Rules of moderation?

[kristalris]

As a science forum stating to have rules I'm somewhat baffled in the utterly arbitrary way they are applied. Now rule number ten states that you are allowed to discuss non main stream issues in the speculation forum as long as you are on topic and adhere to logic as other rules state.

 

Now first of all let me point out that there is such a thing as the science of justice. The rules of this go back a bit.

 

On the other hand because moderators do it voluntarily it must remain fun for them as of course for all others on the forum. There is however a tension between wanting to portray a scientific posture on the one and having fun on the other.

 

As the proud owner of two warning points, that are both seriously debatable, which I won't go into here, other than stating that it is the reason to bother to start this thread, I'll provide some warning points of a different fashion:

 

A proposition to clarify what is to be understood by thread hijacking: non mainstream positions held outside the speculation or philosophical fora in the thread of another after informal warning posted in the thread by a moderator or the thread starter backed by the moderator are to be considered thread hijacking if it continues.

 

The reason why I include philosophy is that mainstream philosophy is a contradiction in terms as a norm for the act of performing philosophy other than providing a history of thoughts in philosophy.

 

The reason why I include speculation is not only formal as it is part of the present rules though clearly more strictly interpreted than is practical. If you interpret the rules the way I propose you alleviate the contradiction of what mainstream speculation should entail. It then becomes more self regulatory. An etiquette in which the thread owner can kindly request someone to continue elsewhere. Of course it is then subsequently to the moderator to back the informal warning or act by splitting etc..

 

The problems I come across are blatant infringements of logic that are acceptable because deemed mainstream science. This in lieu of the fact that the rules state that fallacies, i.e. illogical reasoning is prohibited. Bit of a problem then if you claim to detect mainstream fallacies now isn't it? The "what you feel to be logic" is an implicit fallacy if indeed no illogical reasoning was committed. Subsequently the dodging of issues is also forbidden by the rules as I understand them, yet permissible if it is deemed mainstream. Which again is incomprehensible.

 

Then the "off topic" issue: that is something that is especially a priori to the thread owner IMO. Etiquette should entail that the thread owner gives proper informal warning deeming a post not supportive to the thread.

 

Further more in general a short opinion asked and given on issues of on or off topic or thread hijack or mainstream vs logic questions is in order: Audi alteram partem please.

 

So, mainstream science everywhere okay except in the two mentioned fora because in science mainstream science needs to be checked in a way that provides sufficient leeway in order to facilitate that. That is if you want a true scientific forum.

 

[CaptainPanic]

The problems I come across are blatant infringements of logic that are acceptable because deemed mainstream science. This in lieu of the fact that the rules state that fallacies, i.e. illogical reasoning is prohibited.

 

Please use the report button at the bottom of each post if you find a post that breaks the rules.

 

The fact that the moderators did not take action against a particular post does NOT mean that we reviewed it, and think it belongs on our forum. We may simply not have read it at all.

 

Bit of a problem then if you claim to detect mainstream fallacies now isn't it? The "what you feel to be logic" is an implicit fallacy if indeed no illogical reasoning was committed. Subsequently the dodging of issues is also forbidden by the rules as I understand them, yet permissible if it is deemed mainstream. Which again is incomprehensible.

 

We do not claim that we will detect fallacies. A lot of the moderator-actions are initiated by other members who 'detected' it for us. We review and take action.

 

Anyway, please provide examples. For the discussion here (if you wish to continue), it may be useful to have a set of examples.

 

Also, I repeat, if you spot a fallacy, please report it.

 

Then the "off topic" issue: that is something that is especially a priori to the thread owner IMO. Etiquette should entail that the thread owner gives proper informal warning deeming a post not supportive to the thread.

 

In principle I would not object to this suggestion, but there is a practical issue: not all members visit the forum often enough to do a sort of moderation on their own threads. So, in certain cases, we would have to moderate, and in some cases we could leave it. If forum software would keep track of something like that, I'd be all for it. But it can't, and to keep moderation fun and practical, I think we'd better leave things as they are.

[imatfaal]

I will not give a blow by blow rebuttal like CaptP has done (although the system won't let me +rep any posts at present) - but I will make a few comments on moderation and the staff that perform that duty here. Most of the criticisms of moderation here tend to assume one of two extreme points of view; either that the staff act entirely as self-serving individuals or that all actions are the result of some sort of amorphous group-think juggernaut - the reality is of course that we are a disparate and argumentative group of lovers of science.

 

Practically every moderation of any note is the cause and/or the result of discussion - and whilst staff debates are friendly - there are strongly argued disagreements on both individual cases and long term strategies. It's not anonymous - but it is analogous to peer-review; every major action we take as moderators is proposed, debated, modified, and agreed upon before execution. These actions are also open to criticism from members and from other staff and if you respect your fellow members you take this on board.

 

And on your juridical asides -

1. another principle of natural justice is nemo iudex in sua causa which is why we dont moderate threads we are tangled up in - and why your judgment or your own warning points might not be valid
2. if the other party you claim we should listen to is spouting already rebutted nonsense that goes against objectively verifiable evidence there is little point
3. this is science not law - opinions, intepretations, and agreements that a certain arbitrary rule is right are the bedrock of law (whatever any grundnorm advocate might claim); science is the polar opposite, however well respected, patently obvious, logically unchallengable, mathematically tight etc. a theory might be, it live and dies on evidence. There is no duty to be fair, to be just, to give equal weight to both homoeopathy and evidence-based medicine, and to be equally accepting of rigorous evidence and ad hoc justification.

[swansont]

A proposition to clarify what is to be understood by thread hijacking: non mainstream positions held outside the speculation or philosophical fora in the thread of another after informal warning posted in the thread by a moderator or the thread starter backed by the moderator are to be considered thread hijacking if it continues.

The concept of thread hijacking is this: threads exist for the purpose of the discussion of whatever topic the thread starter/original poster (OP) wishes. If your post is such that it changes the discussion from what the OP was talking about to what you want to talk about, you are guilty of attempted hijacking.

 

If you start posting things like "here's what my theory says, as I mention in my thread" then you're almost certainly hijacking the discussion. This shouldn't be too tough to figure out, because it's an explicit example stated in rule 5.

