Raising the Standards.

[Phi for All]

Excellent post, John.

 

 

 

 

And with regards to:

 

Fifth, this thread seems to be getting needlessly hostile.

... for my part of that, mea culpa. I disliked what I felt was an unfair representation of the moderation staff and some other members, but in reviewing past involvement with SamBridge (he objected to my moving someone else's thread to Speculations) I think it's really just me he has a problem with. I can certainly accept that as long as he's not casting aspersions on the rest of the site because of it.

 

I've said my piece. Thanks for the input everyone.

[swansont]

You are obviously not a scientist. If I do an experiment where there is a controlled variable, lets call it distance, and a non-controlled or dependent variable, let's call it potential energy, it doesn't matter what opinion you have, if you plot the data, you will for a fact see that as the distance from the ground increases, the potential energy increases. That conclusion is in no way shape or form dependent on any opinion in any fashion, it is purely dependent on what is measured, and many tests have redone the experiment to confirm it, that is what science is, it is not an opinion. Saying "Well in my opinion I still don't think it goes up even though the data says it does" is called a state of "denial".

 

That circumstance is probably not representative of most science, much less all science (and it needs to, in order to advance the "no opinions, ever" position). Experimental science often takes place on the edge and is usually not this "clean", and a whole lot of science is theoretical, with competing models, awaiting experiment to confirm it. It's not hard to find circumstances where there has been debate over the differing of opinion. When the first GPS satellite went up, there were scientists who were convinced that no relativistic corrections would be necessary. More than 50 years after GR was first confirmed, there were still differences of opinion on how the theory applies! Another long-discussed scenario was the Abraham-Minkowski controversy about the momentum of a photon in a medium.

 

Fact: Opinions are not a part of concluding the relationship between variables in scientific data.

That's shifting the goal posts a bit, but even then it fails. At what level of confidence do you accept results as true? In particle physics, they use 5-sigma. But not in all fields. Is that not a matter of opinion?

 

If you can model data under the equation y=x^2 with test-ably predictable results, any opinion from anyone is worthless, no matter what, the relationship is "y=x^2" for whatever the testable results extend to. "Why" that relationship occurs without testing is called "speculation" or "hypothesizing", and such things are not science, but with mathematics derived from tests and if necessary extensive number theory, you can prove that a certain phenomena is in fact the cause for another thing.

I think you should learn proper scientific procedure.

 

Not only that, but you mentioned a list of scientists who are creationists. However, religion in no way impairs your cognitive thinking ability. Believing in any religion is fine as long as it does not interfere with conducting scientific experiments and as long as you do not use it as a justification of a scientific conclusion, science is not connected with religion, your list is meaningless.

The problem is having biologists who do not believe in evolution, and geologists who think the earth is 6000 years old and contains evidence of a flood that covered the whole planet. So yes, there can be a problem betwixt science and religion.

 

 

If this site refuses to change then that is why one of my goals is to create an accredited official science website where people who call themselves experts must show their diploma with an ID analyzed by a group of other experts as well as always asserting what is their opinion from what they have 99% or more confidence in is true, as well as trying to stay out of personal conversations when responding to inquiries of scientific matters. How do the first experts get on board then? That's why I approach professors I know at relatively near-by colleges or universities about it first. If you really wanted to have a person chat with experts, you would send them a private message.

Good luck with that. That can be taken sincerely or sarcastically. Works either way.

[SamBridge]

You know, I did rely on the media, the state of Texas, the Yale Corporation, the GOP and the US Congress to vet the man's credentials (any single one of those sources wouldn't have sufficed}. Are you saying that without direct observation I was mistakenly relying solely on the opinion of those experts in their respective fields?

I myself would not trust mass media as it has often been used for the wrong purpose. Instead, I would being by asking other experts what they think and at least having some of the claims assessed by another expert in that field, and this is where diversity in the site would help. If someone was spouting nonsense about history, and there was more than one history expert, it would be pointing out easily.

 

 

 

I don't like the tacit approval that ignoring logical fallacies implies. I don't like seeing you put words in other people's mouths. And when someone makes a statement and you argue using a comparison to an extreme that the original argument didn't intend, you're strawmanning, plain and simple.

I am abhorred to see that a person with the title of a moderator is so deeply and willfully making the very assertion that they themselves claim to abhor.

 

 

 

My logical answer was, "You ignored my stance, that what you're asking for seems like it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion since it would remove most of the passion that learning seems to thrive on, and you chose instead to claim I meant we should mix opinion and science as we please." It's right there in black and white, and now in red as well.

Which you only stated after I did a bunch of complaining that you were being sarcastic and unclear as opposed to being logical in the first place. In fact, I said in a post just before you went on wild rants "maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought, but there should still be diversity". You could have left it at that and things would have been more at an equilibrium, but because of your obsession with public representation you chose to continue in hostility.

