Moderators; Admins; Etc.

[Sisyphus]

I'm seeing a lot of questions here that seem to be intended as challengingly rhetorical, but actually have straightforward answers. (Gravity vs. magentism, radio vs. visible light, etc.) Not challenging cutting edge physics, but really basic stuff, in some cases first demonstrated centuries ago (and in a million different ways since then), that much of the technology we use today relies upon.

 

What I'm getting at here is not just a way of saying "you're ignorant" (you are, but that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of - we're all ignorant in different fields), but that you lack the grounding to be critical, especially in such an accusatory tone. If you want to ask questions about what we know and how we know it, go right ahead (just do it in the appropriate subforums). And so too for the scientific method itself, which doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. This place is full of people who love explaining things to curious laymen.

 

There is less tolerance for people coming in accusing us (as representatives of "science," I guess) of "persecuting" them for their "theory" that "obviously" the television is full of tiny people (else how how could you see them?). There really are good reasons to think otherwise, and a perfectly good alternative explanation. It's not just a guess as good as any other, I promise you.

[John Cuthber]

I know this is off topic, but I just wondered something.

How is this "I'm a student at Oxford University currently studying Philosophy and Law." relevant?

[timo]

How is this "I'm a student at Oxford University currently studying Philosophy and Law." relevant?

It helps adjusting the response. I certainly think there's a difference talking about say "is the moon possibly held in orbit by magnetism?" with a 10 year-old kid, a young non-science student, a 50 year-old engineer or a physics PhD student (though the last two cases would probably leave me speechless). I do appreciate that Klaplunk did introduce him-/herself.

[jackson33]

I know this is off topic, but I just wondered something.

How is this "I'm a student at Oxford University currently studying Philosophy and Law." relevant? [/Quote]

 

John, I would think entry into Oxford alone, would qualify you for discussion under 'Speculations' as IMO Klaplunk, has been doing a pretty good job in arguing.

 

 

Thread;

 

What's somewhat amusing to me is that 'dave' and 'CR' (Administration) are either in Graduate School or recent graduates themselves, both most certainly STUDENTS, while administrating the forum, these young students are questioning.

 

Here I go again, pointing out I'm 50 years older than these folks involved, but under 'Speculation', I see no reason an idea/opinion should be based around some mathematical or substantiated scenario, to be DISCUSSED. If opposing a current theory or understanding, in my world it should be in the sub-forum that theory is related to, Physics, Astrophysics, Chemistry or whatever, then a foundation for disagreement proposed.

 

speculation ,spe-kyu'ley-shun

 

A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

- guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, hypothesis [/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Speculation

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What's somewhat amusing to me is that 'dave' and 'CR' (Administration) are either in Graduate School or recent graduates themselves, both most certainly STUDENTS, while administrating the forum, these young students are questioning.

Don't give me quite so much credit... I'm currently pursuing my undergraduate degree, while dave is just short of his PhD.

[insane_alien]

Here I go again, pointing out I'm 50 years older than these folks involved, but under 'Speculation', I see no reason an idea/opinion should be based around some mathematical or substantiated scenario, to be DISCUSSED. If opposing a current theory or understanding, in my world it should be in the sub-forum that theory is related to, Physics, Astrophysics, Chemistry or whatever, then a foundation for disagreement proposed.

 

well, speculations are not accepted scientific fact(otherwise they would not be speculations) which is what we discuss in the specific subforums.

 

speculations need to have something solid for discussion, an observation a proposed mechanism, something.

 

but most posts we get in there is stuff like 'the earth is shrinking'

 

thats great, but evidence? proposed mechanism? observation? without these things its just blurting out essentially a random string of words.

 

i mean, ideal scenario and what we'd WANT to see from the speculations forum is someone coming along and saying 'hey, i noticed X happens, but i cannot find an explanation for it. i think Y, but it could be Z'

 

from this we would be able to enter a discussion on what could cause X, tests that would reveal whether it was Y,Z or something else entirely. experiments cound be performed, knowledge gained, interesting discussion had by all.

 

if this actually happened its likely that it would be elevated to another subforum in due course.

 

but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. most of it is just sheer unbounded craziness.

[swansont]

What's somewhat amusing to me is that 'dave' and 'CR' (Administration) are either in Graduate School or recent graduates themselves, both most certainly STUDENTS, while administrating the forum, these young students are questioning.

 

But by and large they are not the ones making the decisions to move posts into the Speculations thread. And, for most of the material that gets moved into that area, it does not require an advanced degree to sniff out the non-mainstream/unscientific nature of the material. Much of it is quite ripe.

 

under 'Speculation', I see no reason an idea/opinion should be based around some mathematical or substantiated scenario, to be DISCUSSED. If opposing a current theory or understanding, in my world it should be in the sub-forum that theory is related to, Physics, Astrophysics, Chemistry or whatever, then a foundation for disagreement proposed.

