The misconception ratio

[Klaynos]

I would like to propose a numerically measure for quality of post, our likiness to be a crackpot (trends of this ratio are likely to be a key predictor). 

 

The misconception ratio = number is misconceptions / number of words (units are cracks)

As this tends to 1 as I tend to hit my head on the desk. 

I'd speculate that 0.01 cracks is a general upper limit for a post, although would value some input and analysis of real posts...

I'd also like to know a warning level, no one is going to have a value of 0 cracks for all of their writings but is 1 millicracks acceptable? 

[Strange]

Interesting idea. It would be nice if there was an automatic test!

One problem is highlighted by a recent example, where there were multiple misconceptions in the opening paragraph but then the poster rambled on in a deranged manner for hundreds, possibly thousands, of words - it was a real wall of words. So their overall crack value would have been quite low, but most of the text wasn't right or wrong (it was beyond "not even wrong" and out the other side).

[Klaynos]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Interesting idea. It would be nice if there was an automatic test!

One problem is highlighted by a recent example, where there were multiple misconceptions in the opening paragraph but then the poster rambled on in a deranged manner for hundreds, possibly thousands, of words - it was a real wall of words. So their overall crack value would have been quite low, but most of the text wasn't right or wrong (it was beyond "not even wrong" and out the other side).

That's a concern, I only had this thought reading a post today so am very open to improvements. 

I did wonder about it being a rolling scale for any given text, maybe taking the peak value for analysis..

[Phi for All]

I think only the words AFTER the misconception is spotted and corrected should count. Being wrong, or being misled by pop-sci articles, isn't a crime. Ignoring corrections to bulldoze your way through a sermon on your pet theory, that's cracked. Willful ignorance should be punishable by incarceration at a local community college.

[Klaynos]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think only the words AFTER the misconception is spotted and corrected should count. Being wrong, or being misled by pop-sci articles, isn't a crime. Ignoring corrections to bulldoze your way through a sermon on your pet theory, that's cracked. Willful ignorance should be punishable by incarceration at a local community college.

I was thinking of using trends but that's also an interesting idea. The other option might be to use a repetition of misconception after correction count. 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

a repetition of misconception after correction count. 

Also known as "lying"

 

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

The other option might be to use a repetition of misconception after correction count. 

This is what bugs me most. Discussion should correct this if members actually read what others write.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Also known as "lying"

When I want to be generous, I look at it like the person did all this work wrapping a really nice box of peanut brittle for grandma. Then he came here to rave about what a great job he did and what an awesome grandson he is. Then we point out that grandma is allergic to peanuts, and he keeps going on about how it's all homemade, using organic ingredients, and 33% less sugar.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

When I want to be generous, I look at it like the person did all this work wrapping a really nice box of peanut brittle for grandma. Then he came here to rave about what a great job he did and what an awesome grandson he is. Then we point out that grandma is allergic to peanuts, and he keeps going on about how it's all homemade, using organic ingredients, and 33% less sugar.

And how long he has been working on it...

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And how long he has been working on it...

I'm always shocked when someone claims they've been working on their ToE off and on for the last 15 years. A year or two in some college introductory courses could have saved them so much time!

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm always shocked when someone claims they've been working on their ToE off and on for the last 15 years. A year or two in some college introductory courses could have saved them so much time!

Yeah.. that kills me more than anything else.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm always shocked when someone claims they've been working on their ToE off and on for the last 15 years. A year or two in some college introductory courses could have saved them so much time!

On the other hand, I have seen a couple of people say that they started off studying GR and/or QM because they had their own pet theory they wanted to develop. In one case, they realised (after about 10 years study) that it was not going to work (but carried on studying anyway). Another said that after 20 or 30 years study, they were still holding off until they had learned enough to develop their idea.

[Silvestru]

I agree with you guys but this sort of talk discourages new members.  I know it's better to have 10 members and have productive talks than 1 000 000 cranks but still. 

Some members appreciate criticism but if I would get 1 crackpot point I would be scared to post anymore because people wouldn't take me seriously. Also you have to think about vendettas. Imagine if I start giving you guys crackpot points as revenge. Or do only Admins give these points?

Also what if I want to discuss something like String theory. There are are many grey areas in subjects like this.  
I know you guys are referring to the highest, purest, sweetest level of crack-pottery but it's hard to draw the line.

 

[dimreepr]

55 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I agree with you guys but this sort of talk discourages new members.  I know it's better to have 10 members and have productive talks than 1 000 000 cranks but still. 

Some members appreciate criticism but if I would get 1 crackpot point I would be scared to post anymore because people wouldn't take me seriously.

Also what if I want to discuss something like String theory. There are are many grey areas in subjects like this.  
I know you guys are referring to the highest, purest, sweetest level of crack-pottery but it's hard to draw the line.

 

It's not about the crackpot idea, we all have them from time to time (my first post on this forum was a crackpot idea), it's about the willingness to accept one might be wrong. If one can't do that, there's little point in staying, unless one is always right and can prove it. 

