The Role of Open Forums in Scientific Research

[chronon]

Read chronon's objection.
He (and a few others) believe that some non-mainstream ideas may have value and PF wants to give avenues for such ideas to grow as long as it has potential.

Indeed I do, and I think that the new forum is an excellent idea.

People have suggested that non-standard ideas can be sent to an expert or submitted to a journal or a conference. There are two problems with this

1) If they don't get much of a response then they can't tell whether it is because their idea really was totally wrong, or whether the journal editor felt that it was unsuitable for the journal (or the expert didn't have time to read it).

2) Many people aren't used to the normal process of publishing in journals etc., and would see discussion on an internet forum as a first step.

True it won't be the same as having an expert read it, but then if you did send it to an expert who didn't immediately throw it in the waste bin, then its quite possible that they would assign a student to 'check it out'.

 

[quantumdude]

I think that renaming a sub forum will not change the way most people look at it because tell me this : why would they ?

They would look at it differently because it is being held to a high standard and because they will know that the Staff takes it seriously enough to take the trouble to moderate the Forum by accepting or rejecting threads according to that standard.

The TD Forum fell into utter disrepute because it was obvious to everyone that no one, including the Staff, took it seriously. It has been considered a garbage dump since PF began, and it is an artifact from our early, more naive days.

I am saying that it is time to close the garbage dump and move it out of the house.

If you want to get rid of TD then just delete it entirely.

That was an option on the table, but none of us is willing to do that. We don't capriciously delete information around here. That is why when the new policy goes into effect, deleted posts under that policy will be accompanied by a PM.

But you know as well as i do that most people will keep on posting personal theories and their personal views on science. the content of these posts is in 99.9% of the cases completely wrong due to lack of knowledge, etc...we all know that but it will always be a part of this forum because most members are just young students trying to discover science for the first time.

We are prepared to differentiate between eager young learners and independent theorists. In fact we already do that. Novices who, say, question relativity out of ignorance are accommodated in the main section of PF. But those who make half-cocked posts that declare relativity is wrong, we move to TD and usually end up banning. What we're saying is that from now on we will not move the latter type of posts to TD. We will simply eliminate it, and at the same time provide a venue in the event that the person wants to propose a serious alternative.

By selecting certain 'better' (less bad, that is) theories , you will find yourself doing just the very same things as you were doing when 'cleaning up' the TD-subforum.

No, we won't have to do that. If a theory that "overturns" SR is based on a mathematical error, we will simply reject it. Simple. There will be no more pages and pages of rebuttals for people who will not be persuaded. That's the idea.

We will always need to correct such posts but isn't that what we have been doing up till now ? I really do not see how changing this policy will actually chamge things for the better...Now, that is my question to you...

No one will need to correct these posts, because there will be a disclaimer at the top of the new Forum that states that the thread is a work in progress, and has yet to be verified. This is further reinforced by moving the new Forum out of the Physics section. People need not feel any obligation to rebut the thread, or even to respond to it.

 

[quantumdude]

You are overestimating yourself here.

After reading your post 3 times, I am still at at total loss as to how.

First of all, nobody is ever going to post serious research out here

So then the worst case scenario is that TD stops growing, no more half-baked posts are allowed, and we have an empty subforum called "Outside the Mainstream".

That still sounds pretty damn good to me!

Secondly, suppose all posted suggestions are just rubbish then you are doing the same thing as moderating the TD-subforum...what is the point ?

The point is that the rubbish is no longer posted at PF.

Thirdly, if some poor slob would ever present something serious here, do you claim you have the people to judge this work effectively ? I don't think so...We have quite some expertise here but how many members are actually realtime specialists with an impressive publication record ? How man members are doing publication-refereeing in real life...and we will need such people on various fields...

You're missing the point. The idea is that we are going to judge the theories solely on whether or not they conform to the new guidelines, not on the probability that the author is correct. That can be hashed out in the discussion itself. We certainly have the personnel needed to check that all the requirements are satisfied, so I don't see this as a problem at all.

i do not believe that you have such people, but you can always try to convince me

Marlon, it really doesn't matter to me if you are ever convinced. I've convinced the Staff, and that's all that is needed. I'll be happy to address your questions and concerns, but one thing is already decided: We are going to do this.

