What don't you like about SFN?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's one possible solution: we rename the Trash Can to something more suitable, and grant all resident experts power to move threads within Speculations. The Trash Can is a closed forum, so threads can't be posted in, and it's effectively the same as closing them.

 

Then we simply update the speculations policy and fire away. Threads that are downright garbage would be moved into the Trash Can, or whatever we name it, and normal speculations could stay in Speculations.

[michel123456]

You could also upgrade the Trash Can entity. By this way, you will avoid the proximity of Speculation with garbage. I think this nauseabond neighbouring is the main reason why being throwned in Speculation is badly considered by posters.

 

----------

Wow Captain. I didn't read your post. I was occupying writing a lot of nonsenses of low interest, then reading it & discarding my own garbage. Wasted time.

[Phi for All]

Not all ideas are created equal; some are utter nonsense.

It would be great if we do as much as we can towards explaining why something speculatory isn't viable; just calling it utter nonsense hasn't worked as well as we thought it would. The ivory trade is illegal so we should stop building towers out of it. And we also need to come up with a way to make people understand that mocking the scientific method (or any specific discipline, like maths) is unacceptable if you refuse to even try to use it. One should only be able to say it's not needed if one can successfully show why, after having used it correctly.

[D H]

You could also upgrade the Trash Can entity. By this way, you will avoid the proximity of Speculation with garbage. I think this nauseabond neighbouring is the main reason why being throwned in Speculation is badly considered by posters.

Look at the crap that tends to fill the speculations forum, Michel. The speculations forum is exactly where it needs to be. On the first page as of 19:00 GMT, 28 March 2010, I see two or three threads that are worthy of discussion. The rest are just nonsense. For some of them, calling them nonsense is being rather nice.

[swansont]

Tough. Not all ideas are created equal; some are utter nonsense.

 

True, but my comment was in regard to moderator workload.

 

I happen to enjoy debunking a certain amount of crap. It keeps me in touch with some areas of physics I might not otherwise use very often.

 

If the nonsense is properly separated from the real science, which is what we attempt to do, I don't see the harm. If you want answers to a physics query, you look in the physics section. Participation in tearing down speculative posts is voluntary.

[StringJunky]

Look at the crap that tends to fill the speculations forum, Michel. The speculations forum is exactly where it needs to be. On the first page as of 19:00 GMT, 28 March 2010, I see two or three threads that are worthy of discussion. The rest are just nonsense. For some of them, calling them nonsense is being rather nice.

 

The concept and application of the term nonsense is all relative and dependent on where one stands in the hierarchy of learning.

 

If this is true, using your level of expertise as the benchmark, most of us are buggered.

Edited March 28, 2010 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

Nonsense doesn't matter. Let it be nonsense. The nonsense method is very usefull in my job. Very often, the right soution comes from a bunch of hard worked nonsenses.

But someone should be tented to post under speculations right from start without having the feeling of entering a rebutal zone.

I see many posters using the technique of putting a simple question in science, and introducing his own theory after 2 or 3 posts. At the 4th post, the poster is usually ejected.

I would prefer being frank, and introduce the idea at once. But not so close the garbage.

After all, if science wants to go forward, it presumes some scientist must speculate.

 

___________________

I won't insist any more. It was very kind of you for asking feedback. Appreciating.

Edited March 28, 2010 by michel123456

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd like to encourage honest scientific speculation, but most of the speculation we get completely ignores established science and just makes stuff up. We'll definitely work on a new plan for Speculations, though.

[D H]

Nonsense doesn't matter.

Nonsense does matter. All ideas are not equally valid in science. Giving nonsense equal footing with real ideas does a huge disservice. To use StringJunky's term, lay readers would be truly and totally "buggered" if those of us who do have some expertise failed to do our job and did not filter out the utter nonsense from the more legitimate ideas.

 

I see many posters using the technique of putting a simple question in science, and introducing his own theory after 2 or 3 posts. At the 4th post, the poster is usually ejected.

That's the hidden agenda approach, a favorite technique of the tin-hatted kook. Some do come out guns-a-blazin' from post #1. I prefer the guns-a-blazin' approach; at least those guys are being honest. The hidden agenda is a bit too dishonest and is a bit too passive aggressive to suit my tastes -- and it doesn't work. Many of us can tell from post #1 that something is up and are not in the least surprised when the poster comes out of the closet three or four posts later.

 

 

Michel, speculation is not as important an aspect of science as you think it is. The majority (probably vast majority) of working scientists are just filling in a few blank spots. A small minority push the boundaries of science, but even most of them are just pushing on a very flexible boundary. A very, very small minority come up with ground-shaking ideas that rip the boundary asunder. That happens once a generation or so, and the people who do that are extremely well-versed in the subject. The idea that some rank amateur will come up with the next revolution in physics, astronomy, or biology is a pipe dream. Ain't gonna happen.

