Proposal: Sociology Threads Should Have Their Own Subforum

[humanino]

but why claim social issues are "meaningless"? Just because you aren't interested in them? Clearly some of the members of this forum are interested enough to track down real statistics and data on these matters.

One can be interested in those issues and still feel that they are innapropriate as such.

 

[ZapperZ]

These days, BPS states usually arise in the context of supersymmetry and D-branes. In this context, their natural home is the Beyond the Standard Model forum.

Then hit the REPORT button and suggests that it be moved.

We (the Mentors) do this all the time, moving threads into forums that are more suitable. There's zero issue here.

Zz.

 

[arivero]

Then hit the REPORT button and suggests that it be moved.

We (the Mentors) do this all the time, moving threads into forums that are more suitable. There's zero issue here.

Zz.

Then the remark
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.
should be also be enhanced to "unappropiated".

 

[Gokul43201]

Then the remark
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.
should be also be enhanced to "unappropiated".

Unfortunately, that description can not be changed. But it is to be understood that any issue with a post/thread that you believe requires moderation can be addressed by the REPORT feature.What do the Mentors say about a subforum under BtSM, or a sticky thread?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Unfortunately, that description can not be changed. But it is to be understood that any issue with a post/thread that you believe requires moderation can be addressed by the REPORT feature.

It can, and it has :)

 

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm...I was under the impression that this was a difficult change to implement. Well, I'm sure rivero's happy to make full use of it now!

 

[josh1]

...but why claim social issues are "meaningless"?

Sorry. I meant meaningless in the sense that sociological considerations cannot be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories. Maybe "useless" would have been a better choice.

 

[arivero]

Sorry. I meant meaningless in the sense that sociological considerations cannot be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories. Maybe "useless" would have been a better choice.

Well the difference between mathematical considerations and sociological considerations, both of which can not be used to accurately assess the viability of physics theories, is that mathematical considerations show "causes", while sociological considerations show "symptoms". A problem in theoretical physics is that very frequently these symptoms reflect the math, not the physics.

 

[Fra]

We have done it for all the other physics forums. So far, it has worked very well that philosophical issues are moved to the Philosophy forum. It doesn't relegate them to anything less, other than in the minds of some people here. It certainly doesn't impede the "progress" by any stretch of the imagination.

I see and understand the good point about this and about rights. I agree that if a particular discussion are moved from here to there, it doesn't matter. And no subforum is inferior of another of course. That's great.

But is that the way it works?

I see the chance is that if some discussions are banned here, they might not move, but change/disappear. Because who would expect discussions of funding and trends in research in the sociology section? Not me at least. I don't look for things that interest me in places where I don't expect to find it.

It seems desirable that potential participants in discussions are to be likely to locate them. If there is too much partitioning and too low activity in each subforum I think at least I would tend to miss it.

Except for obvious spam/crack-posts, which as I understand is not the topic here, I personally see the topics as a pure matter of effiency of indexing, so that the users can find what they are interested in?

/Fredrik

 

[nrqed]

As evinced by the recent shambles of "Where should Lisi do a postdoc" or some other such gormless nonsense. Quite how anyone could post such a topic with a straight face is beyond me.

I would really like people to comment on this.

Because this shows how things can degenerate into once we start letting sociological discussions flourish in a science forum.

 

[BenTheMan]

I would really like people to comment on this.

Because this shows how things can degenerate into once we start letting sociological discussions flourish in a science forum.

I was pretty disgusted about that thread---I would hate the field to descend into some damned soap opera with ``good guys'' and ``bad guys'' and the evil twin who we thaught died in Namiba, etc.

I think that I started this thread because the things I saw posted somehow reached a critical mass in my mind, and the whole thing kind of made my head explode.

I don't mind talking about the sociology of the field occasionally---exactly as someone pointed out, by the coffee maker. But I also don't mind talking about politics occasionally. That doesn't mean that I want to see it in this forum. The value of Physics Forums is that there IS a place to discuss physics in a serious manner, among serious people. I remember one of the earlier posts I made here was in trying to prove that N=4 SYM theory WAS conformally invariant---and in fact it was Garrett Lisi who answered my question.

