Mainstream Science v Speculatory Science

[StringJunky]

What sources/criteria do scientists here use to determine whether some methodology/idea is 'the norm' ie belongs in the Science categories and not Speculations. I understand perfectly why SFN filters like this, to make clear distinctions for learners like myself, and it slightly bemuses me why people get irate when their hypothesis gets transferred to Speculations.

 

Is it just an arbitrary decision between the experts here or do you have a 'bible' or institution that you can consult?

Edited September 13, 2011 by StringJunky

[ajb]

All research work to some extent is speculative. You are pushing the frontiers of knowledge and doing so does not always lead to the right ideas. One needs to employ imagination and test ideas. There are lots of dead ends and things that are just to hard to fully realise.

 

The criteria is that one should follow the scientific method, or some very close variant of it, in order for the work to be called scientific. Very similar criteria hold for mathematics, but that does need some "tweaking". The point is that your peers can understand what you are suggesting and very importantly why; even if they disagree.

 

Anyway, speculation should really be seen as equivalent to conjecture. Based on good grounding and understanding of established science, given what evidence there is (maybe experimental or theoretical) one can make a conjecture about something. Say some up to now an unobserved effect in nature or some mathematical theorem you think to be true.

 

With speculation the point is it should not be simply "made up" or "pulled from thin air". The precise evidence (we can argue what that means) to support the speculation need not be readily available, but the speculation itself must be based on known established ideas.

 

Most posts that end up in the speculations section here are not like this. Mostly, they are based on misunderstandings and the lack of basic knowledge required to understand physics. Even the most wildest speculations, if stated scientifically, in the context of what is already established and make it clear what we know and don't know will not get moved out of the "main sections".

Edited September 13, 2011 by ajb

[StringJunky]

One thing I've learned here is that any new idea must encompass and incorporate the 'domain of validity' of any existing established ideas ie GR does not make Newtonian Gravity invalid entirely but extends it where it starts to fail just as Quantum Gravity (if it ever comes to fruition) must extend where GR fails ie at the point of Singularity or at sub-atomic dimensions...historically, consecutive Theories are a series of conceptual overlaps.

 

How do you determine what is established or is it essentially an arbitrarily consensual decision between the scientists here? Is time out being used in the field important?

Edited September 13, 2011 by StringJunky

[ajb]

One thing I've learned here is that any new idea must encompass and incorporate the 'domain of validity' of any existing established ideas ie GR does not make Newtonian Gravity invalid entirely but extends it where it starts to fail just as Quantum Gravity (if it ever comes to fruition) must extend where GR fails ie at the point of Singularity or at sub-atomic dimensions.

 

Indeed, the domain of validity is an essential part of the data of a physical theory. Your example is a good one, as is the fact that quantum mechanics does not make Newtonian mechanics wrong.

 

 

How do you determine what is established or is it essentially an arbitrarily consensual decision between the scientists here?

 

I am not sure. Generally, I would say things are established if they appear in a textbook. But that is a very narrow definition and would not include very recent findings.

[swansont]

What sources/criteria do scientists here use to determine whether some methodology/idea is 'the norm' ie belongs in the Science categories and not Speculations. I understand perfectly why SFN filters like this, to make clear distinctions for learners like myself, and it slightly bemuses me why people get irate when their hypothesis gets transferred to Speculations.

 

Is it just an arbitrary decision between the experts here or do you have a 'bible' or institution that you can consult?

For me it's like the difference between art and porn. I know it when I see it and I study it a lot

 

If it's in a standard textbook, it's mainstream. If contradicts or seeks to overthrow/modify what's in a textbook, it goes to speculations. If it's just journal articles, it's a judgement call, especially if the papers exist only in ArXiv. People have to realize that a lot of what gets published in ArXiv (and some of what is published in journals) is "thinking out loud" that's made the first cut of discussion among colleagues and possibly formal peer-review. There's no guarantee that the work in a single paper (or multiple papers of a single author) is right.

 

There's a second criterion I apply that seems to work. If you are asking a question about some theory/hypothesis/conjecture, it will probably stay in the science section, because by asking you signal a receptiveness to learn the standard science. If you are lecturing/pronouncing about your new thesis, it's going to go in speculations. The odds are excellent that the idea has not been vetted through anything like the normal scientific process, and also that the author has not studied the standard science and does not see the ramifications of the new idea. Typically these proposals solve a specific "problem" (real or imagined) but fail when applied more generally. Bonus points are earned for not having any evidence whatsoever, or for failing to discuss how the idea might be tested/falsified.

