Farsight's Ideas Explained

[Xerxes]

yes he has the right to do so publicly, but since this IS Public, they (the Public) Also have the right to refute these "Theories" (to use your word).

I must have made my point very poorly.

 

YES, refute ideas, equations, whatever, in the thread in which they were offered. I am merely objecting to starting up two whole new threads, bearing a member's name with (it appears to me, at least) the sole purpose of humiliating him

 

to "Ignore it" is tantamount to Acceptance of said "Theories".

Again, I don't follow this argument. Am I dim? (don't answer!)

 

how you you feel if some Student read these falsehoods in Good faith and learned from it, and then Failed an exam or whatever?

Sorry to break it to you, chum, this site is pretty low, low down on my student's crib list

 

Well, I see I am about as popular as burnt toast here. Ah well.

[BenTheMan]

Again, I don't follow this argument. Am I dim?

 

Xerxes---I don't think you are dim. I don't even think Farsight is dim. Deluded, perhaps, but dim people don't spend their time pondering on fundamental physics.

 

The argument is that in these fora, there are two choices---one can either take their time to fully rebut someone like Farsight, or they can shrug it off. If they shrug it off, there is nothing to be learned, and we might as well not even have a discussion board. The other option is to treat Farsight's claim as a scientific one, and challenge it with the things that WE know.

 

So Severian made the point about WW scattering at a TeV. If there is no higgs, then at a TeV, the theory ceases to be unitary. THIS means that probabilities no longer add up to one. Now, this is a MAJOR problem for a theory like quantum mechanics, which is absolutely based on probabilities adding up to one.

 

Farsight has taken being told that he was wrong extremely personally, which is evidenced by his behavior in the other thread. He is extremely immature (who in the hell uses ``LOL'' anyway?), and refuses to answer claims against his theory.

 

I started this thread to show those in doubt how Farsight's behavior and claims are typical of fringe scientists, known affectionately as ``crackpots'' or ``cranks'', and how his ideas of science fall dreadfully short of academic standards.

[Reaper]

I must have made my point very poorly.

 

YES, refute ideas, equations, whatever, in the thread in which they were offered. I am merely objecting to starting up two whole new threads, bearing a member's name with (it appears to me, at least) the sole purpose of humiliating him.

 

The first thread was is intended to refute all of his so called scientific theories and ideas. The reason for these 2 threads is because Mr.Quack (a.k.a Farsight) continues to not provide any back up for his so-called theories, throwing insults, and proclaiming himself superior. From viewing his history, this has been ongoing for several months.

 

In other words, if this thread does humiliate Mr.Quack, he brought this on himself.

 

 

Sorry to break it to you, chum, this site is pretty low, low down on my student's crib list

 

Well, I see I am about as popular as burnt toast here. Ah well.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion about this thread, even if it isn't popular.

 

Just remember, he has been given several chances to prove himself, and he blew it.

 

In my opinion, this thread should stay around and is a very good one. Any new members who join and don't know much about science will not be misled by Mr.Quack. Also, it gives the message that if you want to be taken seriously and respected, don't troll this site.

[ParanoiA]

Chalk another one up for the Creationists.

 

Actually I chalk up one for Swansont and Severian who haven't forgotten they're scientists and this is a science board. I didn't comment on how right Farsight was, I commented on how threatening he was. Your obsession with him borders on religion. Rather ironic...but not surprising.

 

This thread and most of its contents are blatantly against forum rules. So are the other ant-Farsight threads.

 

If you're so right, why do you need the tool of humiliation? Grow up people. You know who you are. And you know its wrong. You're allowing the psychology of this gang bang to cloud your better judgement.

[Xerxes]

Hmm. There's a slight discrepancy here. YT thinks that students might use this site as a research tool (which I seriously doubt).

 

For example; Ben and Severian, among others, assume we all know what a W, Z and Higgs boson is (are?), without offering the tutorial. What is a trawling student to do without the sort of information such a tutorial might provde?

 

In my opinion, the time would be much better spent teaching morons like me about this stuff, rather than just preening each other's feathers with esoteric terms.

 

Anyway,it looks like this sub-forum is yet another scrapping school-yard. One of too many, in my opinion. I'll stick with math; I think I may have more chances there.

[swansont]

Hmm. There's a slight discrepancy here. YT thinks that students might use this site as a research tool (which I seriously doubt).