The problems I come across are blatant infringements of logic that are acceptable because deemed mainstream science.

If this is meant to say the mainstream science is itself an example of faulty logic, discuss it in a thread in speculations, and I'm sure people will be happy to tear the argument apart. Otherwise, it's as CP says above.

 

Most infractions of use of logical fallacies are taken care of in the course of discussion, by a response that dismantles the proposal. Repeated use of fallacies as a tactic, rather than as a mistake, is what the rule is used to combat.

 

Then the "off topic" issue: that is something that is especially a priori to the thread owner IMO. Etiquette should entail that the thread owner gives proper informal warning deeming a post not supportive to the thread.

That's not feasible. If the thread starter is asking a question, s/he may not be in a position to evaluate the response and know if it's on-topic or not, or if it's a mainstream response or not; they may just be confused by it. So no, that's not likely to happen.

[ydoaPs]

Practically every moderation of any note is the cause and/or the result of discussion - and whilst staff debates are friendly - there are strongly argued disagreements on both individual cases and long term strategies.

I'm not so sure about friendly; I had to get stitches after the last one

 

But, seriously, imatfaal is right. There's a lot of discussion over any report that's not something like porn or adverts.

As a science forum stating to have rules I'm somewhat baffled in the utterly arbitrary way they are applied.

They're really not. We have set rules (see the link at the bottom of every page) and we apply those rules when violations are reported (and when, in the course of perusing the fora, we run across a violation, the staff reports it for discussion in our hidden areas. We have both a hidden moderator forum and a hidden report center where we discuss violations of rules and trends of violations.

Now rule number ten states that you are allowed to discuss non main stream issues in the speculation forum as long as you are on topic and adhere to logic as other rules state.

Yes, one crackpot theory per thread. The speculation forum is no exception. And it might be even more important to stay on-topic in Speculations, since the speculators typically don't actually know the theories that they're going against. As such, they could interpret the off-topic speculations of another member in their thread as correcting them with mainstream science. That's not a desirable state of affairs.

As the proud owner of two warning points, that are both seriously debatable, which I won't go into here, other than stating that it is the reason to bother to start this thread, I'll provide some warning points of a different fashion:

I did take a look at your warning points just now to see if you've been unjustly attacked, and they're both cut and dry cases of thread hijacking. If you disagree, however, feel free to send a staff member a PM and make your case.

 

The reason why I include philosophy is that mainstream philosophy is a contradiction in terms as a norm for the act of performing philosophy other than providing a history of thoughts in philosophy.

While there is quite a bit of variation among philosophers on some subjects, there is a class of mainstream theories. Logical Positivism, for example, is non-mainstream.

An etiquette in which the thread owner can kindly request someone to continue elsewhere. Of course it is then subsequently to the moderator to back the informal warning or act by splitting etc..

This is already a thing. In fact, I've done that very thing a few times in my years before becoming staff. If you think a poster is off-topic in your thread, you ask them to stay on topic, and they don't, report one of the off-topic posts and we'll take care of it. Actually, if you see any off-topic discussions in a thread, regardless of whether or not you're the OP, please report it. The staff isn't omnipresent, so we need the help of the members to keep the forums in order. Good use of the report function is encouraged, but abuse of the report function is not (do not, for example, report a post because that person disagreed with you).

 

There is, however, often an issue with this approach:

That's not feasible. If the thread starter is asking a question, s/he may not be in a position to evaluate the response and know if it's on-topic or not, or if it's a mainstream response or not; they may just be confused by it. So no, that's not likely to happen.

As swansont points out, the OP is often not knowledgeable enough to know if a response is relevant or mainstream. That's why I said to report it, so we can check it out. If a discussion is off-topic, we'll split it. If it is on-topic, however, we'll put a friendly green modtip explaining why it's on-topic or do such explaining via a PM.

So, mainstream science everywhere okay except in the two mentioned fora because in science mainstream science needs to be checked in a way that provides sufficient leeway in order to facilitate that. That is if you want a true scientific forum.

Mainstream science is in the business of checking itself. That's one of the reasons it's science.

[kristalris]

Due to the elaborate reactions, for which I duly thank you, I'll try to give an excerpt of what is put forward, as I understand it:

 

In the box (i.e. mainstream) governs and should govern out of the box thinking even if the latter is based on all relevant evidence and addresses all questions in a logical way in the philosophy fora and also testable way in speculations; thus in this vision speculation / philosophy should remain in the box.

 

Out of the box thinking may not be communicated other than in the box even if the thread of the other is speculating or asking a question out of the box.

 

It is scientific to patronize. I.e. in the box knows best.

 

The best procedure is that everything that is out of the box is put back in the box after conscientious deliberation in closed chambers without bothering to inquire on the - evidence - concerning the opinion of the thread owner or the suspect of thread high jacking / of being of topic / fallacies for the suspect is of course guilty. The guilty party may of course appeal after publicly been deemed guilty. Which is science because science is Just (or not Just because it's just science? Didn't quite get that one.).

 

There is thus no need to at least provide a temporary position by the moderator after a quick scan of the issue, in order to inquire about motives in order to induce self moderation and a wise and fully informed decision.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

[krash661]

are you the same,

 

kristalris

 

from,

 

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=154755]http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=154755]http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showuser=154755

 

edit- and also how do i disable the auto url code ?

 

it continues to make any word i type a link, after copying and posting a link,

it's kind of annoying.

Edited April 18, 2013 by krash661

[swansont]

Due to the elaborate reactions, for which I duly thank you, I'll try to give an excerpt of what is put forward, as I understand it:

 

In the box (i.e. mainstream) governs and should govern out of the box thinking even if the latter is based on all relevant evidence and addresses all questions in a logical way in the philosophy fora and also testable way in speculations; thus in this vision speculation / philosophy should remain in the box.

 

Out of the box thinking may not be communicated other than in the box even if the thread of the other is speculating or asking a question out of the box.

 

It is scientific to patronize. I.e. in the box knows best.

