Speculations

[StringJunky]

This question was raised in my mind after reading a comment from one of the most knowledgeable and experienced member's on this forum which suggested they were so dispirited by the content of some of the speculative threads that they don't want to come here as much, which is a great shame, as i have valued their input in the past. The Speculations forum was spoken about a year or two ago and I thought it was high time there was another conversation about it as I myself feel there is a need to reassess it's purpose and where the forum admin might draw the line. I don't want to say any more at the moment as I'd like to see what the poll says in terms of the distribution of opinion.

 

The purpose of this thread is for people to speak their minds about whether Speculations is really viable overall and if it adversely affects the scientific integrity of the forum as a whole or not.

[zapatos]

Speaking as someone who is comparatively light on science, I'd hate to see additional restrictions on speculations. Since there is so much that is often wrong or misunderstood in someone's pet theory, there are generally descriptions of scientific principles at a level and detail better appreciated by someone like me. In the scientific threads since people tend to be more knowledgeable I often miss much of what is being discussed.

 

If you restrict content in speculations the overall quality may go up, but you probably will not have more good threads; you'll just lose the weak threads.

[timo]

If you restrict content in speculations the overall quality may go up, but you probably will not have more good threads; you'll just lose the weak threads.

Kind of my thoughts, too. Plus, it's rather easy to ignore the speculations forum entirely - as I actually do (a user setting to auto-ignore threads in selected forums would still be cool).

[StringJunky]

Speaking as someone who is comparatively light on science, I'd hate to see additional restrictions on speculations. Since there is so much that is often wrong or misunderstood in someone's pet theory, there are generally descriptions of scientific principles at a level and detail better appreciated by someone like me. In the scientific threads since people tend to be more knowledgeable I often miss much of what is being discussed.

 

If you restrict content in speculations the overall quality may go up, but you probably will not have more good threads; you'll just lose the weak threads.

 

Do you mean that the resulting corrections applied to someone's hypothesis in Speculations are put in such a way that you end up understanding the scientific principles better than an explanation in an equivalent subject in the proper science forums?

 

timo:

Kind of my thoughts, too. Plus, it's rather easy to ignore the speculations forum entirely - as I actually do (a user setting to auto-ignore threads in selected forums would still be cool).

 

So, you don't think the threads with really outlandish and totally unsubstantiated ideas are detrimental to forum?

Edited January 24, 2012 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Do you mean that the resulting corrections applied to someone's hypothesis are put in such a way that you end up understanding the scientific principles better than an explanation in an equivalent subject in the proper science forums?

Exactly.

 

If two knowledgeable people are discussing a topic in a proper science forum they often tend to share a wealth of knowledge which, since it is understood between them, may not be spoken. If it's not mentioned, I might see them go from step 1 to step 3 not realizing they skipped step 2, which they may have skipped since it so obvious (to them).

 

Because somone often has a principle wrong in the speculations forum, there tends to be a more detailed and complete description of what is wrong given by those who are correcting them. The details are not skipped since to correct the misunderstanding they must be complete.

 

If you weed out the weak speculations, then you are back to knowledgeable people talking to each other. I'm sure it is better for them, but from my selfish perspective I probably learn more as the speculations get worse.

 

Of course at some point even I just laugh at the very weak speculations and move on.

Edited January 24, 2012 by zapatos

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suspect most people have a problem with Speculations because of the persistence of some people who post there. It can certainly be a learning experience to have your ideas challenged and corrected, but not if you insist that you must be absolutely correct and a hundred years of science is wrong.

 

Speculations is, however, one of our most popular sections by traffic. We have to strike a balance: allow too much speculation and scientists will be annoyed, but allow too little and our biggest audience -- amateurs and laymen -- will be discouraged.

 

I'd rather devise ways to increase discussion of other science topics than start cutting off the Speculations section.

[StringJunky]

I suspect most people have a problem with Speculations because of the persistence of some people who post there. It can certainly be a learning experience to have your ideas challenged and corrected, but not if you insist that you must be absolutely correct and a hundred years of science is wrong.

 

Speculations is, however, one of our most popular sections by traffic. We have to strike a balance: allow too much speculation and scientists will be annoyed, but allow too little and our biggest audience -- amateurs and laymen -- will be discouraged.

 

I'd rather devise ways to increase discussion of other science topics than start cutting off the Speculations section.

 

I wasn't suggesting that it should be under consideration for removal but just exploring what the overall consensus was and if there was a balance in opinion between not annoying the scientists and yet not alienating laymen, as you say.

