Speculations VS pseudo-speculations ??

[swansont]

 

Many people go there with ideas they hope will click with someone who has the skills to seriously model them mathematically. What they don't realize is that those folks are already six steps ahead and have seen that it just won't work. It's ironic, in a way, that those folks often reject the input of the very people they came here to see, because their intuition overrides their trust in expertise.

 

 

Also don't realize that the math is the hard part, even though they think "coming up with the idea" is the hard part.

[Arete]

Moreover, the manuscript contains no references, i.e. does not show any relation to current intense international research activities

 

I mean no disrespect, but I wouldn't accept a freshman term paper devoid of any citations to the literature, let alone a paper submitted for peer review. At the bare minimum you need to demonstrate what gap in knowledge your work fills, and how existing work does not address it. The editor's comments regarding research profile are a little snobby, however they likely acted in accordance with peer review standards in rejecting your manuscript.

 

Furthermore, a discussion forum is not the correct place to publish an entire paper. Perhaps a blog, or your own website would be appropriate?

 

 

Also don't realize that the math is the hard part, even though they think "coming up with the idea" is the hard part.

 

 

For some scientists, coming up with the novel hypothesis is the hard part... more than one career has been built applying standard methodology to other people's ideas. However, I always tell my grad students and postdocs that ideas in science are cheap. You can and should have dozens of them for every one you pursue, because most of them will either a) be bad, b) have been done before, or c) can't be (feasibly) tested. I do agree with the general sentiment though, coming up with the idea to test is the first, often easiest step, and more than one of our dear crackpots has stopped there and quite seriously expected a Nobel prize to fall in their lap.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Arete

[Lord Antares]

 

Furthermore, a discussion forum is not the correct place to publish an entire paper.

 

Why not? Do you exclude a link to a document or blog?

[Arete]

 

Why not? Do you exclude a link to a document or blog?

 

Furthermore, a discussion forum is not the correct place to publish an entire paper. Perhaps a blog, or your own website would be appropriate?

 

Because no one appreciates a discussion post that is simply a wall of text. If the poster has something specific to discuss, then sure, link to the aforementioned blog post, but using a discussion forum as your primary publication method isn't really conducive to the purposes of a discussion forum.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Arete

[Lord Antares]

But the point of the Speculation forum is to provide an extensive hypothesis. We just talked about how people don't include information or mathemathics in their speculations.

Wouldn't the entire paper be preferred for the purposes of the Speculation forum? If they don't include everything, they their speculation will be considered a failure as it is incomplete.

 

I guess they could post a snippet and then answer questions afterwards in order, but they will likely be jumped on for not including evidence and math in the first place.

[Arete]

But the point of the Speculation forum is to provide an extensive hypothesis.

 

I would disagree. There is an expectation in the speculations forum that a speculation can be supported with evidence or a working model. Most of the posters being complained about come here with a "revolutionary" idea - they've disproven relativity, gravity, evolution, etc. It's not expected that they'll dump a "ready to be submitted to Science" manuscript on the forum, but simply that they have some sort of functional working, data, analysis, model, etc to substantiate the actual proposal. This can facilitate a discussion of the working, the validity of the speculation, etc.

 

Unfortunately this almost never happens, you get a series of "it makes sense to me" explanations that contradict basic data on the topic, followed by heated discussion, followed by a locked thread.

 

Most breakthroughs in science these days are through widely collaborative endeavors, by people with the skills and knowledge to get their work published in appropriate journals - the days of the self trained gentleman scientist toiling away in isolation and producing a magnum opus are largely over, for better or worse. The correct place to publish completed, new scientific work is in a peer reviewed journal rather than a forum post.

[Lord Antares]

The correct place to publish completed, new scientific work is in a peer reviewed journal rather than a forum post.

 

Of course a well-observed and complete hypothesis is best published in a journal. A person well educated in science knows this.

 

My point is that threads in this forum need to be supported by evidence and expanded upon when questioned. You almost invariably need a large text to present a coherent hypothesis. Absent that, it will fail the speculation forum regulations.

So basically, what you are saying is, don't publish new theories at all on this forum because:

 

1) you have a good, complete theory - publish in a journal

2) you have an incomplete, speculatory theory - don't publish it on SFN either.

 

Do you see what I mean?

[Strange]

2) you have an incomplete, speculatory theory - don't publish it on SFN either.

 

 

Indeed. Talk it over with your classmates, professional colleagues, etc. Get their feedback first. If they don't show you the obvious flaws, then add the necessary detail and submit to a journal.

Moreover, the manuscript contains no references

 

And you are surprised it was rejected?