 

The best procedure is that everything that is out of the box is put back in the box after conscientious deliberation in closed chambers without bothering to inquire on the - evidence - concerning the opinion of the thread owner or the suspect of thread high jacking / of being of topic / fallacies for the suspect is of course guilty. The guilty party may of course appeal after publicly been deemed guilty. Which is science because science is Just (or not Just because it's just science? Didn't quite get that one.).

 

There is thus no need to at least provide a temporary position by the moderator after a quick scan of the issue, in order to inquire about motives in order to induce self moderation and a wise and fully informed decision.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

 

 

Last question first: probably not, by what you said.

 

 

I don't know where "science is Just" comes from, but that's not the rationale for enforcing the rules. We have rules and enforce them to facilitate discussion and in attempt to minimize disruption. It works. Not enforcing the rules doesn't work, as can be seen in any cesspit of a site that doesn't moderate commentary. We try to be fair, but there's no formula for that.

 

There is no "in the box" thinking governing "out of the box" thinking. You are free to think outside the box, but this is a science site so you are compelled to follow the rules of science. People who ask questions about science deserve to hear the best answer, so non-mainstream answers are not permitted in the science sections. Non-mainstream science is, by definition, not the best answer, because (at the very least) it is lacking in evidentiary support (it may not just lack evidence, but blatantly contradict experiment, too)

 

People who post in speculations deserve to have that thread for their discussion, without the annoyance of other people interrupting them to discuss their theory. So, unless the thread topic states otherwise, you cannot post your pet theory in someone else's thread. The discussion in the thread is supposed to focus on two things: the OP presenting their model, with predictions and/or supporting evidence, and anyone who wishes to try and debunk it, presenting existing results or pointing out ramifications of the model, which contradict existing results.

 

You could even discuss whether the protocols of science are valid, but would have to use mainstream science as examples for that. What you don't get to do is throw out both mainstream theory and mainstream protocol at the same time. Then you get the "UFOs exist and the fact that we can't detect them is proof" nonsense we had recently. It's a science site: we discuss science, and that defines the parameters of discussion. If you want to discuss things that are not science, well, you know where the door is.

[kristalris]

Last question first: probably not, by what you said.

 

 

I don't know where "science is Just" comes from, but that's not the rationale for enforcing the rules. We have rules and enforce them to facilitate discussion and in attempt to minimize disruption. It works. Not enforcing the rules doesn't work, as can be seen in any cesspit of a site that doesn't moderate commentary. We try to be fair, but there's no formula for that.

 

Ah, well there is a formula for that, I gave it to you. It works. Traces back to Roman law. To be fair. To facilitate order in a Just and practical way. I said science is Just or not Just because it's science. You left out the latter I catered both (i.e. all) positions . That ball is in your court then. You say you try to be fair. Well then be Just, apply the formula. If you have problems in understanding how the formula works, ask the experts and inquire, or just do what is forcefully recommended: first give a temporary position in order to inquire, then act in an informed i.e. wise way. (As rule of thumb of course, always be wise.)

 

There is no "in the box" thinking governing "out of the box" thinking. You are free to think outside the box, but this is a science site so you are compelled to follow the rules of science.

The rules of science as you apply them logically makes that in the box thinking governs out of the box thinking. (If you were only talking about all fora except the philosophical and speculative fora I would agree with you, but you include these.)

 

The rules of science facilitates out of the box thinking in order to counter and guard against this (at least it states this even mainstream as a goal, as do you): so logically not only all evidence but also allowing to address all relevant questions. You ignore the latter. The latter governs the scope of a topic.

 

People who ask questions about science deserve to hear the best answer, so non-mainstream answers are not permitted in the science sections. Non-mainstream science is, by definition, not the best answer, because (at the very least) it is lacking in evidentiary support (it may not just lack evidence, but blatantly contradict experiment, too)

​This is of topic, because I'm only talking about philosophy and speculation fora and you are talking science sections, on which I don't dispute.

People who post in speculations deserve to have that thread for their discussion, without the annoyance of other people interrupting them to discuss their theory.

May those people decide that primarily themselves, or do you feel the need to patronize them? If it's a site for grown ups, I guess you can await the reaction of the thread owner before deciding whether the thread owner should feel annoyed or not? A temporary position of the moderator when the owner is not active will cool down the discussion until a reaction is given by the owner. BTW annoying for whom? The thread owner? Or the passers by who press the report button? The moderators? Now you get a situation in which thread owners are scared that their thread will be closed if they don't comply to what they deem to be mainstream.

 

Could it be that a thread owner likes to discuss an out of the box issue with out of the box thinkers as well, or just with in the box thinkers? As long as is clear from what position something is said, that can't be a problem then. Moderators actively join in discussions to present mainstream science on the topic. No problem there then.

 

So, unless the thread topic states otherwise, you cannot post your pet theory in someone else's thread. The discussion in the thread is supposed to focus on two things: the OP presenting their model, with predictions and/or supporting evidence, and anyone who wishes to try and debunk it, presenting existing results or pointing out ramifications of the model, which contradict existing results.

Well in short then an example: someone opens a thread that gravity might be push. Not seeing that that seemingly simple question has further ramifications, in fact amounting to the question of TOE. I.e. that is then the topic unless the thread owner states otherwise. Furthermore it is an inherent out of the box question. Now if you give only a in the box answer, that will provide a quick end to the discussion.

 

The question whether or not c = max is a central problem on this topic. I thought that entanglement was a prominent example of - evidence - that speeds > c should be possible (might have been wrong, but still). Thus being on topic. And law and behold my trust in mainstream stated observations of science was unfounded. Entanglement hasn't been observed. Again - as I see it now - wrong definition. Entanglement means that changing A causes a change in B over greater distance > c / instantaneous. No such thing. It is simply seeing that a split apple fits like a mold. Not shocking at all. Something like dynamic symmetry in stead of entanglement should be the term used. The irony is, that this pleads against my position that it is gravity push for taking away a strong (extra) point. But it was split off so this insight couldn't be communicated any more. And it can't any more, any topic on the question whether it is push is scientifically closed. For that thread is closed. No more speculation needed on that subject. We know all there is to know on that subject of gravity push or pull, eh? Science?