[ajb]

I am not really sure on this. Though we do seem to get a good share of simply rubbish. These nonsense posts do not help the standing of these forums, though they do attract traffic. Timo has the right idea, maybe we should follow his example.

[CaptainPanic]

If you don't like the speculations forum, don't go there. Simple.

[Tres Juicy]

With tighter restrictions on the speculations forum you would see more speculative threads appearing in the mainstream forums.

 

Plus it's a good place to air your crazy ideas in the wider community - all the "what if..." questions and interesting ideas that don't fit anywhere else.

 

It's important for science to speculate

[ajb]

It's important for science to speculate

 

This is true, as is the need for creativity. However, most of the posts in speculations are just nonsense. Well posed speculation is welcomed.

[swansont]

This is true, as is the need for creativity. However, most of the posts in speculations are just nonsense. Well posed speculation is welcomed.

 

The reality is that we get a wide spectrum of speculation, though the distribution is not even. Very little of it is well-posed. Most of it is crap.

 

However, a huge component of any proposed overhaul is how much effort it would take. Staff here volunteer their time to do run the site. For example, for all the spam you might see, there's a larger volume that has been removed before you've logged in for the day by someone in a different time zone; some is reported by members but a lot is tagged by the resident experts and moderators and removed before anyone else sees it. Time spent doing that is time not reading and posting to legitimate threads. Analyzing and moving threads around also takes time. So, from a practical standpoint, an additional layer of policing of speculations is an additional burden on my time.

 

And it wouldn't be a small burden. I'm sure anyone who has spent time on speculations has seen the not-unusual reaction when some "revolutionary" thread is moved from a mainstream forum to speculations — the poster screams like he has been mortally wounded. Well, we get PMs, too. All that has to be dealt with. It will get worse if we tried to do heavier screening based on content.

 

I'll echo what has already been said: if you don't like it, don't visit the section. If a particular thread is objectionable, ignore it. Responses perpetuate the thread. If it's that bad, let it wither and die.

[D H]

Speculations is, however, one of our most popular sections by traffic. We have to strike a balance: allow too much speculation and scientists will be annoyed, but allow too little and our biggest audience -- amateurs and laymen -- will be discouraged.

 

I'd rather devise ways to increase discussion of other science topics than start cutting off the Speculations section.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

This site is almost entirely devoted to speculations, and mostly very bad speculations. Speculations is, as you admit, your most popular section. A good chunk of the topics that aren't in speculations should be. This is a turn off to some. It is for me, and apparently lots of others. Traffic at this site is relatively low precisely because speculations is your most popular section.

 

Some of your speculators are apparently kids trying to learn science. Teaching these people science, helping them along: That's a good thing. However, some of your speculators are crackpots who have received the full regimen of immunizations against logic and evidence. The same old crackpots who were here a year ago are still here now, still making the same nonsense arguments, still refusing to listen to logic, still refusing to see evidence. (They're fully immunized!) You moderators and admins would be doing everyone a great service by showing these intransigent crackpots the door.

[Phi for All]

You have to accept a lot of bad with your good in most things, and when it comes to speculative ideas, there are always going to be more bad than good. Do you know how many television and movie scripts are written as opposed to those that actually get shot and shown to the public? Science is the same way, with more failures than successes. Many human endeavors have more failures than successes.

 

I don't see how we can promote learning and the exchange of ideas if every Speculations thread gets shot down in the first few posts. As others have said, even the worst ideas proposed here are a learning experience for someone. I agree that crackpots are everywhere, but you have to treat each instance separately. For those who might just learn something by having their idea scrutinized by the membership, nothing is worse than being shut down in an offhand manner.

 

I think the real problem we're taking about here is when an idea is wrong based on lack of education but the poster is convinced they can bypass the study because their idea just "feels" right. Then we come up against the "you're too hidebound", "you reject everything that isn't mainstream", "you refuse to think outside the box" retorts, and they're not wrong in principle, though they usually are in fact.

 

Perhaps we need a more reciprocal relationship with posters in Speculations. Whenever we sense someone trying to do an "educational bypass", we should be able to explain that we're taking the time to read the hypothesis and review it, and we must insist that the poster reciprocate by taking some time to read relevant material to help explain the review. To me, this is the distinction between the person who thinks they have a great idea and the crackpot: the crackpot has already rejected certain studies (usually maths) and refuses to go back and learn the material.

[Tres Juicy]

You have to accept a lot of bad with your good in most things, and when it comes to speculative ideas, there are always going to be more bad than good. Do you know how many television and movie scripts are written as opposed to those that actually get shot and shown to the public? Science is the same way, with more failures than successes. Many human endeavors have more failures than successes.

