New discussion area? (split from Heisenberg principle)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Methinks Someone is about to say something rather PROFOUND any moment.

.

 

Memo ( Comment )

 

Our colleague from Poland said something profound but he seems to have been shot out of the water , which I think is a shame, as he was proposing his ideas ( all be it a bit different , namely , multiply Quark nominal charge X 3 ) in the Section of the Forum set up for such discussions. Or at least Latterly he was. I really do think it would be kinder and more friendly , and even more productive , if there was a Physics forum set up in the main Physics Body to undertake meaningful discussion which allows for a little more flexibility of thought,( one that could flow a bit , by exploratory discussion ) without being immediately banished to the Speculations section , OUTSIDE of physics and next to the TRASH BIN .

 

This is a little humiliating , confrontational and off putting .

 

After all there is so much Unknown in Physics at the moment we could do with all the Bright Ideas we can muster.

.

 

Perhaps this Memo (comment) wants moving to an internal memo. But i am not sure how to do that !

.

.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Perhaps this Memo (comment) wants moving to an internal memo. But i am not sure how to do that !

 

!

Moderator Note

Split

[michel123456]

Yeap. I repeatedly complained about the position of the Speculations Forum. As far as I have understood, it is not an error. It is intentionally put near the waste basket.

[swansont]

Memo ( Comment )

 

Our colleague from Poland said something profound but he seems to have been shot out of the water , which I think is a shame, as he was proposing his ideas ( all be it a bit different , namely , multiply Quark nominal charge X 3 ) in the Section of the Forum set up for such discussions. Or at least Latterly he was. I really do think it would be kinder and more friendly , and even more productive , if there was a Physics forum set up in the main Physics Body to undertake meaningful discussion which allows for a little more flexibility of thought,( one that could flow a bit , by exploratory discussion ) without being immediately banished to the Speculations section , OUTSIDE of physics and next to the TRASH BIN .

Shot out of the water, yes, but how do you mean that? Showing that the proposal conflicts with observations? Or the fact that it was moved?

 

The setup of the subforums is with the idea that the discussion will be centered on physics that has been accepted via being tested in a falsifiable way, and the idea doesn't qualify. It was "banished" to speculations in the same manner that a political discussion posted anywhere else on the forums is "banished" to the politics section, i.e. it is in the most appropriate section for the discussion.

This is a little humiliating , confrontational and off putting .

Most new ideas are wrong. If one wants to do science, one has to get past this being a problem.

After all there is so much Unknown in Physics at the moment we could do with all the Bright Ideas we can muster.

Ideas that conflict with observation cannot be termed "bright"

 

___

 

I'm not the only moderator who moves threads and posts around, so details will vary, but it basically boils down to this: if the poster is proposing a new theory of some sort, it's going to be put in speculations if it is lacking in one of the many ways that are discussed here

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Shot out of the water, yes, but how do you mean that? Showing that the proposal conflicts with observations? Or the fact that it was moved?

 

The setup of the subforums is with the idea that the discussion will be centered on physics that has been accepted via being tested in a falsifiable way, and the idea doesn't qualify. It was "banished" to speculations in the same manner that a political discussion posted anywhere else on the forums is "banished" to the politics section, i.e. it is in the most appropriate section for the discussion.

 

Most new ideas are wrong. If one wants to do science, one has to get past this being a problem.

 

Ideas that conflict with observation cannot be termed "bright"

 

___

 

I'm not the only moderator who moves threads and posts around, so details will vary, but it basically boils down to this: if the poster is proposing a new theory of some sort, it's going to be put in speculations if it is lacking in one of the many ways that are discussed here

 

Swansont I do NOT have any major criticism, of the way you are handling things ! Apart from my post on " something from nothing" being put in the trash can today which was a bit uncalled for , and an example of ' being shot out of the water' which I find a bit confrontational ( but that was Phi for all ). Incidentally my post was a theory thought up over a period of years and has in fact partly also surfaced with other scientific commentators. So I would appreciate it being re- installed. Thank you in anticipation.

 

As regards my comments with our Polish Colleague , I was one of the first to answer his proposal in the main Physics forum . I gently warned him that he would probably be moved to speculations and not to be alarmed. Despite that and several PM to him not to be discouraged he took his banishment pretty hard for a time. I persuaded him to proceed PM . I was pleased the way you took on his challenge and in fact looked forward to following the case. You got a little blunt toward the end. But I suppose you can be forgiven that, as it was obvious you had had enough. No I thought you handled it fine.