Your point is still invalid, the purpose of science is to investigate the physical world with certainty regardless of if it is interesting or not, and there are plenty of people in the world who want to do that, and probably could without some forum to help them

 

 

... for my part of that, mea culpa. I disliked what I felt was an unfair representation of the moderation staff and some other members, but in reviewing past involvement with SamBridge (he objected to my moving someone else's thread to Speculations) I think it's really just me he has a problem with. I can certainly accept that as long as he's not casting aspersions on the rest of the site because of it.

 

 

 

The issue has nothing to do with any personal discussions, there are multiple instances where I retract a statement or where I clearly agree that I am wrong about something, that is not what the issue. Once gained I am abhorred to see someone who is called a moderator do the very thing they claimed to abhor: a despicable straw-man.

 

A few thoughts:

 

First, and maybe I'm being a bit silly here, a website with a requirement that new experts be vetted by existing experts may run into a bootstrapping problem. Putting into place a seed population of experts may help with that, of course, but then some or all of that seed population may need to be removed later for the sake of consistency.

 

Second (and forgive me if I'm wrong, as I've not been active for most of SFN's life), it's my understanding that Resident Expert status is an honor rather than an occupation. The system stems from a desire to recognize those who have demonstrated knowledge with informative and helpful posts, not from a desire to fill those pesky vacant "Resident Expert" positions the admins just refuse to list on Monster. Of course, experts are given some limited powers of moderation, but that strikes me as being a perk more than an obligation.

 

Third, this place is a science forum, not a free university. Experts, and anyone else, are free to say what they like, within the established rules, based on their best understanding of the topics at hand. Even in a university, it's not as if professors refuse to provide insight or share opinions and speculations during lectures. This is one of the primary advantages of having a knowledgeable person available to assist with learning. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a textbook (or, dare I say, a well-cited Wikipedia article) is sufficient if dry information is all that's desired. In any case, I'd trust the powers that be to remove an expert whose posts fell dramatically in quality over time.

 

Fourth, there are members who, despite having not yet been recognized as Resident Experts, generally make useful posts on a variety of topics. Perhaps more Experts would be nice, but they aren't the only sources of good information here.

 

Fifth, this thread seems to be getting needlessly hostile.

 

SamBridge, in light of all that's been said, do you still hold the same views you did in your original post? And if not, what still bothers you about the way SFN is set up currently?

Anyone is free to say anything they like within any set of establish rules, but I suppose if the site wants to risk credibility and efficiency for opinion and appeal I can't stop that.

 

 

 

That circumstance is probably not representative of most science, much less all science (and it needs to, in order to advance the "no opinions, ever" position). Experimental science often takes place on the edge and is usually not this "clean", and a whole lot of science is theoretical, awaiting experiment to confirm it. It's not hard to find circumstances where there has been debate over the differing of opinion. When the first GPS satellite went up, there were scientists who were convinced that no relativistic corrections would be necessary. More than 50 years after GR was first confirmed, there were still differences of opinion on how the theory applies! Another long-discussed scenario was the Abraham-Minkowski controversy about the momentum of a photon in a medium.

I see what you are saying, but there is still a concise conclusion that can be made about data. Most contemporary physics is theoretical physics. Such physics have tests with confirmed results, however what ends up happening is that mathematical extrapolations get made without tests to prove them (string theory), but this is not to say that contemporary science does not have concise conclusions on data, and I don't think that's what you meant.

 

That's shifting the goal posts a bit, but even then it fails. At what level of confidence do you accept results as true? In particle physics, they use 5-sigma. But not in all fields. Is that not a matter of opinion?

The relationship between variables after repeated testing is not a debate. What is a debate is speculation on why that relationship exists and to what extent that relationship applies, though both of those things can still be confirmed with more scientific testing. For instance, I could model the temperature increase on a scale as mx+b, such as Kelvin, and the relationship would show that there is a value of -253 kelvin. Then after that relationship, people hypothesize that you can't have negative kelvin or that you can, and then they did testing to confirm that almost always, you can't. I can see what you're saying, but really I'm talking about something very specific, I'm talking about people with the title of experts or moderators to only post what has been scientifically confirmed or is credible in theory, if it is a debate of the scientific community, they can share that debate.

 

The problem is having biologists who do not believe in evolution, and geologists who think the earth is 6000 years old and contains evidence of a flood that covered the whole planet. So yes, there can be a problem betwixt science and religion.

 

There can be, but just like with the whole diploma dilemma there's no guarantee If you want, you can run a test to see if religious people can do math faster or if non-religious people can do math faster. The result should be that they do math the same "assuming both groups had the same level of education), because religion does not impair cognitive ability. If they assert religious claims into scientific procedure or consensus, that's where the line is drawn. That age of religion being viewed inherently evil towards humanity is ending in much the same way that the period where science was viewed as evil for humanity had ended, much of modern physics and calculus was made by people who had assumed the universe worked in a deterministic or "clockwork" manner, due to Newton's discoveries that yielded highly predictable results, but as time went on, people discovered that the universe could not be thought of as a well oiled machine, and that there was plenty of room for the unknown.