 

[marlon]

Tom,
altering the policy will not rise the quality level up to a higher level given the general knowledge of most of the candidate posters.

And you say you do not want to deleted info capriciously. Tell me, which info coming from TD is that ? Can't you see the irony in such an argument?

marlon

 

[marlon]

We are going to do this.

Ofcourse, please be my guest...
Thanks for 'answering' my questions, err.

marlon

 

[quantumdude]

altering the policy will not rise the quality level up to a higher level given the general knowledge of most of the candidate posters.

I disagree. I think that this new policy will force the candidate posters to critically re-examine what they have written, in light of the fact that it will be rejected if it does not conform to the guidelines.

Of course, it will be impossible for a mere policy change to raise the knowledge of candidate posters, so I am not expecting the quality to increase from the high end. But what I do think will happen is that the overall quality will be raised by eliminating the low end of what was formerly allowed to be posted here.

And you say you do not want to deleted info capriciously. Tell me, which info coming from TD is that ?

The information coming from those who took the time to respond to the crackpots.

Can't you see the irony in such an argument?

No, I can not see it. Why don't you explain it to me?

Thanks for 'answering' my questions, err.

You may not like the answers, but I am in fact answering your questions openly and frankly. Anyone can see that.

 

[marlon]

I disagree. I think that this new policy will force the candidate posters to critically re-examine what they have written, in light of the fact that it will be rejected if it does not conform to the guidelines.

Of course, it will be impossible for a mere policy change to raise the knowledge of candidate posters, so I am not expecting the quality to increase from the high end. But what I do think will happen is that the overall quality will be raised by eliminating the low end of what was formerly allowed to be posted here.

The problem is this : asking a novice to re-examin the content of some speculative post will not lead to anything good due to lack of knowledge. This is what is going to happen in most of the cases. That is also why i say this moderating will be no different from what is being done in TD now.
It is as simple as that.

The information coming from those who took the time to respond to the crackpots.

Didn't you just tell me that even the staff was taking TD not very seriously. Most threads are just closed and although some eople will have attempted to correct certain posts it cannot be very much, otherwise TD would just be the same as the QM or relativity sub forum...

No, I can not see it. Why don't you explain it to me?

There is no real info in TD, only the notion that a certain post is wrong
marlon

 

[quantumdude]

The problem is this : asking a novice to re-examin the content of some speculative post will not lead to anything good due to lack of knowledge.

No one's state of knowledge is static. There are a precious few people out there who are not attached to an academic institution, but who will still hit the books if they are told that their ideas are faulty. These are the people we are aiming to accommodate.

This is what is going to happen in most of the cases.

If that turns out to be true, then most of the cases will be rejected.

That is also why i say this moderating will be no different from what is being done in TD now.
It is as simple as that.

The difference for PF as a whole is that today garbage threads are posted (and therefore viewable) in TD, after July 15 they won't be seen at all. The difference from a moderating standpoint is that today irrational arguments have to be rebutted in TD, until the thread is actually locked. But after July 15 the irrational arguments will be weeded out in the moderation queue.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Didn't you just tell me that even the staff was taking TD not very seriously.

That comment was in the context of why we are not calling the new forum "Theory Development". If a thread was moved to TD, it meant that the Staff considered it garbage. That's what I meant.

It does not imply that Staff members and Science Advisors did not do a lot of outstanding, admirable work responding there. In fact, they did.

Most threads are just closed and although some eople will have attempted to correct certain posts it cannot be very much, otherwise TD would just be the same as the QM or relativity sub forum...


There is no real info in TD, only the notion that a certain post is wrong
marlon

You have no idea of what you are talking about, which is not surprising in view of the fact that in Post #31 you said:

Yes, i admit, i never read the content of posts in TD and i never visit this sub-forum because of the obvious reasons.

 

[marlon]

No one's state of knowledge is static. There are a precious few people out there who are not attached to an academic institution, but who will still hit the books if they are told that their ideas are faulty. These are the people we are aiming to accommodate.

That is what you are doing in this entire physics forum. Is that so hard to see ? Gee...

