Collaboration?

[A Tripolation]

The fabric of space.

 

By people who don't even understand the wave mechanics of self-propagating EM radiation? How could they possibly have anything to contribute?

[michel123456]

By people who don't even understand the wave mechanics of self-propagating EM radiation? How could they possibly have anything to contribute?

 

You are quite negative.

 

Something simpler then:

distance.

[Ringer]

Then it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a good list of outsiders who have contributed to theory development or conducted experiments that got published in recent decades. There is quite a bit of "citizen science" that goes on, but AFAIK that's done at the technician level — basic instrumentation and data recording.

 

IIRC there was a 10 year-old who recently discovered a new molecule when playing with one of those chemistry model sets. Obviously this is pretty darn rare, but it's pretty cool nonetheless

[michel123456]

I got an idea! Yes another one. Could we do history here at SF? In means of collaboration (on the Thing)?

 

Here is very educated and smart people. Obviously many of you likes speculations Could we create a private section here for the collaboration? Everybody capable of distributing (math, knowledge, hardware resources, experiments, articles and so on) is welcome. I'm serious here.

 

Only open mind is required.

No open mind here.

illuusio has been banned.

No other comment.

[swansont]

No open mind here.

illuusio has been banned.

No other comment.

illuusio was banned* because he refused to follow the rules, examples of which I have documented below**. He had 327 posts, to which people then responded and tried to engage him. Demanding evidence, or pointing out failures of an hypothesis, is not a lack of an open mind, because open-mindedness is not the same as gullibility or credulousness. Too often in these situations the accusation of close-mindedness is a pejorative smokescreen. While there may be places where one might be able to use the term to browbeat and intimidate someone into silence rather than voice objections which are critical, it's not likely to happen here.

 

His original thread was closed because he was unable or unwilling to adequately support his conjecture, and despite the fact that he was given a second chance to offer evidence, he did not, and yet he kept trying to re-introduce the subject. He hijacked threads to bring up his pet theory.

 

*with the agreement of four moderators

**this documentation is routine amongst the staff, as part of the warning logs we use

[Ophiolite]

No open mind here.

illuusio has been banned.

No other comment.

Well Michael, I have a comment. I noted this thread was still running and came here in order to post a question: why the heck are we entertaining such utterly pointless nonsense from someone incapable of delivering a single coherent, intelligent, interesting contribution to the forum? If you think his posts had value and were deserving of attention please pm me. I can give you the url's of forums where such nonsense is celebrated.

[michel123456]

Well Michael, I have a comment. I noted this thread was still running and came here in order to post a question: why the heck are we entertaining such utterly pointless nonsense from someone incapable of delivering a single coherent, intelligent, interesting contribution to the forum? If you think his posts had value and were deserving of attention please pm me. I can give you the url's of forums where such nonsense is celebrated.

1. you don't ban someone for the reasons you enumerated.

2. you are attacking* someone that cannot defend himself.

3. you are underestimating the members of this forum. People who are not intelligent do not ramble on a scientific forum.

 

* "someone incapable of delivering a single coherent, intelligent, interesting contribution to the forum": if you said that to me, I'd consider that as an insult.

[Ophiolite]

1. you don't ban someone for the reasons you enumerated.

I don't ban anyone, nor do I set the rules for this or any other forum. If I did, then I think being consistently rambling, silly and boring would be good reasons to ban someone. Do you think we should encourage loose thinking, ill considered ideas and intrinsically dull posting? Do you seriously welcome such posts? Or do you think that illusio's posts were cohesive, thought provoking and intriguing?

 

2. you are attacking* someone that cannot defend himself.

I was not attacking illusio, but the quality of his posts. The distinction may seem to be a small one, but it is - I think - important. If illusio feels he has been attacked, he is free to subscribe to any other science forums I participate in and send me a pm.

 

3. you are underestimating the members of this forum. People who are not intelligent do not ramble on a scientific forum.

I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. I have made no estimation of the members of this forum. I have identified rambling on the part of one member in more than one post and in more thant one thread. That is an objective observation. I have not extended that observation to a deduction concerning the capacity of the membership at large. The more I think on it the more bizarre I find your suggestion that I have done so.

 

* "someone incapable of delivering a single coherent, intelligent, interesting contribution to the forum": if you said that to me, I'd consider that as an insult.

Again, you seem to be confusing an observation concerning a post with an observation about the author of the post. If I wished to insult illusio I would have done it when I was sure he was on hand to read the insult.