Why is there no forum for (insert field here)?

[swansont]

Inventors Forum, Forum that allows for user to create write down and discuss invention ideas.

 

 

Again, supply and demand. The people that show up here discussing an invention are usually very coy about details because they're afraid someone will steal their idea. Often that's overblown because they have a fundamental flaw in their understanding of the science. Another issue would be whether the discussion counts as prior art for patent purposes. I have no idea what the answer to that is.

 

The result is that there isn't much call for it. You can e.g. discuss mechanical or electronic details in physics or engineering.

[Itoero]

In The Lounge you can discuss anything...

Edited July 28, 2017 by Itoero

[Itoero]

I don't know if it belongs on this forum but perhaps it would be handy if there is a (sub)forum where you can post science related blogs or websites. The promoting of products should still be forbidden.

And maybe under the 'Earth science', you can make a sub-forum called 'Global Warming'.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I don't know if it belongs on this forum but perhaps it would be handy if there is a (sub)forum where you can post science related blogs or websites. The promoting of products should still be forbidden.

And maybe under the 'Earth science', you can make a sub-forum called 'Global Warming'.

Climate science covers global warming, IMO: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/105-climate-science/

You could also always post info from a blog or science site in Science News: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/100-science-news/

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I don't know if it belongs on this forum but perhaps it would be handy if there is a (sub)forum where you can post science related blogs or websites. The promoting of products should still be forbidden.

Promoting of personal web sites is also forbidden. We do have posts that have links such as you describe. A quick glance shows one in math and one in chemistry, and one for science youtube channels.

[Janielle]

The discipline of Pharmacology and Toxicology plays a crucial role in the Medical Sciences. I wish it could be added to the forums so that discussion of the idiosyncrasies associated with it can explored. A lot of ignorance surrounding drug concepts are alive and well;this avenue could provide some enlightment.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Janielle said:

The discipline of Pharmacology and Toxicology plays a crucial role in the Medical Sciences. I wish it could be added to the forums so that discussion of the idiosyncrasies associated with it can explored. A lot of ignorance surrounding drug concepts are alive and well;this avenue could provide some enlightment.

Where there's a clear demand, by repeated questions on a subject, they would likely create a forum for something.

[Janielle]

Thanks for clarifying 

[Phi for All]

22 hours ago, Janielle said:

The discipline of Pharmacology and Toxicology plays a crucial role in the Medical Sciences. I wish it could be added to the forums so that discussion of the idiosyncrasies associated with it can explored. A lot of ignorance surrounding drug concepts are alive and well;this avenue could provide some enlightment.

Discussion should still be explored. Please start your topics in the most appropriate places, and as StringJunky says, we may later decide to group those discussions more specifically along the lines you suggest.

[taeto]

A forum for "Theoretical Computer Science" would be great for me personally. The current "Computer Science" forum is more like a "Computer Repairs" (not wanting to be facetious, though maybe a little bit) item. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, taeto said:

A forum for "Theoretical Computer Science" would be great for me personally. The current "Computer Science" forum is more like a "Computer Repairs" (not wanting to be facetious, though maybe a little bit) item. 

Show us some interesting Theoretical Computer Science threads, and post them in Computer Science. Bump out all the repair threads, attract the traffic, make it look like we need a sub-section for theory. One day you may turn your computer off, and when you turn it on again, your dream will have come true.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, taeto said:

A forum for "Theoretical Computer Science" would be great for me personally. The current "Computer Science" forum is more like a "Computer Repairs" (not wanting to be facetious, though maybe a little bit) item. 

Mostly, we use computers rather than think about them here. The only time they get mentioned is when they aren't working, hence all the 'repair' posts.  

Edited July 17, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Posts discussing a history forum have been split as there is already a thread discussing it.

 

[QuantumT]

Might I suggest a digital science section? One that addresses reality as virtual.

Many might not like it, but it's come to stay, so why not talk about it openly?

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Might I suggest a digital science section? One that addresses reality as virtual.

Many might not like it, but it's come to stay, so why not talk about it openly?

Why does that need an entire section of the forum?

It comes up occasionally in the Philosophy section (which is probably the best place for it) or the Speculations forum. It is kicked around a bit. And then people lose interest until the next time.

I will point out that it is not falsifiable and so: (a) it is not science and (b) if you want to believe it is true, then no one can prove you wrong.

I really can't see what there is to discuss or why anyone would find it interesting. See also, solipsism and Last Thursdayism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

[iNow]

Why is there no forum for sculptures made of almonds?

[hypervalent_iodine]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why is there no forum for sculptures made of almonds?

 

Who says there isn't? 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Who says there isn't? 

Lol. Checkmated from the admin control panel!

[MSC]

Why is there no forum for Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics or Phenomenology in the philosophy section? Just to name a few, I could go on but to me those are the six that should absolutely have their own forum. Any Philosophy of (insert sub-field here) can probably stay in general philosophy but those six I mentioned should probably be looked into.

Thanks for reading!

Edited October 9, 2020 by MSC
Added Logic and Aesthetics

[iNow]

Not enough members probably care. Philosophy forum itself is pretty quiet overall. Further breakdowns may be logical in terms of classification, but likely aren’t necessary 

[MSC]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not enough members probably care. Philosophy forum itself is pretty quiet overall. Further breakdowns may be logical in terms of classification, but likely aren’t necessary 

Maybe, I know I care and judging by a correction someone made of a comment of mine yesterday, at least one other person cares about classification between ethics and meta-ethics. In the end you've gotta ask I guess. 

You yourself brought up the topic of fallacies today by speaking about strawmen. So you care about logic at least a little bit, even if we disagree over who was strawmanning. Out of the six I suggested, Logic is the one I'd be most glad to see as an addition.

I actually prefer this forum to others simply because it has made a point to have a science and a philosophy section. Elsewhere it's usually either/or, rarely both. I guess it just seems a bit strange to see clear and logical classification on one side of things and not the other.

[MSC]

On 10/8/2020 at 8:26 PM, MSC said:

Why is there no forum for Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics or Phenomenology in the philosophy section?

Trying to drum up interest in these fields.

Focussing on Logic.

Is there a good reason why Logic should NOT be added to the forum? One that isn't based on whether or not people show an interest. Lot's of people have no interest in mathematics in their daily lives yet it's still important. Same is true of logic, especially when there are clear misunderstandings of what logic is and how it is used, being shared on the forum. Which makes it impossible for logicians to take things seriously.

Edited October 13, 2020 by MSC

[iNow]

On 10/8/2020 at 9:28 PM, iNow said:

Not enough members probably care. Philosophy forum itself is pretty quiet overall. Further breakdowns may be logical in terms of classification, but likely aren’t necessary 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Is there a good reason why Logic should NOT be added to the forum?

Let's be clear. You're posting like it's not allowed, but we're talking about sub-forum headings here. Why not post some threads about Logic, and if enough of the members think it needs to be it's own section, we'll do it. And then staff will move past conversations into the new section, and have to start policing the new Logic subsection, where people go to post about the stuff that makes sense to them. 

We're not saying we won't add a new header if the membership wants it, but know that it's not a decision you're going to make for us with your browbeating and petulance.

[MSC]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We're not saying we won't add a new header if the membership wants it, but know that it's not a decision you're going to make for us with your browbeating and petulance.

My petulance? What about Swansonts petulance yesterday in the general philosophy section? Takes one to know one.