 

However , not pointing any particular fingers, I do think, and others have remarked that having, what to their owners is often (not always) a serious idea, theory , or hypothesis kicked around with a certain amount of disrespect, banished to something with the name Speculations, next door to the trash bin , is a somewhat undignified approach. Sincere scientifically orientated individuals , who have had the courage to offer their ideas publicly , I believe deserve more respect.

 

O.K. So with one of my theories I would expect to be cross examined, asked for examples, arguments , explanations etc etc, and it might get a bit heated at times. That's fine. But I think keeping things up at a 'gentlemen ' level would not go amiss.

 

You seem to have dealt with me in a gentlemen way.

 

But, I think what would go down well over this speculation idea would be to A) elevate the title from speculations to " Science Debates". B) put it right up there in the main science group Physics, Biology Chemistry etc Or maybe a Whole Blue Section marked Debates after Sciences but before Philosophy (,By all means mark it up as still being in the discussion mode Gov health warning ) C) DONT have a trash can nearby. By all means have one at the end or there abouts. D) Welcome new ideas, debate them as if you were sitting with the stoic philosophers on top of the Acropolis in Athens Greece in the sun , looking like Aristotle or Socrates. Thesis and Anti thesis .

 

I am trying to be positive. Yes there will be some you have to bin ban shoot out of the water, but there are a lot of sincere science orientated individuals who I believe would rise to such an opportunity to discuss with some higher caliber scientists as you have in your membership. I do hope I havn't spouted off too much . Constructive criticism !

Edited February 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

Apart from my post on " something from nothing" being put in the trash can today which was a bit uncalled for , and an example of ' being shot out of the water' which I find a bit confrontational ( but that was Phi for all ).

 

Your post was hijacking someone else's thread, which I explained quite clearly in my modnote. We try to discuss one topic at a time. Your speculative ideas should be in their own thread.

 

Ordinarily, the staff hides posts like that (we never delete anything). However, after a conversation with michel123456, it was suggested that putting hijacking threads in the Trash Can offered a bit more transparency for the process, so this was the first time I've done this. Apparently, do AND don't = damned.

 

Incidentally my post was a theory thought up over a period of years and has in fact partly also surfaced with other scientific commentators. So I would appreciate it being re- installed. Thank you in anticipation.

 

I'm not putting it back in the other thread. I think it's been made the OP of its own thread in Speculations.

[ACG52]

It sounds like Mike's biggest problem with Speculations is where on the menu it appears.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Your post was hijacking someone else's thread, which I explained quite clearly in my modnote. We try to discuss one topic at a time. Your speculative ideas should be in their own thread.

 

Ordinarily, the staff hides posts like that (we never delete anything). However, after a conversation with michel123456, it was suggested that putting hijacking threads in the Trash Can offered a bit more transparency for the process, so this was the first time I've done this. Apparently, do AND don't = damned.

 

 

I'm not putting it back in the other thread. I think it's been made the OP of its own thread in Speculations.

 

Thanks. I appreciate you have your job to do.

[michel123456]

It sounds like Mike's biggest problem with Speculations is where on the menu it appears.

That's my problem too.

[swansont]

So it's more respectful if the trash can is next to Religion or Politics?

However , not pointing any particular fingers, I do think, and others have remarked that having, what to their owners is often (not always) a serious idea, theory , or hypothesis kicked around with a certain amount of disrespect, banished to something with the name Speculations, next door to the trash bin , is a somewhat undignified approach. Sincere scientifically orientated individuals , who have had the courage to offer their ideas publicly , I believe deserve more respect.

Asking questions to see where the holes are in a proposal is not a matter of respect or disrespect. It's how one checks the validity of the proposal. As for the name, the internets tells me this

guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

Sounds about right to me. Posts in speculations generally lack the structure of a mathematical model, truly testable predictions, and are skimpy on scientific evidence. In addition, the people whose posts are moved there generally run away from challenges to line their idea up with existing observations [/size]

O.K. So with one of my theories I would expect to be cross examined, asked for examples, arguments , explanations etc etc, and it might get a bit heated at times. That's fine. But I think keeping things up at a 'gentlemen ' level would not go amiss.

I vow to wear my monocle when challenging people in speculations and increase my use of balderdash and codswallop (my use of which, I will note, are already nonzero)

You seem to have dealt with me in a gentlemen way.