 

Because 99.9999% of the time it is going to be wrong, and without a mathematical construct, it is more difficult to test. It can't contradict current observation (which would falsify it immediately, and some speculation does that), so really the only way to test it is to get a quantifiable prediction and compare it. The don't stay in the science section because there should be no confusion — a post in the science section should be answered with accepted science. Posts questioning details of a well-established theory without rejecting it or proposing an alternative don't get moved to speculations.

Edited June 13, 2010 by swansont

[ajb]

Getting back to the "[math]E=mc^{2}[/math]" thing. This is a mathematical statement between objects that are mathematically well-defined and have nice physical interpretations. It can be experimentally tested to see if this mathematical statement agrees well with the world.

 

Most of the posts in the speculations section are not of this type. It is often impossible to really say if these are good ideas or not. They are not stated in a form we can actually use. That is, there is often no framework to preform calculations and thus little hope of making contact with experiment /observations.

 

This is completely different to questions that are stated in the context of a "physical theory". Say, for example if some asked about some open question in general relativity. The answers we give may be "speculative", but they would be formulated on what we already know. Such questions and answers belong in the science sections. Again, this is different to some of the "answers" given on this forum.

 

Science to a large extent is about making well-founded, well-stated speculations that can then be backed up by calculation and then (at least in principle) experiments that test them. (Mathematics is also very similar to the physical sciences in this respect. In some sense you replace "experiment" with "proof", but much of the philosophy is similar. )

Edited June 13, 2010 by ajb

[jackson33]

well, speculations are not accepted scientific fact(otherwise they would not be speculations) which is what we discuss in the specific subforums.

 

speculations need to have something solid for discussion, an observation a proposed mechanism, something. [/Quote]

 

insane_alien; I don't like using this style of a hypothetical scenario, but pretend where posting in early 20th Century; Some guy (user name Einstein) coming on to the forum suggest gravity as understood, might no be correct, maybe space itself is altered by mass. How would your current rules apply? Science/technology, to me is and has evolved by altering ideas of others.

 

but most posts we get in there is stuff like 'the earth is shrinking' [/Quote]

 

I'm well aware of this, often on the Science forums themselves and rarely moved anyplace. What bugs me is when someone does attempt to justify his/her hypothesis, or what 'Klaplunk' is talking about, discussion in 'Speculations' is argued as if Scientific facts are the issue.

 

thats great, but evidence? proposed mechanism? observation? without these things its just blurting out essentially a random string of words. [/Quote]

 

Again as the OP author has suggested, this in part is because you've learned this and have for your own reasons accepted, the involved principles. Not exaggerating; When I was in school, we were always taught to question the authenticity of any scientific fact of the day, which most have indeed changed over the years. Even if we agreed, to build onto these ideas the best we could if applicable. All Science, as I remember were part of HS Education. I don't recall if elective classes or mandatory, but I recall Biology, Chemistry and many sub-topics in basic 'Science Class', today called Astrophysics, Astronomy and the like.

 

i mean, ideal scenario and what we'd WANT to see from the speculations forum is someone coming along and saying 'hey, i noticed X happens, but i cannot find an explanation for it. i think Y, but it could be Z' [/Quote]

 

I'm the last person the author would want to talk for him/her, but I'd suggest that's exactly what being proposed. It's when the discussion turns to set ideas in the science of today, sets limits on what other ideas are acceptable.

 

but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. most of it is just sheer unbounded craziness.[/Quote]

 

Point, not to the person exploring the potential of an idea. When I have involved myself in this type discussion, 99% of the issues were at some point in time real theory to others. Perpetual Motion, the action or for energy is a good example. No matter how original the presentation may look, it's usually been mentioned (sometimes several times) before.

 

But by and large they are not the ones making the decisions to move posts into the Speculations thread. And, for most of the material that gets moved into that area, it does not require an advanced degree to sniff out the non-mainstream/unscientific nature of the material. Much of it is quite ripe.[/Quote]

 

swansont; Yes, I understand this but your limitation are set by the administration, at least I hope they are. The amusing part was reading the discussions between CP and the author of this thread. By the way 'dave' is also British.

 

Because 99.9999% of the time it is going to be wrong, and without a mathematical construct, it is more difficult to test. [/Quote]

 

An idea doesn't normally evolve from a mathematical construct/formula, the formula from trying to justify the idea. I don't know about 99.99%. In my lifetime a good many scientific principles have changed or been improved on and I have no idea how many 'so called' scientific assertions have been reversed, proved invalid or wrong. I think those 4 gals or guys will look back some day and realize, exactly what I'm saying and I believe you totally understand now...