[Arete]

1) you have a good, complete theory - publish in a journal

2) you have an incomplete, speculatory theory - don't publish it on SFN either.

 

I still disagree - if speculations posters had some data or a model that wasn't obviously and fatally flawed, it would be a considerable improvement over most of the posts which appear there. Or even an open minded attitude. As I alluded to, a lot of the worst offenders are posters who claim to have a paradigm shifting contribution which fails basic premises, and are resistant to any attempts to critique their ideas. It doesn't need to be a publication quality study.

[Lord Antares]

I think both of you missed my point or I am missing yours.

There are two possible scenarios:

 

The theory is comprehensive, useful and backed up by evidence in which case you say you should send it to a journal instead of SFN.

 

If the theory isn't comprehensive and backed up by evidence, then it shouldn't be posted on SFN either.

 

Therefore, nothing at all should be posted in the speculations forum?

[Arete]

I think both of you missed my point or I am missing yours.

There are two possible scenarios

 

I disagree that there is only one format (i.e. journal article) to present scientific work; go to any conference and you'll see lots of people presenting scientific studies on posters, so it's entirely possible to present sound, evidence based science in an abridged style, including a conversational forum discussion.

 

The APPROACH is what's critical - one needs to apply the scientific method regardless of the format the work is presented.

[Lord Antares]

 

I disagree that there is only one format (i.e. journal article) to present scientific work;

 

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm talking about the speculations forum primarily since the thread is about that.

 

You said that complete and comprehensive theories are better published somewhere other than an internet forum. It also goes without saying that incomprehensive, speculative theories are better off somewhere else as well.

 

So what DO you think should be posted in the speculations forum? That is my question to you.

 

Are you arguing that the Speculation forum is not needed?

[Strange]

Very (very) occasionally someone will post "I have this idea ..." and the reply might be "yes that is roughly correct but ..." or "that can't happen because...", at which point they say "cool, I'll have to learn more about this" and a constructive dialog ensues.

 

Sadly, this positive attitude is very rare and the usual response is "no, I am right because logic".

 

So I think it can be useful but 99.9% of the time it isn't.

[StringJunky]

So I think it can be useful but 99.9% of the time it isn't.

That's optimistic, you need to add on 3 more 9's.

[swansont]

I think both of you missed my point or I am missing yours.

There are two possible scenarios:

 

The theory is comprehensive, useful and backed up by evidence in which case you say you should send it to a journal instead of SFN.

 

If the theory isn't comprehensive and backed up by evidence, then it shouldn't be posted on SFN either.

 

Therefore, nothing at all should be posted in the speculations forum?

 

I don't think there's an expectation that the speculations section will ever yield valid science. We could do away with it, and that would not be unprecedented; there are other science boards that don't tolerate such discussion. We could trash all of it. But every once in a while, someone posts something in speculations and they aren't emotionally locked into their idea and end up learning something. Those are people we'd be driving away if we shut down those discussions. It's too bad these are a small minority of threads. Also, there are some of us who occasionally like dissecting the ideas and seeing where they're wrong. It's not always easy to figure out the misconception buried in someone's post.

[DanMP]

I mean no disrespect, but I wouldn't accept a freshman term paper devoid of any citations to the literature ...

You will see, after reading my work (something the editor didn't: the rejection came 11 minutes after Submission Confirmation ...) that citations are not really needed, because all I mentioned was well-known and/or available on Wikipedia. Anyway, the lack of citations was not the only problem:

...

The main problem is that the level of presentation is much too low compared with the importance of the subject. ...

 

I considered (and even created) a blog (still empty) and even viXra, but I prefer this forum, because here I am allowed to publish, I get a "timestamp" (a proof that I was the first to publish the idea), I can find people with sharp minds (like Strange), capable & willing to dissect a new theory, I can defend it with logical arguments (if I have the time & it remains open ...) and it is available to many people. As I said, even if I'm wrong (overall) some ideas may be good/useful for future scientists/theories.

[Strange]

I get a "timestamp" (a proof that I was the first to publish the idea)

 

 

WTF. I think anyone who says this should just be banned on the spot.

[DanMP]

WTF. I think anyone who says this should just be banned on the spot.

 

Why? Maybe you didn't understand my point. I checked on the blog and if, say, I post something, I can edit everything a year after and the "timestamp" remains from the initial post. Here, anyone can see if the first (or any) post was edited and also the subsequent citations, so this forum is a good proof of the time when the idea was posted.

 

What do you find wrong or offensive?

[Lord Antares]

 

 

WTF. I think anyone who says this should just be banned on the spot.

