Critical comparison of science forums

[rrw4rusty]

Hi,

Several days ago I started a new thread on six different science forums (including this one) entitled:

 

“(the furthest we can see - the smallest we can see)/2=radius of Earth!”

 

It made a claim based on half a dozen ‘inaccurate’ values for the most part (one or two values which would have been obviously wrong happened to be correct). The responses of each forum were very interesting. The forums involved were:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

http://www.thescienceforum.com/index.php

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/index.php

http://www.sciforums.com/

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/

http://www.sciencefile.org/

 

Without naming forums (though this is easy enough to check), responses were wide spread and quite interesting. They were:

1. Many responses, each pointing out one or two mistakes (but not all) and posting the correct values.

2. Many lively responses, each discussing how interesting the claim was, offering conclusions and/or thoughts, and/or pointing out similar examples. One last post questioned one of the incorrect values but did not take the time to check it.

3. A single response pointing out each and every mistake but providing no corrections.

4. No responses.

 

Note: I am writing this off-line (my ISP is down) and so I cannot check on anything and must depend on memory however, I’m a busy person and might not check anyway. Also I do not know how many people viewed the post without replying which might or might not be telling.

 

What can be made of this? To be completely certain, responses I’ve received from other posts would need to be studied – I don’t have the time. However, IMHO the following might be said:

a) In the case of forum response 1, seemingly each person that responded was knowledgeable enough to spot a one or two incorrect values and, either knew the correct value(s) or took the time to look it up. No one took the time to check the other values.

b) In the case of forum response 2, shame on you! No one was knowledgeable enough or observant enough to spot any of the mistakes – I think there was three of them. No one cared enough to check any of the values (or had the time to? -- they had time to discuss the claim).

c) In the case of forum response 3, seemingly one person knew and/or checked on each and every value but did not care to or have the time to provide the correct values. Seemingly others upon seeing or knowing about all the mistakes did not bother with the post.

d) In the case of no responses no conclusions can be reached.

 

Comments are welcome.

 

Cheers,

Rusty

[swansont]

3. A single response pointing out each and every mistake but providing no corrections.

 

…

 

c) In the case of forum response 3, seemingly one person knew and/or checked on each and every value but did not care to or have the time to provide the correct values. Seemingly others upon seeing or knowing about all the mistakes did not bother with the post.

 

I don't think this is a flaw; it is incumbent on the poster to get the correct information. If it's pointed out to be wrong, they should withdraw their assertion and go get the right numbers. I can certainly identify with the feeling that some posters want to be spoon-fed information.

 

If one has the time to point that out, one might use

http://lmgtfy.com/

[Sisyphus]

Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to check the math because even if it was correct, there wouldn't be anything to say about it. If the math had led to an interesting conclusion or was the basis for an actual question, I probably would have checked it.

[rrw4rusty]

I don't think this is a flaw; it is incumbent on the poster to get the correct information. If it's pointed out to be wrong, they should withdraw their assertion and go get the right numbers. I can certainly identify with the feeling that some posters want to be spoon-fed information.

 

If one has the time to point that out, one might use

http://lmgtfy.com/

 

Perhaps 'critical review' was the wrong wording... really I see no flaws, just different handling, some better than others, this one being the best imoh.

 

And I was not cleaver enough to design that post as a 'test', just careless enough to get it all wrong.

 

r

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This was one of two really embarrassing posts I made--my only excuse, lack of sleep. Apologies to anyone I offended, I can’t say what I was thinking and obviously didn’t know what I was doing.

 

r