 

[Silvestru]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not about the crackpot idea, we all have them from time to time (my first post on this forum was a crackpot idea), it's about the willingness to accept one might be wrong. If one can't do that, there's little point in staying, unless one is always right and can prove it. 

Ah apologies, I misunderstood. All points seem valid now . Once you have been proven "wrong" beyond a reasonable doubt, you should stop promoting the pet idea. 

[Phi for All]

I think Klaynos' underlying point was that, since it's not the specifics of a particular idea that we're questioning but rather the ability of the author to support it with an accurate and reasoned argument right from the start, it should be possible to use some sort of numeric analysis to set the bar for alternative hypotheses. It's frustrating trying to be fair to the author as well as the members who try to help. We want to give enough time to lay out a good case for an idea while also respecting the time of the folks who are often ignored as they correct mistakes.

[John Cuthber]

16 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I agree with you guys but this sort of talk discourages new members.

So does a forum full of drossy posts,

 

[Silvestru]

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think Klaynos' underlying point was that, since it's not the specifics of a particular idea that we're questioning but rather the ability of the author to support it with an accurate and reasoned argument right from the start, it should be possible to use some sort of numeric analysis to set the bar for alternative hypotheses. It's frustrating trying to be fair to the author as well as the members who try to help. We want to give enough time to lay out a good case for an idea while also respecting the time of the folks who are often ignored as they correct mistakes.

Let's have a tryout period. The month of July for example where we come up with this system but just as a test. So points received during this trial month will dis-appear and everything will reset once the actual system is implemented. Just to see how people would react and how it would work.

[StringJunky]

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think Klaynos' underlying point was that, since it's not the specifics of a particular idea that we're questioning but rather the ability of the author to support it with an accurate and reasoned argument right from the start, it should be possible to use some sort of numeric analysis to set the bar for alternative hypotheses. It's frustrating trying to be fair to the author as well as the members who try to help. We want to give enough time to lay out a good case for an idea while also respecting the time of the folks who are often ignored as they correct mistakes.

Can you give an example of this system? I would make a sticky post in Speculations  called "So, you think you're Galileo".  

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Can you give an example of this system? I would make a sticky post in Speculations  called "So, you think you're Galileo".  

I'll toss this one to Klaynos. The system would need to set levels for warnings and closures.

I'd just like to see more speculators react reasonably when mistakes are pointed out. To ignore a correction and claim we're not giving some pet idea a chance defeats the whole concept of discussion. You can't defend an argument that doesn't have its facts straight.

[Mordred]

Yeah something to forewarn them that we as the repliers will have to approach their problems with the mainstream approach. Far too often they want to ignore the mainstream mainly as they rarely understand it. Hence why they typically try a speculative approach in the first place lol.

 The one that annoys me is when they resort to redefining terminology of common physics terms such as energy or mass to suit their needs. Far too often the conversation gets stuck in correcting the terminology. What is difficult for many Speculators to understand is in order to compare the strengths and weaknesses of a model one has to compare to the mainstream models. Even professionally peer reviewed alternative models such as MOND compares itself to the concordance such as LCDM in this case.

 While its great this forum has a Speculation forum, as it does provide a useful outlet to test ideas. It is difficult to regulate and control.

It's a rare occasion to see a poster follow the rules and requirements to keep a Speculation post active and fully useful. Far too often due to lack of predictable mathematics, however also a lack of flexibility in learning the mainstream and correcting the misconceptions that led to the speculation in the first place.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yeah something to forewarn them that we as the repliers will have to approach their problems with the mainstream approach. Far too often they want to ignore the mainstream mainly as they rarely understand it. Hence why they typically try a speculative approach in the first place lol.

 The one that annoys me is when they resort to redefining terminology of common physics terms such as energy or mass to suit their needs. Far too often the conversation gets stuck in correcting the terminology. What is difficult for many Speculators to understand is in order to compare the strengths and weaknesses of a model one has to compare to the mainstream models. Even professionally peer reviewed alternative models such as MOND compares itself to the concordance such as LCDM in this case.

 While its great this forum has a Speculation forum, as it does provide a useful outlet to test ideas. It is difficult to regulate and control.

It's a rare occasion to see a poster follow the rules and requirements to keep a Speculation post active and fully useful. Far too often due to lack of predictable mathematics, however also a lack of flexibility in learning the mainstream and correcting the misconceptions that led to the speculation in the first place.

The problem is, the greatest strength of science is seen as a weakness by a layman:

S - It's not a fact, it's our best explanation.

L - Well, if it's not a fact, I've got an explanation.

 

 

[studiot]

On 06/06/2018 at 5:53 PM, Phi for All said:

Discussion should correct this if members actually read what others write.

 

I think (from practical experience) that one of the big difficulties is that some members only read the last few posts, as opposed to all the ones new since they last looked.

 

Consequently they often don't see many of the responses.

 

Once again I should like to bring up that hoary old chestnut that failure to number the posts makes referral almost impossible and encourages lazy activity.

Also every time I try to post a link to some other thread or post I get that ridiculous little window opening and I have to stop what I am doing and remember to cancel that option.

It interrupts my flow of thought and discourages me from bothering. Computers ought to be made to stop and wait for humans, not the other way round.