 

More importantly, it ain't gonna in this forum, or in any other publicly accessible forum. Scientists do make speculative statements, but they do so in their offices and labs, in hallways at professional conferences, and in professional fora.

[japan rocks/andromeda]

:mad:I DONT LIKE IT WHEN YOU CAnt have a psychology section that i am good at if an administrator is looking at this note please do something

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We already have a psychology section.

[Fuzzwood]

You need to have a set number of constructive posts first. The restriction is to keep out ppl like you tbh

[ydoaPs]

You need to have a set number of constructive posts first. The restriction is to keep out ppl like you tbh

 

ohsnap

[Sayonara]

There isn't a postcount restriction on psychology, so ohdoublesnap.

[Phi for All]

There isn't a postcount restriction on psychology, so ohdoublesnap.

But there's a bell that rings every time you post there.

[Dak]

Being locked out of the Philosophy, Religion and Ethics forums by default.

 

Do I have to prove something first or have a certain amount of posts? I'm not exactly new with 40-something posts but neither would I say i'm well established.

 

I don't necessarily want to post in these forums all the time but occassionaly there's something I feel I want to comment on.

 

Could we maybe say that with < 30 posts you're limited to one post in politics per day (or participation in one thread in politics / day)? then if you make constructive posts, you could be manually placed into the politics usergroup?

 

Could be a compromize between lowering the amount of crap in politics, lowering moderator workload, and allowing new members to post in politics? If they're tits, they could be banned from politics?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Could we maybe say that with < 30 posts you're limited to one post in politics per day (or participation in one thread in politics / day)? then if you make constructive posts, you could be manually placed into the politics usergroup?

We'd have to do this with a plugin or perhaps some custom code of some kind.

 

Could be a compromize between lowering the amount of crap in politics, lowering moderator workload, and allowing new members to post in politics? If they're tits, they could be banned from politics?

That's the plan, really. We can remove people from Politics if we really need to right now, just like Religion.

[Phi for All]

Could we maybe say that with < 30 posts you're limited to one post in politics per day (or participation in one thread in politics / day)?

You know how a good discussion goes. Can you imagine having to wait a whole day to rebut a comment made on what you just posted? I think it would disrupt the overall flow of a thread a great deal.

[Externet]

What bothers me in this forum ?

 

Nothing ! ---> Don't touch it !

Great knowledge, great attitudes, great help; and when it does not feel like that, is because responses may be well beyond the expected level.

 

If you ask the reverse, as... ¿ What would you like to add ?

 

I would like members and moderators to invite someone they admire to join SFN, even if just makes sporadic presence.

 

Miguel

[japan rocks/andromeda]

the one thing i don't like about sfn is that.;.. actually i have a question is there a geography section administrators:mad:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nope.

[swansont]

But there's a bell that rings every time you post there.

 

It's the resulting drooling on the keyboard that keeps me from posting.

[ydoaPs]

the one thing i don't like about sfn is that.;.. actually i have a question is there a geography section administrators:mad:

 

There is an index of forums that we have.

[Zolar V]

I don't understand why the speculation entity is placed so far from science, under "other topics". To be honest, IMO speculation should be the most important part of any science forum. Explaining the standard model is good, but should not be the main purpose. The main purpose should be to create a tool for inventive minds. At this moment, inventive minds are systematically rebuted next to the trash can. Why such a phobia?

 

I would have to agree, i find that the speculation entity to be rather unused.

Personally, i have a lot of ideas and if i post them i try to put them in an accurate sub-forum and try not to put it into the speculation sub-forum due to its inactivity. Most people do not read it or have no interest in reading someone else's probable misplaced thought processes on varying topics.

IMO it is very unfortunate that speculation is neigh taboo in the scientific community, where else do we find innovative ideas to further human technology? Would you have put Leonardo DaVinci's work in speculations he were to post here?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think it may be better to name the Speculations subforum to Speculative Science or Speculative Scientific Ideas, to propagate the proper feeling that is supposed to be associated with Speculations and ideas. Such a name also would give the average Joe the idea that it isn't just a garbage sub forum, and naming it such you could move it around much more easily. IMO if it was under the science sub forum, maybe around the amateur science it would attract many more views/posts then where it is currently at. Just think of the Grocery store model, positioning means everything.

[Phi for All]

It's the resulting drooling on the keyboard that keeps me from posting.

That's a switch! Normally, wetness makes it shrink, but you're saying the shrinks make the wetness?!