 

I am also bemused by the reaction, but my genuflect-at-your-obvious-brilliance reflex is lacking. To those trained in the discipline these proposals don't pass the sniff test, but the author they smell like roses. Accusations of censorship (or anything else in crackpot bingo) rather than an effort to provide sound scientific backing is a signal that I made the right call.

[Phi for All]

...it slightly bemuses me why people get irate when their hypothesis gets transferred to Speculations.

I'm always mystified by this. Do people really think science is established within the mind of one person? Ideas can't become fully fledged and valid without communication. Why get irate when your ideas are challenged? Isn't that what the methodology demands?

[ajb]

...especially if the papers exist only in ArXiv.

 

The arXiv is always going to be a hard one to judge.

[swansont]

I'm always mystified by this. Do people really think science is established within the mind of one person? Ideas can't become fully fledged and valid without communication. Why get irate when your ideas are challenged? Isn't that what the methodology demands?

Indeed. We don't accept the ideas if there is no experimental evidence to do so, and this takes time and some effort. Challenging an accepted idea also means you are challenging all of the experiments that support that idea. There's no good reason to change that protocol just because someone doesn't like to wait in line.

[StringJunky]

Thanks for all your responses, that enlightened me a bit more and I hope also the wannabe-theorists have taken something from this and realise Speculations is not the dustbin.

[ajb]

...I hope also the wannabe-theorists have taken something from this and realise Speculations is not the dustbin.

 

Sure it is not the dustbin, but most of the wannabe-theorists could do a lot more to make their ideas more accessible to scientists and in all likelihood have their posts remain in the other sections, principally in Physics. A lot of things that get moved into Speculations are hard to really judge and critique. The maths and basic physics understanding is not there and this can make it hard to find definite holes in the "theory". In a sense, these kinds of post do end up in the dustbin.

 

The sign of a quack is not so much in the initial ideas, but the inability to take criticism and learn from other people. We all have bad ideas and ideas that just don't work out for whatever reason. These are usually "filled away" or thrown in the waste paper bin. We learn from these false starts.

[StringJunky]

Sure it is not the dustbin, but most of the wannabe-theorists could do a lot more to make their ideas more accessible to scientists and in all likelihood have their posts remain in the other sections, principally in Physics. A lot of things that get moved into Speculations are hard to really judge and critique. The maths and basic physics understanding is not there and this can make it hard to find definite holes in the "theory". In a sense, these kinds of post do end up in the dustbin.

 

The sign of a quack is not so much in the initial ideas, but the inability to take criticism and learn from other people. We all have bad ideas and ideas that just don't work out for whatever reason. These are usually "filled away" or thrown in the waste paper bin. We learn from these false starts.

 

Suppose I posted a thread in Physics called "On The Unification Of The Fundamantal Forces" and presented a hypothesis, illustrated and backed up with the most meticulous math's such that it was sound logically and all the meta-research data was there to back it up-I'm the ultimate self-taught armchair scientist ...it would still get moved to Speculations wouldn't it because it's not established?

[ajb]

Suppose I posted a thread in Physics called "On The Unification Of The Fundamantal Forces" and presented a hypothesis, illustrated and backed up with the most meticulous math's such that it was sound logically and all the meta-research data was there to back it up-I'm the ultimate self-taught armchair scientist ...it would still get moved to Speculations wouldn't it because it's not established?

 

 

It will be a judgement call. In my opinion, if you approached the topic in the correct way I see no reason why it should be moved in to speculations. Even if things are somewhat speculative, as almost all research work is to some extent, I think that could be discussed in Physics. Looking for GUTs is an established part of physics.

 

I will stress that your motivation and approach will be just as important as the key idea.

[StringJunky]

It will be a judgement call. In my opinion, if you approached the topic in the correct way I see no reason why it should be moved in to speculations. Even if things are somewhat speculative, as almost all research work is to some extent, I think that could be discussed in Physics. Looking for GUTs is an established part of physics.