The problem is that there are some people here whose whole contribution here can be sumarized as "captain of the Lee Smolin fan club". And I personally would rather have a place to talk about physics. If you want to tell me WHY spin foams reproduce the standard model, or WHY the new Smolin paper (which predicts four neutrinos) isn't ruled out by electroweak data, I would LOVE to hear. But I don't care, and judging by the response many here don't care, about how many people cite that paper.

 

[ZapperZ]

I see and understand the good point about this and about rights. I agree that if a particular discussion are moved from here to there, it doesn't matter. And no subforum is inferior of another of course. That's great.

But is that the way it works?

I see the chance is that if some discussions are banned here, they might not move, but change/disappear. Because who would expect discussions of funding and trends in research in the sociology section? Not me at least. I don't look for things that interest me in places where I don't expect to find it.

It seems desirable that potential participants in discussions are to be likely to locate them. If there is too much partitioning and too low activity in each subforum I think at least I would tend to miss it.

Except for obvious spam/crack-posts, which as I understand is not the topic here, I personally see the topics as a pure matter of effiency of indexing, so that the users can find what they are interested in?

/Fredrik

And I don't see it that way. I can easily argue that you've also missed several other "important" issues in various other physics forums. Why not simply have just ONE big physics forums so that no one would miss anything?

I have seen how a forum gets bogged down with peripheral issues unrelated to the actual physics. Since these physics forums are meant to discuss physics in the first place, we are trying to bring it back to where it should be, not trying to change it. All the other physics forums follow that rule. Why should be one be any different?

If you do not read other forums and missed what might interest you, that's your loss. No forum can protect you from your own choices and decisions. And no forum can be everything to everyone. We had similar complaint when we got rid of "crackpot forum" a while back, that we are stunting "creativity" and that no one would want to be here. Look at where this forum is now!

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would really like people to comment on this.

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, though I'm sure the intended audience would never find it there. I can empathize with the regulars who fear the loss of a coffee table, but I think they should just learn to find their way to the one in GD.

The main forums are not meant for coffee table discussion, and any such threads should be allowed only at the discretion of Mentors.

Having said that, I recognize that there is definitely the need for permitting some kinds of threads not directly discussing physics, such as announcements of conferences, seminars, etc. that are relevant to the community. I imagine the Mentors will have no problems with such communication residing within the subforum.

 

[Kea]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum...

As an old poetry loving, only-BtSM regular, who doesn't come here much any more, I say Thank You for doing something about this. It is with great dismay that I have watched the deterioration in the general quality of posts since people like Careful stopped coming here, and people like selfAdjoint (RIP) passed on.

 

[marcus]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, ...
The main forums are not meant for coffee table discussion, and any such threads should be allowed only at the discretion of Mentors...

Can't speak for others but my interest in BtSM is approximately that of science journalist or contemporary science historian. I try to keep track of the shifting approaches to QG. Incidentally this involves keeping track of rates of peer-reviewed publication and rates of citation. But, as you suggested, I also watch the lineup of topics and invited speakers at major conferences. And I read as many papers as I have time for, in a number of different QG approaches. I am skeptical of all the approaches, they all have problems, but alert for signs of progress. This is not a merely social or "coffee-table" interest---although occasionally I start or join a lighthearted thread for fun---I'm primarily trying to get an accurate overview of the rapid changes occurring in BtSM.

I get invaluable help in this from interacting with certain other people at the subforum and thinking about what they have said----others who are open to various QG approaches and trying to get a whole picture...

don't have time to complete this or edit. Thanks for some of your expressions of understanding, Gokul.

 

[Kea]

Marcus, get real. You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

 

[marcus]

As an old poetry loving, only-BtSM regular,..

you should come around more, Kea. Both you and Sabine H. started your own blogs and almost immediately cut back on participating here.

people like selfAdjoint (RIP)...

loved the guy. civility, humor, grace, understood several different approaches. brought out the best in us.

