Moderators; Admins; Etc.

[swansont]

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'.

 

Science tolerates that kind of review all the time. Scientists rarely work alone, for starters, so there are multiple sets of eyes from your colleagues and collaborators. Then, in order to publish, your work must pass peer review, for just this reason — to try and point out errors or shortcomings you didn't see. After you publish, people often try and replicate your results. If they can't, you have some explaining to do.

 

Perhaps one of the reasons for playing the "prove it" card, and asking for a bit of research on the part of the disputer/presenter is so that we are not continually reinventing the wheel.

 

As far as "know for a fact that the person disputing, or presenting, can not have the same education and understanding they do" I ask this: it took me a lot of time and effort to attain the understanding that I have, and yet the disputer/presenter is clearly not willing to put forth anywhere close to that time and effort. Why is incumbent upon me to spoon-feed them?

 

Is "that violates the second law of thermodynamics" an insufficient response to a perpetual motion machine? If not, why is that? Why can't I require a certain baseline of knowledge?

 

Feynman had this to say about the specific topic of the magnetic force, but it applies generally as well

 

I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else that you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else you’re more familiar with.

 

IOW, you absolutely have to have some foundation of knowledge and understanding in order to move on to the next level. If you don't have that, I can't help you. And furthermore, if you lack it it is not my fault, so stop blaming me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

 

I have a strong suspicion that Klaplunk here is just a reincarnation of Clipper, who we suspended recently. Same IP addresses and everything, and it's a great coincidence that we suspend someone for their activities in Speculations and then someone with the same IP pops in to complain about Speculations...

 

I don't know how much credence I'd give the Oxford claim. Not much, probably.

[Mr Skeptic]

In any case, he does not appear to be part of this conversation anymore.

[timo]

I don't know how much credence I'd give the Oxford claim. Not much, probably.

It's surprising how everyone jumps on it, though. Despite its total irrelevance for the thread.

[jackson33]

If an idea is not testable, it is not science. [/Quote]

 

swansont; This would make a decent thread, but I do believe I could convince you EVERYTHING in Science and Technology (or Business) has come from some persons idea. I don't care if it's Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, proposed what became known as the Big Bang or Sam Walton's idea that Big Box Retail Stores would do well in smaller towns. A successful testing, yes places a value, but the idea comes first.

 

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.[/Quote]

 

A subjective observation of any person qualifications, based on one issue a couple post, is hardly justifiable. For all we know Klaplunk could be as or more qualified here or anyplace than 90% of the entire membership. I'll throw in (Ophie) here, in prejudging from limited information, but then this is a trademark of many long time poster, having seen too many 'first post' and assuming the future.

 

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%. [/Quote]

 

Bignose; Any person wanting to simply learn something, is not going to register and attempt a post. With all the information available through search engines, that just wouldn't make sense. Most probably read something they would like to discuss, no doubt a few looking for 'pen pals', but the sole motivation not going to be educated. This then, means discussion.

 

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'[/Quote]

 

Double K; Obviously I agree, but I would suggest putting it this way. Most any poster can be lead into a rational conversation. It seems to me, rather than discouraging participation flaunting expertise status and terms like "peer reviewed", "empirical evidence" and the like, trying to get a newbe to explain his/her foundation for the thought, would be more productive.

 

IOW, you absolutely have to have some foundation of knowledge and understanding in order to move on to the next level. If you don't have that, I can't help you. And furthermore, if you lack it is not my fault, so stop blaming me.[/Quote]

 

swansont; That's called frustration and easy to understand when one poster has any level of experience over another. It's my belief any person can bring down their level of discourse, but it's not possible for any person to upgrade theirs. Keep in mind this is written discourse and not everybody can express themselves to the level of their education/intelligence, if that education doesn't include developing this ability. On these forums, I've often noticed this when folks from different Countries, possibly where their first language is not English or the basic English skills are expressed in a different manner, even word definitions.