You could even discuss whether the protocols of science are valid, but would have to use mainstream science as examples for that. What you don't get to do is throw out both mainstream theory and mainstream protocol at the same time. Then you get the "UFOs exist and the fact that we can't detect them is proof" nonsense we had recently. It's a science site: we discuss science, and that defines the parameters of discussion. If you want to discuss things that are not science, well, you know where the door is.

You are mixing up your norms. (As does mainstream science). In speculations / philosophy different norms apply. I gave them. You don't dispute them, but only ignore them. The norm is also for out of the box: ADDRESSING ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS besides adhering to all evidence ( = observations and not mainstream conclusions) and being logical.

Edited April 18, 2013 by kristalris

[CaptainPanic]

Did it occur to you that we are not all part of a giant conspiracy?

 

When most of us were at university, there were no men in black who came and said to us: "You shall defend the mainstream, or else!".

 

Mainstream science just works.

[kristalris]

Did it occur to you that we are not all part of a giant conspiracy?

 

When most of us were at university, there were no men in black who came and said to us: "You shall defend the mainstream, or else!".

 

Mainstream science just works.

Did it occur to you that I'm not saying that you are all part of a giant conspiracy, but that you - according to mainstream psychology as well BTW - all are extremely probably suffering from a whopping confirmation bias as to what proper science entails? This because you infringe on the laws of logic, and when cornered dodge the issue. Want me to prove that to you? I'll ask you some questions and you answer them, or prove my implicit fallacy in the asked question, okay? Do you dare take up that challenge?

 

Further more I don't contest that mainstream science works.And, I'm happy to say I've learnt more from remarks of mainstream scientists like Swantsont on this site than on an other site I've been on much longer.

 

The only thing I contest is that it works best in research questions, i.e. inherent out of the box issues. Simple basic psychology & probabilistic reasoning.

 

And might I add, what I'm stating on proper procedure concerning moderation of a debate is also mainstream science on how to do that as well BTW. Indeed it works. Tried and tested like I said, it goes back to Roman law. You choose to infringe on that, and think it best.

 

(BTW don't panic or else the dikes might break and we both get wet.)

Edited April 19, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Ah, well there is a formula for that, I gave it to you. It works. Traces back to Roman law. To be fair.

 

Is that Fair = wisdom^2 *evenhandedness ? I don;t see where you gave the formula. As in, equation.

 

To facilitate order in a Just and practical way. I said science is Just or not Just because it's science. You left out the latter I catered both (i.e. all) positions . That ball is in your court then. You say you try to be fair. Well then be Just, apply the formula. If you have problems in understanding how the formula works, ask the experts and inquire, or just do what is forcefully recommended: first give a temporary position in order to inquire, then act in an informed i.e. wise way. (As rule of thumb of course, always be wise.)

 

"science is Just or not Just because it's science" is a tautology. Since I obviously misunderstood what you meant, can you explain what you mean by this?

 

 

The rules of science as you apply them logically makes that in the box thinking governs out of the box thinking. (If you were only talking about all fora except the philosophical and speculative fora I would agree with you, but you include these.)

 

No, actually. I was referring to speculations. That's the place where "out of the box" material is discussed, within the rules of science investigation.

 

The rules of science facilitates out of the box thinking in order to counter and guard against this (at least it states this even mainstream as a goal, as do you): so logically not only all evidence but also allowing to address all relevant questions. You ignore the latter. The latter governs the scope of a topic.

 

I don't think I did. There's no restriction on asking relevant questions, and the OP is required to address relevant questions.

 

​

May those people decide that primarily themselves, or do you feel the need to patronize them? If it's a site for grown ups, I guess you can await the reaction of the thread owner before deciding whether the thread owner should feel annoyed or not? A temporary position of the moderator when the owner is not active will cool down the discussion until a reaction is given by the owner. BTW annoying for whom? The thread owner? Or the passers by who press the report button? The moderators?

 

Most people are annoyed when they are interrupted. It's not worth the hassle to try and mold the rules for each thread to the personality of the OP.

 

Now you get a situation in which thread owners are scared that their thread will be closed if they don't comply to what they deem to be mainstream.

 

They should only be scared of thread closure if they don't follow the rules.

 

 

Could it be that a thread owner likes to discuss an out of the box issue with out of the box thinkers as well, or just with in the box thinkers? As long as is clear from what position something is said, that can't be a problem then. Moderators actively join in discussions to present mainstream science on the topic. No problem there then.

 

Not really. This is a science site. Two people discussing alternative "theories" generally skip the science part of the discussion. You are free to discuss that somewhere else.

 

 

Well in short then an example: someone opens a thread that gravity might be push. Not seeing that that seemingly simple question has further ramifications, in fact amounting to the question of TOE. I.e. that is then the topic unless the thread owner states otherwise. Furthermore it is an inherent out of the box question. Now if you give only a in the box answer, that will provide a quick end to the discussion.

 

That's right. It's demonstrably wrong, so once you've demonstrated that, the discussion should be over.

 

 

The question whether or not c = max is a central problem on this topic. I thought that entanglement was a prominent example of - evidence - that speeds > c should be possible (might have been wrong, but still). Thus being on topic. And law and behold my trust in mainstream stated observations of science was unfounded. Entanglement hasn't been observed. Again - as I see it now - wrong definition. Entanglement means that changing A causes a change in B over greater distance > c / instantaneous. No such thing. It is simply seeing that a split apple fits like a mold. Not shocking at all. Something like dynamic symmetry in stead of entanglement should be the term used. The irony is, that this pleads against my position that it is gravity push for taking away a strong (extra) point. But it was split off so this insight couldn't be communicated any more. And it can't any more, any topic on the question whether it is push is scientifically closed. For that thread is closed. No more speculation needed on that subject. We know all there is to know on that subject of gravity push or pull, eh? Science?

 

The thread was closed because of the failure of the OP to defend the idea. The OP is the only one forbidden to open a new thread on the subject. BTW, if you open a thread on it you should know that "Entanglement means that changing A causes a change in B" is an incorrect summary of entanglement.