 

Why tho? I have seen you and others say this in the past but what warrants this? Of course, I can understand that, from a perspective of someone who doesn't believe his theory will be successful, you think it's ridiculous. But from the perspective of the writer of the theory, who believes it holds merit and that it will be successful, surely it would not be unreasonable to want to protect it? These people with new theories would be stupid if they didn't care to protect it, wouldn't they?

 

I get that the ridicule about it stems from the fact that usually people want to protect the worst and most senseless theories, but the core logic behind wanting to do this is sound.

I don't agree with the criticism and I would not say that wanting to protect your theory implies crackpottery in itself.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Lord Antares

[CharonY]

Well, the thing is that realistically it would not offer much of a protection of anything. In science, ideas are thrown around and discarded at a breathtaking pace. I have written proposals for certain things (which is more work than put together a post) and failed to get funding and see other more successful people do what I proposed. I have zero claims on their research unless I did it first. It basically boils down to if the idea is so vague that it can only appear on blogs or posts it has not real implications. If it is detailed enough and has enough evidence, it is more suited to be submitted as a paper.

 

I do not see the need for a ban, though. It is more a misunderstanding of the values of ideas and science publishing in general.

[Arete]

So what DO you think should be posted in the speculations forum? That is my question to you.

 

The speculations forum is a place to discuss speculative concepts and ideas in a scientific and evidence based fashion. Got an idea? Great, post it up, but be prepared for it to be critiqued, explain your idea to others and accept suggestions to modify and validate your approach.

 

Don't dump a poorly edited 5,000 word text wall and be condescending, uppity and refuse to answer questions when other posters critique your idea.

 

Does that make sense?

[Strange]

What do you find wrong or offensive?

 

 

It is typical of the moronic things people with "personal theories" say. They are worried that people will steal their half-formed, half-baked, 100% unscientific ramblings. Other popular lines are pointing out how long they have been working on it (i.e. how much of their life they have wasted, when they could have spent a small fraction of that actually learning something), how desperately important it is, how they are ridiculed/persecuted, that science will prove them right one day, scientists are hidebound and unable to think of new ideas, there is conspiracy, and so on.

 

Please, don't be that guy.

But from the perspective of the writer of the theory, who believes it holds merit and that it will be successful, surely it would not be unreasonable to want to protect it? These people with new theories would be stupid if they didn't care to protect it, wouldn't they?

 

Yes, because of course people steal scientific ideas and pretend they invented them, like, all the time. </sarcasm>

I do not see the need for a ban, though. It is more a misunderstanding of the values of ideas and science publishing in general.

 

I may be exaggerating slightly for effect. But it is diagnostic (along with not being able to master the Quote button(*)) of a mind set that is not going to engage in constructive discussion.

 

(*) OK. It turns out this actually doesn't work for some people. But even so ...

Edited March 29, 2017 by Strange

[StringJunky]

(*) OK. It turns out this actually doesn't work for some people. But even so ...

It's hormonal, it has off days. Takes all sorts of convoluted actions to quote sometimes.

[Lord Antares]

Well, the thing is that realistically it would not offer much of a protection of anything.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It basically boils down to if the idea is so vague that it can only appear on blogs or posts it has not real implications. If it is detailed enough and has enough evidence, it is more suited to be submitted as a paper.

 

 

I see what you mean, but in a hypothetical scenario where a person actually posted a full, comprehensive and ultimately correct theory on this forum, would it theoretically be protected by his name and timestamp? I would think there could be some complications with that. Hmm.

 

 

Yes, because of course people steal scientific ideas and pretend they invented them, like, all the time. </sarcasm>

 

No, but only because people protect their ideas.

 

 

 

The speculations forum is a place to discuss speculative concepts and ideas in a scientific and evidence based fashion. Got an idea? Great, post it up, but be prepared for it to be critiqued, explain your idea to others and accept suggestions to modify and validate your approach.

 

Don't dump a poorly edited 5,000 word text wall and be condescending, uppity and refuse to answer questions when other posters critique your idea.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I understand this, but then every thread in the Speculation forum is bound to fail, if you go by this, right?

I mean, it might serve well for a learning person, i.e. it might educate the OP or other people, but it will never result in a discovery, exactly as swansont said? I haven't thought of it that way.

[Strange]

No, but only because people protect their ideas.

 

 

Really?

 

 

I see what you mean, but in a hypothetical scenario where a person actually posted a full, comprehensive and ultimately correct theory on this forum, would it theoretically be protected by his name and timestamp?

 

No more or less than if they published dit in a journal.

 

In either case they would have copyright protection for the text of the document. There is NO (legal) protection for ideas.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Strange