[swansont]

swansont; This would make a decent thread, but I do believe I could convince you EVERYTHING in Science and Technology (or Business) has come from some persons idea. I don't care if it's Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, proposed what became known as the Big Bang or Sam Walton's idea that Big Box Retail Stores would do well in smaller towns. A successful testing, yes places a value, but the idea comes first.

 

And I'll wager that all of these science and technology ideas had testable consequences. Which, if true, means that your response is not a rebuttal to my statement.

 

 

swansont; That's called frustration and easy to understand when one poster has any level of experience over another. It's my belief any person can bring down their level of discourse, but it's not possible for any person to upgrade theirs. Keep in mind this is written discourse and not everybody can express themselves to the level of their education/intelligence, if that education doesn't include developing this ability. On these forums, I've often noticed this when folks from different Countries, possibly where their first language is not English or the basic English skills are expressed in a different manner, even word definitions.

 

Not possible to upgrade your level of discourse? Surely you jest. Anyone here who has taken a class, or hell, even read a book, has demonstrated the ability to raise their level of discourse.

[Double K]

And I'll wager that all of these science and technology ideas had testable consequences. Which, if true, means that your response is not a rebuttal to my statement.

 

But this is what happens. The 'scientific' people wont see from another side, everything is not always so black and white. I'm willing to wager that before they did the testing, they sat around with peers and said "I'm willing to wager that inside that particle are even smaller particles" and they would have blabbed on about that for a while, and then worked out a way of testing to prove/disprove the speculation. Science will never move forward if all we ever did was stick to what we know.

 

Not possible to upgrade your level of discourse? Surely you jest. Anyone here who has taken a class, or hell, even read a book, has demonstrated the ability to raise their level of discourse.

 

I think it is unreasonable to request someone who may be a specialist in a different area to have as in depth an understanding as required for every different avenue of science. There is a guy on radio here in Australia, very well known and very interesting guy.

Dr. Karl

He knows something about pretty much everything in science. But he's always willing to admit when he's out of his area of knowledge, he's also always very keen to learn. I'm certainly not a physicist, or chemist. There are many avenues to science, and simply some concepts are beyond me, and certainly other people. This doesn't mean we can't be educated, and you cant expect someone to converse in a forum thread where you request them to go and get 8 years of acquired knowledge to simply be able to comment or have an idea.

[jackson33]

If an idea is not testable, it is not science. [/Quote]

 

swansont; You always end up with definition of words, I do believe. I wouldn't know where to begin for ideas being testable prior to their thought. Black Holes, solar construct, dark matter, singularities or business models. The idea comes first, testability was never the issue.

 

Not possible to upgrade your level of discourse? Surely you jest. Anyone here who has taken a class, or hell, even read a book, has demonstrated the ability to raise their level of discourse. [/Quote]

 

In the time line we're talking about, no I don't think most people can elevate their grammar, methods or formation of ideas over a couple days. However after the first or second post, those that have been posting for years should easily be able to bring down their level, encouraging further revealing of the posters ideas. Frankly you have more than one poster here, that I have trouble even reading the post, but have no question as to their intelligence. Then I've known people (especially auto mechanics, not to pick on the profession) that couldn't write a legible sentence or College Graduates that couldn't type out a post, you would understand.

 

 

I have a strong suspicion that Klaplunk here is just a reincarnation of Clipper, who we suspended recently. Same IP addresses and everything, and it's a great coincidence that we suspend someone for their activities in Speculations and then someone with the same IP pops in to complain about Speculations...[/Quote]

 

CR; This is the kind of information, that should have come out immediately. If banned for activity while in 'Speculation' can I assume it was attitude and not content.

[Double K]

CR; This is the kind of information, that should have come out immediately. If banned for activity while in 'Speculation' can I assume it was attitude and not content.

 

Actually I think it was content...although there was one post that went a bit awry with attitude after Clippers odd content was being locked very quickly.

[Bignose]

Can you provide scientific proof of this phenomenon?

How did you arrive at this figure?