 

You are mixing up your norms. (As does mainstream science). In speculations / philosophy different norms apply. I gave them. You don't dispute them, but only ignore them. The norm is also for out of the box: ADDRESSING ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS besides adhering to all evidence ( = observations and not mainstream conclusions) and being logical.

 

Bringing up subjects like whether c is max speed, or entanglement, etc. IS NOT ASKING A QUESTION. You are STATING A NEW HYPOTHESIS and that's why it's hijacking.

 

And might I add, what I'm stating on proper procedure concerning moderation of a debate is also mainstream science on how to do that as well BTW. Indeed it works. Tried and tested like I said, it goes back to Roman law. You choose to infringe on that, and think it best.

 

These aren't debates. This is not a forum in which each side tries to establish some point of discussion. This is a site to discuss science (and, to avoid any obtuse commentary: also some peripheral subjects but with somewhat of a discipline and tone that is scientific)

 

The speculations site is not a debate, either. It's where people can present speculative ideas, but, as with all science, they carry the burden of proof for those ideas. The two sides are not on equal footing, as in a debate. Science has a history of success, and we acknowledge that from the start.

[kristalris]

Is that Fair = wisdom^2 *evenhandedness ? I don;t see where you gave the formula. As in, equation.

No mate, it's a formula in words (which you can if you like put into maths, but I wouldn't bother its so simple): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem

 

Do please pay attention to the word "evidence" in this formula.

"science is Just or not Just because it's science" is a tautology. Since I obviously misunderstood what you meant, can you explain what you mean by this?

I mean by this that it is unclear what science states in - your - mind. In my mind science is Just in the way it ventures towards truth because that serves that goal best. I can elaborate why that is, but you seem to hold that the scientific procedure can also be unjust. Logically it can be Just or unjust or both. There is no valid reason why it shouldn't be Just and a lot of reasons why it should be Just. I.e. of course you can further science in an unjust way, yet it is not the best way or desirable way. Or mainstream way for that matter. (Would you want to further t via torture? Guess not, wouldn't be Just now would it.)

No, actually. I was referring to speculations. That's the place where "out of the box" material is discussed, within the rules of science investigation.

Then you are in a logical fix. You want out of the box investigation done within the box. In the box demands that only full blown theories are worth time and effort. So only a fully grown tree is worth the effort, and thus you cut down all small trees. It's a logical fallacy. If you want large trees don't cut down the small ones because they are to small.

I don't think I did. There's no restriction on asking relevant questions, and the OP is required to address relevant questions.

As long as the questions are mainstream then. Further more a question or a statement are in fact the same thing put in a different way. I.e. you can always rephrase a relevant statement into a relevant question. A mere formality.

Most people are annoyed when they are interrupted. It's not worth the hassle to try and mold the rules for each thread to the personality of the OP.

The "most people" rule is a mean that should't apply in this way. See above formula why.

They should only be scared of thread closure if they don't follow the rules.

Problem is they should be scared if they do follow the rules of closure when they adhere to rules of logic and indisputable evidence.

Not really. This is a science site. Two people discussing alternative "theories" generally skip the science part of the discussion. You are free to discuss that somewhere else.

As long as it is logical and evidence based there should be no problem if two non mainstream positions are discussed in speculation or philosophy. Because that is then PER DEFINITION scientific, providing in speculations that the idea is in its core presented in a testable way, or part of a question.

That's right. It's demonstrably wrong, so once you've demonstrated that, the discussion should be over.

In casu you or mainstream science hasn't proven that it is pull. You've only proven that it works brilliantly on a limited question and not on the broad issue posed in the OP. If you state anything different than that mainstream science has no position push or pull on that question, than mainstream science is in error. Mainstream science ignores that issue, thus logically can have no position on that question. Yet you state it does as reason to close the thread, as I understand it.

The thread was closed because of the failure of the OP to defend the idea. The OP is the only one forbidden to open a new thread on the subject. BTW, if you open a thread on it you should know that "Entanglement means that changing A causes a change in B" is an incorrect summary of entanglement.

Well yes and no. I mean the word "entanglement" means like a Vodoo puppet (A) if you stick a pin in it also creates a hole in person B with which it is then in a spooky way entangled. I.e. there must be a link if you use that word. If there is no such bond other than having two parts of a mold like a split apple then mainstream science has yet again used the wrong word to define an observation. It then has nothing to do with speed as such, yet there are scientists according to Wikipedia working on that.

 

You use the word "entanglement" in the way physicists use it on this issue. All I'm saying is, seems again to be the wrong word then seeing what observation you are trying to portray with the word.

Bringing up subjects like whether c is max speed, or entanglement, etc. IS NOT ASKING A QUESTION. You are STATING A NEW HYPOTHESIS and that's why it's hijacking.

See above, that's form. BTW the OP asked a question. Must I answer that with a question then? If I answer that by showing what the question entails and what evidence based logic entails in its easiest form, that is then per definition scientifically correct procedure and might I add not infringing on the rules of the site as the are presented. If I were to point out that it is my theory and thus not mainstream all the better in stead of worse. Otherwise you only allow an in the box treatment on an out of the box question. It will then logically always fail even if it were correct.

These aren't debates. This is not a forum in which each side tries to establish some point of discussion. This is a site to discuss science (and, to avoid any obtuse commentary: also some peripheral subjects but with somewhat of a discipline and tone that is scientific)

If it is evidence based and logical addressing any scientific question even if it is out of the box then there should be no problem, yet there clearly is. And that is what is unscientific. You state extra formal rules and norms that have no bases in furthering science, and only in fact in preventing any out of the box approach even if it adheres to the rules I state in the first sentence.

 

Then you say it works, well that doesn't disprove that what I state works better on a out of the box issue. Which I subsequently can't prove further for want of means to do so. Means that the taxpayers gave to science.So that issue logically should be dealt with on that norm that I reasonably can adhere to. And have done.

You in fact demand near perfection i.e. that a new tree is already full grown. That is unreasonable and thus unscientific.

 

Two plus two isn't six; and apples don't fly upwards because mainstream science say's it does. It is not a democratic affair. Neither is the fact that mainstream yields results in the past prove anything other than a high prior odds of being right. It doesn't give you the posterior odds on any question, because otherwise you are making a fallacy. Prohibited by your own rules.