 

I don't see how we can promote learning and the exchange of ideas if every Speculations thread gets shot down in the first few posts. As others have said, even the worst ideas proposed here are a learning experience for someone. I agree that crackpots are everywhere, but you have to treat each instance separately. For those who might just learn something by having their idea scrutinized by the membership, nothing is worse than being shut down in an offhand manner.

 

I think the real problem we're taking about here is when an idea is wrong based on lack of education but the poster is convinced they can bypass the study because their idea just "feels" right. Then we come up against the "you're too hidebound", "you reject everything that isn't mainstream", "you refuse to think outside the box" retorts, and they're not wrong in principle, though they usually are in fact.

 

Perhaps we need a more reciprocal relationship with posters in Speculations. Whenever we sense someone trying to do an "educational bypass", we should be able to explain that we're taking the time to read the hypothesis and review it, and we must insist that the poster reciprocate by taking some time to read relevant material to help explain the review. To me, this is the distinction between the person who thinks they have a great idea and the crackpot: the crackpot has already rejected certain studies (usually maths) and refuses to go back and learn the material.

 

 

I completely agree.

 

I have posted some highly speculative material (perpetual motion, gravity as a fictitious force, time as a superposed wave...) just to air out ideas and things that I would like to hear other (more qualified) people's opinion on.

 

These have lead to some interesting discussions and (I would hope) not made me look like a crackpot because I do not try to deny observable evidence or suggest that there is no gravity or some other rubbish...

 

I mean, what would be the point of asking for an opinion if you're not going to listen to it?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

This site is almost entirely devoted to speculations, and mostly very bad speculations. Speculations is, as you admit, your most popular section. A good chunk of the topics that aren't in speculations should be. This is a turn off to some. It is for me, and apparently lots of others. Traffic at this site is relatively low precisely because speculations is your most popular section.

Suppose we were to be more thorough in moving speculations to the correct section, and made our policy on banning crackpots stricter, so we didn't have 20+ page pointless topics in Speculations.

 

Posting would decrease, but no great loss -- losing low-quality posts isn't exactly a terrible problem. But how do we attract science discussion to fill its place? I don't think SFN currently provides enough active, interesting, non-crackpot discussions on real science topics (rather than simple homework questions or discussions of philosophy or religion). I would desperately like it to.

 

Removing crackpottery (or at least making it less visible, so it doesn't "corrupt" the rest of the forum) would be a step in this direction. But I'd like to figure out what to do next.

[swansont]

Perhaps we need a more reciprocal relationship with posters in Speculations. Whenever we sense someone trying to do an "educational bypass", we should be able to explain that we're taking the time to read the hypothesis and review it, and we must insist that the poster reciprocate by taking some time to read relevant material to help explain the review. To me, this is the distinction between the person who thinks they have a great idea and the crackpot: the crackpot has already rejected certain studies (usually maths) and refuses to go back and learn the material.

 

For those posters proposing a new paradigm, the very first questions should include "What specific predictions do you make?" and "How is this testable/falsifiable?" if that information isn't included in the OP, and it usually isn't. But they are generally convinced that this isn't a required part of their thesis.

[Phi for All]

For those posters proposing a new paradigm, the very first questions should include "What specific predictions do you make?" and "How is this testable/falsifiable?" if that information isn't included in the OP, and it usually isn't. But they are generally convinced that this isn't a required part of their thesis.

Well then, what if we change the format for Speculations? We could provide a template members can copy/paste and then input their thesis, supportive evidence and what predictions this allows them to make. There should be some questions they have to answer that will show us any educational bypasses or lack of testability.

 

We'll identify crackpots earlier on, as well as those who can be guided. I still say that, in much the same way Archie Bunker taught a generation about how NOT to treat racism and tolerance, a good crackpot can show how NOT to approach science, but I also think we might err on the side of caution when it comes to treating speculative subjects.

 

I also think that those people who have a hard time with what is posted in Speculations should refrain from posting disparaging remarks right off the bat. We often have to deal with people who are already irate because they're being shot down in a way that makes it tough to separate the person from the idea. If you're the type of person who calls up Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern just to complain about how stupid the show is, you should stay away from Speculations.

[zapatos]

Well then, what if we change the format for Speculations? We could provide a template members can copy/paste and then input their thesis, supportive evidence and what predictions this allows them to make. There should be some questions they have to answer that will show us any educational bypasses or lack of testability.