 

For example; Ben and Severian, among others, assume we all know what a W, Z and Higgs boson is (are?), without offering the tutorial. What is a trawling student to do without the sort of information such a tutorial might provde?

 

A bulletin-board/forum isn't a good place for tutorials. The information exists elsewhere, so typing it in all over again is a waste of effort and time. Google and wiki are a good start for that sort of thing; this sort of place is where you can come to ask followup questions.

[BenTheMan]

What is a trawling student to do without the sort of information such a tutorial might provde?

 

The interested student can do one of several things. He can email or message me, he can ask a question (which is, after all, the purpose of these boards, insofar as I understand it), or he can go to the link I posted which explains in a very detailed manner what th higgs actually IS.

 

In my opinion, the time would be much better spent teaching morons like me about this stuff, rather than just preening each other's feathers with esoteric terms.

 

I'll post it here for your benefit, Xerxes:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69369

 

Of course, there is always Wikipedia, and a google search.

 

rather than just preening each other's feathers with esoteric terms.

 

Do you mean esoteric like this:

 

Say I have a set X and a topology T on X = {X {} A} i.e A is an open subset of T. Then the complement of A is X - A = Ac' date=' which is closed.

 

Now the interior of A, int(A) is the largest open set (or the union of all open sets) contained in A which is A, and the closure of A, cl(A) is the smallest closed set in {X {} Ac} containing A which is X. So if bd(A) = cl(A) - int(A), we have that bd(A) = X - A = Ac.

 

Similarly, the closure of Ac is the smallest closed set containing Ac, which is Ac = X - A. So, by an alternative definition of the boundary of A,

cl(A) intersect cl(Ac) = X intersect (X - A) which is X - A = Ac.[/quote']

[swansont]

Have you, or anybody else, shown some non-expert like me why he is wrong? I see a lot of vague comments about Lorentz invariance, WW coupling at 1 KeV (what the eff is that, not that I care; please don't tell me).

 

That points to a large part of the problem. "Prove me wrong" is not the metric science uses, because you can't falsify a statement that is not, in principle, falsifiable. You can't falsify that I have a magic, undetectable pink elephant in my apartment. I do. Prove me wrong. You can't falsify the explanation "God did it" in the various guises it takes.

 

What Farsight has ignored or doesn't understand is that without specific, falsifiable predictions, there's no point for scientific discussion. But to take unfalsifiable assertions and proclaim that you're right because nobody can falsify your work is just disingenuous.

 

I don't care how wrong he is, most in these threads are attacking the man, not the idea.

 

I think if you undertake a careful read you will see that this is usually not the case. Farsight is by no meants treated gently, and there is sarcasm, but the focus is on the concepts.

 

Telling someone that they do not understand X when they have demonstrated that they do not understand it is not a personal attack. Telling someone they have made a lousy argument is not a personal attack, if you show how the argument is lousy.

[Severian]

For example; Ben and Severian, among others, assume we all know what a W, Z and Higgs boson is (are?), without offering the tutorial. What is a trawling student to do without the sort of information such a tutorial might provde?

 

The W boson is a particle which was discovered in 1983 at CERN. It is one of the carriers of the weak interaction (one of the four fundamental forces). It has now been extremely well examined in experiment and forms a part of a theory called The Standard Model. This model also contains a particle called the Higgs boson, which has not yet been discovered.

 

The Standard Model is not just a handwaving idea. It is a highly quantitative theory which provides very accurate predictions of what happens when we collide particles together. These predictions are probabilistic since it is based on Quantum Mechanics (so we say that X happens Y% of the time).

 

The Standard Model has been tested with incredible precision. It makes the best tested predictions ever made, and no result in the last 30 years has disagreed with it. However, it has not yet been tested at very high energies since we have not had big enough colliders to do this. This is why we are building the Large Hadron Collider and hope to find the Higgs boson to finally confirm the theory.

 

Farsight wants to remove the Higgs boson from the theory, since he believes it is not necessary. The Higgs boson is usually described as the particle which gives mass to all the others, and Farsight believes that he has an alternate explanation for mass, so doesn't need the Higgs boson.

 

I was pointing out that even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) then the removal of the Higgs boson from the model would destroy it. Without the Higgs boson the model predicts probabilities greater than 1, which doesn't make sense. Either he has an new explanation for this unitarity problem or he is asking us to throw away the thousands of successfully tested predictions that the Standard Model has already made.