 

The proof is in the Speculation section. Just read a couple of dozen, they almost always end up with the speculator ignoring or leaving in a huff. The figure is my estimate. I don't participate in speculations a great deal, not like some of the other members here. But, I can only remember 1 time when a thread I participated in, the speculator publicly said "I see now that I have much more learning to do, and I am going to go do that".

 

It is times like that that make that section worth it, in my opinion. But, as I wrote above, they are all-too-rare.

[StringJunky]

The proof is in the Speculation section. Just read a couple of dozen, they almost always end up with the speculator ignoring or leaving in a huff. The figure is my estimate. I don't participate in speculations a great deal, not like some of the other members here. But, I can only remember 1 time when a thread I participated in, the speculator publicly said "I see now that I have much more learning to do, and I am going to go do that".

 

It is times like that that make that section worth it, in my opinion. But, as I wrote above, they are all-too-rare.

 

I think you are about right in your estimation. In the 11-12 months that I've been reading these boards only one or two have have withdrawn from their position with good grace. It's a notable moment when it happens!

Edited June 16, 2010 by StringJunky

[Sayonara]

But this is what happens. The 'scientific' people wont see from another side, everything is not always so black and white. I'm willing to wager that before they did the testing, they sat around with peers and said "I'm willing to wager that inside that particle are even smaller particles" and they would have blabbed on about that for a while, and then worked out a way of testing to prove/disprove the speculation. Science will never move forward if all we ever did was stick to what we know.

I think what swanson is trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the time span was between the idea being proposed and tests devised (or even carried out), or whether the testability of the idea was ever considered by the person having the idea. What matters is the testability of the idea per se. Science deals with the testing of ideas, so an untestable idea can't be dealt with scientifically.

 

In short having an idea is not sufficient for one to be "doing science", even though it is certainly a great help. Because not all ideas CAN be treated scientifically. So one can't take the position that every idea should be treated with equal respect by a scientific community, whereas one can derive simple practices for quickly identifying unscientific proposals.

 

I think there is a danger here that you are starting to lump the genuine luminaries together with the crackpots, the lazies, and the scientific illiterates, which would be a shame.

[swansont]

But this is what happens. The 'scientific' people wont see from another side, everything is not always so black and white. I'm willing to wager that before they did the testing, they sat around with peers and said "I'm willing to wager that inside that particle are even smaller particles" and they would have blabbed on about that for a while, and then worked out a way of testing to prove/disprove the speculation. Science will never move forward if all we ever did was stick to what we know.

 

I'd wager there was very little blabbing that didn't have something to do with how do we figure out if this is correct, i.e. what are the ramifications of the idea.

 

I think it is unreasonable to request someone who may be a specialist in a different area to have as in depth an understanding as required for every different avenue of science.

 

That doesn't even come close to my position.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

swansont; You always end up with definition of words, I do believe. I wouldn't know where to begin for ideas being testable prior to their thought. Black Holes, solar construct, dark matter, singularities or business models. The idea comes first, testability was never the issue.

 

I don't care if it's prior to their thought. I care if it's prior to their post.

 

The picture being painted here is that somebody posts something, and the thread gets moved to speculations and immediately locked because it's not testable. That's not an accurate portrayal. Posters are asked how their ideas are testable, and they don't have an answer to that. They aren't able or willing to entertain the question as part of the discussion. (The only recent speculations post I can find that was locked that quickly was a reopening of a closed thread, which is a no-no)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

CR; This is the kind of information, that should have come out immediately. If banned for activity while in 'Speculation' can I assume it was attitude and not content.

 

Suspended 3 days, not banned, and it was announced. But I don't see why staff should disclose details of suspicions of sockpuppetry to the general membership.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

In the time line we're talking about, no I don't think most people can elevate their grammar, methods or formation of ideas over a couple days. However after the first or second post, those that have been posting for years should easily be able to bring down their level, encouraging further revealing of the posters ideas. Frankly you have more than one poster here, that I have trouble even reading the post, but have no question as to their intelligence. Then I've known people (especially auto mechanics, not to pick on the profession) that couldn't write a legible sentence or College Graduates that couldn't type out a post, you would understand.

