On the subject of feeding the trolls

[Dak]

If all my posts we subject to the moderators' eye before it was able to be viewed by everyone I think it would put me off posting at all. Or is that the point?

 

So far the atmosphere is quite friendly and open in here, I would like to see it remain that way.

 

it's only being suggested for the crackpot loonies and trolls

[nstansbury]

Apologies I'm rather late to this thread and for the longish post.

 

I think any "censorship" of this fashion needs to be done *very* carefully otherwise it becomes a slippery slope.

 

There are in my view, far too many "scientists" who are so closed minded to new/awkward ideas that they arn't much different to the local priest - they just preach from a different handbook. That in my view is just as much bad science as being "so open minded your brain falls out".

 

I would also add, I have personally gained something from MotorDaddy's posts, in that they forced me to re-examine how I framed my arguments, and encouraged me to do more research to better explain my thoughts - even if he ignored them completely and also given me the opportunity to read other posters ideas and perspectives.

 

(I love the irony that I got more out of his threads than MotorDaddy did!)

 

This is something I believe all advocates of a rigorous, repeatable, peer-reviewed, evidential approach to life's questions should encourage in themselves, and ensures that you don't end up in an intellectual sewer along with the trolls & "3G" believers (Ghouls, Ghosts & Gods).

 

 

I would make two suggestions that might help sedate the Trolls.

 

1) Firstly, split threads that are reasonable speculation from pseudo-science. I'm personally still smarting that ideas that I have genuinely spent many hundreds of hours working through the theories and calculus, are associated with "Rocks are alive" & "Einstein got it wrong" et al threads.

 

It de-values both by association and thread clutter, any ideas that are at least of intellectual curiosity, and worthy of further discussion in a forum such as SFN.

 

It also clearly indicates to any "Googlers" and trolls that the Pseudo-Science (PS) forum is in reality the BS science forum, and this is where you get put when you elect not to engage the 4 million years worth of evolution sitting in between your ears.

 

2) Secondly, perhaps the partially locked thread suggestion could be enhanced by a mod listing the 10 best/most relevant posts made in a "troll birthing" thread, and lock it until the OP has *CONCISELY* & and intelligently addressed these point by point.

 

This way the freedom of speech and ideas principles are preserved and any potential troll mis-classifications are given the opportunity to address the major points without 10 other posters sidetracking and perhaps diluting the key issues that the poster must first address.

 

My tuppence worth.

 

N

[swansont]

I think any "censorship" of this fashion needs to be done *very* carefully otherwise it becomes a slippery slope.

 

There are in my view, far too many "scientists" who are so closed minded to new/awkward ideas that they arn't much different to the local priest - they just preach from a different handbook. That in my view is just as much bad science as being "so open minded your brain falls out".

 

The burden of proof and requirement of rigor (in both the formulation and evidence) are upon the person with the new idea. If they cannot meet those hurdles, or at least move in that direction, then what's left is usually a game of distraction. At that point the topic is not worthy of discussion.

 

Saying that a proposal violates known science is not preaching. It's an acknowledgment of the vast amount of data that exists in support of prevailing theories. The poster would do well to familiarize him/herself with said material.

[mooeypoo]

I think the main problem is less related to the contents and more related to the attitude of the poster.

 

If someone posts utter nonsense, but is willing to truly discuss and try to understand, then even if it does take a long time, it's worth doing. However, if someone posts a postulation (even if it MIGHT have some merit at some point with modifications) but acts as if he's allknowing, condescending and does not wnt to participate in a debate but rather looks to convince us that physics is wrong, then no matter what he says it should probably be warned.

 

I don't think we should censor, we should just pay attention and set a "limit" to how long we care to entertain those who don't care to listen.

[Mr Skeptic]

Basically, the problem with trolls is that they censor us, by flooding us with utter garbage, drowning out legitimate discussion. Usually this is intentional. Think of it like spam, it will far outnumber legitimate mail with junk, even if you have a spam filter. The mods are like the spam filter, attempting to filter out the junk and keep whatever is good, with a bias for accepting things with an uncertain status.

[nstansbury]

Basically' date=' the problem with trolls is that they censor us, by flooding us with utter garbage, drowning out legitimate discussion.[/quote']

 

I agree - which is exactly what I said here:

 

It de-values both by association and thread clutter, any ideas that are at least of intellectual curiosity, and worthy of further discussion in a forum such as SFN.