 

Science to a large extent is about making well-founded, well-stated speculations that can then be backed up by calculation and then (at least in principle) experiments that test them. (Mathematics is also very similar to the physical sciences in this respect. In some sense you replace "experiment" with "proof", but much of the philosophy is similar. ) [/Quote]

 

ajb; Those are hypothesis, not speculations. I remember going to a seminar (think in the late 50's, don't remember the speaker) basically based on the Universe BBT vs. SSU (a big topic in those day's and very much both valid hypothesis/theory -even theory meant something else then). It was interesting and it kind of influence by life long SSU understanding of what the Universe actually is. As if it were yesterday, I recall after a couple hours of intense scientific language the speaker speculated, "we and our Universe could in the end, be some science experiment ourselves"...

 

hypothesis (hypotheses) hI'pó-thi-sis

 

A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena [/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=hypothesis

 

speculation ,spe-kyu'ley-shun

 

A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

- guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, hypothesis

A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) [/Quote]

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=speculations

 

Don't give me quite so much credit... I'm currently pursuing my undergraduate degree, while dave is just short of his PhD. [/Quote]

 

CR; I'll "speculate" and think I know 'dave' from another place and have discussed an issue or two, but had only your profiles to work with, making my point here. That point was directed at the author of this thread (likely had no idea), I'll bet being read by three Oxford Students and one Math Graduate (PhD Math, as I recall) and should be of interest to them....

 

Not trying to pander, but I respect all six involved and/or any aspiring student or young person, willing to spend time working with folks trying to evolve their own understandings...I'd like to see those four, join in under any of the sub-forum topics and believe could defend most any topic/issue even if contrary to current theory, they wished....

[the tree]

The common and colloquial definitions of words, should not be falsely equivocated with their definitions in a specific context (be that science, philosophy, literary analysis, stage design, music, sports... ).

[Bignose]

but pretend where posting in early 20th Century; Some guy (user name Einstein) coming on to the forum suggest gravity as understood, might no be correct, maybe space itself is altered by mass. How would your current rules apply?

 

The difference to what has very typically ended up in the speculations forum and this example was that, indeed, the issues with the understanding of gravity were known at the time. And, Einstein was proposing mechanisms to fix the known errors, including making mathematical predictions that turned out to be quite good when the associated experiments were performed.

 

If someone want to speculate about the holes that are in the current theory, they are more than welcome. There are plenty of holes, today, and I suspect for a long time.

 

However, the speculation still has to be science. Again, it really is a good example, that speculating quark are tiny fairies may be a good story, but it is not science.

 

Secondly, any speculation that tries to fill current known holes, can't just trample all over what is not currently a hole. That is, if someone speculates a mechanism that is different that what is currently accepted, it has to match all known observations at least as well as the current theory, otherwise why get rid of the current theory?

 

And, that leads to another big chunk of threads that end up in speculations, people with ideas that completely ignore or break the current knowledge. It is not that we don't want to encourage speculation, it is that we want to encourage speculation in a learning environment.

 

Say someone shows up and says that all gravity is just magnetism. That's all well and good, until you start applying what we know about magnets and gravity today. When you apply today's knowledge -- knowledge that has been confirmed by thousands to millions of experiments -- you can see the flaws in such thinking. Unless the speculator proposes mechanisms by which gravity acts like gravity sometime, and like magnets others, the current knowledge refutes the speculation. And, the posts in that Speculations thread are directed at helping the speculator improve their knowledge and see why the current knowledge refutes that speculation. All too often, the speculator refuses to listen to anything except support for his ideas, and then criticize members to "have an open mind", when they are typically the worst at following their own advice.

 

There is a good group of knowledgeable members here. For the most part, they are posting suggestions and improvements in the speculations section. But, the speculators are not listening -- so things get pretty heated.

 

When someone continuously makes the same mistake that has been pointed out to them, or continuously ignores the results of thousands of experiments -- it is easy to get frustrated. There are a few threads going on now with exactly this same pattern -- a mistake has been pointed out, the the speculator refuses to acknowledge the mistake. Sometimes it is a result of not enough schooling or training -- but just as often it is a result of stubbornness. And, in the end, those threads end up looking like a disaster.

[jackson33]

The difference to what has very typically ended up in the speculations forum and this example was that, indeed, the issues with the understanding of gravity were known at the time. And, Einstein was proposing mechanisms to fix the known errors, including making mathematical predictions that turned out to be quite good when the associated experiments were performed.

 

If someone want to speculate about the holes that are in the current theory, they are more than welcome. There are plenty of holes, today, and I suspect for a long time.[/Quote]

 

Bignose; Isn't that my point and the OP author. IMO, there are plenty of holes in most theory involving anything 'Astronomy', 'Astrophysics' in general or on many science issues. As said, it was taught to me, to question and I've done exactly that in my life, funny thing many of my questions have been proved correct, in asking.