If that turns out to be true, then most of the cases will be rejected.

ofcourse, just like most posts are blocked. The effect is just the same. You should just delete the bad posts in TD, thus delete the entire sub forum.

The difference for PF as a whole is that today garbage threads are posted (and therefore viewable) in TD, after July 15 they won't be seen at all. The difference from a moderating standpoint is that today irrational arguments have to be rebutted in TD, until the thread is actually locked. But after July 15 the irrational arguments will be weeded out in the moderation queue.

?
the amount of work is still going to be equally big because people will start to ask why their post was not accepted. The resulting situation is will be an exact copy of what is going on in TD now. Why can't you see that ?

Maybe people will start asking why they did not get in by sending PM's to your socalled reviewers. Are they going to be able to cope with such an incoming flow of questions and complaints ? This is TD all over again, plus given the fact you do not have the people to do this, i say this is a very superfluous (already made) decision.

It does not imply that Staff members and Science Advisors did not do a lot of outstanding, admirable work responding there. In fact, they did.

Ok, but the point is that they will have to keep on doing that, so what ?
By changing this policy you may have a different result as seen from the 'outside' but you know damn well there is going to be a lot of discussion going on on the 'inside'. JUST LIKE IN TD.

marlon

 

[quantumdude]

That is what you are doing in this entire physics forum. Is that so hard to see ? Gee...

You are pointing out a similarity in the two policies, but ignoring the differences, which are:

1. That TD will stop growing, and finally be retired.
2. That posting of independent research will be done according to strict guidelines, or not at all.
3. That the irrational, half-baked nonsense will be deleted, instead of moved to TD.

ofcourse, just like most posts are blocked. The effect is just the same. You should just delete the bad posts in TD, thus delete the entire sub forum.

I will once again note that by your own admission you have no idea of what is actually contained in TD. Suffice it to say that there is information there that we do not wish to delete.

?
the amount of work is still going to be equally big because people will start to ask why their post was not accepted.

As I said in my opening post, they will be given the reason why their post was not accepted. Any public outbursts can simply be deleted.

The resulting situation is will be an exact copy of what is going on in TD now. Why can't you see that ?

No, it will not be an exact copy of the current TD section. For the umpteenth time, the kind of posts that currently get sent to that forum will be deleted.

Maybe people will start asking why they did not get in by sending PM's to your socalled reviewers. Are they going to be able to cope with such an incoming flow of questions and complaints ?

Did you not read my response to Moonbear? I said that the reviews will be anonymous. I will be sending the notifications myself. Why don't you let me worry about how to handle my own PM box?

This is TD all over again, plus given the fact you do not have the people to do this, i say this is a very superfluous (already made) decision.

You seem to still be operating under the assumption that we will be taking on the role of a peer-reviewed journal. If your assumption were true, then you would be right, we would not have enough people.

But your assumption is not true. We are only going to judge submitted threads on their adherance to the guidelines. If the methodology and format is up to snuff, then we'll let it be posted in the new forum. And since, according to the new guidelines, the new forum will look nothing like the garbage dump that is the current TD section, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you would say that it is "superfluous". PF has never had anything like this before.

Ok, but the point is that they will have to keep on doing that, so what ?
By changing this policy you may have a different result as seen from the 'outside' but you know damn well there is going to be a lot of discussion going on on the 'inside'. JUST LIKE IN TD.

No, it won't be just like in TD. And since you've never read anything in TD, how would you even know?

The Staff members and Science Advisors who participated in TD literally went to battle with a great many blockheads who posted there. Arguments could go on for pages about one of these "theories" being invalid because of, say, a division by zero error (this really happened). The author of course would not accept the criticism, and his active participation (disruption?) in the discussion thread is what drew the whole thing out ad nauseum until the thread was finally locked.

The main point is something that you would not have picked up, having not participated in TD: The presence of the author made the reviewing much more difficult.

Under the new policy, the author won't be there to interfere with the screening. If that thread had been posted under the new policy, it would have been rejected and the author informed as to why, and that would be the end of it. If the author re-posted, we would delete and warn until he stopped or was banned. There will be no 20 pages of Algebra 101 under the new policy.