 

He has been unable to respond to my question, and I humbly suggest that until he does, he will not be taken seriously.

[Farsight]

I'm sorry I can't respond to that one Severian. And I realise that my response to your anomalous magnetic moment question was trivial. But like I said, I've gone for width rather than depth, and I don't have enough time.

 

Here's the real Farsight Explained: INTRODUCTION

 

Your comments noted Paranoia and Xerxes.

[YT2095]

Hmm. There's a slight discrepancy here. YT thinks that students might use this site as a research tool (which I seriously doubt).

 

No discrepancy at all, I know for an absolute fact that some do, and have some of the PMs thanking me for my help (mostly in Chem) and one fella even went from a Very low grade to a B+ as a result!

 

yes, perhaps Some don`t sure, but I know that Some DO.

[Xerxes]

But to take unfalsifiable assertions and proclaim that you're right because nobody can falsify your work is just disingenuous.

Hmm... It obviously doesn't come across, but I am a professional scientist (not in physics, though, self-evidently) , so I do understand this procedural stuff

The W boson is a particle which was discovered in 1983 at CERN. It is one of the carriers of the weak interaction (one of the four fundamental forces). It has now been extremely well examined in experiment and forms a part of a theory called The Standard Model. This model also contains a particle called the Higgs boson' date=' which has not yet been discovered.

 

The Standard Model is not just a handwaving idea. [/quote']First, thanks for the tutorial. Very interesting.

 

But I don't believe I called your, Ben's and Swansont's responses "handwaving", and I certainly don't regard the models that professional work by as such. I think I used the term "vague references". By which I meant, unless one were of the cognoscenti, one would be none the wiser as to what you all were referring in your rebuttals. I am now, just a little, so thanks.

 

Ah, well. It's a silly thread, if all participants will forgive my saying.

[BenTheMan]

 

Of COURSE it's a silly thread.

 

Xerxes---If you are ever confused about physics, you can ask. That IS why it's called ``discussion''.

[Spyman]

I would love it. Please explain my insanity

Since I just told you that I think it is wrong, bullying, unethical and unmoral, I am NOT going too...

 

But I can give you a small taste:

 

Characteristics of bullies

Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. It has also been suggested that a deficit in social skills and a prejudicial view of subordinates can be particular risk factors.

 

Researchers have identified other risk factors such as quickness to anger and use of force, addiction to aggressive behaviors, mistaking others' actions as hostile, concern with preserving self image, and engaging in obsessive or rigid actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

 

Now, would you enjoy being called a bullie, do you still "love it" ?

 

 

Let me be clear on this. There are subtleties involved in scientific debate that must be observed, especially on this forum. If I call you crazy it's an ad hom but if I call your ideas crazy and can back the statement up with evidence then I have a legitimate argument.

It's not Farsights ideas thats called crazy in this thread, they are measuring his insanity.

 

If anyone started a thread solely devoted to ad homs or ridicule of another member it would be deleted and the poster would be given infraction points toward a temporary ban (which was EXACTLY what I was going to do when I saw this thread's title for the first time before I read the OP).

The only purpose I can see with this thread is to ridicule Farsight.

 

What BenTheMan has done here is to use John Baez' Crackpot Index to do the same thing. He is using a measurement others have used to base his argument on. There is a distinction here.

Whether BenTheMan is able to prove it or not is irrelevant, it is still a personal attack.

 

For instance, I could support proof of a persons handicap, but if I used the proof to humiliate, ridicule and point finger at that person, what would that make me ?

 

In my opinion the "distinction" part is a very poor excuse for the bullying going on here.

 

Why do you think no one has tried to retaliate by using Baez' index on BenTheMan or Spyman or swansont? It's because it wouldn't work on them.

There are other ways to attack someone than using John Baez' Crackpot Index...

 

Granted that it's a gray area but I think BenTheMan has used it well.

And I think he has used it wrong and that it is wrong when you and the others mods allow it.

 

I thought this was a forum where everyone could discuss science without the risk to be hanged out as insane.

(And please note: There is nothing wrong with pointing out if an idea/thought is wrong/crackpot.)

 

But as proved in this thread, it is now allowed to point out that individuals is insane.

(If you can back up your arguments with an accepted index/norm.)

 

What kind of indexes/norms is going to be used in SFN:s next Witch-hunt ?

(And what kind of personality is going to be lynched then ?)