 

Posts are not moved to speculations because of poor grammar or lack of mastery of the English language. The actions in question here deal with posters who have not taken the effort to learn basic tenets of science, or worse, have rejected them, and want their musings to be accepted not only as science, but correct and valid science. Without going through the steps that would achieve such validation.

Edited June 16, 2010 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

Suspended 3 days, not banned, and it was announced. But I don't see why staff should disclose details of suspicions of sockpuppetry to the general membership. [/Quote]

 

swansont; Yes, after replying to "banned/reincarnation", I did check out your action (fare) and read some of 'Clippers' post. I'll assume Klaplunk was telling the truth and there is more than one person involved, but really don't think Clipper (whichever) is/was Klaplunk on this thread. Whether or not, Clipper could have made his own case (3-days) and that action was not the point of my discussion. Rules are rules for a reason, regardless what I feel or any of those involved here, respectfully object or move on.

 

Posts are not moved to speculations because of poor grammar or lack of mastery of the English language. The actions in question here deal with posters who have not taken the effort to learn basic tenets of science, or worse, have rejected them, and want their musings to be accepted not only as science, but correct and valid science. Without going through the steps that would achieve such validation.[/Quote]

 

I think if you re-read my comment this refers to, you'll find I agree. If poor grammar, justifiable or not (second language, eye problems, computer illiterate and so on) not many of us (I'm not the best with grammar) would be allowed here.

 

There is no reason to argue out our disagreement on 'Idea vs. Testability'. Maybe I'm just missing something in your discussion, but I would hope any person with an idea would be allowed to post THAT idea, in speculations.

[swansont]

There is no reason to argue out our disagreement on 'Idea vs. Testability'. Maybe I'm just missing something in your discussion, but I would hope any person with an idea would be allowed to post THAT idea, in speculations.

 

Not if it isn't science. Would you entertain a business discussion for selling a mythical product, e.g. Canned Unicorn Farts (as a real product, not a joke/novelty item)? Would there be any point to the discussion if the product does not, and could never exist?

[jackson33]

Would there be any point to the discussion if the product does not, and could never exist?[/Quote]

 

swansont; Is there a difference in mythical and the unknown, I'd suggest yes and there are thousands of products or services out there that were thought impractical. For instance the other night I was pondering this new light bulb and a clean up program for people breaking one, making your home whole again and insurance will pay for it. That's canned unicorn gas, but I'd bet someone will add it their business model or start one up, if not both...

 

In Austin, long before Krispy Kream or really any franchise being in C-Stores, I made arrangements with a RR Bakery to produce -x- number of donuts per week day (an idea) to sell in, lets say in one store. To my knowledge this was original, at least in the area or anyplace I'd been and there simply was no means to know, estimate or evaluate the program. It could have cost money (transporting/waste) and no one thought it would do anything (no means to test). I think you already know the outcome, coffee sales alone tripled each morning in days and KK is pretty well every where. On another project, I was asked to draw up a feasibility report for selling in store sandwiches. There was no information available other than speculation of what would or could be beneficial or not (test), for this persons idea. I got paid for my time and I have no idea if this person used the program, but with in a couple years, every little C-Store chain was selling Sandwiches in Store. Before someone brings this up, you cannot patent business models.

 

In science, as explained below, Newton had an idea (insight) on Gravity, IMO which is no different and in the testing of any idea. You might call this an educated idea as in an educated guess, never the less they are ideas and there are probably thousands of potentially science altering ideas out there in different fields that will never be known, explored or tested because of hard line attitudes opposed to anything contrary to what's considered accepted. I see some of this every day, in the reverse of we're discussing, when several posters will agree with out questioning (still having questions), what perceived experts declare, remember I'm still in speculations.