 

However, the speculation still has to be science. Again, it really is a good example, that speculating quark are tiny fairies may be a good story, but it is not science.

 

Secondly, any speculation that tries to fill current known holes, can't just trample all over what is not currently a hole. That is, if someone speculates a mechanism that is different that what is currently accepted, it has to match all known observations at least as well as the current theory, otherwise why get rid of the current theory? [/Quote]

 

I think, maybe all the staff are missing the points being offered;

From the community page...

 

Speculations

 

Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads belong here.[/Quote]

Definition of the words;

 

Adjective: pseudoscientific ,s(y)oo-dow'sI-un'ti-fik

 

Based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific [/Quote]

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Pseudoscientific

 

speculation ,spe-kyu'ley-shun

 

A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence [/Quote]

 

The original argument (not mine) was that the Title and Definition of the sub forum was incorrect, which is probably correct. I understand your position and the forums definition of the wording, but I've been around here a long time.

 

And, that leads to another big chunk of threads that end up in speculations, people with ideas that completely ignore or break the current knowledge. It is not that we don't want to encourage speculation, it is that we want to encourage speculation in a learning environment. [/Quote]

 

Nobody is arguing that, only that anything entered in 'Speculations' should be less restrictive to research and evidence.

 

There is a good group of knowledgeable members here. For the most part, they are posting suggestions and improvements in the speculations section. But, the speculators are not listening -- so things get pretty heated. [/Quote]

 

No one is contesting the qualifications of anybody, only the exercise of those qualifications outside the scope of the comments. I have a good many opinions on science issues, nearly all worth mentioning oppose or differ from the accepted and current understandings, but remember my understandings are based on 40-50-60 yo theory and for some reason, much of this nonsense (opinion) expressed today has failed to change my understanding. It works both ways. Dark energy must exist or the U can't be expanding, Larger Stars, must have created the Black Holes and won't/cant' evaporate (never seen) over 13-14 BY, some unexplainable mass (not explainable by Science) just happened to be someplace and in fraction of a second created the U, a comparatively small meteor landed and wiped out the all dinosaurs, just a few examples of what I feel are made up theory to justify other made up theory....

[swansont]

insane_alien; I don't like using this style of a hypothetical scenario, but pretend where posting in early 20th Century; Some guy (user name Einstein) coming on to the forum suggest gravity as understood, might no be correct, maybe space itself is altered by mass. How would your current rules apply? Science/technology, to me is and has evolved by altering ideas of others.

 

Einstein's work in relativity used mathematical models. Which is not surprising — he was a physicist, so he approached things using accepted science practices. Unlike virtually all of the speculations work we are discussing.

[Bignose]

It works both ways. Dark energy must exist or the U can't be expanding, Larger Stars, must have created the Black Holes and won't/cant' evaporate (never seen) over 13-14 BY, some unexplainable mass (not explainable by Science) just happened to be someplace and in fraction of a second created the U, a comparatively small meteor landed and wiped out the all dinosaurs, just a few examples of what I feel are made up theory to justify other made up theory....

 

This probably isn't the right place for this (and mods, feel free to cut off to another thread as necessary).

 

But. The universe is expanding, many, many measurements tell us this. I think that it is fine that you don't care for 'dark energy', but nonetheless, unless you can argue why all the data observed is wrong, you cannot ignore that the universe is indeed expanding. To expand, there is a certain energy balance. From what we can observe today, it doesn't balance -- so that unknown lump that must be present to balance the energy is called 'dark energy'. There are a few ways to go about this, if you want to eliminate it. 1) Find the missing energy. 2) Show why the current measurements of the observable energy are wrong so that when they are corrected, the balance is restored. 3) Show that the universe isn't expanding, and hence we don't need that extra energy. etc. Just saying "there is no such thing as dark energy" isn't enough, you have to provide alternatives and be able to show how it fits into current knowledge or show where current knowledge is wrong. Though a post may be speculative, the rules of this forum are that you still have to be following the rules of science.

 

Black holes are largely a mystery. Scientists take what is known with current observations and theory (theory that has been shown correct via experimentation) and tries to make them fit. Sure, there are several open questions about them, but again, if you want to speculate on them, you need to be able to show why the current understanding is incorrect, or how your speculation doesn't trample on what is known. If the logical consequences of your speculation are contrary to what is known, then the speculation needs to be refined or dropped.

 

I don't think that any real scientist anywhere is going to tell you that they know what was before the Big Bang. I know that simulations can simulate conditions seconds after a Big Bang -- and when ran forward in time agree with the conditions observed today. But, they don't say anything about pre-BB. Again, unless you can show where these simulations have gone wrong, you can't just not like them. You have to show why, and present alternatives that work as well if not better than the current simulations.