But, I think what would go down well over this speculation idea would be to A) elevate the title from speculations to " Science Debates". B) put it right up there in the main science group Physics, Biology Chemistry etc Or maybe a Whole Blue Section marked Debates after Sciences but before Philosophy (,By all means mark it up as still being in the discussion mode Gov health warning ) C) DONT have a trash can nearby. By all means have one at the end or there abouts. D) Welcome new ideas, debate them as if you were sitting with the stoic philosophers on top of the Acropolis in Athens Greece in the sun , looking like Aristotle or Socrates. Thesis and Anti thesis .

The issue I have with this is that historically they have NOT been science debates. They are often self-indulgent crap with a decent dose of megalomania which turn into an evasion-fest.

A real scientific exchange goes something like this (without anyone looking like Aristotle or Socrates):

A: Why don't we just equalize the magnetic field gradient so it's the same in all three directions?
B: You can't. The divergence of B is zero
A: Oh, right. Maxwell's equations.

An exchange on speculations is more like this

A: So what I do here is make the magnetic field gradient the same in all three directions
B: You can't. The divergence of B is zero
A: Gaahh! Math! (or) That's dogma perpetuated by the high priests of science (or) I'm being persecuted like Galileo, so I know I'm right. Stop with the personal attacks!

IOW, the biggest impediment to re-labeling the section science debates is the behavior of basically everyone who has ever had a thread there.

[Phi for All]

IOW, the biggest impediment to re-labeling the section science debates is the behavior of basically everyone who has ever had a thread there.

 

We've renamed, we've changed the rules, we've repositioned, we've made procedural changes, and all of it based on critiques we've received from the membership. What we've learned from all this is that every change only mollifies a particular group of speculators for a short time, and then a new group arrives with fresh criticisms that are counter to what the last group found objectionable.

 

At a certain point, it becomes obvious that it's not the process that's flawed, but rather that most speculators don't like to be corrected at all. This is usually supported by the assertions that are made ("This theory is so simple it MUST be true"). Making conclusions before you've explained your idea is not a good way to present them to people familiar with reasoned argument.

 

I'm not sure that a more "flexible" speculative approach would be good for anyone. It sounds like it would simply be used to leap over some early fundamental errors and try to draw conclusions based on shaky ground. How does that honestly help anyone? Pages of discussion wasted because we wanted to be more flexible and allow early mistakes to go unchallenged. Who are we trying to please with that scenario?

[Spyman]

So it's more respectful if the trash can is next to Religion or Politics?

To be fair, the Trash Can contains all kinds of crap from lots of subforums and even though most of them are likely from Speculations, there is no real need for Speculations to hold all the trash and if it would make Speculations to a more attractive and respected subforum then the Trash Can could be moved out of there to somewhere else, like beside The Sandbox under Suggestions, Comments and Support or have its own location all the way at the bottom.

 

Also, if it would help people feel better about Speculations it could possibly be moved up to the top in Other Topics above The Lounge and other subforums there. I don't think anyone will complain that Politics is located to close to the Trash Can if Politics and Speculations should switch locations, but it would eliminate complaints that Speculations is placed next to the waste basket.

 

However, since this site is intended as a *science* forum and not a *speculations* forum, I think it is obvious that mainstream science should be located above other topics and categories like speculations.

 

 

The issue I have with this is that historically they have NOT been science debates. They are often self-indulgent crap with a decent dose of megalomania which turn into an evasion-fest.

This I strongly agree with. I think it is very important that speculations are clearly separated from established science so that people coming here to learn don't have any problem discerning facts from fiction, thus Speculations should not be named with something that can cause confusion with any category of mainstream science or be located under the same main forum which could give it a false credibility.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So it's more respectful if the trash can is next to Religion or Politics?

 

Asking questions to see where the holes are in a proposal

 

 

I vow to wear my monocle when challenging people in speculations and increase my use of balderdash and codswallop (my use of which, I will note, are already nonzero)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sciences

 

Physics

 

Chemistry

 

Biology

 

etc

 

etc

 

 

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

HYPOTHESES in Science (As yet not proven ) for proposal , Debate, discussion .

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Bla

Bla

Bla

 

Philosophy and Religion

 

Bla

 

Bla

 

Bla

 

 

 

Other

Bla

Bla

Bla

Bla

Bla

Bla

TRASH CAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------end---------------------------------------------------

 

 

. How about this as a suggestion ?

 

 

. ?