 

 

The burden of proof and requirement of rigor (in both the formulation and evidence) are upon the person with the new idea. If they cannot meet those hurdles, or at least move in that direction, then what's left is usually a game of distraction. At that point the topic is not worthy of discussion.

 

Saying that a proposal violates known science is not preaching. It's an acknowledgment of the vast amount of data that exists in support of prevailing theories. The poster would do well to familiarize him/herself with said material.

 

That's not exactly what I meant - I was specifically referring to how certain members of the "scientific" community have treated many new ideas - Pons & Fleishman, heck even Einstein when he first published SR and many many others. Unfortunately, ignorance & short sightedness are not the sole provenance of those outside the scientific community.

 

The one thing I've learned as an engineer is, thinking you have all the answers is almost always a sure fire way to ensure that you don't.

 

To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong."

 

I would again repeat what I said:

This is something I believe all advocates of a rigorous, repeatable, peer-reviewed, evidential approach to life's questions should encourage in themselves, and ensures that you don't end up in an intellectual sewer along with the trolls & "3G" believers (Ghouls, Ghosts & Gods).

 

 

This isn't meant as a specific dig at anyone here - just an example of perhaps not pausing enough to consider.

 

The ideas I presented a month or so ago have since been refined and worked on. Not one person, commented along the lines of "that's an intriguing idea" -let's genuinely discuss the evidence - yet two Quantum Physicists and a Astro-Physicist - one from a well regarded UK University have since commented in exactly that fashion, and suggested it needs further looking into. Maybe there's something in them - maybe there isn't.

 

 

 

Don't be so anxious to challenge & disprove something that you lose sight of the reason for doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

N

Edited July 14, 2008 by nstansbury

[ajb]

I think that trolls and pseudoscience has to do with attitude and approach and not directly the content.

 

In reply to nstansbury comment. Many of the ideas put forward by people in the pseudoscience and speculations are formulated very poorly. The point being that it is in fact very hard to criticise such ideas. Without any real mathematical formulation one cannot examine the self-consistency or make any plausible calculations. This also makes it hard to ask/phrase questions.

 

Due to this, it is very understandable that people are genuinely dismissive.

[nstansbury]

In reply to nstansbury comment. Many of the ideas put forward by people in the pseudoscience and speculations are formulated very poorly. The point being that it is in fact very hard to criticise such ideas. Without any real mathematical formulation one cannot examine the self-consistency or make any plausible calculations. This also makes it hard to ask/phrase questions.

 

Due to this, it is very understandable that people are genuinely dismissive.

 

I quite agree - and understand, but this is exactly why I felt the BS Pseudo-Science forum should be separate from the Speculation forum, specifically so genuine posters arn't dammed by association.

 

However, on a point of order - I did provide the equivalent of 3x A4 pages of formulas with explanations to backup my idea.

 

It is very disappointing to come to a forum such as this, make a significant effort in time to frame the discussion, and end up walking away with the feeling that if it can't be obviously dismissed by others immediately then no further discussion takes place.

 

I haven't bothered posting my refined work and calculations, because I don't honestly believe it will be discussed seriously here - I think that's a genuine shame.

 

(Though please don't misunderstand me - I'm in no way implying that there is some form of obligation on other members to invest their time to go over someone else's calculus!)

 

N

[swansont]

That's not exactly what I meant - I was specifically referring to how certain members of the "scientific" community have treated many new ideas - Pons & Fleishman, heck even Einstein when he first published SR and many many others. Unfortunately, ignorance & short sightedness are not the sole provenance of those outside the scientific community.

 

P&F is a really bad example to bring up. They didn't follow the standard route for presenting scientific material (skipped peer review) and it backfired on them, because their claims were overblown. Einstein, on the other hand, had a mathematical framework, based his work on established science and made testable predictions. If only the cranks would do things in a similar fashion.

[ajb]

I have not followed any of your work nstansbury. So I cannot comment. Also, I do not wish to make any comments on any particular thread or member.

 

If you are on to something don't give up, but also don't expect people on here to act as peer-review. The hard work is up to you.