 

Similarly, no good scientist can definitively tell you that a meteor strike killed the dinosaurs. We have evidence that fits into that idea -- from a large crater to a layer of the same kind of rock found all across the globe -- but it isn't definitive. Other ideas can fit in as well. There have been other extinctions not apparently caused by meteor strikes that have also occurred.

 

Maybe the biggest point here is that with any bit of science, it is okay to speculate something else. But, it is not okay to just not like it. The current knowledge has undergone a very rigorous process to become the current understanding. There are many, many issues that are still open, and hotly debated; read almost any cutting edge journal or attend any convention, and you will see disagreements among the scientific community. But, the big point is that there isn't a scientist that just sits there and says "I don't like that hypothesis" and nothing more. If a scientist disagrees, he'll say things like "your idea doesn't fit with the data of X and Y taken last year" or "how does this data fit with the theory of Z?" or something similar. A scientist disagrees because it disagrees with the current knowledge, or doesn't quite fit in right, or similar. If a scientist's intuition tells him it is wrong, but he doesn't know why, he holds his tongue; he may go back and try to work out why his intuition is telling him it is wrong, but he also knows that intuition is not the only thing.

 

And THAT is what speculations ends up being full of. People whose intuitions are saying "that doesn't seem right". But, intuition is not enough -- that's why science is such a useful tool. Science doesn't give a wit about intuition -- it wants to know how well does the observations fit the predictions. Something can be very unintuitive -- but if the predictions it makes fit the observations the best -- then it is right.

 

You have every right to your intuition and to your opinion. But, unless that opinion is backed up by evidence -- it is NOT science. Science MUST be backed up by evidence. Without evidence, it is NOT science.

 

And finally, the rules of this science forum are that the scientific method be followed everywhere, even in the speculations section. It doesn't matter what it is called. It could be called "Bananas and Ice Cream" or "Rabid Orangutan" or "Cocktails at Dawn". Whatever it is called, the rules say that the scientific method will be respected and followed in there. And, the admins and mods enforce that rule -- if someone is not following the scientific method, then they get disciplined.

 

They can do this because it is a private forum. They make the rules. If they banned the letter "e" one day, then they can do it. Similarly, we don't have to come here. I suspect that if the mods started banning anyone who did use the letter "e", that this would pretty quickly become a very dead forum, because the number of visitors and posters would diminish very quickly. That is our choice, as visitors an posters. At this time, I choose to participate here; I personally like the rules and how they are enforced. If I didn't, I wouldn't participate here. It really is that simple.

 

So, and I do hope that you don't take this as being overly rude because tone does not convey over the written word on a forum well, but if you don't like the rules here, then you are free to leave and post somewhere that has rules that you like more. Or start your own forum.

 

This is not to say suggestions aren't welcome. There has been much discussion about what exactly to name the Speculations section. And, the suggestion to have a politics forum and a religion and philosophy forum have been taken -- these are now part of this community. So, suggest away -- but "right" and "wrong" is wholly determined by the site owner. It is his site, he can do with it what he wants. So, unless you can convince him that the name is wrong, then it is what it is.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bignose
rotten grammar and spelling

[ydoaPs]

John, I would think entry into Oxford alone, would qualify you for discussion under 'Speculations'

I don't think it is. When did ideas start being worthy of discussion based on the organizations with which the idea's originator is associated? This seems to me to be some odd use of the Argument from Authority fallacy.

 

I'm a member of Mensa; does that mean every random thought of mine is worthy of discussion in Speculations as well?

 

as IMO Klaplunk, has been doing a pretty good job in arguing.

I disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think that he's arguing what you say he is arguing, AND I don't think he's doing it at all well.

 

What he keeps saying isn't, "I'm in Oxford, so you should listen to me", but it is rather, "You closed minded scientists won't consider every random ill-formed idea based on little to no evidence, but rather you rely on methods which let you tell if your ideas are correct. You shouldn't do that!"

 

 

What's somewhat amusing to me is that 'dave' and 'CR' (Administration) are either in Graduate School or recent graduates themselves, both most certainly STUDENTS, while administrating the forum, these young students are questioning.

One need not hold a PhD to do science. Science is not a job, but rather a methodology. A random middle school student can be a scientist.

 

Here I go again, pointing out I'm 50 years older than these folks involved,

I'm not sure why you feel that your age is in any way relevant.

 

but under 'Speculation', I see no reason an idea/opinion should be based around some mathematical or substantiated scenario, to be DISCUSSED.

Because without any scientific framework, we cannot evaluate the ideas which makes any discussion moot. Science is what lets us tell whether or not an idea is correct.