...You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not shown. My interest do go outside loop-foam-CDT. I try. Baez stuff comes to mind. We've had several threads where he participated actively. But not since he started his blog. (n-category cafe)

 

[josh1]

Marcus, get real. You have shown no understanding or interest whatsoever in stringy physics, let alone some other non LQG/foam/CDT approach to BTSM physics.

You know what's really funny about this thread? It's that it's largely about the devisive influence of one member on this forum, without which there would never have been any need for this thread.

 

[Fra]

Why not simply have just ONE big physics forums so that no one would miss anything?

Then people would certainly miss things, because the filtering time gets significant, and people don't want to spend their days filtering. People get sick of sorting out things and go elsewhere. It's not efficient either nor favourable.

If you do not read other forums and missed what might interest you, that's your loss.

Yes that is true. I accept that responsibility. But OTOH, any forum is dependent on the collective, the sum of the participants.

My impression is that in this case, we are not near overload here? The point seems to be to keep some people from beeing annoyed by certain posts because they take on different views. The sorting times are hardly the issue?

We had similar complaint when we got rid of "crackpot forum" a while back, that we are stunting "creativity" and that no one would want to be here. Look at where this forum is now!

Is that a trick question? I didn't know there was one? All I'm aware of is the independent research forum?

I'll stop arging here, and I indirectly appreciate posts that doesn't interest me directly in the sense that I want to participate, because it gives an image of the interest of the collective. That does interest me. It gives an overview over the reasoning of the other participants.

I appreciate this forum and you are all doing a great job to keep the signal to noise ratio high that's for sure. I just recall an analogt to the dolby noise reduction systems who got rid of some noise but also introduced a good distortion of the original signal and I could never decide which I like better. The original noisy signal, or the distorted noisefree one.

/Fredrik

 

[vanesch]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, though I'm sure the intended audience would never find it there. I can empathize with the regulars who fear the loss of a coffee table, but I think they should just learn to find their way to the one in GD.

I fully agree with you. I can also say that BTSM regularly gives grey hair to the mentors, because many practices here are used as arguments with crackpots about our policies not being uniform throughout PF. Regularly the suggestion comes up to simply close down BTSM, simply because it seems to fit into a totally different spirit than all the rest of PF, where we tend to ban the "highly speculative" and to stick to "generally accepted science". The nature of BTSM means of course that there is no "generally accepted science". Now, as long as BTSM is just a discussion between knowledgeable people in these speculative fields, this is part of physics of course, but it gives us problems as where to draw the line. Hence the "loose moderation" of this forum, and hence sometimes the accusations of double standard.

To all those interested in the "social" and "chatty" part of this forum, as Gokul points out, we have a good place for that, which is GD. If the social study is to be more serious, then we have "social sciences". If it has to do with career choices, we have "career guidance". If it is philosophical, we have the philosophy forum.

Now, of course, a thread can evolve, and something that was purely physical can get some social or philosophical twist. So be it.

But the "congratulations for your paper" is not so different from "happy birthday", and should go in the GD forum. However, the "in paper this and that, it is said that, blah blah, but I would think that so and this...", THAT belongs here.

Things like "there are only 3 postdoc positions open for this and that kind of research" belongs more in the career advice section.

And finally and most importantly, most mentors, if not all, just get nervous at "string bashing" versus "LQG bashing", openly or hidden.

The point about wandering about in different fora is also that other people would see a bit about this world (and that the regulars here would see something about the others :-)

 

[Moonbear]

My diagnosis is that there's a close-knit community of BtSM regulars that don't much venture outside this sub-forum and hence use it for all forms of interaction between themselves (from discussion of science, to chatting about vacations, conferences and poetry). The above topic, if at all, belongs in GD, though I'm sure the intended audience would never find it there. I can empathize with the regulars who fear the loss of a coffee table, but I think they should just learn to find their way to the one in GD.

