Speculations and Pseudoscience

[Baby Astronaut]

Wouldn't that be a more constructive name for this section of the forums?

 

Or even: "Speculations (and Pseudoscience)"

[JillSwift]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

[Kyrisch]

In light of happy snapper's recent reaction to the forum as well as many others' negative feelings and misconceptions about why their pet thread was placed into this apparent file 13, I agree that it may be a good move PR-wise to rename the forum thus.

[Baby Astronaut]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Not exactly. It probably feels as if the title were closer to "Nonsense and Speculations"

 

But if you reversed it around to "Speculations (plus occasional nonsense)"....then it'll have a pretty different feel.

[ajb]

So, when a post is placed in "Pseudoscience and Speculation" do the initial posters think?

 

1) It is here because, despite the hard work and incredible attention to scientific practice my "idea" it is still speculative at the moment because it lacks experimental verification. Remembering that the "idea" is based on accepted frameworks and builds on what is know.

 

2) It is here because I am not prepared to learn established science as it is far to complicated to be right and as such I believe pseudoscience is the way forward. We don't need mathematics, pure intuition, analogies and pictures will see us right. Don't forget that Einstein and Feynman both used pictures and diagrams and look how famous they are.

 

There is a vast difference here and I have posted on this subject before.

Edited November 27, 2009 by ajb

[StringJunky]

Not exactly. It probably feels as if the title were closer to "Nonsense and Speculations"

 

But if you reversed it around to "Speculations (plus occasional nonsense)"....then it'll have a pretty different feel.

 

Putting 'Speculations' first, has a less cynical and negative air about it.

 

Jill: It's best to put the more 'positive' word first, I think...It's like the difference in the question: Is the glass half empty or half full? Pessimists express the former, yet it's only six of one, half.....! The issue is one of perception.

 

Consider the prefix; Pseudo=false.That is the FIRST word in the forum header...it's not surprisng non-scientists and unfamiliarised newcomers react negatively.

 

It makes people feel it has already been prejudged (as rubbish).

 

It might soften the blow to turn the words around.

 

Anyway, it seems to be logical to put Speculations first because, at the end of the day, an idea that is put there is still considered open for discussion then it may it be classed as Pseudoscience.

 

The present title, as I see it, is putting the cart before the horse!

[JillSwift]

There's no evidence that I am aware of that word order makes the difference being claimed here.

[Baby Astronaut]

So, when a post is placed in "Pseudoscience and Speculation" do the initial posters think?

 

1) It is here because, despite the hard work and incredible attention to scientific practice my "idea" it is still speculative at the moment because it lacks experimental verification. Remembering that the "idea" is based on accepted frameworks and builds on what is know.

 

2) It is here because I am not prepared to learn established science as it is far to complicated to be right and as such I believe pseudoscience is the way forward. We don't need mathematics, pure intuition, analogies and pictures will see us right. Don't forget that Einstein and Feynman both used pictures and diagrams and look how famous they are.

I think many newcomers probably arrive with a lifetime/ingrained habit of viewing evolution and the universe beginnings not as a scientific model, but rather as a *theory* in the sense of...."Hey, did they find out who stole the Bung Family's jewelry? I have a theory who's behind it all"....instead of in the more accurate sense of...."Hey, did they find out who stole the Bung Family's jewelry yet? Hmm, no? Because I've formed a model with details and some evidence with calculations -- rechecked by other departments -- that points to who's behind it all".

 

Anyway, it seems to be logical to put Speculations first because, at the end of the day, an idea that is put there is still considered open for discussion then it may it be classed as Pseudoscience.

I like that. Excellent point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There's no evidence that I am aware of that word order makes the difference being claimed here.

Who's the last person to complain about having a discussion moved to "speculations"? (in place of complaining about the word "pseudoscience")

Edited November 27, 2009 by Baby Astronaut
Consecutive posts merged.

[JillSwift]

Who's the last person to complain about having a discussion moved to "speculations"? (in place of complaining about the word "pseudoscience")

And this suggests word order... how?

[iNow]

I tend to agree with the perceptual descriptions put forth by Baby_A above. He's right... Humans are emotive creatures, and simple word order very often does have an impact on how we feel.

 

Jill, word order absolutely matters. You can look to the "primacy effect" for further reading.

 

 

However, with that said, I really don't care. Most of the crap that lands here is just that... crap. It's not an excuse to whine about it. It's a motivation to step up and do the required work to support your idea. The vast majority of the time, however, the people are either unwilling or unable to do that work, and for that reason alone I don't care how they feel when their crap is moved here. (ever notice how the people with true speculations tend to be connected with reality well enough not to complain and that it's not a slight against them, but just an accurate and objective move?)

 

 

Swansont had an interesting post on something similar this morning:

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4258

Welcome to the major leagues, rook.

[Phi for All]

I think the Pseudoscience part should be dropped altogether. We really don't discuss actual pseudoscience here much, unless the thread is opened in the context of, "Look at this piece of rubbish someone wants to put forth as actual science!"

 

We point out fallacies and bad logic all the time, especially the kind pseudoscience requires in order to bridge the gaps it can't cross with rigor and scientific method. We don't care much for discussions that purposely ignore a lack of rigor, so why have a sub-forum partly dedicated to it?

 

Speculations are a great way for people to discuss ideas that are being formulated, and a great way to participate in a mild peer review that helps hone one's critical thinking as well. Dropping the pejorative term "pseudoscience" altogether keeps the integrity of the site, discourages topics we are tired of hearing about and hopefully will quell the objections that typically arise when threads are moved there.