 

Now came Newton's truly brilliant insight: if the force of gravity reaches to the top of the highest tree, might it not reach even further; in particular, might it not reach all the way to the orbit of the Moon! Then, the orbit of the Moon about the Earth could be a consequence of the gravitational force, because the acceleration due to gravity could change the velocity of the Moon in just such a way that it followed an orbit around the earth. [/Quote]

 

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

 

To link the thought of my discussion, whether in science, business or real life situations, idea's drive all fields and only after testing can they be evaluated, tailored or improved on. Most ideas never pass mustard/testing or somebody or thing pays a cost (New Coke). I think years from now BBT will meet the same fate and look how much money has been spent on this one sided testing (my opinion), regardless how many other ideas will survive.

[swansont]

swansont; Is there a difference in mythical and the unknown

 

And there is a difference between science and non-science. If something cannot be shown to be false, it is not science. It is, in effect, mythical.

[Klaplunk]

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Not at all, that's your branding system - you automatically treat me with that attitude as you believe I'm that kind of person; being semi-hypocritical about science, because you don't test anything. I'm not taking science, ever; but I will be following it, to see where 'it' goes, I don't believe 'it' is everything, because it is an 'it', and I'm a 'me', and I live 'life' - you guys can't explain that, and you dismiss anything that gives us the option to believe, because it cannot be tested, or we 'lack' evidence. I arrive and I place a question; you don't answer the question, to tell me that the question is not a question - then argue with me on that single point. Ranting and raging about me being pseudo, disgraceful word which you use so freely; it removes a large amount of vision, and 'free-thought' which you imprison. If you discuss, and explain, why it's wrong, then you're allowing freedom. I haven't been on in a while, I probably won't be on again - I think you should think about 'it' a bit more.

[swansont]

Not at all, that's your branding system - you automatically treat me with that attitude as you believe I'm that kind of person; being semi-hypocritical about science, because you don't test anything. I'm not taking science, ever; but I will be following it, to see where 'it' goes, I don't believe 'it' is everything, because it is an 'it', and I'm a 'me', and I live 'life' - you guys can't explain that, and you dismiss anything that gives us the option to believe, because it cannot be tested, or we 'lack' evidence. I arrive and I place a question; you don't answer the question, to tell me that the question is not a question - then argue with me on that single point. Ranting and raging about me being pseudo, disgraceful word which you use so freely; it removes a large amount of vision, and 'free-thought' which you imprison. If you discuss, and explain, why it's wrong, then you're allowing freedom. I haven't been on in a while, I probably won't be on again - I think you should think about 'it' a bit more.

 

No. Saying something is not science is not dismissing it, and nobody has said a question isn't a question. What people have said is that it isn't science. They are dismissing it as a scientific inquiry, because science can't answer the question. You can't have the endorsement of science, because it is not within science's jurisdiction.

 

This is a forum for discussing (primarily) science — that's certainly the case for speculations. That is what makes non-science out-of-bounds. If you want to discuss philosophic semantics or numerology, go somewhere where they discuss such things. But don't come here, crap in the sandbox, and then try and justify that behavior in the face of others being miffed by it.

[Klaplunk]

You brand it as philisophical, there's no reason for it not to be tested as something previously discovered in science has been. It's not philisophical at all, it contains numbers, tell me what in life doesn't relate to numbers - just because it isn't explained elegantly, you 'dismiss' it. Which you do, whether it's science or not. If I ask, "What's 5+5?", I don't want to be told, 'It's maths', just say 10. I don't understand your yammer half of the time, it's like a monotone buzz just waving along, ignoring anything out of its tone. "It's not science, therefore wrong", "Okay, but what is 5+5?" "... It's not science, you're asking a quest-...."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you really are a philosophy student, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.

[Klaplunk]

I suggest you tell me what you believe 'logic' is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suggest you pick up A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Patrick Hurley.

[Klaplunk]

I don't believe that's the answer to my first question.

-Previous point made.

 

 

Peace.

[Sayonara]

I think we're done here.