What is a proper quality post

[Trollfaz]

I currently have a warning for poor quality posts or what mods call 'substandard' posts. I'm not trying to argue with the mods or appeal anything here in the post.But rather I wish to know what kind of posts the mods accept. I understand the need for PF to be heavily moderated to keep crackpots and pseudoscience out. The difference between me and a crackpot is that I will listen to the mods explanation on why my posts are not acceptable rather than accusing them of censorship, free speech predator or calling them 'Nazis' .

Do all posts demands a proper reference. If so what is an acceptable reference, YouTube documentaries, books from respectable physicists, popular sci articles? And am I not allowed to write my personal opinion on certain theories without substantiation?

Im an undergraduate and my understanding of physics is rather shallow, I'm here to learn, not deliberately cause trouble and I hope the mods can be more patient with me

 

[berkeman]

When you make an assertion in the technical PF forums, you need to back that up with links to the professional scientific literature. That's in the rules that you agreed to. If you don't provide those in your original post thread start (OP) which you should, you absolutely need to provide them when asked for them here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is what might be the simplest, most black and white test:

In fields where you are not highly-skilled, avoid making any assertions. Instead, ask questions. Seek, and listen to, advice and information.

 

[Trollfaz]

Assertions means not facts that the general science community agrees with rite? Because honestly I do not need a reference if I bring up F=ma of E=mc^2 etc.

 

[Algr]

I take it that that post quoted in the Combating Pseudoscience thread was not yours?
Keeping cool and respectful is always helpful.

 

[Trollfaz]

You mean that one flaming the mentors and calling them 'Einstein worshippers ' for that warning on personal theory? Nope that wasn't me or I'll be perm banned. I also want to see who made that post.

 

[phinds]

Do all posts demands a proper reference. If so what is an acceptable reference, YouTube documentaries, books from respectable physicists, popular sci articles?

None of the above unless the book by respectable physicists is a text book, since even the best of them write popularizations. There ARE a few popular science books that I think are acceptable references (The First Three Minutes comes to mind) but in general, pop-sci books/videos etc. are out, even if by respectable physicists.

And am I not allowed to write my personal opinion on certain theories without substantiation?

Correct, and if you have substantiation, it isn't just your opinion, it is something that has been presented in a refereed journal or textbook.

The best thing to do is do NOT state an opinion that you cannot substantiate but rather, ask a question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Assertions means not facts that the general science community agrees with rite?

Sure.

Because honestly I do not need a reference if I bring up F=ma of E=mc^2 etc.

Sure, this is a good example. E=mc² is not an assertion you are making.

 

[DaveC426913]

And maybe for future reference, avoid using 'troll' in your username.

It's the forum equivalent of waltzing into the school office with your middle fingers extended - and being surprised when they treat you with disdain and hostility.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not trying to argue with the mods

Are you sure? Because that's what it looks like you are doing. And if this isn't your intent, you might ask yourself what you are doing to make it look thus way.

 

[pinball1970]

Assertions means not facts that the general science community agrees with rite? Because honestly I do not need a reference if I bring up F=ma of E=mc^2 etc.

Before you post, check.

Wiki -Search there first as it is ok for a good deal of established science and has references.

Correct spelling/grammar where you can when you post.

Source. If your question originates from Facebook, YouTube, press or other popsci can you find an article from a reliable source and paper associated with it?
What are your go to sites?
Good YouTubers reference their sources.
Assume your subject has been discussed on here by seasoned professionals many times.
If you have an UG degree in a subject that's great, however assume you still have a pretty basic understanding.

Obviously respect and civility is a given.

The above criteria is just my go-to list because that is where i made poor posts initially and continue to do so (although less now hopefully)

 

[russ_watters]

I feel like you're trying to find the line so you can stay as near to it as possible. Please note that the line is fuzzy and it gets fuzzier the more time you spend near it.

Instead you should be trying to stay as far away from it as possible.

 

[Trollfaz]

Are you sure? Because that's what it looks like you are doing. And if this isn't your intent, you might ask yourself what you are doing to make it look thus way.

What makes you think so

 

[Bystander]

What makes you think so

Ookkkaaaayyyyy.

 

[Drakkith]

Do all posts demands a proper reference.

No, of course not. That would be an impossible standard to hold people to for a internet forum like PF. PF rules have nothing in them that say that every post must contain a reference.

If so what is an acceptable reference, YouTube documentaries, books from respectable physicists, popular sci articles?

Despite what some may say, all of these are potentially acceptable references. A pop-sci article might be in-depth enough for one topic, while far to simplified for another topic. Context is everything. The same goes for the other types of references you mentioned.

That being said, some references are generally of lower quality than others, or, rather, there are more low-quality sources of some types than others. There are MANY low-quality youtube videos and pop-sci articles, but relatively fewer low-quality articles in respected science journals. But there are plenty of high-quality videos and pop-sci articles too. There is no on-size-fits-all when it comes to acceptable references.

A good rule of thumb is not to use pop-sci articles and youtube videos as references unless you are absolutely sure they are correct and applicable to the topic. Remember that you can always PM a member of the staff, any of the advisors, or even experienced members and ask them if your reference actually says what you think it says. I'm sure most of them would be happy to help as long as you are not overdoing it.

And am I not allowed to write my personal opinion on certain theories without substantiation?

Again, it depends. If you are taking a source and rewriting its content into a post, doing the best you can to make it accurate and applicable to the topic, then you're almost never going to run into an issue with it being labeled a personal opinion. If you are trying to go beyond what the source says, or interpret it in a non-standard way, then it might be labeled as a personal opinion.

Assertions means not facts that the general science community agrees with rite?

Technically an assertion is just a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
These are not inherently right or wrong. If you state: "The magnetic field of a magnet will have X effect on particle A", then that's an assertion. If it is obviously right to those who understand the topic, then no one will have an issue. If it isn't right, or if there's some question as to its validity, you might be asked to provide a reference to support your assertion. If you cannot or will not then there will likely be a problem.

Because honestly I do not need a reference if I bring up F=ma of E=mc^2 etc.

Certainly not, as those are widely recognized as being statements of fact.

If you aren't an expert (or at least experienced) in the topic you're discussing the best piece of advice I can give you is to do one or more of the following:

1. Don't go beyond what your sources say.
2. Explain in your post that you lack experience in that area and you might not be entirely correct.
3. Provide a source that you are confident is correct and applicable.
4. Be humble.

The last one is very important, even when you are an expert. There are few things worse than someone doubling down on being wrong or getting upset at being corrected. No one is perfect.