Speculations VS pseudo-speculations ??

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

I would like to know what is the difference between:

 

1.

scientific speculations, and

 

2.

pseudo-speculations

 

 

as it relates to this topic -- "Speculations",

and the "Trash Can" topic.

 

Thank you.

[StringJunky]

Real speculations build on existing theories and have a sound mathematical or observational basis from which to try and advance an idea. All sound new theories overlap with existing ones in some areas. Where an existing theory is correct, the new theory must agree with it in the data and results; what changes is the interpretation of the data and results.

 

A pseudo-speculation is one that acts like an island and ignores all current thinking and data. Basically, something that someone pulled out of their backside in a fit of imagination overload.

Edited March 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

So, is it possible for a real valid scientific speculation

to speculate that GTR may not be the "last word" on gravity,

and that there could be a better theory of gravity?

 

What is the "overlap" between quantum physics and GTR?

Edited March 27, 2017 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[StringJunky]

So, is it possible for a real valid scientific speculation

to speculate that GTR may not be the "last word" on gravity,

and that there could be a better theory of gravity?

 

What is the "overlap" between quantum physics and GTR?

It's not the last word but where it works, it seems, it is exquisitely accurate and any new theory must agree in those areas. There has to be a more complete theory because GR fails after a point.

 

i'm not conversant in the finer points but both use spacetime as a platform AFAIK.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

According to GTR, any repulsive gravity, or "anti-gravity", is simply impossible.

 

Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new,

more complete theory of gravity could explain

how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?

[Lord Antares]

 

Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new,

more complete theory of gravity could explain

how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?

 

You see, that's a completely speculative question.

If we knew if that was possible, that means the answer to that question would be explained already.

 

So no, it wouldn't be scientific to speculate that. It would only be scientific if you had a model, evidence and testable experiments.

 

All in all, there is no reason to suspect that GR is the complete knowledge of gravity; something will come along and expand the theory in the same way that GR expanded Newtonian gravity.

That something will need to be very complicated and backed up by a ton of evidence.

[Strange]

According to GTR, any repulsive gravity, or "anti-gravity", is simply impossible.

 

Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new,

more complete theory of gravity could explain

how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?

 

 

Only if you have either some evidence for that repulsive gravity or a formulation of that alternative theory that is consistent with GR (i.e. reality).

 

Just saying that invisible pink unicorns (or some other unknown theory) could produce anti-gravity is not science, it is pure speculation.

So, is it possible for a real valid scientific speculation

to speculate that GTR may not be the "last word" on gravity,

and that there could be a better theory of gravity?

 

There are many ways that GR could be extended. Some of these are scientific: i.e. based on mathematics and known physics, and consistent with observation. For example, all the MOND type theories and their relativistic versions.

 

Those are scientific. Most of the suggestions we get on forums like this (involving aether, for example) are just pseudoscientific nonsense.

[swansont]

According to GTR, any repulsive gravity, or "anti-gravity", is simply impossible.

 

Would it be scientific enough to speculate that a new,

more complete theory of gravity could explain

how repulsive gravity interactions can be possible?

 

 

Would it be? There's no way to know from what you've said. It depends on the material that's presented. Could it be? Sure. You can come up with a model based at least in part on accepted science that allows for falsifiability (i.e. it can be tested, as it makes sufficiently precise predictions) and/or you have credible experimental evidence, then it's probably scientific.

 

And that's the basis of the guidelines for our speculations section. Unsupported assertions and WAGs go into the trash.

[Dave Moore]

Is a new dictionary being created? Do you mean what do a group of forum members think those terms mean?

How could anyone expect to be fairly understood if such terms are so arbitrary as to encourage guessing?

The only way to define a term is to use a dictionary.

you look up 'speculation" and then 'pseudo' as a prefix. Any other definition would require this thread to represent a dictionary, and only then if a consensus were reached.

I still don't know what 'trolling" means except "to attempt to find something". I asked a question in starting the thread, "Are Placeboes Getting Better?"

And then I was accused of attempting to find something!

How can anyone expect to reach clear understandings if everybody decides on their own what an already defined term means??

Come on, guys.

[StringJunky]

Is a new dictionary being created? Do you mean what do a group of forum members think those terms mean?

How could anyone expect to be fairly understood if such terms are so arbitrary as to encourage guessing?

The only way to define a term is to use a dictionary.

you look up 'speculation" and then 'pseudo' as a prefix. Any other definition would require this thread to represent a dictionary, and only then if a consensus were reached.

I still don't know what 'trolling" means except "to attempt to find something". I asked a question in starting the thread, "Are Placeboes Getting Better?"