[John]

Anyone is free to say anything they like within any set of establish rules, but I suppose if the site wants to risk credibility and efficiency for opinion and appeal I can't stop that.

 

Indeed. I suppose it could be argued that "Resident Expert" places a certain expectation on the content and quality of these users' posts that is easy to betray, even if it's inadvertent. However, again, I trust the moderators and administrators to handle that if it comes up, and to take appropriate action if it becomes a real problem. The mere possibility isn't enough to damage the credibility of the site, though, so unless the problem is shown to exist, I'm not sure dramatic action is warranted.

 

Two other things to consider, of course, are a) there is a certain expectation placed on the reader to distinguish between opinion and fact, which doesn't strike me as a bad thing; and b) there is some level of peer review here, such that even a respected member of the community can be called out on statements that seem incorrect. Granted, certain members may be held in such high regard that others are reluctant to speak out against them, but I believe our members are, on average, honest enough to overcome that reluctance if necessary.

[SamBridge]

 

Good luck with that. That can be taken sincerely or sarcastically. Works either way.

With the capability of machines you'd be surprised that running and designing the site would be rather easy, the only hard part would be getting enough people involved in the first place.

 

 

Indeed. I suppose it could be argued that "Resident Expert" places a certain expectation on the content and quality of these users' posts that is easy to betray, even if it's inadvertent. However, again, I trust the moderators and administrators to handle that if it comes up, and to take appropriate action if it becomes a real problem. The mere possibility isn't enough to damage the credibility of the site, though, so unless the problem is shown to exist, I'm not sure dramatic action is warranted.

 

Two other things to consider, of course, are a) there is a certain expectation placed on the reader to distinguish between opinion and fact, which doesn't strike me as a bad thing; and b) there is some level of peer review here, such that even a respected member of the community can be called out on statements that seem incorrect. Granted, certain members may be held in such high regard that others are reluctant to speak out against them, but I believe our members are, on average, honest enough to overcome that reluctance if necessary.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think he term "expert" or "moderator" implies they have a high likelihood of being well versed in a variety of sciences or highly versed in a particular field, but still, opinions are not science. I'm not saying the site is overall bad, I just want there to be a site where everything is really strict and formal as a place people can turn to when they can't get confirmed answers, because as you know both mass media and the internet can have a tenancy to manipulate data, and if this site can't be that site, someone else or I will have to get one designed. This site does a good job for science beginners, but there's many topics I see where if people start talking about too complex of mathematics, no one even attempts to post because no one is experienced enough to confidently answer.

[John]

Don't get me wrong, I think he term "expert" or "moderator" implies they have a high likelihood of being well versed in a variety of sciences or highly versed in a particular field, but still, opinions are not science. I'm not saying the site is overall bad, I just want there to be a site where everything is really strict and formal as a place people can turn to when they can't get confirmed answers, because as you know both mass media and the internet can have a tenancy to manipulate data, and if this site can't be that site, someone else or I will have to get one designed. This site does a good job for science beginners, but there's many topics I see where if people start talking about too complex of mathematics, no one even attempts to post because no one is experienced enough to confidently answer.

 

I don't think anyone would argue against these points. The purpose of this site is simply to be a forum (appropriately enough) for science enthusiasts to discuss what they love, and for anyone else to join the conversation as well. The community has gotten quite large, and so some structure is in place; but while SFN is (hopefully) informative and worthwhile, I'm not sure it intends to be what you're envisioning here.

 

If you do attempt to start the sort of website you're talking about, then I wish you the best of luck. You may even find that some of the most active members of this forum would enjoy such a site as well.

 

Edit: Just as a note, I should say I've brought up your last point before, though briefly, and I'm sure others have as well. No one wants to feel left out, and we certainly don't want people to feel left out either. How best to go about avoiding that is a pretty big topic in and of itself.

Edited January 22, 2013 by John

[swansont]

With the capability of machines you'd be surprised that running and designing the site would be rather easy, the only hard part would be getting enough people involved in the first place.

 

Yes, precisely.

[timo]

I disliked what I felt was an unfair representation of the moderation staff and some other members, ...

Reading this I re-read the OP, that I may in fact have misunderstood. I understood that Sam wanted to increase post quality by attracting more experts (by some magical means). As I said, I see the main problem in the minimum standards that I believe to be too low (and for which I have no proposal how to improve it). I don't think that the so-called experts here lack the competence to provide interesting posts, and in particular I do not think this impact the overall forum quality. In fact, contrary to a few years ago I even begin to see a point in the tag (whereas beforehand my attitude was that people who cannot tell a competent statement from nonsense are not harmed by believing in nonsense).

[SamBridge]

Reading this I re-read the OP, that I may in fact have misunderstood. I understood that Sam wanted to increase post quality by attracting more experts (by some magical means). As I said, I see the main problem in the minimum standards that I believe to be too low (and for which I have no proposal how to improve it). I don't think that the so-called experts here lack the competence to provide interesting posts, and in particular I do not think this impact the overall forum quality. In fact, contrary to a few years ago I even begin to see a point in the tag (whereas beforehand my attitude was that people who cannot tell a competent statement from nonsense are not harmed by believing in nonsense).

