been on the 'net for a very many years (since 1987), I can easily tell you that this is one of, if not THE, best physics discussion from that I've been a part of.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

...and for that thread in particular, how can you have a reasonable discussion of something that doesn't exist?!

 

[MacLaddy]

PF cannot be everything to everyone. That is very clear. I'm sure we will be deprived of budding geniuses who want to tackle the various problems in physics that we simply will not cater too. That, I'm sure, is our loss. But for what we aim to do, we darn well intend to do it as best we can. Having been on the 'net for a very many years (since 1987), I can easily tell you that this is one of, if not THE, best physics discussion from that I've been a part of.

Zz.

Now don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the services offered by this site; and the knowledge I come away with. However, that whole statement above seems to contradict what I believe this site is about. To me this site is about a community of people who love to learn, and in some cases, love to teach.

With that being said, I do have to wonder about the direction that this website is heading. While the direction of the "Science Education" forum seems to be sound, I feel that the rest of the boards are becoming more and more private. Each forum having a group of individuals that maintain the board to their own personal standards...

I feel that much of this website is becoming "a private club for members."

Anyhow, just my two cents. (or 8, but who's counting). I understand completely that the founders of the board, and the staff who maintains it, have every imaginable right to operate this website as they see fit; and I truly appreciate the opportunity to be a part of it.

Someday, when I know what I'm talking about, I will actually try to contribute something helpful... In the meantime I'll continue to absorb what information I can, and probably spout off random bits of nothingness here and there.

Mac

 

[ZapperZ]

The rules of the forum just didn't spring over night, and none of us here, contrary to the beliefs of some of the members, are not psychotic enough to come up with the rules out of thin air. The forum has evolved for several years, and practically ALL of the variations of openness, everything-goes policy, etc. have been tried at one point or another. In fact, the strict rules that we currently have here are MORE WORK for the moderators/mentors than you can ever imagine. We can either take the easy way out and simply let anything goes and let the signal-to-noise ratio suffer, or we can take the hard way and demand quality of posts, very low signal-to-noise ratio, and a LOT of work for us. We chose the latter even if to the detriment for many of the mentors who inevitably have and will suffer from burn-out periodically from trying to maintain the standard.

As far as the various forums resembling a members only forum, other than making some generalized, superficial criticism, maybe you should show your evidence (after all, this being a science forum, that's what we demand and expect). Show evidence that (i) there is a "members only" attitude and (ii) that this is prevalent and common throughout PF. Until I see valid evidence of what you meant, it is difficult for any of us not only to comment, but also to take appropriate actions.

Zz.

 

[Wallace]

I think there are some Mountains bursting forth from molehills here. You don't actually see that many threads needing moderator attention, and in the vast majority of cases the threads locked or posts deleted are obviously useless.

On the odd occasion there are threads and/or posts which are somewhat lineball, being argueably against the rules and arguably okay. In these situations, in my experience, the staff exercise very good judgement. But it's still pretty uncommon.

I hardly see the presence of moderation as being overbearing, for the most part I don't even notice it (I'm sure it's like the Duck analogy for the staff though; looks like smooth sailing from the surface but requires frantic unseen paddling going on below :) ).

 

[ZapperZ]

Trust me. Often, there ARE a lot of "frantic, unseen paddling" going on. In many instances, we disagree with each other. Just because we are mentors does not mean we are lemmings all going in the same directions. It is not uncommon for us to disagree when discussing certain policies or actions taken. It is why, when we act on something, we better be darn sure of our reasons because we are expected to be able to defend such actions.

However, another missing aspect in all of this is science advisors like you who have contributed and enhanced the forum MORE than you'll ever know. Often, the involvement of these members can correct a thread about to go off the deep end and save it from either being locked or deleted. In those cases, a borderline thread can become an educational/informational tool that more than fulfills the PF mission.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

I think there are some Mountains bursting forth from molehills here. You don't actually see that many threads needing moderator attention, and in the vast majority of cases the threads locked or posts deleted are obviously useless.

Eeh?

Over the years, I've personally alerted to the mentors tens (probably not hundreds) of posts that are so wacky they are simply deleted very fast by mentor activity.

Now, there are lots of members like myself patrolling the forums, and using the report button frequently.

There are easily thousands of crackpot threads that have been quashed, due to prompt action whose transient presence is not noticed by members in general for that very reason.

 

[Astronuc]

With that being said, I do have to wonder about the direction that this website is heading. While the direction of the "Science Education" forum seems to be sound, I feel that the rest of the boards are becoming more and more private. Each forum having a group of individuals that maintain the board to their own personal standards...

How so?!

The PF guidelines have developed over 6 years or so, and a based on experience and careful deliberation. There's plenty of room to discuss all matters of mathematics and physics.

We necessarily restrict non-mainstream ideas in the main forums, but we have a special section, Independent Research, for those to propose new ideas - BUT, we have standards (acceptance criteria) there as well, and new ideas must be based on sound physics, and the submitter must demonstrate familiarity and correct understanding of the state-of-the-art, which is often not the case.