The speculations site is not a debate, either. It's where people can present speculative ideas, but, as with all science, they carry the burden of proof for those ideas. The two sides are not on equal footing, as in a debate. Science has a history of success, and we acknowledge that from the start.

Indeed prior odds. The proof must be given on the appropriate norm. If you make that norm to be the highest, then you commit a fallacy.

 

GR & QM are the best laws we humans have ever had incorrectly defined as theories on par then with my theory in your words.

Time doesn't slow down the atom clock does. Again wrong mainstream science.

DM & DE we went through that as well. Wrong wording on key issues.

Add to which entanglement also incorrectly worded.

 

Science should be trying to rearrange the pieces (observations) of the puzzle in such a way that the apples no longer fly upwards, that they are doing now with DM and DE etc.. This because apples in science should per definition fall down. I claim to have done that in a testable way. Yet the test is ignored. Now that can't be. Nor can it be that given that I've done that I can't present that as an answer to someones question in speculations. That it isn't mainstream doesn't disprove it. And, might I add the premier scientific tool to be used in such an instance with an inherent extremely broad issue and inherent short-edge of data is verbal logic. It works the quickest and is succinct enough yet also pliable enough to get close enough to an answer in order to do relevant testing in order to require the missing data. You fail to acknowledge this.

 

And even in science you can't ask more than a reasonable burden of proof. I don't have the needed super computer for one. Yet you demand that of me, without supporting in getting time on such a computer. That is unreasonable. So is, denying the possibility to debate the issue on questions of others.

Edited April 19, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

No mate, it's a formula in words (which you can if you like put into maths, but I wouldn't bother its so simple): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem

 

Do please pay attention to the word "evidence" in this formula.

 

If this were a justice system, that might be relevant. We're not. The point is not to have justice, per se, it's for the site to be run smoothly. Out of curiosity, though, what would be the point of having someone be able to respond to the evidence against them — the evidence is what they wrote. Are they going to deny what they wrote? That would be ludicrous — what they wrote is a matter of record. This is not a criminal trial, where we are evaluating forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony.

 

What it sounds like you are proposing is giving a perpetrator (oh, excuse me, an alleged perpetrator) the opportunity to give an excuse as to why they broke a rule. Not something that's likely to happen.

 

And we do follow the Nemo iudex in causa sua portion of that, outside of enforcing speculations rules.

 

 

I mean by this that it is unclear what science states in - your - mind. In my mind science is Just in the way it ventures towards truth because that serves that goal best. I can elaborate why that is, but you seem to hold that the scientific procedure can also be unjust.

 

I don't really make a connection between science and being "Just". Science models the behavior of nature.

 

Then you are in a logical fix. You want out of the box investigation done within the box. In the box demands that only full blown theories are worth time and effort. So only a fully grown tree is worth the effort, and thus you cut down all small trees. It's a logical fallacy. If you want large trees don't cut down the small ones because they are to small.

 

No, that's not it. There are the protocols of science, and there are the findings and models of science. The protocols are things like the rules of evidence, burden of proof, falsifiability and the like — the rules that make science what it is and separate it from religion or philosophy, etc. The findings and models of science are typically what are involved in an alternate hypothesis presented in speculations. You can propose an alternate hypothesis that goes against mainstream science, but you are still bound by the protocols — you still have to present evidence, or have some model that can be tested, etc. There is no demand for full-blown theories, just something within shouting distance of the level of rigor that actual scientists would be applying to the question. (Mainly accepting it's wrong when contrary evidence is presented. One can hold out hope this will happen more often than it does)

 

 

Problem is they should be scared if they do follow the rules of closure when they adhere to rules of logic and indisputable evidence.

 

Can you cite two example of this happening. Even one?

 

As long as it is logical and evidence based there should be no problem if two non mainstream positions are discussed in speculation or philosophy. Because that is then PER DEFINITION scientific, providing in speculations that the idea is in its core presented in a testable way, or part of a question.

 

I think a good fraction of the staff would fall away in a dead faint if our crackpot visitors started conversing in a manner that was logical and evidence based. The rule is based on the vast experience that this does not happen.

 

In casu you or mainstream science hasn't proven that it is pull. You've only proven that it works brilliantly on a limited question and not on the broad issue posed in the OP.

 

One does not need to prove that it is a pull to show that it isn't a push. That's a failure of logic.

 

However, if you want to discuss the evidence that Newtonian gravity is not a pull, by all means start a thread and start listing the experiments where it fails.

 

If it is evidence based and logical addressing any scientific question even if it is out of the box then there should be no problem, yet there clearly is. And that is what is unscientific. You state extra formal rules and norms that have no bases in furthering science, and only in fact in preventing any out of the box approach even if it adheres to the rules I state in the first sentence.

 

Applying the rules of science does not make things unscientific. It's the only way to ensure that things are scientific. I'm not sure what the "extra formal rules are" unless they are the ones about being civil and not hijacking threads, etc. in which case the discussion is moot. Those rules are not for the furthering of science, they are for running the site.

 

Then you say it works, well that doesn't disprove that what I state works better on a out of the box issue.

 

If by this you mean your rules would allow someone to simply spout nonsense and not be challenged, I agree. Which is why the rules are what they are.

 

Two plus two isn't six; and apples don't fly upwards because mainstream science say's it does.

 

Mainstream science doesn't make either of those claims. But do you think those claims should go unchallenged should someone make them? Do you think I should be able to use "apples fly upwards" as a discussion point on gravity? I surely hope not.

 

It is not a democratic affair. Neither is the fact that mainstream yields results in the past prove anything other than a high prior odds of being right. It doesn't give you the posterior odds on any question, because otherwise you are making a fallacy. Prohibited by your own rules.

Indeed prior odds. The proof must be given on the appropriate norm. If you make that norm to be the highest, then you commit a fallacy.

 

I don't understand. Are you saying that an experimental result from, say, 1980 can't be cited as evidence to challenge a proposal made in the present day?