It really is quite obvious that, for better or for worse, the pre-July 15 policy and the post-July 15 policy have very different implications for both the face of PF and for the way the Staff approaches moderating the site. If you can't see that then I put it to you that it is due to one or both of the following reasons:

1. You have not read/understood my explanation of the new policy.
2. You have not understood just what has gone on in the TD section.

#2 is true for certain, and based on your comments I strongly suspect that #1 is true as well. That being the case, I think I've addressed your objections as much as I intend to until #1 and #2 aren't true. There is enough constructive advice from people who "get it" for us to work with.

 

[quantumdude]

Indeed I do, and I think that the new forum is an excellent idea.

Why thank you.

This has been in the works for a couple of weeks, and I really wanted to tell both you and Zanket in our recent discussions, but I had to wait until Greg gave the thumbs-up to let the cat out of the bag.

Anyway, here is our solution to some of the objections that have been raised over the years regarding PF and censorship. We are still going to exert strong leadership over this new forum, but it will be a venue that will be taken seriously by all who participate.

 

[Astronuc]

Tom, I also think, as chronon and others stated, that the new forum is an excellent idea.

I do not envy you for taking on the role of moderator in that forum.

But if you need some assistance on nuclear engineering topics, you know where to find me.

 

[marlon]

You are pointing out a similarity in the two policies, but ignoring the differences, which are:

1. That TD will stop growing, and finally be retired.

yes, i agree with that.

2. That posting of independent research will be done according to strict guidelines, or not at all.

For the 1000th time, no real socalled independent research is ever going to be posted here. The content of these posts is just the bad degraded posts that have been moved out the other sub forums.

3. That the irrational, half-baked nonsense will be deleted, instead of moved to TD.

well, here is where we disagree but ok, let's drop it.

I will once again note that by your own admission you have no idea of what is actually contained in TD. Suffice it to say that there is information there that we do not wish to delete.

Well, i was going to let it slip away but since you have used this argument several times i will tell you this : i have been participating in TD in my first months on this forum. I have had many discussions with a banned member (his name was Kurious) on the actual nature of the strong force and the electroweak force. This specific member had done some 'personal research' on these topics and well, the result is well known. I put in a lot of effort to explain why he was wrong. So please, when making accusations, be more informed.

As I said in my opening post, they will be given the reason why their post was not accepted. Any public outbursts can simply be deleted.

But i am not debating that. What i am trying to say is that people will want to know why their 'research' was not accepted. Well, ok i will just drop it...because otherwise Gokul will send me even more warnings...

If i have offended anyone, please accept my apologies, it was not my intention

regards
marlon

 

[quantumdude]

For the 1000th time, no real socalled independent research is ever going to be posted here. The content of these posts is just the bad degraded posts that have been moved out the other sub forums.

Firstly, you don't know that that will be the case. We will only know by trying it out.

And secondly, I've already answered this point of yours. You don't need to keep bringing it up.

I said:

"So then the worst case scenario is that TD stops growing, no more half-baked posts are allowed, and we have an empty subforum called "Outside the Mainstream".

That still sounds pretty damn good to me!"

Tom: 3. That the irrational, half-baked nonsense will be deleted, instead of moved to TD.

Marlon: well, here is where we disagree but ok, let's drop it.

This doesn't make any sense. You disagree with what, exactly? That the posts will be deleted? I assure you, they will.

Well, i was going to let it slip away but since you have used this argument several times i will tell you this : i have been participating in TD in my first months on this forum. I have had many discussions with a banned member (his name was Kurious) on the actual nature of the strong force and the electroweak force. This specific member had done some 'personal research' on these topics and well, the result is well known. I put in a lot of effort to explain why he was wrong.

Good for you.

So please, when making accusations, be more informed.

Are you stoned?

Firstly Marlon, you told me that you never read TD, and you made comments that are strongly consistent with that admission. I make my best effort to understand people as well as possible when I listen to them, but there's only so much I can do. If you deliberately miselad me, then I can hardly be faulted for that.

And secondly, my point to you is to "be more informed" about the things that you talk about. You said, "There is no real info in TD, only the notion that a certain post is wrong", which is patently false.