PF is devoted to promoting a sound approach to learning and exploration of science. We are opposed to pseudo-science and nonsense.

The staff are largely practising scientists (including mathematicians and physicists), engineers and professionals in applied technology.

 

[George Jones]

Trust me. Often, there ARE a lot of "frantic, unseen paddling" going on.

This is usually an eye-opener when a new Mentor comes on board; it certainly was for me.

In many instances, we disagree with each other. Just because we are mentors does not mean we are lemmings all going in the same directions. It is not uncommon for us to disagree when discussing certain policies or actions taken. It is why, when we act on something, we better be darn sure of our reasons because we are expected to be able to defend such actions.

At times, behind-the-scenes discussions are quite spirited, but at other times, agreement is reached quickly.

However, another missing aspect in all of this is science advisors like you who have contributed and enhanced the forum MORE than you'll ever know. Often, the involvement of these members can correct a thread about to go off the deep end and save it from either being locked or deleted. In those cases, a borderline thread can become an educational/informational tool that more than fulfills the PF mission.

Hear! Hear! Every report about a post or thread is read, usually by several Mentors. This can result in: unilateral action by a single Mentor; discussion and action after a consensus is reached among several Mentors; no action.

 

[Vanadium 50]

or we can take the hard way and demand quality of posts, very low signal-to-noise ratio, and a LOT of work for us.

Or...maybe we could demand high signal to noise ratio instead.

(Lest anyone thing we are mindless lemmings who never disagree with each other)

 

[ZapperZ]

Or...maybe we could demand high signal to noise ratio instead.

(Lest anyone thing we are mindless lemmings who never disagree with each other)

At least they know that you can read my mind!

:)

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

Publish a paper accepted by Arxiv, that is generally accepted as worthy of discussion.

 

[ZapperZ]

Publish a paper accepted by Arxiv, that is generally accepted as worthy of discussion.

Not necessarily. I can point to you many Arxiv "publications" that are borderline crackpottery.

For High energy physics and String/etc. community, citing Arxiv uploads is a common practice, and so, we allow such citations as well for those forums and subject matter. However, for other fields of physics, this isn't so. Published work in peer-reviewed journals are still the predominant source of citations. So again, we will go with the prevailing practice within those communities and will skew our preference for sources from peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

 

[Wallace]

In practice though, does the distinction need to be invoked very often? How many line-ball discussions are there which get saved from the banhammer because someone could provide a link to an appropriate paper?

 

[turin]

I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought that the only reason to cite the arXiv is to allow those of us without paid subscriptions to read the paper :D . The abstract page will tell you immediately if it's been published (by including a "Journal Reference" at the bottom of the page), so all you need to do is to visit the abstract page. Shouldn't you have to do this even if it's a peer-reviewed journal? Wouldn't this apply to any discipline? (I happen to be in that particular category that Zap mentioned who cites the arXiv ubiquitously; I didn't know that it was an atypical practice.)

Not every "article" that appears in Arxiv were on their way to a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, not everyone updates the preprint into the same form as that which finally appeared in print. I know I didn't update the preprint that I uploaded when I had my papers published.

For most people in this profession, based on my experience, Arxiv is used simply as an "advanced notice" of news to come. Most of us still waits for the final papers to be published before we make extensive citation of it. This is certainly true outside of high energy/string/etc. field. One only needs to look at a typical paper in condensed matter from, say, PRL. Look at how many Arxiv-only article that was been cited.

Zz.

 

[TurtleMeister]

What about a private forum for non-mainstream science discussions? Admittance would be by request and could be restricted to members who have a minimum post count.

 

[Integral]

We have been there done that. It requires a huge amount of moderation time and involves endless arguments with members who think that the only requirement for doing physics is a good bowl load.

It simply is not worth our time.

Our current place for this is the IR (independent research) forums. We have pretty high standards for starting threads.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.

Usually I just sic em on http://www.bautforum.com/"

 

[Evo]

I just direct people who wish to discuss non-mainstrem ideas to other popular fora that don't have as strict policies. It's win-win for them and us.

Usually I just sic em on http://www.bautforum.com/"

bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

 

[Dale]

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

that is so true! That was my first vaguely-science-related online forum experience.

I got fed up with the cranks and decided to join PF instead precisely because of the mainstream science criterion. I think it is an indispensable part of what makes PF good and I hope it never goes away.

Can we change this thread from "Complaint" to "Praise"?

 

[DaveC426913]

bautforum is for astronomy and they don't tolerate cranks. One of our best moderators is now a moderator there.

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

I said nothing about cranks, or about crank fora. What I said was: People who wish to discuss non-mainstream ideas will have a better chance there than here.

 

[arildno]

If you want to refer them to a crank site refer them to sciforums.com Now that is a crackpot site.

We should use that place as a warning more often.

There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.

Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy.

 

[Astronuc]

We should use that place as a warning more often.

There is absolutely nothing of value in that forum, because the crackpots infest and parasitize on any and every thread.

Those who were competent and interested in making threads/responses on college&university level have long since left sciforums to rot. As it should, due to a negligent moderator policy.

Actually we do refer some people there.