 

I will stress that your motivation and approach will be just as important as the key idea.

 

But doesn't that demean the function of Speculations...it is effectively Trash if that is your criterion? I can understand talking about other people's speculative work in the science section in the sense of science's possible future direction, for example Quantum Gravity, but my hypothetical hypothesis of everything is still a speculation and should be in that section for consistency and to avoid confusion amongst layman which is one of the stated reasons why it's there.

Edited September 14, 2011 by StringJunky

[ajb]

But doesn't that demean the function of Speculations...it is effectively Trash if that is your criterion?

 

Have a good scroll through the posts in Speculations. I am afraid that most of the posts there are effectively trash. Some of it could be "recycled" into useful posts.

 

..but my hypothetical hypothesis of everything is still a speculation and should be in that section for consistency and to avoid confusion amongst layman which is one of the stated reasons why it's there.

 

I think it will depend on what you have done, how you have done it, what you are claiming and so on. I do see things in the Speculations section that I think could be discussed in the Physics section. They maybe speculative, but the speculation and questions posed are within the context of established physics.

 

Honestly, I doubt this forum is really the place to air new work. The arXiv is better, or even sending emails to experts in the field you are working on. Your hypothetical work is, too hypothetical to really make a call.

[swansont]

Suppose I posted a thread in Physics called "On The Unification Of The Fundamantal Forces" and presented a hypothesis, illustrated and backed up with the most meticulous math's such that it was sound logically and all the meta-research data was there to back it up-I'm the ultimate self-taught armchair scientist ...it would still get moved to Speculations wouldn't it because it's not established?

Most of what gets moved there falls under the category of "X is wrong, here is my replacement for it" (X usually being relativity or some aspect of QM if in physics, where I would be involved in moving the thread). Even if the author doesn't realize s/he is saying that the established science is wrong.

 

If you came up with a unification scheme that did not contradict established science, I think the real question would be why you're posting it here and not submitting it to an academic journal.

[Phi for All]

Suppose I posted a thread in Physics called "On The Unification Of The Fundamantal Forces" and presented a hypothesis, illustrated and backed up with the most meticulous math's such that it was sound logically and all the meta-research data was there to back it up-I'm the ultimate self-taught armchair scientist ...it would still get moved to Speculations wouldn't it because it's not established?

Realistically, here's what would happen. Everyone would read your post, check out your maths, run it through what they've already learned on the subject, and look for flaws. If none can be found, I guarantee you that thread is going to get some intense scrutiny. Personally, I would move it to Speculations for the reasons you've given, and behind the scenes the whole staff would be buzzing about what kind of protocols we should establish for moving it back if it should prove to have no flaws.

 

When you start getting posts from famous scientists who have joined and offered to co-write papers with you, we might think about moving your original post back. Maybe. Of course, by then everybody will understand why we have the section and will be begging for their ideas to be there.

[CharonY]

Note that important findings are more likely being published in an actual science journal rather than on a random forum, especially considering the amount of work that one has to put into writing a scientific paper.

[StringJunky]

 

If you came up with a unification scheme that did not contradict established science, I think the real question would be why you're posting it here and not submitting it to an academic journal.

 

Because, having established everybodys expertise and methodology here I know you will respond reasonably quickly and if it comes out ok I would then take it to a journal for formal scrutiny based on your advice...don't forget, I'm an armchair-scientist who is self-taught and it's all been done by meta-researching and I'm also a hermit. The internet is still young, it may happen one day with someone...we have the world's knowledge under our finger-tips.

 

I agree with Phi, my hypothesis should go in Speculations regardless of how convincing it is...what I'm getting here is a contradiction here in the application of forum policy with regards to Speculations. On the one hand some mods reassure irate members that their idea is not being moved because it's crap but because it's not established science and then another says it's basically the Trash Can and if he likes the idea because it's consistent with conventional practice it can stay regardless of whether it's established or not. i'm not picking on anyone here but highlighting a lack of collective consistency regarding the function of Speculations.

 

If Speculations is effectively considered the Trash Can you might as well just lock and delete the thread.

 

You mods do not appear to be singing from the same songsheet from where I'm standing.