But i am not debating that. What i am trying to say is that people will want to know why their 'research' was not accepted.

And as I already told you, I will tell them why it is not accepted.

What's the problem?

Well, ok i will just drop it...because otherwise Gokul will send me even more warnings...

I seriously doubt that you would be warned for well-considered criticisms of this idea that are free of barbs. But really Marlon, all you've done in this thread is engage in misguided ranting, which I think everyone can agree that we can do without.

 

[Moonbear]

But i am not debating that. What i am trying to say is that people will want to know why their 'research' was not accepted.

Well, that's something Tom will have to deal with if they flood his PM inbox, but it seems if he's willing to take that on, then I say good on him! However, the important bit is that if they are rejected, it will be based on whether they've met the criteria Tom listed in this opening post, not on whether we agree or disagree with the validity of the theory itself. Having read a number of the threads in TD, I'd have to say that the real crackpots are never going to meet those requirements, so can be quickly deleted and sent on their not so merry way. What this forum will likely include, if we receive such submissions, are those borderline topics where the discussion is more interesting and even if the original idea is dismissed during the discussion, the information that comes out of the discussion is informative.

It will get rid of the eyesore of those topics where someone posts their personal theory, someone painstakingly explains not just what is wrong with the theory, but provides a very informative post about what is known related to current theory, only to have the crackpot come back with a post along the lines of, "Yeah, but if you ignore all that stuff you just said is wrong, this is still a great theory." Or where they spiral off into flame wars as people get fed up with the futility.

The other upside I see to this is that nobody is ever going to see these wacky theories other than those of us with sufficient scientific training to not be confused by quackery. It avoids having students read a post with a long back-and-forth diatribe where they just don't know who to believe. And, at the same time, we give those who can debate a controversial topic intelligently a chance to do so. It's basically saying, we recognize that sometimes you do have to speculate a bit to find the next step to take in research, and that's a good place to do your speculating where it's clear to others that it is indeed speculation and not tested theory.

I think it also makes it easier in the long-run for the moderators to handle the people who run here screaming censorship when their posts are deleted or moved to TD. We now have a clear guideline for such posts and a place to submit them. If they are submitted to the wrong place, they will be summarily deleted, regardless of potential merit, with an invitation to reformat and submit to the proper place. They have fair warning in advance of what they need to do to have their thread topic accepted for discussion in that forum, and the onus is on them to conform to that format or have their post rejected. We no longer have to tiptoe around telling them that they are a crackpot or their "theory" is completely wrong, we can just point to the submission criteria they did not meet.

Plus, it is also now spelled out that if they try to circumvent the need for approval of such topics by posting in the wrong forum, they will receive warnings and be rather quickly banned if they persist rather than needing to wait for them to start insulting the moderators before they've broken enough site rules to get banned.

I guess I look at it that at the very worst, we end up with an empty forum and just as many cranks running around crying censorship as we have now. So, that would mean we wind up with the status quo as the worst case scenario. At best, we substantially clean up PF and wind up with a very interesting forum of non-mainstream ideas with thoughtful discussion. I suspect we'll wind up with something intermediate to that.

As for the current TD forum... I don't know if I'd miss it at all if it disappeared overnight. I realize there's motivation to keep it for the sake of the informative posts interspersed throughout by those who really put the effort into try to correct people's misunderstandings, but those are so buried amidst the insults, crying, and crackpottery, that I'm not sure how useful they really are. On the other hand, cracked pottery seems to be a popular museum exhibit, so maybe it should be renamed, "PF Museum of Crackpottery." We can all stand around and gawk.

 

[marlon]

Firstly, you don't know that that will be the case. We will only know by trying it out.

This doesn't make any sense. You disagree with what, exactly? That the posts will be deleted? I assure you, they will.

No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

If you look at how difficult it is to convince people (BY USING FACTS) that their theory is wrong, how are you going to cope with that ? I know you claim that you have already answered this question but i really do not think that.
I mean, you honestly do not believe that answering them back with PM will do the job, right ? That just is not realistic.

Good for you.

Thanks

Are you stoned?

No, i really think you were when you came up with this initiative

Firstly Marlon, you told me that you never read TD, and you made comments that are strongly consistent with that admission.