 

 

 

GR & QM are the best laws we humans have ever had incorrectly defined as theories on par then with my theory in your words.

Time doesn't slow down the atom clock does. Again wrong mainstream science.

DM & DE we went through that as well. Wrong wording on key issues.

Add to which entanglement also incorrectly worded.

 

Science should be trying to rearrange the pieces (observations) of the puzzle in such a way that the apples no longer fly upwards, that they are doing now with DM and DE etc.. This because apples in science should per definition fall down. I claim to have done that in a testable way. Yet the test is ignored. Now that can't be. Nor can it be that given that I've done that I can't present that as an answer to someones question in speculations. That it isn't mainstream doesn't disprove it. And, might I add the premier scientific tool to be used in such an instance with an inherent extremely broad issue and inherent short-edge of data is verbal logic. It works the quickest and is succinct enough yet also pliable enough to get close enough to an answer in order to do relevant testing in order to require the missing data. You fail to acknowledge this.

 

And even in science you can't ask more than a reasonable burden of proof. I don't have the needed super computer for one. Yet you demand that of me, without supporting in getting time on such a computer. That is unreasonable. So is, denying the possibility to debate the issue on questions of others.

 

We've heard this before and you have a thread on it. I have no interest in discussing it further, and I don;t see how the details have anything to do with the topic, save this: if you are going to claim that a mainstream theory is wrong, you have to actually show where it fails to work. Otherwise you are spouting only so much hot air.

[Phi for All]

GR & QM are the best laws we humans have ever had incorrectly defined as theories on par then with my theory in your words.

 

Time doesn't slow down the atom clock does. Again wrong mainstream science.

DM & DE we went through that as well. Wrong wording on key issues.

Add to which entanglement also incorrectly worded.

 

Science should be trying to rearrange the pieces (observations) of the puzzle in such a way that the apples no longer fly upwards, that they are doing now with DM and DE etc.. This because apples in science should per definition fall down. I claim to have done that in a testable way. Yet the test is ignored. Now that can't be. Nor can it be that given that I've done that I can't present that as an answer to someones question in speculations. That it isn't mainstream doesn't disprove it. And, might I add the premier scientific tool to be used in such an instance with an inherent extremely broad issue and inherent short-edge of data is verbal logic. It works the quickest and is succinct enough yet also pliable enough to get close enough to an answer in order to do relevant testing in order to require the missing data. You fail to acknowledge this.

 

And even in science you can't ask more than a reasonable burden of proof. I don't have the needed super computer for one. Yet you demand that of me, without supporting in getting time on such a computer. That is unreasonable. So is, denying the possibility to debate the issue on questions of others.

 

!

Moderator Note

You have a thread open on this subject already. Please stay on topic for THIS thread in THIS section.

[kristalris]

!

Moderator Note

You have a thread open on this subject already. Please stay on topic for THIS thread in THIS section.

Thank you for the possibility to clarify my position:

 

But I was / am on topic. Not of course if you leave parts out of what I stated. It is clearly used as an example of what I stated to be the alleged fallacy.

 

swansont, on 19 Apr 2013 - 13:22, said:

The speculations site is not a debate, either. It's where people can present speculative ideas, but, as with all science, they carry the burden of proof for those ideas. The two sides are not on equal footing, as in a debate. Science has a history of success, and we acknowledge that from the start.

Indeed prior odds. The proof must be given on the appropriate norm. If you make that norm to be the highest, then you commit a fallacy.

End Quote

This bit you and Swansont left out. Yes, if you take it sec then it would be of topic. Otherwise you put me in a Catch 22 position. Either I fail to provide evidence and am in breach of the rules that way or I breach the rules for being of topic providing the evidence that was asked for: i.e. logic verbal proof of a fallacy of a part of mainstream science.

Swansont states, if I understand him correctly - that this scientific site is NOT about an orderly ( and that practice of science in a civilized society can be nothing other than Just) debate concerning scientific positions. You can't but end up in a circular argument if you don't cater for logical debate based on accepted data and principles. If you a priori take the mainstream procedure and principles to be correct and in so doing provide a near absolute or to high a burden of proof on any stated fallacy of logic by mainstream science, or breach of proper orderly conduct of a scientific debate by - part of (!) - mainstream science, then science comes to the mediocre mean of mainstream: that is logic and indeed what has happened in history over and over again as now (or is it to be a mainstream monologue site?) Swantsont in fact believes main stream science to be the definition of science. Forgetting that all major breakthroughs in science where in breach with the main stream science before that. Actually even per definition so.

 

These extremely basic principles on evidence and proof in science and on procedure in science or even on procedure of correct scientific debate are continuously breached by part of mainstream science. Yet I must, but at the same time can't provide more proof or even example of this because of breaking the rules either way.

 

As in Occam the most basic set of rules and principles on science are probably best. The ones I gave you are far more basic and indisputably correct because exempt from logical fallacies like your more complicated mainstream position on the issue. Basic principles that as history shows when indeed correctly applied on average by far reach better results. As logic dictates that it will. Reasoning illogical as does mainstream science will on average not reach the stated goals. Why? Dictate of logic, that history of course also shows.

 

Again, the basis is in science: the apples always - per definition - should fall down. If they are undisputedly observed to fall up then there is per definition something wrong that needs clarification. Any idea / concept / theory that marries all observations to all the laws of nature (= the logic proper norm and not that it should in part be better, as mainstream science dictates, because it only needs to be logically consistent) in a way that all the apples fall down again via a practically provable hypothesis in verbal logic wins logically in science proper over any mainstream scientific position that accepts apples flying upwards or mathematics married to magic, because mathematics simply lets you do that.

 

​If you can't explain your mainstream science on the whole shebang in a simple logical way i.e. in a way that all observed apples fall down without resorting to magic, then you are probably wrong: Occam dixit in fact. You can't remedy this by being extremely correct on part issues that are not in debate. That would constitute a fallacy.

 

In the fora on speculation and philosophy logic dictates that this must be debatable in a non mainstream way (as long as is clear that it is not mainstream AND adheres to the stated rules I gave) as a conditio sine qua non for the site to pretend to be scientific. Because science is more than just mainstream science. (Beware I'm talking mainstream science on non part issues such as TOE! Thus not on part issues!)

