What don't you like about SFN?

[D H]

What if a series of new evidence, disproves the current consensus or theory, is that then no longer a theory?

That is, in essence, the difference between a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem. The axioms on which a mathematical theorem have to come from some consistent mathemetical theory (the word 'theory' has a different meaning in mathematics) and the steps in the theorem from the axioms to the conclusion have to be logically valid. There is (or at least was) no concept of "testability" in a mathematics. (Some new mathematical "theorems" are so complex that they are tested, but a lot of mathematicians don't accept those proofs as valid.)

 

A scientific theory on the other hand can never be proven true. All it takes is one lousy experiment to prove it false. Science is riddled with several once-accepted theories that are now known to be wrong. An interesting aside: Just because a scientific theory has been falsified does not mean that it is necessarily relegated to the dust bin of history. That dust bin is reserved for ideas that are essentially never right such as phlogiston theory and the luminiferous aether. Newtonian mechanics has been falsified, yet it is still widely used. The reason is that Newtonian mechanics is more-or-less correct in a limited but very useful domain: our everyday world. (Second interesting aside: That Newtonian mechanics is still used falsifies Popper's concept on falsification.)

[StringJunky]

Why don't you Mods and Experts occassionally have some scientific chat in Speculations, then newcomers will have a model of correct behaviour to work with...lead by example. One of you could come up with a speculative idea and then mutally explore it's possibilities and pitfalls....it does not matter if the idea comes a cropper in the end...this is the fate of most properly researched ideas anyway.

 

If Mods and Experts are seen to be playing with ideas there it has another positive side effect of not being necessarily seen as a trash can.

 

You've done this in Religion...you could do the same in Speculations. Most of your activity there is axe-wielding and rebuttals (Negative). Put yourselves in the firing line and come up with speculations yourselves...defend them to to the hilt...and show how it should be done.

 

Lead The Way.

[Phi for All]

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?

You can use your briefcase, I just thought the tree would rather use his purse.

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

If you read a good sampling of the threads in Speculations, you'd find that we discuss new ideas just fine until we hit a snag. We then ask for clarification, or supporting evidence, to clear things up and stay within the scientific methodology. That's generally where people fall down in their hypotheses; they want to skip a step or two and jump to conclusions, then call us hidebound when we insist they are on very shaky ground. It's almost never the evidence that's in question, it's almost always lazy methodology.

 

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 dangerous thing about power is lack of control. What you see as barriers, I see as a conduit, something that channels the power in the right direction, and controls the amount of error. That's what science on the web can do, it can spread *real* knowledge globally. If not properly channeled though, you spread junk science and ideas with no real foundation, nothing you can trust with any degree of certainty.

 

We want to hear from people with speculations. But if these ideas aren't challenged, they produce weak conclusions. If they aren't challenged they gain a tacit acceptance from people who read about them.

[Sayonara]

Oh look, the "What don't you like about SFN" thread has gone over 100 posts.

[ydoaPs]

I don't like that I've been here since 2004 and SoIP still isn't working.

[bascule]

Subscribed posts seem hard to use, but maybe it's just me

[michel123456]

What you need is filtering.

[swansont]

Why don't you Mods and Experts occassionally have some scientific chat in Speculations, then newcomers will have a model of correct behaviour to work with...lead by example. One of you could come up with a speculative idea and then mutally explore it's possibilities and pitfalls....it does not matter if the idea comes a cropper in the end...this is the fate of most properly researched ideas anyway.

 

If Mods and Experts are seen to be playing with ideas there it has another positive side effect of not being necessarily seen as a trash can.

 

You've done this in Religion...you could do the same in Speculations. Most of your activity there is axe-wielding and rebuttals (Negative). Put yourselves in the firing line and come up with speculations yourselves...defend them to to the hilt...and show how it should be done.

 

Lead The Way.

 

What would be the difference if a mod or expert submitted an idea? The response would be axe-wielding and rebuttals. That's the nature of the beast. What the interested amateur is missing is that that's the script we follow when discussing a idea: float it and everybody tries to shoot it down. The main difference is not taking it personally when the proposal gets trashed.

[Phi for All]

What you need is filtering.

Please explain how what we're doing is different from what you call filtering.