No I see that whole part of the argument that people want the site to be interesting and it can really only be interesting to the layman if they can explore things they don't quite understand by opinions being asserted, but if this site had enough advertising it may not have to worry about the amount of traffic dropping too significantly. In any case, it doesn't seem like the site will make that dramatic of a shift so a new site will have to be constructed, I am sure I can find people who would want the same, in fact php already creates forums for you, so if I had members all I'd have to worry about is finding a server to host the data on, which is pretty cheap, not that I'm saying getting professional Ph. Ds on board will be easy.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Klaynos]

It seems to me that a site as you suggest would not allow for questioning or probing of an expert's statements. As has been stated above most if what experts say is their informed opinion, whether that is whether a car is good or that the scientific consensus is x (there is no booklet we're handed on completing our PhDs I'm afraid) therefore I feel the ability to question and have varied views on the consensus allows outsiders to understand why those views are reached and conduct a similar analysis when new ideas are presented not just listen to authority.

 

I also think we have a hard enough time getting good staff without further restricting them. Since I've joined the average education level of the staff has increased somewhat, not that that is always a good measure as discussed above.

[CaptainPanic]

Don't get me wrong, I think he term "expert" or "moderator" implies they have a high likelihood of being well versed in a variety of sciences or highly versed in a particular field, but still, opinions are not science. I'm not saying the site is overall bad, I just want there to be a site where everything is really strict and formal as a place people can turn to when they can't get confirmed answers, because as you know both mass media and the internet can have a tenancy to manipulate data, and if this site can't be that site, someone else or I will have to get one designed.

You seem to want a website that generates reliable answers... Answers you can trust. But there are some issues with that.

 

We participate on this website anonymously. Any data generated by someone anonymously should be regarded as suspicious. Wikipedia can only be trusted (and only to some extent) because it has many people reviewing everything. Obviously, we cannot start to review every thread and every post written. Quality control is therefore left to our readers and members.

 

Moderators only step in when something is reported. And even then, being wrong is not against our rules. Being wrong, in fact, is a part of being a good scientist. You can only get better if you are wrong sometimes.

Experts are also volunteers, and will only reply if they are interested.

This site does a good job for science beginners, but there's many topics I see where if people start talking about too complex of mathematics, no one even attempts to post because no one is experienced enough to confidently answer.

Maybe that's because nobody has the time to reply. We're volunteers here. If something is too complex, it takes a long time to even understand the problem. We just don't like to invest such time. Or, in my case, I often just don't have the time. We have no responsibility to answer every question that is asked. And we have no responsibility with regard to the quality of the posts written by us, or any other member.

 

If you want to create a website where the experts have a responsibility to answer every question, and to answer it with a certain minimum quality standard, you have to pay those experts. I think you're looking at a minimum of 50,000 euro per year, to have an expert online for 40 hrs per week. I am happy to do that, btw. Of course, since I am European, I expect at least 5 weeks of holidays per year too.

 

Ok, the costs may be exaggerated, since none of us are online 100% of the time. But my main point is just that you seem to expect a lot from a bunch of volunteers.

And your solution seems to be to magically attract more volunteers. It's just not gonna happen.

[SamBridge]

It seems to me that a site as you suggest would not allow for questioning or probing of an expert's statements. As has been stated above most if what experts say is their informed opinion, whether that is whether a car is good or that the scientific consensus is x (there is no booklet we're handed on completing our PhDs I'm afraid) therefore I feel the ability to question and have varied views on the consensus allows outsiders to understand why those views are reached and conduct a similar analysis when new ideas are presented not just listen to authority.

 

I also think we have a hard enough time getting good staff without further restricting them. Since I've joined the average education level of the staff has increased somewhat, not that that is always a good measure as discussed above.

If they want to explain how that scientific consensus was reached why would there be a problem with that? All they're doing is repeating words. People could question experts if they wanted, but experts shouldn't spend all their time question everyone else, they should just be there to confirm things or answer questions, at least on that website.

 

You seem to want a website that generates reliable answers... Answers you can trust. But there are some issues with that.

 

We participate on this website anonymously. Any data generated by someone anonymously should be regarded as suspicious. Wikipedia can only be trusted (and only to some extent) because it has many people reviewing everything. Obviously, we cannot start to review every thread and every post written. Quality control is therefore left to our readers and members.

 

Moderators only step in when something is reported. And even then, being wrong is not against our rules. Being wrong, in fact, is a part of being a good scientist. You can only get better if you are wrong sometimes.

Experts are also volunteers, and will only reply if they are interested.

 

I never said being wrong as against any rule, but I do think as an expert they shouldn't waste their time being corrected all the time either, they should know what they're talking about of course. This "quality control" as you call it, can be very limited when it comes to complex topics, and often is, especially when there is not an expert for that given field.

