What don't you like about SFN?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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

 

I'm going to make puns against the rules one of these days.

[Severian]

The thing I least like about the forums is that the same stupid questions and topics come up time and time again. At some point you stop replying to the threads because you know there really isn't any point - you are just talking to a brick wall.

 

But I don't suppose there is much the mods can do about that complaint...

[ajb]

The thing I least like about the forums is that the same stupid questions and topics come up time and time again. At some point you stop replying to the threads because you know there really isn't any point - you are just talking to a brick wall.

 

I completely sympathise with this. I have questioned my future participation because of this.

 

Another related issue in physics forums is the lack of understanding of what theories, toy-models, interpretations etc. are in theoretical physics.

 

The "its only a theory" comments are too common

[UC]

The thing I least like about the forums is that the same stupid questions and topics come up time and time again. At some point you stop replying to the threads because you know there really isn't any point - you are just talking to a brick wall.

 

But I don't suppose there is much the mods can do about that complaint...

 

Not until we get a punch-in-the-face-via-internet feature up and running. Our top scientists are working feverishly on this, I promise.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm going to make puns against the rules one of these days.

 

Rule X: There's no fun in making a pun.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The thing I least like about the forums is that the same stupid questions and topics come up time and time again. At some point you stop replying to the threads because you know there really isn't any point - you are just talking to a brick wall.

 

But I don't suppose there is much the mods can do about that complaint...

 

I'd very much like a better search system, so people could find old threads and read them before posting their own.

[Phi for All]

I'm going to make puns against the rules one of these days.

Make a rating system so I can save up my suspension time for the really good ones.

 

The thing I least like about the forums is that the same stupid questions and topics come up time and time again. At some point you stop replying to the threads because you know there really isn't any point - you are just talking to a brick wall.

 

But I don't suppose there is much the mods can do about that complaint...

If we could cure laziness it would solve this problem too. Few bother to Search for answers, some assume they are the first person to ever have the thought, and quite a few who bother to Search can't be bothered to read an old thread.

 

I completely sympathise with this. I have questioned my future participation because of this.

Don't even think about leaving. I have video from that last physics conference you attended.

 

The "its only a theory" comments are too common

If we build some threads with some basic scientific methodology and terminology and at least recommended (if not required) new members to read them, do you think it would help? Would they be used? I share the feelings on this. I'm tired of the misuse of the word "theory" here, of all places.

[ajb]

If we build some threads with some basic scientific methodology and terminology and at least recommended (if not required) new members to read them, do you think it would help? Would they be used? I share the feelings on this. I'm tired of the misuse of the word "theory" here, of all places.

 

A lot of people come here to learn, and as such we should not expect them to necessarily be used to modern scientific usages of certain words. However, I do get annoyed by people who think they do know, but clearly don't.

 

Some kind of recommended thread could be a great idea.

[ydoaPs]

A lot of people come here to learn, and as such we should not expect them to necessarily be used to modern scientific usages of certain words.

 

That's only a theory.

[Dak]

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.

 

How many new people do we get per, say, week? If it's only a small amount, it might be managable?

[UC]

Rule X: There's no fun in making a pun.

 

Watch it or he'll ban internal rhyme as well.

[swansont]

A lot of people come here to learn, and as such we should not expect them to necessarily be used to modern scientific usages of certain words. However, I do get annoyed by people who think they do know, but clearly don't.

 

The worst transgressors are the ones trying to advance an alternative to a mainstream theory. Which means they should know, but don't.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we build some threads with some basic scientific methodology and terminology and at least recommended (if not required) new members to read them, do you think it would help? Would they be used? I share the feelings on this. I'm tired of the misuse of the word "theory" here, of all places.

How about a nice FAQ system? Some place where we could put articles on various subjects. Anything from the LaTeX tutorials to "what is a theory?"

 

It could be handy, and we could avoid having loads of stickies. We'll have to look into this.

[Phi for All]

The worst transgressors are the ones trying to advance an alternative to a mainstream theory. Which means they should know, but don't.

And of those, I think a majority claim some sort of intuitive thought allows them to leap over tedious math and method. Would those bother to read a primer on the importance of using scientific method as a whole and not trying to short cut the bits they don't like? I wouldn't mind their laziness as much if they didn't constantly criticize science while not using it properly. It's like cursing the inefficiency of public transportation while refusing to actually get on the bus.

[Mr Skeptic]

Is it possible to have a suspension that can be resolved by reading a certain thread (ie the scientific terminology thread), or even better by passing a quiz?

[swansont]

And of those, I think a majority claim some sort of intuitive thought allows them to leap over tedious math and method. Would those bother to read a primer on the importance of using scientific method as a whole and not trying to short cut the bits they don't like? I wouldn't mind their laziness as much if they didn't constantly criticize science while not using it properly. It's like cursing the inefficiency of public transportation while refusing to actually get on the bus.

 

I think it's more like cursing the inefficiency of public transportation while being on the wrong bus.

[Phi for All]

I think it's more like cursing the inefficiency of public transportation while being on the wrong bus.

And it's a very short bus.

[D H]

I think it's more like cursing the inefficiency of public transportation while being on the wrong bus.

I think its more like cursing the heavily subsidized public transportation system while driving in one's NHTSA-approved automobile down the highways and roads built by the federal, state, and local governments. In other words, complete and abject cluelessness.

[the tree]

Biting the hand that feeds you not a good enough metaphor for you guys?

[Phi for All]

Biting the hand that feeds you not a good enough metaphor for you guys?

That would be like getting on the bus, being driven to your destination, then hitting the bus driver with your purse as you get off the bus.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is it possible to have a suspension that can be resolved by reading a certain thread (ie the scientific terminology thread), or even better by passing a quiz?

A remedial suspension. What a great idea!

[D H]

That would be like getting on the bus, being driven to your destination, then hitting the bus driver with your purse as you get off the bus.

So do I have to start carrying a man-purse if I want to ride the bus, or can I just hit the bus driver with my briefcase?

[jackson33]

I found this Note, under a definition of Scientific Theory, which actually could be used to argue the meaning. But what it does suggest is that theory by nature, invites different viewpoints, most certainly discussion of theory to allow the broadening of the concept.

 

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

 

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method. [/Quote]

 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

What if a series of new evidence, disproves the current consensus or theory, is that then no longer a theory? An ageless Universe, which was once the accepted theory is exactly what now?

[michel123456]

You have in your hands the most powerful instrument humanity has ever had for spreading global knowledge, for information transmission, for constructive discussion, and the only thing you are thinking of is how to create artificial barriers in it.

[Sisyphus]

You have in your hands the most powerful instrument humanity has ever had for spreading global knowledge, for information transmission, for constructive discussion, and the only thing you are thinking of is how to create artificial barriers in it.

 

The only purpose of the barriers is to allow and promote constructive discussion.

[Mr Skeptic]

You have in your hands the most powerful instrument humanity has ever had for spreading global knowledge, for information transmission, for constructive discussion, and the only thing you are thinking of is how to create artificial barriers in it.

 

alk;jd an;as e'aewop[v ka[oas p[ekv ciosl.a[as' lfc[o

 

The above is information, but not the sort of thing we want to encourage. We construct barriers to eliminate gibberish at the various levels (words, grammar, sentences, logic). The first two are taken care of largely by language, the third by not being a moron, and the last is the one we have to watch out for (logical fallacies, meaningless claims).