[swansont]

I have not followed any of your work nstansbury. So I cannot comment. Also, I do not wish to make any comments on any particular thread or member.

 

If you are on to something don't give up, but also don't expect people on here to act as peer-review. The hard work is up to you.

 

Actually, it is a crude form of peer-review. Peer-review tells you about the shortcomings of your work, and things the reviewer think should be addressed. In my limited experience with it, I don't recall any "keep up the good work" comments. Critical review is going to be, well, critical. The key is how people respond to such criticism. The amount of personal insult that is perceived is generally proportional to the crankosity.

[Phi for All]

I quite agree - and understand, but this is exactly why I felt the BS Pseudo-Science forum should be separate from the Speculation forum, specifically so genuine posters arn't dammed by association.

A valid point, and one that is under scrutiny atm.

 

However, on a point of order - I did provide the equivalent of 3x A4 pages of formulas with explanations to backup my idea.

And what was your interpretation of the critique you received on these pages?

It is very disappointing to come to a forum such as this, make a significant effort in time to frame the discussion, and end up walking away with the feeling that if it can't be obviously dismissed by others immediately then no further discussion takes place.

I don't remember any discussion stalling on the point of, "I don't know where you're wrong because I can't find any fault with your work, but something must be wrong so I'm going to ignore you". We would actually be quite happy with finding no faults in a hypothesis.

 

I haven't bothered posting my refined work and calculations, because I don't honestly believe it will be discussed seriously here - I think that's a genuine shame.

And I think that's a very weak position. Are you telling me that people critiqued your earlier work and made suggestions on refinement, and now you refuse to show that refined work because you don't think those same people will appreciate that you did as they asked? I just don't get that.

 

(Though please don't misunderstand me - I'm in no way implying that there is some form of obligation on other members to invest their time to go over someone else's calculus!)

While there is no obligation, it certainly is what most people ask from speculative threads, that they show some mathematical rigor in explaining why their ideas merit time spent on analysis. If someone asks you for supporting math and you supply it, I would hope that the person asking will go over it and give you their opinion on it. Please Report a Post that ignores evidence you provided on request.

[ajb]

Actually, it is a crude form of peer-review. Peer-review tells you about the shortcomings of your work, and things the reviewer think should be addressed. In my limited experience with it, I don't recall any "keep up the good work" comments. Critical review is going to be, well, critical. The key is how people respond to such criticism. The amount of personal insult that is perceived is generally proportional to the crankosity.

 

Ok, I agree with that.

[Sayonara]

To be fair, we (unfortunately) don't often get insightful original works posted here, so it's not like we are passing up opportunities to be nice left, right, and centre.

[nstansbury]

P&F is a really bad example to bring up. They didn't follow the standard route for presenting scientific material (skipped peer review) and it backfired on them, because their claims were overblown.

 

Yet something like 30+ institutions around the world have repeated the experiment now with the similar results. The "establishment" keep saying that they are cranks and it can't be fusion because there are no neutrinos.

 

Who cares - P&F never claimed CF, they claimed "excess heat" in an experiment that should have had none - that's the real question that needs to be answered, not whether it is/isn't CF.

 

 

And what was your interpretation of the critique you received on these pages?

 

After I addressed and reposted nothing.

 

 

I don't remember any discussion stalling on the point of, "I don't know where you're wrong because I can't find any fault with your work, but something must be wrong so I'm going to ignore you". We would actually be quite happy with finding no faults in a hypothesis.

 

As I said there was nothing - the thread just fell off to page x, despite me re-editing on a number of occasions.

 

 

And I think that's a very weak position. Are you telling me that people critiqued your earlier work and made suggestions on refinement, and now you refuse to show that refined work because you don't think those same people will appreciate that you did as they asked? I just don't get that.

 

No, I'm suggesting no-one made any critique of the core proposal, aside from the (retrospectively) obvious typos in my equations.

 

The refined work happened because of my own criticism of my work, and also a desire for a more elegant solution. Hence the reason, I've not bothered re-posting and gone down the academia route instead.

 

I can only progress or drop the proposal if I get to discuss it - and that wasn't happening here. I even sent a PM to your good self requesting that due to lack of comments it get moved somewhere else: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=1473

 

This was the reason I suggested that my overriding impression is that if any new idea here can't be immediately seen to be flawed, interest wanes rather quickly.