 

Also Swansont said

 

 

The issue I have with this is that historically they have NOT been science debates. They are often self-indulgent crap with a decent dose of megalomania which turn into an evasion-fest.

the biggest impediment to re-labeling the section science debates is the behavior of basically everyone who has ever had a thread there

Surely you can deal with this by your normal moderation process.

 

However allowing the freedom to discuss subjects as I have remarked in " maths post "

 

namely:-

 

 

Mike Smith said :-

This is the point I am trying to make in my thread " should Maths pioneer .........or observation, hypothesis...etc"

Maths is one of the tools, a very precise tool such as a micrometer to an engineer, but if what is required is to blast a hole through a mountainside , a well placed set of dynamite would be a more suitable tool than a micrometer, which in these circumstances would be useless.

Such might be the case with breaking new ground in science when 90% of the universe is not understood what with dark matter and dark energy. We may need to dynamite our way through scientific dogma to get to the other side of these mountainous 'ignorance ' of understanding. , break new ground, find new concepts , then hand the framework of ideas to the mathematicians with their micrometers to put some detailed flesh on the NEW yes CRUDE THESIS. Stand aside for a moment and let the roughneck dynamite scientists in for a moment . Stand back a little and give them room.

I am here proposing a clearly marked BLUE section Identified as a discussion and debate forum for NEW, Blue sky style ideas, which may be freely discussed , yet able to be challenged by others who have difficulties with coming to terms with these ideas. It can be noted that these ideas are as yet unproven and only of "work in progress" status.

I think to demand that only 'papers to be quoted' and only Maths to be used as a test. would be to cramp the style of ambitious thinking. The style you say is necessary for PHD style research.

Keep Smiling MS

 

We've renamed, we've changed the rules, we've repositioned, we've made procedural changes, and all of it based on critiques we've received from the membership. What we've learned from all this is that every change only mollifies a particular group of speculators for a short time, and then a new group arrives with fresh criticisms that are counter to what the last group found objectionable.

 

At a certain point, it becomes obvious that it's not the process that's flawed, but rather that most speculators don't like to be corrected at all. This is usually supported by the assertions that are made ("This theory is so simple it MUST be true"). Making conclusions before you've explained your idea is not a good way to present them to people familiar with reasoned argument.

 

I'm not sure that a more "flexible" speculative approach would be good for anyone. It sounds like it would simply be used to leap over some early fundamental errors and try to draw conclusions based on shaky ground. How does that honestly help anyone? Pages of discussion wasted because we wanted to be more flexible and allow early mistakes to go unchallenged. Who are we trying to please with that scenario?

 

Thanks for even considering it ! Please see my response to Swansont below. I have come up with what I feel may be a worthwhile solution . which dignifies discussion yet leaves the trash can for those that behave really badly , down at the bottom in the badlands, in the darkness, where wild beasts roam , and every creeping thing.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ACG52]

My suggestion is that we leave it just like it is.

[swansont]

Surely you can deal with this by your normal moderation process.

 

We do. But you are currently complaining about that process.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We do. But you are currently complaining about that process.

 

I am not sure I want to be seen as a complainer. I am making a suggestion, to dignify discussion of members ideas which are not yet fully ironed out. This is prompted by a number of members feeling they were handled a bit roughly. I agree you have to be swift to handle invasive and clearly destructive, disruptive posts. But those that are genuine , need not be treated in the same way. However this is offered only as a suggestion.

[swansont]

If one wished to float a new idea, one cannot hold that disagreement or contradiction are to be disallowed or frowned upon. What you call rough treatment I call rigor. It's a waste of everyone's time if the proponent of some new idea is not made to demonstrate that his or her idea agrees with what we have already observed, or is otherwise on sound footing.

The "rough" treatment could be avoided if their presentations already covered this, but that never seems to be the case.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If one wished to float a new idea, one cannot hold that disagreement or contradiction are to be disallowed or frowned upon. What you call rough treatment I call rigor. It's a waste of everyone's time if the proponent of some new idea is not made to demonstrate that his or her idea agrees with what we have already observed, or is otherwise on sound footing.

The "rough" treatment could be avoided if their presentations already covered this, but that never seems to be the case.

 

Yes. Well I see what you are saying, and mainly agree in principle. I still stand by my suggestion to dignify the " speculation- Trash can set up" is not a dignified presentation, it looks more like a 'TV show' style of setting. However se-la-vie ( that's life if that's how you spell it )