[JillSwift]

Jill, word order absolutely matters. You can look to the "primacy effect" for further reading.

Mmmm. Evidence. Good stuff.

We don't care much for discussions that purposely ignore a lack of rigor, so why have a sub-forum partly dedicated to it?

I can get behind this argument. Edited November 27, 2009 by JillSwift
Yeah, stuff, y'know?

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with Baby Astronaut, and in fact was considering suggesting the same. Word order does matter, especially if the "default" word order is reversed.

 

On the other hand, as Phi mentioned, we don't really allow pseudoscience in the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum, so why have it in the name in the first place, not to mention as the first word?

[npts2020]

Or pseudoscience could be a subforum in the speculations forum? (BTW I don't really care what the name is, it is still a good place for most of us to at least look at the ideas presented)

[swansont]

Or pseudoscience could be a subforum in the speculations forum? (BTW I don't really care what the name is, it is still a good place for most of us to at least look at the ideas presented)

 

This particular option has been discussed before, and generally does not get moderator support, as we would be the ones making the decision into which section the posts get moved, and take the heat when the poster inevitably complained. Remember, many of these posts originate in a science forum and the poster generally disagrees with moving them. It's not worth the aggravation, IMO.

[DJBruce]

What if it was called "Proto and Fringe Science". That way the name does not imply that the idea being discussed is false, but instead implies that the topic being discussed has not been credibly researched or has fallen out of favor with the mainstream scientific community.

 

Protoscience: noun- "a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science."

[mooeypoo]

This particular option has been discussed before, and generally does not get moderator support, as we would be the ones making the decision into which section the posts get moved, and take the heat when the poster inevitably complained. Remember, many of these posts originate in a science forum and the poster generally disagrees with moving them. It's not worth the aggravation, IMO.

And most of the time the line between speculation and pseudoscience is too thin to differentiate.

[JillSwift]

And most of the time the line between speculation and pseudoscience is too thin to differentiate.

Well, initially. Pseudoscience becomes obvious when it refuses to change upon introduction of evidence.

 

Never the less, the point is good. It's unreasonable to expect our dear moderators to sift through all the chaff.

[mooeypoo]

Well, initially. Pseudoscience becomes obvious when it refuses to change upon introduction of evidence.

 

Never the less, the point is good. It's unreasonable to expect our dear moderators to sift through all the chaff.

I think it's also more about the initial 'assumptions'. If we move a subject to "Pseudoscience", it's already judged. If we move it to Speculations we give it "a chance".. then what? we move it again? It's just an unneeded step. A single forum can handle both.

 

Besides, a pseudoscientific idea can transform into a speculation if the claims are adjusted, and vice versa.. if we split the forums we'll end up yo-yo'ing threads in between?

 

We might aswell leave both concepts linked; we're handling speculations just fine in this forum, minus the people who decide to get all defensive and offended by the idea that what they're presenting is speculative and not mainstream science. those aren't likely to disappear if we split Pseudo and Speculations anyways.

 

But the idea of putting "Speculations" first gives it the emphasis, and since there's not much use on debating pseudoscience but there's a lot of benefit debating speculations, the emphasis should probably be shifted.. not a bad idea. Worth thinking about, anyways.

[elas]

My complaint is not with the forum title, but with its position on the index; speculation worthy of consideration should be in the science section. Deciding what is worthy of further in the science section should be left to the moderators.

Edited November 28, 2009 by elas

[Mr Skeptic]

What if we call it "Speculations and Inadequate Arguments"? Or something similar. The point being to call attention to the style of argument, which is usually the problem with posts moved to this section. That way they realize we are not judging their oh-so-valuable idea to be rubbish, but rather that they fail at providing a good argument for it. This way we skip the needless accusations of being marginalized, name-called, whatever, and get straight to improving the level of the debate.

[ajb]

[quote name=DJBruce;529426

Protoscience: noun- "a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science."

 

I would call this "work in progress"' date=' provided the philosophy and methods employed are up to scientific standards.

 

Every professional scientist has "work in progress" and many of these initial works may go nowhere. Either because they are simply to difficult to finish or shown not to be of any use. It is part of the discovery process.

[mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp]

What if we call it "Speculations and Inadequate Arguments"?

 

Part of the process of discovering science is to find where your arguments breakdown, hopefully they can be "patched up" or they will point to new science.

 

Not knowing all the pit-falls and loop-holes in an idea is no reason to class it outside the science sections.

[JillSwift]

Some ideas:

 

"Speculations, Burgeoning Ideas, and the Occasional Crackpot Notion"

"Speculation, Early Postulates, and the Odd bit of Flotsam"

"Wherein we Speculate, Examine, and Eviscerate Ideas"

"A place to discover the brutality of peer review."

"Examinations of Arguments Not Mainstream"

"Idea Fight Club" (First rule: We don't talk about this forum.)

[Phi for All]

The forum policy for starting new sub-forums is to wait until enough threads are posted discussing a subject to show a valid interest. Since we don't allow pseudoscientific stances to go unchallenged anywhere in the whole forum, shouldn't we drop it altogether from the title of this sub-forum to discourage its use?

 

I think Speculations is enough. Simple and elegant may encourage the same.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed. The policy in that forum rules out any total pseudoscience surviving for very long.