I also agree. If a topic is sociological in nature, it should be discussed within the context of sociology in the social sciences forum. To not do so only perpetuates the myth the social sciences is all about touchy feely stuff that has no relevance to the real world or other sciences. And, it's not like our social sciences forum is swamped with tons of threads every day that would bury such topics. If the people who enjoy discussing the sociology threads know to look there for them, they will get just as much discussion as when posted here...perhaps more so since others may not hesitate to get involved in what looks like an off-topic discussion. For that matter, there may be others on this site who typically do not venture into the BTSM forum who might find such discussions of sociological issues more interesting and would participate in them should they find them in the more appropriate forums. Keep in mind that ALL the forums here fall under the purview of PHYSICS Forums. Even the non-science topics here are present because they are of sufficient interest to the scientists (or budding scientists) who frequent the site to be worthwhile to include. The present concerns are a perfect example of it. Clearly there are people here who enjoy discussing sociological topics, and for those who don't, they are a distraction when placed in a science-focused subforum. So, we have a social sciences subforum where such topics can be discussed for those who enjoy it.

Given that this is not a new problem here in the BTSM forum, however, and that there are quite a lot of threads/posts that are not strictly about physics going back for some time now, it's not a matter of just moving a couple threads around and being done with it. So, the mentors ARE discussing this issue and figuring out the best way to deal with it...a final decision has not yet been made. One of us will make a formal announcement within this forum when we reach a consensus decision. In the meantime, I suggest that anyone starting NEW threads consider if there are better forums here for the topic than this one if they are not directly discussing science but another primary subject (i.e., science policy, science book sales data, science funding), and place those discussions there voluntarily.

 

[grosquet]

Seems to me the simplest thing to do, is to create a new subforum titled “sci.physics.loops” to match the existing “sci.physics.strings”, and to move all future threads & posts relating to either strings or LQG to these 2 subforums. This would avoid all controversies & would help those seeking these subjects in particular.

"The human mind is an extraordinary thing - the most complex entity we have encountered anywhere in this vast Universe." John D. Barrow

 

[jal]

the mentors ARE discussing this issue and figuring out the best way to deal with it...a final decision has not yet been made.

Nothing stays the same.

Getting a guest speaker explaining and answering questions on his latest paper (even if it is not peer reviewed) would be a great idea to generate interest.

Look around you! ... everyone has his page ... his blog ... the pop science journals have comment abilities for the readers.
University student have their private network ... etc.

Everyone is trying to attract a very small group of people to their site.

This forum will need to change to stay alive.

Marcus, understood what I had previously said, work on it ... get it right ...

...Kea. Both you and Sabine H. started your own blogs and almost immediately cut back on participating here... Baez stuff comes to mind. We've had several threads where he participated actively. But not since he started his blog. (n-category cafe)

 

[robphy]

I'd suggest "Beyond the Standard Model community" as a subforum here [so that it's close to the BtSM folks] to handle topics that are more about PHYSICISTS than about the [maybe-someday textbook] PHYSICS... in the spirit of the original post in this thread.

 

[shoehorn]

Seems to me the simplest thing to do, is to create a new subforum titled “sci.physics.loops” to match the existing “sci.physics.strings”,[/I]

This idea is a non starter. Sci.physics* are newsgroups; setting one up would therefore require going jumping through hoops for RFCs, finding people who could be bothered to moderate it, and so on. In fact, one of the reasons sci.physics.strings is such a graveyard is precisely because it's a newsgroup.

For what little it's worth, I'm quite happy with the forum as it is at present apart from the horrible anti-string bias and the cheerleading for Smolin et al. Smolin's a perfectly decent fellow but it irritates me no end when people use this forum to promote his ideas (and, by extension, denigrate ideas that have come from string theory) seemingly without the slightest clue as to what those ideas actually are; this isn't an example of sociological discussion, it's puerile junk that doesn't belong on a forum which is otherwise doing quite well (thanks in large part to the mods).

As to the larger question of the degree of latitude afforded the posts here, I think that's largely something that comes with the territory when the purpose of the forum is as speculative as to discuss physics "beyond the standard model." There's nothing wrong with speculative ideas in this context; indeed, what we work on is entirely speculative, although usually at least grounded in solid mathematics. The point, I think, is that there's a world of difference between speculative ideas which make sense at least a priori and those crackpot ideas which pop up here from time to time. Most everyone can spot a junk idea if they're familiar with standard ideas including, presumably, the mods. I'd be disappointed if there was a crackdown on the type of posts which limited things solely to discussions of the two main approaches to QG. A simple pruning of the weeds (including the interminable market research data on book sales) will allow the rest of the garden to grow quite nicely.