 

We'll identify crackpots earlier on, as well as those who can be guided. I still say that, in much the same way Archie Bunker taught a generation about how NOT to treat racism and tolerance, a good crackpot can show how NOT to approach science, but I also think we might err on the side of caution when it comes to treating speculative subjects.

 

I also think that those people who have a hard time with what is posted in Speculations should refrain from posting disparaging remarks right off the bat. We often have to deal with people who are already irate because they're being shot down in a way that makes it tough to separate the person from the idea. If you're the type of person who calls up Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern just to complain about how stupid the show is, you should stay away from Speculations.

I like it. Although instead of "questions they have to answer", you may want that to be "questions they have to attempt to answer", or "questions they have to address". Depending on where they are in their hypothesis they may not be in a postion to answer. And the stick could be, "if you make no attempt to answer the questions, the thread will be shut down".

[D H]

My main gripe has always been that the moderators and admins bend over backwards to cater to the crackpots. The site has an explicit rule against use of logical fallacies. Yet the speculative members time and time again make bald assertions, create non sequiturs, talk about true Scotsmen, raise false dichotomies; the list goes on and on. Some of our trickier members haven't just taken Introduction to Fallacies; they apparently majored in Logical Fallacies.

 

This goes on for some time, with nary a word from the mods or admins about following our rules. Some non-speculative member will inevitable get frustrated with this nonsense and break some other rule (typically be nice, boys and girls, rule). Whammo! Now the rules are suddenly enforced.

Edited January 24, 2012 by D H

[swansont]

Well then, what if we change the format for Speculations? We could provide a template members can copy/paste and then input their thesis, supportive evidence and what predictions this allows them to make. There should be some questions they have to answer that will show us any educational bypasses or lack of testability.

 

We'll identify crackpots earlier on, as well as those who can be guided. I still say that, in much the same way Archie Bunker taught a generation about how NOT to treat racism and tolerance, a good crackpot can show how NOT to approach science, but I also think we might err on the side of caution when it comes to treating speculative subjects.

 

I also think that those people who have a hard time with what is posted in Speculations should refrain from posting disparaging remarks right off the bat. We often have to deal with people who are already irate because they're being shot down in a way that makes it tough to separate the person from the idea. If you're the type of person who calls up Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern just to complain about how stupid the show is, you should stay away from Speculations.

 

We could have a subsection for proposed new theories, since this doesn't really apply to the "relativity (or whatever) is wrong!" style of posts. That seems reasonable and, from the logistics aspect, fairly easily sortable.

[StringJunky]

We could have a subsection for proposed new theories, since this doesn't really apply to the "relativity (or whatever) is wrong!" style of posts. That seems reasonable and, from the logistics aspect, fairly easily sortable.

 

Perhaps you could put a sticky in this subsection with the header "Read This First!" that gives a template or guide on how a hypothesis must be presented and details it must contain; failure to comply could then be issued with a warning that it will end up in the Trash. In my thinking, it doesn't matter if the idea is erroneous (it most likely will be) just that they present their idea in a prescribed way with set compulsory elements as described in the sticky. The sticky guide should be written in a way understandable to a high school student that is easy for them to digest and apply.

 

In the proper science forums, if a person can't point to a peer-reviewed example of their hypothesis, transfer of their thread should automatically go into Speculations...no ifs ..no buts. There needs to be a clear line between established science or science executed by professionals (which may actually be speculative eg Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc) and amateurs thinking stuffup in their homes.

Edited January 24, 2012 by StringJunky

[Klaynos]

With a "If you can't at least attempt to fill out all the sections you don't have a scientific theory, read this link for some information about what science really is, here's a clue it's not pulling crap out of the air and arguing it's correct until you're blue in the face with no evidence"

[Phi for All]

My main gripe has always been that the moderators and admins bend over backwards to cater to the crackpots.

I resent that. A lot.

[homie12]

For those posters proposing a new paradigm, the very first questions should include "What specific predictions do you make?" and "How is this testable/falsifiable?" if that information isn't included in the OP, and it usually isn't. But they are generally convinced that this isn't a required part of their thesis.

 

Yes this helps define the discussion, thanks

 

yes some of my posts are presented in an undisciplined way. But just they articulate manner this thread is being discussed convinces me, the administration here is committed to the true nature of these very ranging topics. Now i wanted to say that the true value of a society is its capacity to be inclusive. ya ya ya but im not doing the intellectual maintainence here. Pretty good site you have here gentlemen and ladies. i can say that making it easy for status quo is not my talent. I am thinking about creating an agenda of experiments that i would like to offer for review here. I now actual feel comfortable enough here to do that. thanks for your responses and this thread

 

i really must proof read before posting