 

A Witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

 

A moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

 

Mass hysteria, also called collective hysteria or collective obsessional behavior, is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

 

Lynching is a form of violence, usually execution, conceived of by its perpetrators as extrajudicial punishment for offenders or as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination. It is characterized by a summary procedure ignoring, bypassing, or even contrary to, the strict forms of law, notably judicial execution. Victims of lynching have generally been members of groups marginalized or vilified by society. The practice is age-old; stoning, for example, is believed to have started long before lapidation was adopted as a judicial form of execution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_lynching

[swansont]

Hmm... It obviously doesn't come across, but I am a professional scientist (not in physics, though, self-evidently) , so I do understand this procedural stuff

 

Then you have seen a large number of posts asking/begging for Farsight to come up with falsifiable tests of his model.

[BenTheMan]

Now, would you enjoy being called a bullie, do you still "love it" ?

 

I think that the quote from Wikipedia that you posted is about as poor a description of me as one can find. Honestly, I've been mad twice in my life. It is easy to make a sweeping judgement of someone's personallity when you don't know them

 

It's not Farsights ideas thats called crazy in this thread, they are measuring his insanity.

 

Ho hum... I would say that Farsight is only as crazy as his idea. Again, I have no problem with the guy, until he talks to someone about physics.

 

For instance, I could support proof of a persons handicap, but if I used the proof to humiliate, ridicule and point finger at that person, what would that make me ?

 

Are you suggesting Farsight is handicapped, based on his ideas? That's a bit further than I have gone

 

There are other ways to attack someone than using John Baez' Crackpot Index...

 

A thinly veiled threat? No matter... If you want to discuss science, then you should be prepared to be told that you are wrong. If you persist in your wrongness, in the face of MASSIVE evidence to the contrary, you should be prepared to be called a crackpot.

 

I would be interested to see if you have the same objections to the treatment of Intelligent Design. I'm sure I can go into one of the Biology fora, find a thread on Evolution vs. Intelligent design, and find a much harsher treatment of the theists who advocate ID. Do you make it a habit to go around protecting the ``minorities'' here, or at other places on the internet?

 

Farsight's every post is an affront to science, and this one time I have made it a point to show any interested party that this is the case. He willingly ignored data, he refuses to answer questions, he skirts issues---these are all hallmarks of a crackpot.

 

I thought this was a forum where everyone could discuss science without the risk to be hanged out as insane.

 

I'm not sure Farsight is insane... I think he is probably pretty intelligent. I read this book by Michael Shermer called ``Why People Believe Weird Things'', and there is a chapter on Frank Tipler. Tipler is a formerly great physicist, a highly intelligent man, and author of a book that claims that God is a computer on a cosmological scale, and we will all be resurrected at the end of time based on quantum information. Farsight is probably no Tipler (Tipler has a PhD from Princeton, I think), but anyone who spends their time thinking about physics (I don't even spend all my time thinking about physics, and it's my job) has to be somewhat intelligent.

 

I have no problem with people thinking about physics, or coming up with toy theories. The problem arises when people put their faith in those toy theories, so much so that they are willing to ignore experiment, expert opinion, and common sense, just because they believe that they are right. They are scientists no longer, now they are missionaries. Farsight has ventured out of the realm of science long ago, and now he is just trying to convert people by faith. While this may work for Christians, it is no way to be taken seriously by scientists.

 

Untill Farsight admits that his theories need significant work, or scrapping altogether, his claims will not be treated as scientific, and he will be taken seriously by no one here. His work will remain ``crackpot''.

[swansont]

What kind of indexes/norms is going to be used in SFN:s next Witch-hunt ?

(And what kind of personality is going to be lynched then ?)

 

Your post would be a personal attack, by the standards you have applied. You are attacking the behavior of several posters here.

 

What is being quantified is the behavior. And your "attack" has less to justify it, since the support is lacking.

 

From your link: "Bullying is the intentional tormenting of others through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation. There is currently no legal definition of bullying."

 

Asking for evidence to support a model, in a scientific context, is not harassment. There has been no physical assault, since this is a virtual environment. And manipulation? I don't see it. One thing that propogates the illusion of bullying is that Farsight is in the minority, which isn't surprising given that this is a science board.

 

There's no mass hysteria going on; it's not a witch hunt. Farsight was not plucked from the crowd and accused of unscientific thought. It's not extrajudicial, as the standards of science are being applied here. A form of informal peer review.