And then I was accused of attempting to find something!

How can anyone expect to reach clear understandings if everybody decides on their own what an already defined term means??

Come on, guys.

So, the very first definition on a Google search doesn't explain what a 'Troll' is in internet slang but the rest of the entries do. Most words have multiple meanings. I think you are being disingenuous saying that.

 

 

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: ...Urban Dictionary

[swansont]

Is a new dictionary being created? Do you mean what do a group of forum members think those terms mean?

How could anyone expect to be fairly understood if such terms are so arbitrary as to encourage guessing?

The only way to define a term is to use a dictionary.

you look up 'speculation" and then 'pseudo' as a prefix. Any other definition would require this thread to represent a dictionary, and only then if a consensus were reached.

 

 

 

The dictionary is not a technical resource. There are a number of scientific terms that are not used in the way the dictionary describes them.

 

We explain what we want in terms of speculation in the guidelines and the rules, and the very first line on the rules page says "ScienceForums.net reserves to right to enforce this policy as we see fit so that people may not use the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of the rule." IOW, a dictionary definition has no standing in light of our principles and practices.

[Dave Moore]

I just think it's a bit "clubby" and exclusionary to relax into a comfort zone where you feel you can use a word with definitions not found in, say, a common dictionary. Such as troll.

I certainly had never heard the word before and neither did the definition of "pissing off" have anything to do with how I felt when accused of such.

Clubby and judgmental.

And if the word, 'speculation' and 'pseudo-speculation' are already defined either here in the forum rules or in any dictionary, why then not simply answer the thread question with those definitions? Otherwise, do the rest of us have to guess what you are redefining?

Sometimes people get way too comfortable with their particular culture's meanings, forgetting what it's like to be judged as an outsider.

It sure doesn't speak well for the maturity of the ones who feel they are insiders.

Nor am I impressed with the way the mods promote punitive measures for infractions, publicly dispensing their take it or leave it judgements instead of decent private messages that show understanding and restraint.

I can understand how a forum can get out of control, but I don't think this reality show "You're fired!" attitude is the answer. For one thing, it's an open invitation for abuse of power. Has public censure without due process ever made for good government? look at Vladimir Putin, arresting 400 protesters in Moscow. Is that the model here? Do I now get arrested for saying what I feel?

Do all the yes-men now get to vent on me for extra brownie points? I have seen that already.

Is this a total dictatorship? I hope not.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

And if the word, 'speculation' and 'pseudo-speculation' are already defined either here in the forum rules or in any dictionary, why then not simply answer the thread question with those definitions?

 

 

Speculations, in the context of this forum, is defined in the rules.

 

Pseudo-speculations seems to be a word/concept that the OP has invented.

By coincidence, I just came across this interesting article on outsiders and science: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whose-scientific-theories-are-permitted-into-the-mainstream/2017/03/17/a715293c-0725-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html

 

(I guess this thread should really be in the Feedback section.)

as it relates to this topic -- "Speculations",

and the "Trash Can" topic.

 

 

Stuff in the Trash Can seems to be mainly incoherent nonsense (either posted as a joke or perhaps by someone with some sort of problem) or way off-topic arguments/insults.

[swansont]

I just think it's a bit "clubby" and exclusionary to relax into a comfort zone where you feel you can use a word with definitions not found in, say, a common dictionary. Such as troll.

First time on the internet?

 

And if the word, 'speculation' and 'pseudo-speculation' are already defined either here in the forum rules or in any dictionary, why then not simply answer the thread question with those definitions? Otherwise, do the rest of us have to guess what you are redefining?

Isn't that precisely what I did, pointing to the rules and guidelines?

 

Nor am I impressed with the way the mods promote punitive measures for infractions, publicly dispensing their take it or leave it judgements instead of decent private messages that show understanding and restraint.

We've tried that approach. It doesn't work very well. Turns out most people who don't feel inclined to follow the rules (a reasonable fraction of people who are warned) tend not to accept such private admonishments, and the rest of the members were getting frustrated because it looked like nothing was happening. So we went back to public announcements.

 

I can understand how a forum can get out of control, but I don't think this reality show "You're fired!" attitude is the answer. For one thing, it's an open invitation for abuse of power. Has public censure without due process ever made for good government? look at Vladimir Putin, arresting 400 protesters in Moscow. Is that the model here? Do I now get arrested for saying what I feel?

Why do you think there's no due process? We have a "report post" system where staff reviews complaints about violations, and we have a private area of the forum where we can discuss the "hard cases". For most violations, it takes a level of consensus among moderators to suspend or ban.

 

Do all the yes-men now get to vent on me for extra brownie points? I have seen that already.