 

I personally like Speculations because it negates any accusation of dogmatism on the part of the forum administration and just maybe somebody will knock you out with something brilliant one day. Besides, I'm sure there's an awful lot of crap in arxiv as well...we see what we want to see and ignore the rest. In a way, I see Speculations as a training ground for people to see what it takes to be taken seriously, when they post what ultimately turn out to be wrong ideas, after some expert analysis.

 

Edit: I thought I'd tag this quote on from Phi from another thread because I think this is the correct attitude and application regarding Speculations:

 

"Look, this is a science discussion forum on the web. We have to make a distinction between what is established science, and what is not established but may become established someday. Students need to know what they can take confidently to class, and what is more speculative in nature. When a thread is moved to Speculations, it's not because it's disliked, or wrong, or unpopular. It just means the idea has not yet passed the kind of review that establishes firm ground for further work. Can't you still like and support your idea but admit that it's not firmly established?

 

Speculations is more like ice. It's not firm ground but you can still walk on it. It may not end up holding your weight, but that's why it's there, for testing ideas to see if they have merit. Yes, it's tough. Yes, your idea will be put through the ringer. Science is meant to be methodical and precise. It's not meant to take huge leaps without carefully testing each step. That's why established science can be trusted.

 

And we would absolutely love it if one of our Speculation threads managed to prove worthy and become established. That's why we have the section, and most others don't."

Edited September 14, 2011 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Because, having established everybodys expertise and methodology here I know you will respond reasonably quickly and if it comes out ok I would then take it to a journal for formal scrutiny based on your advice...don't forget, I'm an armchair-scientist who is self-taught and it's all been done by meta-researching and I'm also a hermit. The internet is still young, it may happen one day with someone...we have the world's knowledge under our finger-tips.

 

I agree with Phi, my hypothesis should go in Speculations regardless of how convincing it is...what I'm getting here is a contradiction here in the application of forum policy with regards to Speculations. On the one hand some mods reassure irate members that their idea is not being moved because it's crap but because it's not established science and then another says it's basically the Trash Can and if he likes the idea because it's consistent with conventional practice it can stay regardless of whether it's established or not. i'm not picking on anyone here but highlighting a lack of collective consistency regarding the function of Speculations.

 

If Speculations is effectively considered the Trash Can you might as well just lock and delete the thread.

 

You mods do not appear to be singing from the same songsheet from where I'm standing.

 

I personally like Speculations because it negates any accusation of dogmatism on the part of the forum administration and just maybe somebody will knock you out with something brilliant one day. Besides, I'm sure there's an awful lot of crap in arxiv as well...we see what we want to see and ignore the rest. In a way, I see Speculations as a training ground for people to see what it takes to be taken seriously, when they post what ultimately turn out to be wrong ideas, after some expert analysis.

 

Edit: I thought I'd tag this quote on from Phi from another thread because I think this is the correct attitude and application regarding Speculations:

 

"Look, this is a science discussion forum on the web. We have to make a distinction between what is established science, and what is not established but may become established someday. Students need to know what they can take confidently to class, and what is more speculative in nature. When a thread is moved to Speculations, it's not because it's disliked, or wrong, or unpopular. It just means the idea has not yet passed the kind of review that establishes firm ground for further work. Can't you still like and support your idea but admit that it's not firmly established?

 

Speculations is more like ice. It's not firm ground but you can still walk on it. It may not end up holding your weight, but that's why it's there, for testing ideas to see if they have merit. Yes, it's tough. Yes, your idea will be put through the ringer. Science is meant to be methodical and precise. It's not meant to take huge leaps without carefully testing each step. That's why established science can be trusted.

 

And we would absolutely love it if one of our Speculation threads managed to prove worthy and become established. That's why we have the section, and most others don't."

 

I don't see where Phi has said anything the conflicts with what I did. But it boils down to being a judgement call, and two people are not going to have the exact same judgement. The point I was making was that virtually all of the complaints come from people who have a "replacement" for an established theory, but have not come close to meeting the burden of proof for supporting their thesis, and haven't demonstrated why the established science is wrong. Those examples are not hard calls to make. If I see "this will require a re-write of X" or any similar admission that it conflicts with established theory, it goes in speculations. (Which is invariably followed by the cries of censorship, or being punished for challenging the orthodoxy, etc., as I indicated above), and I don't think that's inconsistent with anyone else's approach.