Yes indeed i did but i also told you that i participated on TD. What i meant to say was I left TD and stopped participating for specific reasons which are the same as why most of the members do not actively participate in TD.

I make my best effort to understand people as well as possible when I listen to them, but there's only so much I can do.

Do not worry, same here...

And secondly, my point to you is to "be more informed" about the things that you talk about. You said, "There is no real info in TD, only the notion that a certain post is wrong", which is patently false.

Mmm, i can see why you say this. Let me explain. What i wanted to say is that most people will not learn many things by reading TD posts. I believe the real sub forums and the journals are much more useful for these purposes.

But let me excuse myself for this patently false statement

I seriously doubt that you would be warned for well-considered criticisms of this idea that are free of barbs. But really Marlon, all you've done in this thread is engage in misguided ranting, which I think everyone can agree that we can do without.

Yes, well let us not start insulting each other just because you disagree, ok ?
Thanks

marlon

 

[marlon]

As for the current TD forum... I don't know if I'd miss it at all if it disappeared overnight. I realize there's motivation to keep it for the sake of the informative posts interspersed throughout by those who really put the effort into try to correct people's misunderstandings, but those are so buried amidst the insults, crying, and crackpottery, that I'm not sure how useful they really are.

I completely agree with you

On the other hand, cracked pottery seems to be a popular museum exhibit, so maybe it should be renamed, "PF Museum of Crackpottery." We can all stand around and gawk.

Now that is a great suggestion

marlon

 

[Moonbear]

No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

I don't think anyone is arguing it's going to make the crackpots disappear and stop trying to post on the main boards, they do now even with TD closed. But, I disagree that it would be any more work. Right now, they do that and then the thread gets moved to TD, and after being moved to TD, usually after a few more posts, it gets locked. Now, the moderators don't need to move, watch, then lock, they will just hit "delete." And, currently, as soon as a thread is moved to TD and locked, we get the usual posts on various forums complaining about censorship, providing a link to the thread and attempting to re-ignite debate by saying just one more thing, swearing up and down how the moderators are such ogres, etc. I'm sure they'll continue too. Those will be locked or deleted as they always have been. I don't think that will be more work, just the same. And when the offenders are more quickly banned, it stops the nonsense sooner.

I don't see why you object to trying it. If it doesn't work out and the worst-case scenario happens, they can always just delete an empty forum and drop the idea. It seems worthwhile to give it a test.

 

[jma2001]

For what it's worth, I think this new forum is a good idea. It will certainly be an improvement over "Theory Development" and a lot of interesting discussion could come out of it. I agree that the only way to find out is to try it.

 

[quantumdude]

Regardless of how you feel about it, I have in fact answered your point.

No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Then you are mistaken. There is no reason to think that there will be a substantial rise in the amount of actionable offenses because the vast majority of crank posting is in new threads that they start, as opposed to existing threads already in TD.

And since posting new topics has been disabled in TD (quite some time ago, in fact), where do you think they have been posting? That's right, in the main science forums. The difference from July 15 onwards will be that we delete, rather than move.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

If you look at how difficult it is to convince people (BY USING FACTS) that their theory is wrong, how are you going to cope with that ? I know you claim that you have already answered this question but i really do not think that.

Dealing with what you describe here is still easier than responding to the threads, which is what we would have to do if they remained in place. And it is still more desirable than letting TD grow even more.

Tracing posts is much easier than rebutting nonsense. All I have to do is hit a button marked, "Find all posts by User (x)", and I see them all. No problemo.

I mean, you honestly do not believe that answering them back with PM will do the job, right ? That just is not realistic.

We have more tools at our disposal than just PMs, such as the one that let's us track down and delete posts with a minimum of trouble.

No, i really think you were when you came up with this initiative

You of course realize that you are free not to participate, yes?

Yes indeed i did but i also told you that i participated on TD.

Your said you never participated. You flip-flopped only after being backed into a corner.

Mmm, i can see why you say this. Let me explain. What i wanted to say is that most people will not learn many things by reading TD posts.

You don't know that.

Yes, well let us not start insulting each other just because you disagree, ok ?