 

As Phi implied, t's not ad hom if the remarks pertain to the subject. If one were to call another a creationist, it would not be an ad hom if creation/evolution were the topic. If we were trying to ascertain if someone were a creationist, or a flat-earther, and used some semi-objective scale, would that be cause for similar objection?

[Farsight]

You're pretty much spot on there Spyman. Mind you, I don't feel bullied. It's more like I'm the star attraction in a game of burn the heretic. Note Ben's ongoing abusive comments above, compare with this...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=356323&postcount=219

 

...and judge the guy for yourself. Don't think I'm in any way hurt or wounded by all this stuff. I simply must submit my material formally, and meanwhile chitchatting about it on the internet might prove more than unproductive.

[Phi for All]

It's not Farsights ideas thats called crazy in this thread, they are measuring his insanity.

If that's what you think then I understand why you object. Since crackpot ideas are not necessarily indications of insanity, I'm going to call Strawman here.

The only purpose I can see with this thread is to ridicule Farsight.

No, Farsight's unsupported ideas are being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator.

Whether BenTheMan is able to prove it or not is irrelevant, it is still a personal attack.

No, Farsight's unsupported ideas are being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator.

For instance, I could support proof of a persons handicap, but if I used the proof to humiliate, ridicule and point finger at that person, what would that make me ?

Don't know, but this is another Strawman argument.

In my opinion the "distinction" part is a very poor excuse for the bullying going on here.

It is true that Farsight is being used as a test case in some ways. We sometimes take the time to do a thorough job of debunking ideas like his (and creationism, conspiracies and anti-special relativity arguments). We usually dismiss them after a few rounds of "nothing to back me up but a gut feeling"-type posts. I can see where this would come off as bullying to someone who hasn't read and moderated hundreds of similar posts.

There are other ways to attack someone than using John Baez' Crackpot Index...

We try not to do the "attack someone" thing. You have been reading this thread, right? I see a distinction with the term Crackpot. It's different than "idiot", "moron" and similar invectives in that it doesn't trash the person, just their ideas. In Baez' scale, Crackpot has defined parameters adn they are based on the ideas, not the person. Are we clear(er)?

And I think he has used it wrong and that it is wrong when you and the others mods allow it.

I admit the possibility that we may never allow this to be done again. It's a test, a new way of handling something that plagues us occasionally and almost always ends with us just banning the offender. I wanted to try something that has a chance of working better.

I thought this was a forum where everyone could discuss science without the risk to be hanged out as insane.

More Strawman. Please note: Crackpot does not equal insane.

(And please note: There is nothing wrong with pointing out if an idea/thought is wrong/crackpot.)

Bingo.

But as proved in this thread, it is now allowed to point out that individuals is insane.

(If you can back up your arguments with an accepted index/norm.)

*sigh* Wrong.

What kind of indexes/norms is going to be used in SFN:s next Witch-hunt ?

(And what kind of personality is going to be lynched then ?)

Slippery Slope fallacy.

A Witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

Strawman.

A moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

The only menace Farsight poses is the tacit acceptance of his ideas should we choose to ignore them.

Mass hysteria, also called collective hysteria or collective obsessional behavior, is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Strawman.

Lynching is a form of violence, usually execution, conceived of by its perpetrators as extrajudicial punishment for offenders or as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination. It is characterized by a summary procedure ignoring, bypassing, or even contrary to, the strict forms of law, notably judicial execution. Victims of lynching have generally been members of groups marginalized or vilified by society. The practice is age-old; stoning, for example, is believed to have started long before lapidation was adopted as a judicial form of execution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_lynching

Congratulations, your cornfield is protected but you're all out of straw.

 

I'm glad there are those who are watching these threads for the use of ad homs. BenTheMan has had several Infractions leveled at him from the Staff until he stopped using them and came upon Baez' test. He showed that he could change his strategy and not just beat his head against the wall. Keep holding our feet to the fire and make this a board of scientific inquiry and intellectual honesty. Bear in mind that we are using an internet forum format so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we have to do things a bit differently and it doesn't conform to most concepts of peer review (or any concept).

 

I've been moderating here for a couple of years now and BenTheMan is right about at least one thing: you can't just stay silent while someone trashes what you love. Many of you have objected when we quietly delete crap that doesn't deserve to stay, you object when crap is left in and now you object to a thread which puts a spotlight on the crap. There's no pleasing everyone and I'm fine with that, it's human nature.