[michel123456]

Please explain how what we're doing is different from what you call filtering.

 

 

A quiz is a barrier.

Excluding members to participation is a barrier.

Putting posts in the right place is filtering.

 

You are doing a wonderful job, don't get me misunderstood. My comment came from some suggestions in this thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

A filter is a barrier that only blocks certain things. We really do need barriers (filters). You even have said filters in your brain, doing far more than you might think. Here, have a look:

http://www.eyetricks.com/wordjumble.htm

http://www.eyetricks.com/fcount.htm

http://www.qualitytrading.com/illusions/bird.html

[Phi for All]

A quiz is a barrier.

It's only a barrier if someone refuses to take the quiz, or is offended by the necessity. We really can't help it if someone criticizes science while being unwilling to learn it properly. We can only educate if we're allowed.

 

Excluding members to participation is a barrier.

I agree. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We have a responsibility to the majority who embrace science.

 

Putting posts in the right place is filtering.

We do this, pretty well imo.

 

You are doing a wonderful job, don't get me misunderstood. My comment came from some suggestions in this thread.

Thank you.

[jackson33]

If you read a good sampling of the threads in Speculations, you'd find that we discuss new ideas just fine until we hit a snag. We then ask for clarification, or supporting evidence, to clear things up and stay within the scientific methodology. That's generally where people fall down in their hypotheses; they want to skip a step or two and jump to conclusions, then call us hidebound when we insist they are on very shaky ground. It's almost never the evidence that's in question, it's almost always lazy methodology. [/Quote]

 

Phil; Wouldn't you need a conclusion, to even have an idea/hypothesis? In fact isn't that what science is, the quest to understand, why something is....Big Bang, started, when some one proposed the Universe must have begun at some point, the Earth has been warming, seemingly since mankind has increased, humans must have evolved though other biological life and so on. It' IS those intermediate steps, that are questionable.

 

We want to hear from people with speculations. But if these ideas aren't challenged, they produce weak conclusions. If they aren't challenged they gain a tacit acceptance from people who read about them.[/Quote]

 

Isn't that a judgment call, equally important to the viewer. I'm not talking about outright disagreement on an issue, pretty much established, rather the potential something remains unclear to the ardent poster. Aside from that, those viewpoints, as are yours, are based on something read, heard or studied. I may be all wet on this, but I've noticed moderators or other posters, who try and lead the opposing person (opposed to argumentative) can lead to a better understanding of what that person, may really be trying to express. Many opinions are hard to express in written form, much easier with a blackboard or orally in person.

 

Anyway, my only point on this thread has been the suggestion, to simply place a Speculation sub-forum in three Topic Sections, to eliminate this alienation many forum members feel, when the action is taken to move their thread to what is otherwise a trash can.

[Phi for All]

Phil; Wouldn't you need a conclusion, to even have an idea/hypothesis? In fact isn't that what science is, the quest to understand, why something is....Big Bang, started, when some one proposed the Universe must have begun at some point, the Earth has been warming, seemingly since mankind has increased, humans must have evolved though other biological life and so on. It' IS those intermediate steps, that are questionable.

This is my point, you can't skip those steps or your whole idea is questionable. You need to ask a question, do some background research, formulate your hypothesis, test your hypothesis with experimentation and analyze your data before drawing your conclusions and sharing them with us in Speculations. Most people come here with their conclusions drawn and then get angry when asked for evidence or experimental results. And they still want it to be called a theory.

 

If they could come here with a speculatory idea, or even get it to the hypothesis stage, everyone would be happy to offer suggestions on how to test it. But they don't, they've got conclusions (usually overthrowing mainstream theory that has tons of experimental data and evidence) and a Galileo complex.

 

Isn't that a judgment call, equally important to the viewer. I'm not talking about outright disagreement on an issue, pretty much established, rather the potential something remains unclear to the ardent poster. Aside from that, those viewpoints, as are yours, are based on something read, heard or studied. I may be all wet on this, but I've noticed moderators or other posters, who try and lead the opposing person (opposed to argumentative) can lead to a better understanding of what that person, may really be trying to express. Many opinions are hard to express in written form, much easier with a blackboard or orally in person.