The only one who has done any insulting in this thread is you.

 

[Chronos]

I'm tempted to suggest calling the new forum 'Crackpots Anonymous'. Post here if you dare. See if you can run your favorite non-mainstream theory past the dogs while wearing a pork chop necklace. Survivors will qualify for 'Theory Development'.

 

[dextercioby]

What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This (*) unbelievebly valuable piece of cr@p...?

By the looks of it, at least at the level of intentions, such nonsense will not be present on PF anymore and will definitely not affect our sight.

Daniel.

(*) Follow the link.

 

[Danger]

Maybe some brainstorming on the best title for the new forum would produce a better idea.

The only thing that concerns me about it is that as a layman interested in real science, the title "Outside the Mainstream" sort of indicates the sort of stuff that you'd find in "Skepticism and Debunking"; ie paranormal crap, UFO's, etc.. As such, I would avoid it like the plague. Perhaps something like "Scientific Speculations" would be more descriptive of what you are trying to accomplish. Or even something with the term "Alternative" in it.

What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This

I'm going to sue you, Dex. That link gave me one truly piercing headache.

 

[marlon]

What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This (*) unbelievebly valuable piece of cr@p...?


(*) Follow the link.

ok, after reading that link, i stand corrected

thanks dex

marlon

 

[quantumdude]

That's right, we will delete threads such as that one straight away when the new policy takes hold.

 

[NateTG]

So, is there an ETA for this new forum?

 

[quantumdude]

The policy change will take effect on July 15, 2005, and the new Forum will be a Subforum of Scepticism and Debunking.

The following new Theory Development Guidelines will be posted at the top of the new Forum and will Take Effect July 15, 2005

The difference for PF as a whole is that today garbage threads are posted (and therefore viewable) in TD, after July 15 they won't be seen at all.

It really is quite obvious that, for better or for worse, the pre-July 15 policy and the post-July 15 policy have very different implications for both the face of PF and for the way the Staff approaches moderating the site.

The difference from July 15 onwards will be that we delete, rather than move.

So, is there an ETA for this new forum?

No.

 

[Garth]

What is considered to be outside the mainstream? There is often a conflict of opinion in peer reviewed published work, indeed science would not proceed without such alternative hypotheses, even when one theory is that accepted as the consensus viewpoint.

For example in gravitational theory and cosmology the MOND paradigm is well discussed in the published literature and yet it is definitely outside the ‘mainstream’. Similarly with Self Creation Cosmology.

Are posts on MOND to be posted to this new forum?

Garth

 

[quantumdude]

I'll say basically what I said to Andre. If you want to make a post to discuss a paper that has already passed peer review feel free to post it in the most appropriate science forum. If you are proposing your own add-on to a theory, or a new theory altogether, that has not already passed peer-review, then post it in the new section.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

so tom, when will we get the new forum?

 

[ZapperZ]

so tom, when will we get the new forum?

You're going to make him pop a vein...

Zz.

 

[NateTG]

so tom, when will we get the new forum?

Actually, I'm wondering whether the posting interface will be like a thread start, or if it will be a PM to Tom.

 

[quantumdude]

People will post threads just like in any other forum, but the threads will disappear from view and go to a moderation queue. I will copy and paste the opening post and start a thread in the screening forum, where it will be discussed. If it's a go, I'll approve the thread from the queue and it will appear in the forum.

 

[Andre]

So what happens to the Venus thread? I seem to remember that only the moved/locked threads were to be removed. Correct? Venus is neither. Nor has it been refuted.

One of the reasons why I developed that thread was originality. If within my life time somebody was to publish something like “All-Venus-features-are-explained as-a-logical-end-state-result-of-excessive-planetary-perturbations-interacting-with-inner-core-spin-axis” I could point to the thread, having hundreds of witnesses that I was first. Just a little vanity, I guess. So, please don’t delete it.

 

[quantumdude]

Andre,

So what happens to the Venus thread? I seem to remember that only the moved/locked threads were to be removed. Correct? Venus is neither. Nor has it been refuted.

Don't worry about a thing. As I explained to marlon, the entire current TD section is going to be closed and archived. Nothing that is in TD will be deleted.