 

Maybe that's because nobody has the time to reply. We're volunteers here. If something is too complex, it takes a long time to even understand the problem. We just don't like to invest such time. Or, in my case, I often just don't have the time. We have no responsibility to answer every question that is asked. And we have no responsibility with regard to the quality of the posts written by us, or any other member.

 

If you want to create a website where the experts have a responsibility to answer every question, and to answer it with a certain minimum quality standard, you have to pay those experts. I think you're looking at a minimum of 50,000 euro per year, to have an expert online for 40 hrs per week. I am happy to do that, btw. Of course, since I am European, I expect at least 5 weeks of holidays per year too.

 

Ok, the costs may be exaggerated, since none of us are online 100% of the time. But my main point is just that you seem to expect a lot from a bunch of volunteers.

And your solution seems to be to magically attract more volunteers. It's just not gonna happen.

You try to argue that nobody has time, but every once in a while I do see people answering complex mathematical scenarios, so there clearly are people who can efficient answer complex questions especially in the math section, but just not for every field. What I expect isn't all that much, it's just not getting personally involved in any scientific discussion whatsoever and leaving any opinion of yours completely out of it unless it is personally asked for, the only thing I think experts should do as 75%-80% of the time I see already is simpler refer to past experiments, repeating how scientists had come up with the consensus, and referring to some sources, but I think you should push for 100% or 98% at least.

Not only that, but no one is forcing you to stay on this site either, you are choosing to come here. If there were enough "volunteer" experts of a greater diversity it would help for sure. Have you actually tried asking 1 other scientist to be an expert on the site or just visit it?

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[CaptainPanic]

I never said being wrong as against any rule[...]

Don't worry. I never said you said that. I was just explaining our rules. Just in case.

[...], but I do think as an expert they shouldn't waste their time being corrected all the time either, they should know what they're talking about of course. This "quality control" as you call it, can be very limited when it comes to complex topics, and often is, especially when there is not an expert for that given field.

It sounds like you want the experts to sometimes kill a conversation, simply because they are experts and some other people are not, meaning they are right, and other people shouldn't fight it. But that is a logical fallacy, called an "Argument from Authority".

 

In practice, we still sometimes use this type of argument, but if we do, we're actually breaking our own rules, because logical fallacies are against the rules.

You try to argue that nobody has time, but every once in a while I do see people answering complex mathematical scenarios, so there clearly are people who can efficient answer complex questions especially in the math section, but just not for every field.

We're saying the same thing, but our glasses are either half full or half empty. Still, it seems to me that we agree that some questions get answered, and some don't.

What I expect isn't all that much, it's just not getting personally involved in any scientific discussion whatsoever and leaving any opinion of yours completely out of it unless it is personally asked for, the only thing I think experts should do as 75%-80% of the time I see already is simpler refer to past experiments, repeating how scientists had come up with the consensus, and referring to some sources, but I think you should push for 100% or 98% at least. [...]

That's boring. Sounds like work. If you want me to be like that, you gotta pay me. When I write a report for work, I leave my opinion out. If I wanted to solve complicated issues in the scientific manner, and leave all emotions out of it, I should shut down SFN, and get back to work. I have plenty to do, actually. I come here for some nerd-entertainment.

Not only that, but no one is forcing you to stay on this site either, you are choosing to come here.

You make it sound like I am the one who does not like it here. But I do. You're the one who wants to change it. 4000 posts and counting says I like this place.

If there were enough "volunteer" experts of a greater diversity it would help for sure. Have you actually tried asking 1 other scientist to be an expert on the site or just visit it?

Good idea. We may want to throw this idea onto the forum. Personally, I actually have asked some real-life friends to visit the forum. And they have. They just did not stick around long enough to become a mod/expert. I think that everybody on the forum agrees that it does not hurt to get some more experts.

[SamBridge]

 

It sounds like you want the experts to sometimes kill a conversation, simply because they are experts and some other people are not, meaning they are right, and other people shouldn't fight it. But that is a logical fallacy, called an "Argument from Authority".

 

As I said before, experts should site some sources at least.

 

That's boring. Sounds like work.

Well coming to this site is work somewhat, it doesn't matter if it works, if you have the audacity to call yourself a credible expert it should be expected that you are capable of more than just an average person which means doing research and analysis if necessary. I definitely spend time researching things to answer questions, I even watched a 30 minute video in another topic about a different type of reactor, and I'm not even an expert. Science isn't done because it's interesting it's done to get answers.

 

If you want me to be like that, you gotta pay me.

I don't think site site pays at all does it? Yet there are experts who have hundreds of posts. I'm not saying you have to do more work, in fact I'm saying you have to do less work because I'd be suggesting to save time typing by leaving out opinion and personal conversation in any way.

 

Still, it seems to me that we agree that some questions get answered, and some don't.

Which could be solved by bringing in experts who you are are credible in various fields. No one says they have to work all the time, but the combined efforts should allow for most complex questions to get answered.