 

That may or may not be a consequence of thread overload in the PS forum.

 

N

Edited July 14, 2008 by nstansbury

[Sayonara]

nstansbury, I would suggest that if you are following the scientific method then there is no reason why you should not post about your work in the appropriate science sub-forum.

[nstansbury]

nstansbury, I would suggest that if you are following the scientific method then there is no reason why you should not post about your work in the appropriate science sub-forum.

 

I did - it got moved into the PS & S forum, and my requests for it to be moved out never amounted to anything

[Klaynos]

A bit off topic :s

 

Yet something like 30+ institutions around the world have repeated the experiment now with the similar results. The "establishment" keep saying that they are cranks and it can't be fusion because there are no neutrinos.

 

Who cares - P&F never claimed CF, they claimed "excess heat" in an experiment that should have had none - that's the real question that needs to be answered, not whether it is/isn't CF.

 

It's interesting to note (if off topic) that institutions have attempted to repeat their results, many times, and mostly failed, although there has been some excess heat found in some of the attempts at repeating so most people agree that there currently is still not enough data to come to any conclusions as to whether the results are real.

 

And in reference to your thread, I still stand by my post:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=415693&postcount=22

 

Where you need physical meaning for defining things in terms of other physical quantities/variables/constants.

[Sayonara]

I did - it got moved into the PS & S forum, and my requests for it to be moved out never amounted to anything

Which thread is it?

[Phi for All]

Which thread is it?

This one, I believe.

[iNow]

felt the BS Pseudo-Science forum should be separate from the Speculation forum, specifically so genuine posters arn't dammed by association.

 

A valid point, and one that is under scrutiny atm.

If I were to guess, one of the points with which you all on the staff are struggling is how best to decide when a thread is pseudoscience and when a thread is speculation.

 

Perhaps the decision could automatically be opened up to a vote, and let the members decide. There is a "in which pond should this thread swim" holding area where members vote (for a week, or other arbitrary time period), then at the close of the vote, the thread gets moved to the more chosen "pond."

 

In the meantime, you could leave it open to the OP to continue posting, hence swaying the vote one way or the other...

[swansont]

Yet something like 30+ institutions around the world have repeated the experiment now with the similar results. The "establishment" keep saying that they are cranks and it can't be fusion because there are no neutrinos.

 

Who cares - P&F never claimed CF, they claimed "excess heat" in an experiment that should have had none - that's the real question that needs to be answered, not whether it is/isn't CF.

 

They claimed a nuclear reaction, and it's neutrons that were missing, not neutrinos. The "establishment" was pushing the "dogma" that baryon number is conserved. If you're going to contradict well-established, experimentally verified science, you have to have solid evidence. They didn't.

[Phi for All]

If I were to guess, one of the points with which you all on the staff are struggling is how best to decide when a thread is pseudoscience and when a thread is speculation.

Actually, it's pretty obvious when one's assertions leave the realm of accepted scientific method and need to rely on pseudoscience to support them. I think the membership does a good job with objective critique but we need a process for advancement when someone adheres to method, addresses all concerns and defends their idea rigorously.

 

Despite many assurances, everyone who posts a speculative idea resents the fact that Speculations is in the same sub-forum with Pseudoscience. We've told them often that it's up to them to avoid the latter by staying with accepted method but the stigma persists. I'd like to see the sub-forums split, possibly adding others to allow a thesis to move up or down on a scale of approval based on how well the OP presents the idea.

 

The whole concept might be doomed to fail since most crackpots don't see the point of all the rigor and accuse accepted science of being too hidebound. It's tough to deal with someone who simultaneously believes in thinking outside the box AND doesn't understand that the box is the whole point.

[swansont]

Alternately, you strike "pseudoscience" altogether. True pseudoscience is actually kind of rare around here, and I don't see posts about astrology or homeopathy getting much traction. Such threads, should they crop up, can simply be closed. The section becomes speculations, and is where any non-mainstream ideas get discussed.

[Pangloss]

I see the point now. Threads like nstansbury's don't deserve to be lumped in with the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

 

It's not an opinion poll or a popularity contest. The threads should either be left open or closed based on standardized rules. I'm not sure I like the idea of casting off all radical thinking, but I do agree now that there's two separate things going on in there.