Is this a total dictatorship? I hope not.

It's not a dictatorship, but also not a democracy.

(I guess this thread should really be in the Feedback section.)

 

 

Yes. Moved.

[Eise]

I have never heard of 'pseudo-speculations'. Something that looks like a speculation, but isn't one? 'I think Molly is home' might be speculation. Is it a pseudo-speculation because in fact I know she is home, because I just called her with my cell phone?

But maybe it is useful to talk about a scientific speculation, and speculations in general. Or maybe founded speculations (we are not only speculating in science, but also in daily life), and wild speculations.

Scientific speculations, are at least not in contradiction with most of established science, and ideally increases the domain of explained facts. If (empirical) tests are imminent, then we could better use the word 'hypotheses'.

[StringJunky]

 

I have never heard of 'pseudo-speculations'. Something that looks like a speculation, but isn't one? 'I think Molly is home' might be speculation. Is it a pseudo-speculation because in fact I know she is home, because I just called her with my cell phone?

But maybe it is useful to talk about a scientific speculation, and speculations in general. Or maybe founded speculations (we are not only speculating in science, but also in daily life), and wild speculations.

Scientific speculations, are at least not in contradiction with most of established science, and ideally increases the domain of explained facts. If (empirical) tests are imminent, then we could better use the word 'hypotheses'.

 

Probably should have said 'pseudo-science'.

[Phi for All]

I asked a question in starting the thread, "Are Placeboes Getting Better?"

And then I was accused of attempting to find something!

How can anyone expect to reach clear understandings if everybody decides on their own what an already defined term means??

Come on, guys.

 

It's hard to get through to you, because you don't seem to read (which is internet forum for "You don't listen"). I still don't know if you understand how much time you wasted in that thread because you didn't understand that placebos are just sugar pills, and they have not changed, but the placebo effect perhaps has. You were the big problem in that thread because you redefined placebo in order to make your misunderstanding work.

[Dave Moore]

Phi, so say you about placeboes. But I am an expert in understanding them. Your judgement was not up for discussion with ME. "WE" discuss what happens to the poster? How about involving the poster rather than judging based on (what is obviously to me uninformed judgements)?

How can anything ever be learned if everything I have said is untrue unless the majority agree with it? I never had a chance.

It took dozens and dozens of posts for me to even get started. Only Strange was decent enough to let me speak. everyone else just promoted their own prejudices. Most didn't bother to read my responses already explaining the same answer over and over again.

Mostly, commenters were in their clubby comfort zone, attacking the newbie for not being able to use the quote and link features which still don't work.

"I'm tired of this "dick"" said one kind commenter--- "Im out of here. He can't even figure out how to use the quote feature!"

Then, the mod who moves the thread to the trash can, but not done yet, he/she calls the trash thread, "David Moore's Nonsense Placebo thread" or some such expression of personal vindictiveness. How about just moving the thread?

I mean, I am not hurt but look at yourselves! Is that really how to run a forum? Oh come now!

I can't help it if no one here can imagine my work has value. I've got a dozen years in belief issues and I can't help it if I have no links to provide that show I'm following someone else's lead. my work is pioneering. there is no lead to follow.

And this has been the case throughout history. New ideas are always considered heresy. Look it up. That's all over the place.

And Phi, you are absolutely right. I ought to have said, "Is the Placebo Effect Increasing/?"

But I know you're smart enough to know what I meant. Right?

Edited March 27, 2017 by Dave Moore

[StringJunky]

...I can't help it if no one here can imagine my work has value. I've got a dozen years in belief issues and I can't help it if I have no links to provide that show I'm following someone else's lead. my work is pioneering. there is no lead to follow.

And this has been the case throughout history. New ideas are always considered heresy. Look it up. That's all over the place....

Good afternoon, Mr Galilei. Dave, do you have any idea how many people allude to Galileo? Lots. We must see at least one a week.

 

 

Galileo Gambit[edit]

 

A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called "Galileo Gambit." The argument goes that since Galileo was ridiculed in his time but later acknowledged to be right, that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct too.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Edited March 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

Only Strange was decent enough to let me speak.

 

 

And all I got was repeated insults.

 

 

 

"I'm tired of this "dick"" said one kind commenter--- "Im out of here. He can't even figure out how to use the quote feature!"

 

It is the BIG BUTTON below a post that is labelled QUOTE.

 

There seems to be a direct correlation, observed over many years, between the inability to use the quote function and the amount of nonsense someone posts.

[swansont]

Then, the mod who moves the thread to the trash can, but not done yet, he/she calls the trash thread, "David Moore's Nonsense Placebo thread" or some such expression of personal vindictiveness. How about just moving the thread?