 

If I wanted to solve complicated issues in the scientific manner, and leave all emotions out of it, I should shut down SFN, and get back to work. I have plenty to do, actually. I come here for some nerd-entertainment.

You don't have to shut the site down because someone else is going to make that site since it's apparent this site won't change.

 

You make it sound like I am the one who does not like it here. But I do. You're the one who wants to change it. 4000 posts and counting says I like this place.

 

Right, but if you're coming here because you like it, don't try and make it sound like it's in any way a burden on your life, as you stated you come here because you like it, not because you are obligated. If you create a pretty looking site with a good ascetic that would probably be enough for people to say, and there are plenty of people who like teaching, you just have to find them.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[swansont]

As I said before, experts should site some sources at least.

Well coming to this site is work somewhat, it doesn't matter if it works, if you have the audacity to call yourself a credible expert it should be expected that you are capable of more than just an average person which means doing research and analysis if necessary. I definitely spend time researching things to answer questions, I even watched a 30 minute video in another topic about a different type of reactor, and I'm not even an expert. Science isn't done because it's interesting it's done to get answers.

 

There's a flip side to this. First of all, the resident experts here generally do a much better job of providing citations to support their work than the people that just show up and chime in, and who are less often correct. But there are some responses that simply don't need citations, e.g. physics that can be found in any textbook on the subject. Further, there's a limit to how much work I'm going to do to answer a question, and it depends on how interested I am in the topic, but also because I have a limited amount of time I spend here. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on something I don't care about, because I'm volunteering my time and I get to choose what questions I answer — that's how this works.

 

Lastly, "science isn't done because it's interesting" misses the mark for a lot of scientists. Most of us aren't in it for the money. Doing science probably isn't going to make you rich.

 

 

[SamBridge]

 

There's a flip side to this. First of all, the resident experts here generally do a much better job of providing citations to support their work than the people that just show up and chime in, and who are less often correct. But there are some responses that simply don't need citations, e.g. physics that can be found in any textbook on the subject.

 

And that's fine, I agree certain physics is just common knowledge, and I didn't say experts generally don't cite sources, but just trying to push for the 100% rather than the 80.

 

 

Further, there's a limit to how much work I'm going to do to answer a question, and it depends on how interested I am in the topic, but also because I have a limited amount of time I spend here. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on something I don't care about, because I'm volunteering my time and I get to choose what questions I answer — that's how this works.

Well if you are not efficient enough answer complex mathematics in less than an hour or even half an hour I could see that, but you could still say "here's the formula, now solve for the variable", but I still think some problems could get worked out, and then why not have experts who can solve them fast or now how to?

 

Lastly, "science isn't done because it's interesting" misses the mark for a lot of scientists. Most of us aren't in it for the money. Doing science probably isn't going to make you rich.

Well depending on your degree you can make a pretty good living and definitely do more field work, but anyway if you truly care about science you will follow it through even when it get's boring.

[ajb]

I think it has all pretty much been said now...

 

And that's fine, I agree certain physics is just common knowledge, and I didn't say experts generally don't cite sources, but just trying to push for the 100% rather than the 80.

 

For myself, unless it can be found very easily in say at most an undergraduate textbook, I will provide a reference. This is especially so if the results can only really be found in a paper. The other experts, in my opinion, tend to do the same.

 

Well if you are not efficient enough answer complex mathematics in less than an hour or even half an hour I could see that, but you could still say "here's the formula, now solve for the variable", but I still think some problems could get worked out, and then why not have experts who can solve them fast or now how to?

 

Okay, I am confident that I could tackle most of the mathematics problems posed here. A lot of them are either textbook or require a little experience to see short-cuts. The thing is this is an amateur site and I get no financial reward here. This means I cannot devote time that needs to be spent on professional activities to answering all questions on this forum. I tend to go for either the easy ones or ones I find interesting. Sorry, but that is the reality of it. (I may have to spend less time here in the near future, but that is another story.)

Could we do with more experts?

 

Of course and I would welcome others here.

[immortal]

In the older software versions there was a welcome note saying "We welcome discussions at all levels and for all those who have a love for science" something like that, I don't remember it exactly and it is true, I post here just because for the love of science, that's all.

 

Forums were never considered to be credible sources, it is just a starting place to get yourself familiar with a subject and if you are interested in the subject go and research things for yourself, I always felt that this forum required a biology expert but it doesn't necessarily mean that having too many experts on the board will guarantee us in providing the correct scientific consensus of sorts on particular subject matters, there is actually no consensus in physics and biology right now on the theoretical foundations, having more Phd's will indeed increase the standards of discussion but as other members have said if you expect them to spend considerable amount of their time on a forum answering to your questions then you need to pay them.

[Ophiolite]

I'm intrigued by Sam's continuing view that opinions have no place in science. So I took a look at the conclusions of ten papers selected in reverse chronological order from a set I had been recently exploring. Here are a selection of extracts from those papers that seem to me represent opinions. These opinions reflect interpretations of the significance of the data, or opinions as to what input values should be used in modelling. Such opinions inform the possible trajectories of future research. As such they are vital to effective implementation of the scientific process.