 

Bignose; Isn't that my point and the OP author.

Actually, it's exactly the point. Einstein's posts would have been science, as they provided testable predictions; it's not just random word salad. There would be actual content to be discussed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You make no sense - Remember, I'm a Philosophy student. If you could explain that in English rather than Science, it would help a lot.

Ok, then; let's forget our simple experiment.

 

What would you replace the scientific method with? IE, what other methodology even comes close to working?

 

Anyway, yeah, never mind sleep, quarks got me awake!

You should probably go through basic science before quarks.

[ajb]

An idea doesn't normally evolve from a mathematical construct/formula, the formula from trying to justify the idea.

 

That is going to depend a lot on what one is doing. All my ideas come from mathematical constructs, but then I do work in mathematical physic.

 

 

ajb; Those are hypothesis, not speculations.

 

I am not sure there is really any hard and fast rules about these thing. The words "hypothesis" and "speculation" tend not to be used in papers I read. Maybe informally one might say "I speculate that...", but more formally one would be much more careful.

 

Typically, in mathematical sciences it maybe better to use the word "conjecture" for an anticipated result that has yet to be fully proved.

 

Words like "theorem", "lemma", "proposition", "corollary" etc also don't seem to have very clear rules on use. They all roughly mean the same thing "a truthful mathematical statement". A "theorem" to one man can be another's "lemma".

[jackson33]

ydoaPs quotes;

I don't think it is. When did ideas start being worthy of discussion based on the organizations with which the idea's originator is associated? This seems to me to be some odd use of the Argument from Authority fallacy.[/Quote]

 

I've read enough threads on many forums based on different subjects, to say the majority of poster by far are not educated in the subjects they post under, including this forum. For the most part, their simply ignored or have like minded poster responding. Likewise, I've noted a quality in posting from late HS or College Students in general, adding the caveat a good many forums are in fact started, owned and administered by these same kids (to me), not just this one. Based on this and my understanding of Oxford's prestige in the educational world, if you don't mind I'll stand by my comment.

 

I disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think that he's arguing what you say he is arguing, AND I don't think he's doing it at all well.[/Quote]

 

If your saying 'Klaplunk' has NOT made several relative points in an articulate manner, despite showing pride in his University choice or the acceptance, then we are going to disagree on a good many issues.

 

One need not hold a PhD to do science. Science is not a job, but rather a methodology. A random middle school student can be a scientist.[/Quote]

 

Then as I've mentioned, when in HS myself, we all took several science classes (I don't recall if elective), but I would never claim to be a Scientist. If you don't mind, I personally hold a great deal of respect for any person that achieves a PhD in any field or is working to that end.

 

I'm not sure why you feel that your age is in any way relevant. [/Quote]

 

One of the points the author was making was while being schooled, your taught something, evaluate it yourself, determining its value. Note; When I was in school 60 years ago, we were taught to do just that, question what's learned and happy to see some today are doing this on their own. Anyway that process for me was based on information years ago, which is for the most part not the same today, especially in my fields 'History/Law/Business'.

 

 

 

 

That is going to depend a lot on what one is doing. All my ideas come from mathematical constructs, but then I do work in mathematical physic. [/Quote]

 

ajb; As just mentioned in my world, in Business I had probably thousands of ideas and today can still calculate a profit potential of an item or idea to my satisfaction in minutes, but the idea comes first.

 

I just can't imagine some one setting around messing with formulas and thinking 'wow', I should come up with idea for this formula. I'd think what your doing is working with already existent ideas to improve, validate or whatever.

 

I am not sure there is really any hard and fast rules about these thing. The words "hypothesis" and "speculation" tend not to be used in papers I read. Maybe informally one might say "I speculate that...", but more formally one would be much more careful. [/Quote]

 

It's really not important to the thread, but hypothesis in my mind includes a foundation/explanation, an advanced step from speculation, short of a theory. Yes, I know what synonyms are and to some degree we're playing word games here, but the sub-forum is called 'Speculation'...

[ajb]

I just can't imagine some one setting around messing with formulas and thinking 'wow', I should come up with idea for this formula. I'd think what your doing is working with already existent ideas to improve, validate or whatever.

 

I make no claim as to discovering a new branch of mathematics or anything like that. New constructions and resulting theorems within a larger framework is closer.

 

Your use of "idea" here sounds more like an "interpretation".

 

A large part of mathematical work is examining many examples and special cases in order to "spot" the important common features and generalities. Sometimes one can have a "hunch" before putting pencil to paper, but personally things seem to come from "playing about". Also, the work of others is very, very influential.

 

 

It's really not important to the thread, but hypothesis in my mind includes a foundation/explanation, an advanced step from speculation, short of a theory. Yes, I know what synonyms are and to some degree we're playing word games here, but the sub-forum is called 'Speculation'...