 

[jal]

Forgot to say...
YOUTUBE ... FACEBOOK ETC. can get more hits on one thread in one day than all the threads of physicforums has gotten since it started.
I'm not suggesting that this is a fair comparison but rather suggesting that the forum leaders have got to look at what is happening "out there" and come up with a target audience and a way to reach them.

 

[jtbell]

So far I've seen two main proposals for separating the "non-physics" discussion here:

1. Move it to existing forums on those general areas: Social Science, Academic & Career Guidance, etc.

2. Create a sub-forum called "Sociology of Physics" or something similar. If it were up to me, I'd call it "BtSM People, Institutions and Publications" to make it more explicit. This requires work from PF's technical admins, to re-configure the forum software.

Here's another possibility, sort of a lightweight version of #2 that doesn't need any work from PF's technical administrators:

3. Create dedicated sticky threads for these posts, perhaps one for "People and Institutions" and another for "Publications and Statistics". Mentors would merge new threads or posts into those stickies as they deem appropriate. This is a straightforward process, very similar to moving threads to a different forum.

 

[Hans de Vries]

1. Move it to existing forums on those general areas: Social Science, Academic & Career Guidance, etc.

The regular crowd probably don't want to see their cozy place to be split up all over the place.

2. Create a sub-forum called "Sociology of Physics" or something similar. If it were up to me, I'd call it "BtSM People, Institutions and Publications" to make it more explicit. This requires work from PF's technical admins, to re-configure the forum software.3. Create dedicated sticky threads for these posts, perhaps one for "People and Institutions" and another for "Publications and Statistics". Mentors would merge new threads or posts into those stickies as they deem appropriate. This is a straightforward process, very similar to moving threads to a different forum.

The high percentage of posts would probably justify sub-forums instead of sticky
threads but I would use your qualification in point 3, so something like:1) Trends in theoretical physics: (For the statistics and pro/contra discussions)
2) The theoretical physics community: (To keep it cozy)Regards, Hans

 

[marcus]

...
1) Trends in theoretical physics: (For the statistics and pro/contra discussions)
...

Constructive idea "trends in theoretical physics" and I think such a discussion might have only a minor proportion of statistics and pro/con struggle! It's important to mention there are major trends in BtSM physics which have nothing to do with people's egos and A versus B partisanship. For example:

*recent papers of Loll connecting CDT quantum gravity with no-extra-dimensions (could call it "NXD") string
*papers of Baez, Perez and others with spinfoam background connecting also to NXD string
*the general theme of CONVERGENCE in nonstring quantum gravity:
1. joining loop and foam approaches (e.g. Rovelli's talk at the main conference and the Zako workshop)
2. joining the full loopfoam theory with LQC (cosmology, numerous recent papers and Rovelli's seminar talk in April)
3. joining loopfoam with NQC (central agenda of this years QG2 conference)

BtSM not static, with set topics. New stuff is changing the rules of the game. Trends are clearly reflected in preprints available online, and online seminar talks. It would be nice to discuss these things---and not necessarily contentious!

Good idea anyway, Hans.

 

[arivero]

*recent papers of Loll connecting CDT quantum gravity with no-extra-dimensions (could call it "NXD") string
*papers of Baez, Perez and others with spinfoam background connecting also to NXD string
*the general theme of CONVERGENCE in nonstring quantum gravity:
1. joining loop and foam approaches (e.g. Rovelli's talk at the main conference and the Zako workshop)
2. joining the full loopfoam theory with LQC (cosmology, numerous recent papers and Rovelli's seminar talk in April)
3. joining loopfoam with NQC (central agenda of this years QG2 conference)

BtSM

Also, I'd suggest the main subforum to be renamed B-GR. Even most of the string theory discussions here and in the paralised sps group were more B-GR than BtSM :-(

 

[Doc Al]

Gang,

Please take a look at the all new https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=178075".

Thanks!