 

Comparable statements (opinions) can be found in each of the ten papers, with one exception. This was a review paper in which the diversity of opinions expressed by reseaechers was captured by the reviewer describing that diveristy of opinion.

 

So, Sam, on what do you still maintain that opinion has no place in the scientific method when, at least in this sample - randomly chosen - it is demonstrably important?

 

The amount of dust present is the equivalent of a large, > 110 km radius asteroid, implying the participation of a large parent body or bodies sourcing the observed dust; this sourcing could have been caused by collisions in an asteroid belt.

The combination of EUV heating and ionization combined with turbulent mixing and heating in the wind-induced shear layer may provide the high gas temperature (& 3000 K), high electron abundances, and high atomic O abundances needed to explain the [O I] luminosities. Further work is needed in this area.

Some of the input parameters such as f or epsilon could be a factor of a few smaller than the adopted values, lowering accordingly MMC2 (60Fe). The 60Fe content of the ESS might however be a factor of 3 smaller than the one we adopted.

Sources for the quotations and for the other seven sampled papers can be provided upon request.

[SamBridge]

 

.

I'm intrigued by Sam's continuing view that opinions have no place in science. So I took a look at the conclusions of ten papers selected in reverse chronological order from a set I had been recently exploring. Here are a selection of extracts from those papers that seem to me represent opinions. These opinions reflect interpretations of the significance of the data, or opinions as to what input values should be used in modelling. Such opinions inform the possible trajectories of future research. As such they are vital to effective implementation of the scientific process.

 

Comparable statements (opinions) can be found in each of the ten papers, with one exception. This was a review paper in which the diversity of opinions expressed by reseaechers was captured by the reviewer describing that diveristy of opinion.

 

So, Sam, on what do you still maintain that opinion has no place in the scientific method when, at least in this sample - randomly chosen - it is demonstrably important?

 

The amount of dust present is the equivalent of a large, > 110 km radius asteroid, implying the participation of a large parent body or bodies sourcing the observed dust; this sourcing could have been caused by collisions in an asteroid belt.

The combination of EUV heating and ionization combined with turbulent mixing and heating in the wind-induced shear layer may provide the high gas temperature (& 3000 K), high electron abundances, and high atomic O abundances needed to explain the [O I] luminosities. Further work is needed in this area.

Some of the input parameters such as f or epsilon could be a factor of a few smaller than the adopted values, lowering accordingly MMC2 (60Fe). The 60Fe content of the ESS might however be a factor of 3 smaller than the one we adopted.

Sources for the quotations and for the other seven sampled papers can be provided upon request.

I wouldn't consider the things you presented as "opinions", or at least most of them, I would consider them almost like theories, they are hypotheses based off of the evidence from an experiment, which seem to have logical correlations to the results, I suppose there is some room for mixing and matching, but an opinion is more like something you "feel" is right, not a logical statement directly based off of evidence from an experiment.

Things like "Further work is needed in this area" isn't exactly an opinion, if you do not have enough experimental data to confirm something, then that's that, it's not a question, you don't have enough data to formulate a likely pattern and no other opinionated statement can change that.

See, an opinion you can change your mind about at will, but this is not true of experimental data. I can randomly say "I like this type of ice cream" then a few seconds later say "Now I don't like this type of ice cream".

 

However, he cannot just randomly say "I don't have enough data" and then say "I do have enough data" according to his knowledge unless he his lying about one of them. If at the time of his knowledge there wasn't enough data and he missed something, that's not an opinion, that's just the relative amount of information he has.

If it is possible to provide higher gas temperatures and there is not a scientific experiment that denies that, then that's that, no matter what even if he wants to change his mind opionatedly, that correlation that "it is possible" still exists according to his knowledge.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SamBridge

[CaptainPanic]

In a different thread, I just wrote something about opinions in science. In addition to what Ophiolite wrote, I think there are a lot more things in science which are based on opinions. Instead of writing the same thing again, I'll just link to it (here, in the 3rd paragraph).

 

And that's fine, I agree certain physics is just common knowledge, and I didn't say experts generally don't cite sources, but just trying to push for the 100% rather than the 80.

 

I speak for myself when I say that I definitely would quit SFN if we would change our policy to enforce having to back up everything all the time.
Our policy right now is that everyone is required to backup something with a reference if requested. And if someone refuses to provide a reference, moderators can take further action. But generally speaking, people will back up something if requested.

It is a bit of a non-issue, if you ask me. Certainly doesn't require new rules.

 

Well if you are not efficient enough answer complex mathematics in less than an hour or even half an hour I could see that, but you could still say "here's the formula, now solve for the variable", but I still think some problems could get worked out, and then why not have experts who can solve them fast or now how to?

 

Again: time and motivation.

 

Well depending on your degree you can make a pretty good living and definitely do more field work, but anyway if you truly care about science you will follow it through even when it get's boring.