 

I cannot say I ever liked the name "speculation" for the subforum. Largely because of what we have already discussed. I am not sure what else it should be called. Scrapping the section has also come up before now.

[swansont]

If your saying 'Klaplunk' has NOT made several relative points in an articulate manner, despite showing pride in his University choice or the acceptance, then we are going to disagree on a good many issues.

 

While it may not have been Klaplunk's intent, the posts have the effect of looking to excuse scientific illiteracy. Posts break down into three major categories, as I've pointed out elsewhere, just recently — you are asking a question, answering a question, or making a pronouncement:

 

1. If someone is here ("here" being the science areas of SFN, including speculations) asking questions, they need not be a scientist. They just need to be inquisitive about science.

 

2. If someone is here answering questions, they probably need to be a scientist of some stripe "Scientist" here is somewhat open-ended, because it does not require formal training, though that helps. It's a mindset, as well as some mastery of a given field.

 

3. If someone is here proposing new hypotheses, they need to be at least able to "play a scientist on TV," i.e. follow basic scientific protocols and have some working knowledge of the science that they are trying to supplant. IOW, Speculations is not synonymous with "anything goes" (though there is some leniency if there's a hope that a topic can be salvaged)

 

Category 3 is what we're dealing with here. These are not people who are asking for criticism, they are telling you that they are right, and yet they are not prepared to follow through on that by providing evidence to support their thesis or appropriate detail to describe it. And most do not have sufficient familiarity with the accepted science, but that's not surprising — if they did, they wouldn't post, because they'd already know their idea was false. And that's assuming their idea falls under the umbrella of science, and could be falsified. We generally toss the non-science ideas because this is a science site.

 

 

ajb; As just mentioned in my world, in Business I had probably thousands of ideas and today can still calculate a profit potential of an item or idea to my satisfaction in minutes, but the idea comes first.

 

But you admit, there is a protocol for calculating profit potential, without which you can't really have a business discussion. i.e. there is a threshold of information necessary to move forward. Someone can't say "We should make doohickeys. We'll make millions" and have it be meaningful.

[jackson33]

swansont; The poster also made it clear more than once, he/she was a first year 'Philosophy' student, implying an interest in (I assume) some science issues. It is interesting, in that science originally evolved from philosophy, but I can't imagine a less useful education.

 

But you admit, there is a protocol for calculating profit potential, without which you can't really have a business discussion. i.e. there is a threshold of information necessary to move forward. Someone can't say "We should make doohickeys. We'll make millions" and have it be meaningful. [/Quote]

 

No one has suggested an idea (speculation) should or could advance without evidence. Where better on this forum is there for a person to present/offer an idea on science not knowing if it's in fact even new, if not in speculations. I'm sure you want folks to participate, whether their thoughts are original, applicable or in your frame of mind ridiculous

 

My point to ajb, was the idea came first, I didn't dream up a profit margin, then look for a product. Science I would hope works the same way. I have kind of wondered lately with all these new ideas, that fill gaps in other theory, none of which may be valid, if the truth is ever known.

 

 

Your use of "idea" here sounds more like an "interpretation". [/Quote]

 

ajb; That's fair, if I am aware of a similar idea and in my case that's almost always true. However not everyone has been around this long, maintaining a reasonable level of interest and on so many subjects.

 

I cannot say I ever liked the name "speculation" for the subforum. Largely because of what we have already discussed. I am not sure what else it should be called. Scrapping the section has also come up before now.[/Quote]

 

Normally I don't think posters forming a thread in Speculations, causes your problems. It's when a thread is dropped to the forum or when someone plays the 'prove it' game you seem to catch flack.

 

I have suggested 'Speculations' being part of each science subforum before. Maybe another thought would be 'New Ideas' at that level, but you really need at least a respectable place to move unwanted threads. I really don't recall any specifics, but when and where my science threads were moved, it didn't bother me much when moved to PS or in your case speculation. Trash, locked or deleted really bothers me, but that's pretty rare here.

[swansont]

No one has suggested an idea (speculation) should or could advance without evidence. Where better on this forum is there for a person to present/offer an idea on science not knowing if it's in fact even new, if not in speculations. I'm sure you want folks to participate, whether their thoughts are original, applicable or in your frame of mind ridiculous

 

My point to ajb, was the idea came first, I didn't dream up a profit margin, then look for a product. Science I would hope works the same way. I have kind of wondered lately with all these new ideas, that fill gaps in other theory, none of which may be valid, if the truth is ever known.

 

But "this cannot possibly be profitable" ends the business discussion. Your stance would have us discuss materials and labor costs, etc. even after that determination has been made.

