Personal theories are not welcome?

[wolram]

I'd say it remains on its foetal stage.

(shed) inventors arildno. make them spend their time money, before any one
(buys) their invention.

 

[arildno]

Well, I wish sciencer good luck with his site, but I think his policy will make his forum degenerate pretty quickly into a crackpots' haven.

 

[Mattara]

Well, I wish sciencer good luck with his site, but I think his policy will make his forum degenerate pretty quickly into a crackpots' haven.

Right on.

If you have a new professional researched theory, you wouldn't want to post it in a forum either because then everyone could steal it and claim it as their own.

 

[quantumdude]

A special place for 'personal theories' -

http://www.sciencerevolution.com/forum/

Viva la revoluci-

Aw screw it, I'm just going to go have a beer.

 

[Lisa!]

A special place for 'personal theories' -

http://www.sciencerevolution.com/forum/

I like quiet places but not that quiet!

 

[Evo]

Perhaps English is not his first language, too many spelling/grammatical errors (yes, I'm picky about that kind of thing).

 

[sprinklehopper]

Well, now that you mention it...

I have often wondered if that poor reaction is due to the policy and procedure of how an offending post is initially dealt with. This is usually the user's first practical experience with the board's policies, and I imagine it feels surprisingly brusque. I suspect that the user's experience is that of being confronted by a cop, when what they were expecting to be greeted by was a mentor.

That about sums up the problems i have had since i came here. The "mentors" seem to have developed crackpot paranioa to the point they can't deal with someone who is attempting mixing a structured learning process, tied into to solving an original problem (its ok by me that its prevented from being posted as I'm advised not to present it online anyway ) Hypothesus already gets a backseat in the scientific process, so I resorted to using a more basic and general analogy as a template for the concept needing a solution through learning.

I would say there is a definite problem here in regards to overeactivity. I get it now from reading the history of the forum. My suggestion is upgrade the reactions to newcomers, and stop using extreme language. For me i'll just stand my ground and debate in this regard, but what is this process doing for younger people coming through here. I can imagine they would go away quietly feelingl pretty ShFit. is this what you want.

In regards to "creativity" or "crackpot" terms, (usually the usuage of the term indicates the creative potential of the user) Well this has probably been said a million times. Strange how it repeatedly falls on dead ears.

Now what would happen if we reflected on how much of the top percentile of what dominates the science texts we slavishly adhere to today on this forum, derives from those considered "crackpots", at the stage where they incubated their ideas. Mendel, Faraday, Einstein, Darwin etc. etc.

That list could go on and on as well as modern equivalents, dawkings, blackmore, penrose / hammeroff, walter freeman etc. Things have definately got worse in regards to receptivity, and scientific publication itself has now become a tower of babel, mostly as the community consists of more and more piling in on the growing, career, status, job racket.

Elsevier are trying to solve this with journals which encourage hypothesus and do away with peer review. Governments are getting fed up with the worrying profit increases in the journal racket. Complexity experts such as Ruggins are called in just to deal with developing clustering programs to deal with the sheer amount of papers on single subjects, that PHD students cannot deal with.

 

[ZapperZ]

That about sums up the problems i have had since i came here. The "mentors" seem to have developed crackpot paranioa to the point they can't deal with someone who is attempting mixing a structured learning process, tied into to solving an original problem (its ok by me that its prevented from being posted as I'm advised not to present it online anyway ) Hypothesus already gets a backseat in the scientific process, so I resorted to using a more basic and general analogy as a template for the concept needing a solution through learning.

I would say there is a definite problem here in regards to overeactivity. I get it now from reading the history of the forum. My suggestion is upgrade the reactions to newcomers, and stop using extreme language. For me i'll just stand my ground and debate in this regard, but what is this process doing for younger people coming through here. I can imagine they would go away quietly feelingl pretty ShFit. is this what you want.

In regards to "creativity" or "crackpot" terms, (usually the usuage of the term indicates the creative potential of the user) Well this has probably been said a million times. Strange how it repeatedly falls on dead ears.

Now what would happen if we reflected on how much of the top percentile of what dominates the science texts we slavishly adhere to today on this forum, derives from those considered "crackpots", at the stage where they incubated their ideas. Mendel, Faraday, Einstein, Darwin etc. etc.

That list could go on and on as well as modern equivalents, dawkings, blackmore, penrose / hammeroff, walter freeman etc. Things have definately got worse in regards to receptivity, and scientific publication itself has now become a tower of babel, mostly as the community consists of more and more piling in on the growing, career, status, job racket.

Elsevier are trying to solve this with journals which encourage hypothesus and do away with peer review. Governments are getting fed up with the worrying profit increases in the journal racket. Complexity experts such as Ruggins are called in just to deal with developing clustering programs to deal with the sheer amount of papers on single subjects, that PHD students cannot deal with.

It's amazing that this type of rhetoric is being repeated again even after we have dealt with it on here many times.

Here are the SIMPLE facts that you seem to have ignored:

1. You were told that if you wish to join this forum, these are the rules to follow. We could make up anything we wish. We could insist that you only post on here while not wearing any pants and sucking on one of your big toes if we like. You didn't have to stay if you do not agree! You did anyway!

2. By your continued stay, you AGREED to abide by such rules. It means that you have given YOUR WORD, if that actually has any worth to it.

3. And now that such Guidelines are being applied, you complain?

4. If ALL you want are everything and anything that people want to post, why, of all places, did you come HERE? I mean, throw a dart with your eyes closed and you will hit a forum with such open policy and lack of moderation! There are TONS of those that you can't miss! Do you need to be shown to all those Yahoo Groups, etc?

Again, it boggles my mind that a forum such as PF, that is obviously a very SMALL MINORITY of forum that's trying to do this, is being assulted by people who simply cannot STAND to see even ONE forum trying to care about the quality of its postings, dispite the existence of hundreds others that don't! Are you being DEPRIVED of the opportunity elsewhere to spew your ideas?

And since when did Einstein, Darwin, etc. did their work in open public forum? Hello? Where did Einstein published his 1905 papers?

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

This has all been discussed ad nauseum. Use the search feature and look up the very LONG discussion that occurred when we decided to crack down on crackpottery and all the pros and cons that went into the decision. The pros of not allowing it won, and that's reflected in the guidelines you have to agree to when you join. If you don't like it, then you don't need our permission to leave.