 

You describe how I act at my work. At my work, I will continue and follow it even when it gets boring. But SFN is my entertainment, similar to watching a movie on the tv. If I lose interest, I switch channels.
But I do sometimes grab a book to look something up for SFN. But I get to choose what I follow up on, and what I ignore. And nothing will change that.

[swansont]

… but also need to display a level of maturity such as that they never put in their personal opinion or emotions except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

 

Do you have some examples of this happening? I think there's some confusion on what constitutes opinion in this context. I'd like to see concrete examples. (If there aren't any, then is there any problem to fix?)

[Ophiolite]

I thank Sam for his response. It seems to me that he is failing to recognise the distinction made by most involved in science between opinion and informed opinion.

 

Here is an opinion. It's one of mine. I doubt the Big Bang theory is correct. I base this on philosophical grounds and an inherent tendency to be diasgreaable.

 

Here is an informed opinion. It's another one of mine. The Big Bang Theory provides by far the best explanation of a wide variety of observations and theoretical deductions we currently have available to us. No other competing hypothesis can approach it for solidity, plausibility and multiply sourced validation.

 

The examples I gave in my previous post are informed opinions arrived at by the authors of those papers. I am reasonably confident (an informed opinion) that I could find research papers that examined the same range of data yet reached different conclusions, thus rendering those conclusions, well informed as they were, as opinions.

 

As an aside I won't seek out contrary papers I refer to, for the reasons eloquently expressed by Captain Panic: I can't be bothered.

[SamBridge]

I thank Sam for his response. It seems to me that he is failing to recognise the distinction made by most involved in science between opinion and informed opinion.

 

Here is an opinion. It's one of mine. I doubt the Big Bang theory is correct. I base this on philosophical grounds and an inherent tendency to be diasgreaable.

 

Here is an informed opinion. It's another one of mine. The Big Bang Theory provides by far the best explanation of a wide variety of observations and theoretical deductions we currently have available to us. No other competing hypothesis can approach it for solidity, plausibility and multiply sourced validation.

 

The examples I gave in my previous post are informed opinions arrived at by the authors of those papers. I am reasonably confident (an informed opinion) that I could find research papers that examined the same range of data yet reached different conclusions, thus rendering those conclusions, well informed as they were, as opinions.

 

As an aside I won't seek out contrary papers I refer to, for the reasons eloquently expressed by Captain Panic: I can't be bothered.

Just because there's more than one possibility doesn't mean those possibilities themselves are opinions. If It is a possibility you assume is happening or to be true when it has not been proven to be the case or lacks much evidence, then that assumption is your opinion. It is not an opinion however if you merely state those things are possible based on your experimental evidence. It is the assumption of it's correctness or incorrectness that is your opinion and not the possibility itself. Of course, there all sots of opinions that are involved in the scientific field, but in actual experiments when do you just shove your opinion in? That would defeat the purpose of doing a scientific experiment if you could just shove your opinion in wherever you wanted. After the experiment if your debating what the results mean for other things or if you don't know why they are caused I could see how a conclusion could be related to creating an opinion in that context.

 

 

Do you have some examples of this happening? I think there's some confusion on what constitutes opinion in this context. I'd like to see concrete examples. (If there aren't any, then is there any problem to fix?)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72047-gauge-symmetry-and-conservation/ post #2

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/ post #4

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry725728 #127 #122

You know I'm not like trying to say they are wrong or anything, but there's some evidence at least.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

Just because there's more than one possibility doesn't mean those possibilities themselves are opinions. If It is a possibility you assume is happening or to be true when it has not been proven to be the case or lacks much evidence, then that assumption is your opinion. It is not an opinion however if you merely state those things are possible based on your experimental evidence. It is the assumption of it's correctness or incorrectness that is your opinion and not the possibility itself. Of course, there all sots of opinions that are involved in the scientific field, but in actual experiments when do you just shove your opinion in? That would defeat the purpose of doing a scientific experiment if you could just shove your opinion in wherever you wanted. After the experiment if your debating what the results mean for other things or if you don't know why they are caused I could see how a conclusion could be related to creating an opinion in that context.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72047-gauge-symmetry-and-conservation/ post #2

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/ post #4

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry725728 #127 #122

You know I'm not like trying to say they are wrong or anything, but there's some evidence at least.

 

Could you post actual links to the offending posts - you can get a link for the individual post by right clicking the number of the post in the top right hand corner; not all of us see the same post numbers (I know it is a silly situation).

 

And I love the fact that I am now a maths expert whose opinion must now be vetted and referenced - and in such fine company as AJB and John Cuthber. Amazingly in that thread on irrationals there are real experts correcting each other; BigNose thought one thing, I commented and voiced an opinion that he might not be right (he is the expert so I was not sure enough to contradict him), and DH gave the link that showed we were both wrong. That's the whole point of discussion fora - if Bignose hadn't commented, neither would I; and you, I, and most of the forum would not have known about Gelfond-Schnieder theorem thanks to DH.