 

 

"Uncivil Trash talk from Placeboes" was moved to the trash can, as was "Dave Moore trolling Longevity".

"Nonsense Branch from Why are Placebos getting better?" was split off and locked.

 

Don't try to pretend you were not participating in the trash talk, or that moving the posts was out of vindictiveness. In the split thread you were insisting on telekinesis and then posited a bogus equation that you could not or would not support.

 

Where should things have been moved? You have not garnered any credibility to earn even a provisional acceptance of your ideas.

[Phi for All]

And Phi, you are absolutely right. I ought to have said, "Is the Placebo Effect Increasing/?"

But I know you're smart enough to know what I meant. Right?

 

It was mentioned in the 4th post, and several times thereafter. You continued to claim the placebos themselves were changing, and then redefined them to include a doctor's bedside manner and anything else that seemed to fit your pattern. Six pages worth. I dropped out when I realized you weren't going to listen.

 

Look, you definitely got jumped on in that thread, but you also came in making claims that needed to be clarified, and instead of clarification you doubled down on your claims. Lots of frustration on both sides. I still can hardly believe you're an internet virgin who chose us as his first science discussion site. You don't see buttons, you claim not to know the term "troll" and goddamnit that's just what a troll would say. But it's not impossible, so OK, you're fresh out of the wrapper.

 

I'm sorry if you took any of it personally. We attack ideas here, and we go hardest against the baldest assertions, but nobody should be attacking you personally. The staff tries not to dive in against every snarly word, but nobody should suffer personal insults here.

[DanMP]

Is a new dictionary being created? Do you mean what do a group of forum members think those terms mean?

How could anyone expect to be fairly understood if such terms are so arbitrary as to encourage guessing?

The only way to define a term is to use a dictionary.

you look up 'speculation" and then 'pseudo' as a prefix. Any other definition would require this thread to represent a dictionary, and only then if a consensus were reached.

...

How can anyone expect to reach clear understandings if everybody decides on their own what an already defined term means??

Come on, guys.

I agree. The dictionary must be used for a proper answer to OP question.

 

Real speculations build on existing theories and have a sound mathematical or observational basis from which to try and advance an idea. All sound new theories overlap with existing ones in some areas. Where an existing theory is correct, the new theory must agree with it in the data and results; what changes is the interpretation of the data and results.

 

A pseudo-speculation is one that acts like an island and ignores all current thinking and data. Basically, something that someone pulled out of their backside in a fit of imagination overload.

According to my understanding of the dictionary, your pseudo-speculation is a (very) poor speculation and your real speculation is a good one, or even a new theory.

 

I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences.

 

The existing "Speculations" sub-forum is suffocated by non-scientific speculations, so I'm reluctant to post my theories there, because my theories are in agrement with experimental evidences, offer mathematics and can be backed up by a "ton" of evidence (falsifiable predictions). Would you post a new & important theory there? (And no, a scientific journal is not a solution, because the editors are very reluctant to accept really new solutions to very important problems from unknown scientists.)

Edited March 27, 2017 by DanMP

[Arete]

The existing "Speculations" sub-forum is suffocated by non-scientific speculations, so I'm reluctant to post my theories there, because my theories are in agrement with experimental evidences, offer mathematics and can be backed up by a "ton" of evidence (falsifiable predictions). Would you post a new & important theory there? (And no, a scientific journal is not a solution, because the editors are very reluctant to accept really new solutions to very important problems from unknown scientists.)

 

 

I imagine a sound, solid proof would be welcome in the mainstream forums - threads generally get moved to speculations when the OP fails to support their assertions, as the speculations forum has specific rules to compel a poster to substantiate speculative claims which assist in moderating those type of discussions.

 

However I balk at your reasoning for not publishing in a journal. I review articles written by scientists I've never heard of all the time and many journals like the Nature group are now offering double blind reviews. Did you have a specific bad experience submitting an article, or are you just assuming that because you're not "famous" your article will get desk rejected? We've had posters here before shoot way too high with their papers (i.e. Nature, Science, Cell, etc) and despite being warned that these journals have >95% rejection rates, come back claiming prejudice was the reason, rather than their work just wasn't that broad and interesting, or potentially just wrong.

 

I, and I'm sure the other actively publishing scientists here would be happy to provide advice.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

Scientific speculations, are at least not in contradiction with most of established science

 

 

So, would you say that a speculation that is in contradiction with some

of established science is not a scientific speculation?

 

 

 

Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?

Edited March 27, 2017 by zbigniew.modrzejewski