 

I also have to admit that, although Farsight is a bit unclear on what rigorous review and testing really is, he has stuck it out and is still responding. It is for this reason that we didn't just dismiss his ideas out of hand and delete them after banning him. Hats off for that, Farsight.

[Xerxes]

Oh dear-- let me tell you all a sad story

 

A couple of years ago some very brave folk started up a science WiKi called WiSci. Even though we had few editors, we were building, and it could have been really good.

 

But, sadly, all editors (except me) chose to spend the next 3 months composing a letter of rebuttal to the Intelligent Design geeks. Of course they never responded.

 

It killed the WiKi, which I was sad about, but which I did warn about.

 

It seems to me that this sub-forum might be in danger of going down the same road with all this "rebuttal of Farsight" crap. Who cares what he thinks? I mean who really cares?

 

(Hands up, please!)

[BenTheMan]

I don't care at all...untill he votes or raises childeren. THEN it effects me, and I DO care.

[Norman Albers]

Occassionally, pots must get cracked. This is how Joao Mageuijo describes it in his book, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "The first time I threw my solution to the cosmologic problems into discussion, an embarrassed silence followed. I was aware that a lot of work neede to be done before my idea could attract some respect; and that, as it was, my idea would look completely crackpot... People would chake their heads, at best say, 'Shut up and don't be stupid,' and at worse just be very British and say noncommitally, 'Oh, I don't know anything about that'... When I started labelling my idea VSL (varying SOL), someone suggested that it stood for 'very silly'. You can't take anything that happens at these meeting personally. In fact, the easiest way to drive yourself crazy in science is to take challenges to your ideas as personal insults, even those that are expressed with contempt or venom, and even when you are absolutely sure that those around you think you are a fool. That's science. Every new idea is gibberish until it survives ruthless challenge."

[Xerxes]

I don't care at all...until he votes or raises children. THEN it effects me, and I DO care.

You fear his daughter might marry your son (or v.v)? Phhht. Unlikely.

 

And if he votes the way that you would prefer that he did not? So? It's democracy, right, live with it..

 

(Sorry mods, my wife's birthday, I'm pissed)

[Phi for All]

You fear his daughter might marry your son (or v.v)? Phhht. Unlikely.

I think BenTheMan was probably going for what Farsight's children would be taught and what they would infect other kids with.

(Sorry mods, my wife's birthday, I'm pissed)

Happy birthday to her! I don't know why that should piss you off but you shouldn't let if affect your posts.

Sorry to break it to you, chum, this site is pretty low, low down on my student's crib list

I take it you teach, based on this sentence.

 

Imagine you are filling the blackboard with equations when one of the students jumps up and starts explaining his thesis on one of the other boards. His ideas are not solid and he doesn't seem to want to do the real work to explain why he arrives at his conclusions. It's obvious to you that he doesn't understand the math and so is convinced it must be wrong. Over the next few weeks this student will interject his pet ideas into just about every module you are trying to show to the rest of the class. It takes time away from the purpose of each module to keep correcting him as his interjections crop up. Many of the students who also don't understand the material are drawn to his ideas because they question your accepted views also.

 

Do you just shake your head and continue with what you were doing? Do you correct him or do you just assume no one will care about his silly ideas? If he continues to do this after you've shown him his errors do you have him suspended? If more students copy his actions do you hear them all out or do you just keep suspending them? After you've suspended a few dozen would you start thinking there might be a better way to show the rest of the students how this type of reasoning is flawed?

[timo]

Oh dear-- let me tell you all a sad story...

Which needs a few corrections .

 

A couple of years ago some very brave folk started up a science WiKi called WiSci. Even though we had few editors, we were building, and it could have been really good.

Depends on what you call "really good". Realisticly, the original purpose of creating a scientific encyclopedia that's more accurate and detailed than other Wikis out there was pretty absurd from the very start . I considered more as a mixture as a blog and an editable FAQ, for which it did indeed serve well (at least I linked to my articles there when writing forum replies once or twice and had done so some other times after WiSci was gone). But it seems that was "after your time" (considering I wrote the articles after the letter project was already dead).

 

But, sadly, all editors (except me) chose to spend the next 3 months composing a letter of rebuttal to the Intelligent Design geeks. Of course they never responded.

Afaik, like all -to my knowledge- sfn-related projects started by sfn non-staff members, the letter was never finished and sent.