This isn't about opinion, though. This is science and should follow methodology that minimizes subjectivity. And if it isn't challenged, the average readers sees these false conclusions that are drawn and walks away telling people about this new theory they saw at SFN. We don't want that. That's one of the reasons it's important to criticize constructively.

 

Anyway, my only point on this thread has been the suggestion, to simply place a Speculation sub-forum in three Topic Sections, to eliminate this alienation many forum members feel, when the action is taken to move their thread to what is otherwise a trash can.

I think we've heard some good next steps that don't make things more complicated. Speculations is NOT the trash can.

[StringJunky]

What would be the difference if a mod or expert submitted an idea? The response would be axe-wielding and rebuttals. That's the nature of the beast. What the interested amateur is missing is that that's the script we follow when discussing a idea: float it and everybody tries to shoot it down. The main difference is not taking it personally when the proposal gets trashed.

 

My idea was to have some Model Threads that shows people who are fully conversant in The Method engaging in civil but challenging discourse...you can then point irate fledgling scientists, who's baby hypothesis is getting critically dismantled, to them that this is perfectly natural and above all impersonal.

 

Over-enthusiastic and emotive critics replete with the rolling eyes and terse disdain can be pointed that way as well to learn the art of effective and civil criticism....the problem often lies on both sides of the argument.

 

There are a lot of very clever and knowledgeable people here but quite a few seem to lack the social skills to criticise in an impersonal way.

 

Maybe it would be easier for one of the Mods or Experts to write a discussive, chatty article on this subject in a common level of language and then sticky in Speculations. Unreasonable Attackers and crestfallen Defenders can then be pointed to it or demand that it be required reading before participation.

 

I agree with you entirely Swansont and understand and embrace the nature of this game of science but I'm just airing thoughts on how to make the transition for those not familiar with it a little less disturbing on first experience by showing good examples.

 

I personally enjoy reading contributions from the whole gamut of humanity here and not just the clever ones....if I wanted strict Science I could wander over to somewhere like Physics Forum but it's too rigid. This forum is a better model for educating and reaching the enquiring amateur because it's more tolerant and, hence, welcoming. Above all with the ethos you have at the moment, you and others here, are doing a better and more sterling job promoting the method of science to those unfamiliar and to a more widespread audience.

 

In this forum you are moderating in the real world populated with a good proportion of scientifically uneducated people and not in some over filtered Ivory Tower with all like-minded cohorts which you could so easily do....I raise my proverbial hat to all you Mods and Experts for your patience.

[Royston]

Oh look, the "What don't you like about SFN" thread has gone over 100 posts.

 

I spotted this earlier, which seemed quite apt...

[the tree]

Damnit, I want a quiz. Even if we don't use those to filter participation, can we just have some for fun?

[timo]

I'd love to have the option (or just the feature without selecting it) that threads started by people on my ignore list are not shown to me in the first place or at least marked as "save time by not clicking here".

[ParanoiA]

Why don't you Mods and Experts occassionally have some scientific chat in Speculations, then newcomers will have a model of correct behaviour to work with...lead by example. One of you could come up with a speculative idea and then mutally explore it's possibilities and pitfalls....it does not matter if the idea comes a cropper in the end...this is the fate of most properly researched ideas anyway.

 

That's a great idea. I know I'd really enjoy reading it and I'm sure it would be educational too. In math class I remember covering the rule or principle, and then we got examples on the blackboard. Seems to work. Plus it would be cool to see the heavy hitters locked in battle; Jedi "smear the queer".

 

 

*For those who don't know, "smear the queer" is an American version of football that kids play where the guy holding the ball is to be tackled violently by everyone on the field, or even in the stands for that matter. Everyone kills the guy with the ball. I'm not sure why anyone even takes the ball to be honest...

Edited April 4, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

We called it "kill the carrier." Seems more inclusive.

[Genecks]

I don't want to apply CSS.

I want a color scheme option.

[the tree]

I think the reputation system is currently a bit rigid. I understand that the ability to give negative reputation would be a bad idea but would it be possible to have a graded system?

 

e.g. give one reputation point for 'heh, that post was kind of amusing' and two or three for 'that post was super duper amazing!'.

 

edit: I definitely think I'd use it more if there was more I could do with it.