 

If an idea is not testable, it is not science. There is no further pursuit necessary. If it violates physical law (e.g. perpetual motion) there is no further discussion necessary. If it contradicts prior observation, it is wrong. If it is meant to overturn current theory it must have evidence to support it, or there would be no reason to abandon current theory.

 

If someone is utterly lacking in basic science skills and knowledge, there are better places to learn. A forum deals with specifics better than gross generalities.

[Bignose]

No one has suggested an idea (speculation) should or could advance without evidence. Where better on this forum is there for a person to present/offer an idea on science not knowing if it's in fact even new, if not in speculations. I'm sure you want folks to participate, whether their thoughts are original, applicable or in your frame of mind ridiculous

 

Where better than a forum to attempt to show someone why their speculation goes against current theory and observations? Where better than a forum to show someone that the logical consequences of their speculation is self-contradictory or contradictory to known observations.

 

Unfortunately, it rarely happens that way. Once in a while, we do get someone with an open mind who learns from what other members say. But, it is all-too-rare; something in the neighborhood of 1 to 2%.

[Double K]

But, it is all-too-rare; something in the neighborhood of 1 to 2%.

 

Can you provide scientific proof of this phenomenon?

How did you arrive at this figure?

 

And this is exactly the reason why it's frustrating to either the poster, or anyone supporting.

I understand the need for 'scientific' merit, it's obvious.

But I think the problems comes with terms like 'scientific ignorance' and 'drivel' which only serve to insult the intelligence of the poster, whom more likely than not has minimal emotional attachment to their idea, and at least wants to be told why it wont work, rather than just being summarily dismissed with a wave of the hand as though one was shooing an intellectually insignificant fly.

 

I have, in the past, posted something as a 'theory' when in fact its just a musing, or pondering. Usually at the start of the post it's acknowledged that some more sound reasoning is requested, and yet it was all but summarily dismissed.

 

The problem with PhD's and university degrees is that it provides you with indoctrination and narrows your view on a topic. The reason it is called a 'doctoraite' is for exactly that. And if you notice when you graduate you are wearing your 'mortar board' which is to indicate you have a good 'foundation' upon which to build. Often times, in any job, having a set of eyes that is not related to your project work to check your work will find errors that you yourself just didn't see, and not for lack of trying. Yet science will not tolerate this sort of review. They 'scientific community' are quick to play the 'prove it' card when they know for a fact that the person disputing, or presenting, can not have the same education and understanding they do. Then they will point them to a 30,000 page textbook way beyond basic understanding and say 'read this first then come back and argue with me, cos I've read it'.

 

To me it seems what he is asking that the scientific 'experts' that are part of this forum spend a little more time explaining why things wont work rather than shoo the eager posters away. If it's clearly a time waster (and some of them are) then you are not obligated to respond, sometimes zero response to a time waster thread will get a better outcome than 'feeding the trolls'

 

Furthermore, I have seen through demonstration where admins (and others) have completely ignored valid points to further their own counter-claim. Or have been presented with valid evidence only to stick to their initial claim contrary to the evidence supplied and the knowledge of the other individual.

 

I'm guessing they are not often wrong, and are so confident that they are right, that they fail to recognise the merit in sometimes questioning the official line, or 'already established' science.

There's much in this world that is simply accepted as it's been taught because there is an inherent trust in authority figures, and science is seen as this 'clinical' authority figure.

 

Where would we be today, if people like Columbus didn't question the 'accepted' theory that the world was flat?

Edited June 15, 2010 by Double K

[the tree]

Where would we be today, if people like Columbus didn't question the 'accepted' theory that the world was flat?

He didn't. At all. There was no accepted theory that the world was flat.

Columbus thought that there was another route to India, there wasn't, he found something else. (which as it happens, had been found a handful of times before).

 

If there was an accepted theory that the world was flat, and he challenged that without evidence then he would never have gotten funding for the voyage.

 

In order to get the funding and do get people to come along with him, he had to work with known observations about the winds and tides involved and present a well formed hypothesis about the feasibility of the route. Should he have scorned evidence and rigour then he'd have gotten nowhere.

[Ophiolite]

I have learned one thing from this thread. It may be prudent to discourage my granddaughter from seeking entry into a philosophy course at Oxford University.

 

I have been impressed by the patience, restraint and tact exercised by successive posters when responding to Klaplunk's posts. Ignorance is one thing - I think SwansonT pointed out we are all ignorant of many things. However, self indulgent, patronising, deliberately sustained ignorance is an abomination. Klaplunk's simple minded yet arrogant approach is every bit as bad as the dementia of a young Earth creationist. I am appalled that someone capable of gaining entry to a major university, with a global reputation, should be capable of such defective thinking and lack of intellect. Truly depressing.