Edited April 24, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

kristalris, on 24 Apr 2013 - 09:47, said:

Swansont states, if I understand him correctly - that this scientific site is NOT about an orderly ( and that practice of science in a civilized society can be nothing other than Just) debate concerning scientific positions.

No. Quite the opposite, in fact. This site is about orderly discussion (not debate) about science.

 

If you are going to keep referring to something a Just, and especially if you are going to try and assign it to my position, you are going to have to define what you mean. I have already said I don't associate something being "Just" with science.

 

 

kristalris, on 24 Apr 2013 - 09:47, said:

You can't but end up in a circular argument if you don't cater for logical debate based on accepted data and principles.

I think you have one too many or too few negatives. We cater to logical discussion based on accepted data and principles of science. If you don't use principles of science, the discussion does not belong here. There is no circular argument.

 

kristalris, on 24 Apr 2013 - 09:47, said:

If you a priori take the mainstream procedure and principles to be correct and in so doing provide a near absolute or to high a burden of proof on any stated fallacy of logic by mainstream science, or breach of proper orderly conduct of a scientific debate by - part of (!) - mainstream science, then science comes to the mediocre mean of mainstream: that is logic and indeed what has happened in history over and over again as now (or is it to be a mainstream monologue site?)

I don't understand how high standards lead to mediocrity.

 

kristalris, on 24 Apr 2013 - 09:47, said:

Swantsont in fact believes main stream science to be the definition of science. Forgetting that all major breakthroughs in science where in breach with the main stream science before that. Actually even per definition so

Straw man. You don't know what I believe, so please refrain from trying to state my position.

 

I previously stated that there are two components here — the protocols, and the theories. Obviously, there have been discoveries that modified the findings of science — theories get modified or discarded. Please tell me of these breakthroughs that breached the protocols of science.

 

 

kristalris, on 24 Apr 2013 - 09:47, said:

Because science is more than just mainstream science.

A statement that I have not contradicted. If you think I have, you need to re-read some things.

[kristalris]

No. Quite the opposite, in fact. This site is about orderly discussion (not debate) about science.

Sorry Swansont, but a moderated discussion on a public internet forum is per definition a debate. In this case on science. And yes, there are commonly held rules on how a debate should be held in an orderly way.

 

If you are going to keep referring to something a Just, and especially if you are going to try and assign it to my position, you are going to have to define what you mean. I have already said I don't associate something being "Just" with science.

Well what is "Just" is a very complicated issue, but we can also refer to it in a simple way. Again logic dictates that a scientific debate is either Just or Unjust (the latter to make it simple also when partly unjust). If the goal of the debate is for everyone including moderators to have fun, as well as learn and teach science as to try and further science in all its aspects then that can only be done - as is held as mainstream position in science as well BTW - in a Just way.

 

Baring what is exactly meant by "Just" it is near unanimously held position that any infringement on the principle that you hear both parties before ruling is Just and not to is Unjust. The reason is actually quite logical as you have been able to observe that the moderators note in this thread gave me the possibility to point out that I was very much on topic in this case even-though you thought the prior evidence showed different. I.e. you can not exclude the possibility of misunderstanding or not understanding the reasoning behind the way something has been put. As you see it isn't always as clear as you might think. And, it might be that someone made an honest mistake, that need rectification. If you immediately act, you prevent corrections. That spoils the fun and prevents reaching the stated goals in the optimum way.

 

 

 

 

I think you have one too many or too few negatives. We cater to logical discussion based on accepted data and principles of science. If you don't use principles of science, the discussion does not belong here. There is no circular argument.

Point is I do use accepted principles of science. The stated position is that not all of science does the same. The norm being logic. The circular argument goes: we follow mainstream scientific principles. These entail that any claim to a TOE should be more succinct than GR and QM on all issues or at least very close to that on mathematical basis before even any effort or funding should be put into it as the fastest and best way to reach a TOE. The evidence this is based on is the past track record of science that shows progress and thus proves fastest progress even though the alternate method has not been used. The burden of proof lies on the alternate to prove that that way is faster. The reason for that is because it is the mainstream scientific position.

 

So we have I state with reason this main stream position is illogical for a slow progress does not prove fast progress and risk taking action is logically faster than no action and this is rebuked via the statement that it is mainstream science. So we get the circular argument main stream science is best because main stream science is best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand how high standards lead to mediocrity.

Main stream has a democratic mean to it. Something is so because a majority states so. A question on a broad issue like TOE will most probably as history shows not be solved by mainstream science but more over by outsiders like Higgs, Einstein and the like. Not all these outsiders have the time or inclination or knowledge to bring a worthwhile idea to the ultimate standard that is to be used to warrant extreme funding. Therefor a lot of worthwhile idea's are thrown away or not catered for or even attempted because illogically only the extreme norm is used. Mainstream science illogically doesn't cater for intermediate norms to warrant at least some funding or backing. That means the end result is most probably going to be mediocre in the time needed to reach TOE.

 

Need to go now.

 

 

Straw man. You don't know what I believe, so please refrain from trying to state my position.

 

Well as I see it and understand what you've said this should be your position. If not then I either misunderstood you or you are in a logical fix. So no strawman.

 

I previously stated that there are two components here — the protocols, and the theories. Obviously, there have been discoveries that modified the findings of science — theories get modified or discarded. Please tell me of these breakthroughs that breached the protocols of science.

Okay is this position historically correct on Einstein? If so I'm right, if not I'll provide you with further evidence. Point in this link is it took Einstein ten years to get his idea's accross. That could of been catered for quicker. http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html

 

edit: I.e. my way of working can claim Einsteins way of working as a success, contrary to mainstream science even though Einstein is now mainstream. Not thanks to but in spite of main stream scientific counteracting Einstein ultimately prevailed on basis of stamina and perserverance that should't be part of the deal. Logic and observations should do that. And like Einstein you don't need mathmatics for that. First the idea and reasoning and then the mathmatics.

 

 

A statement that I have not contradicted. If you think I have, you need to re-read some things.

 

Well if you agree that science is more than mainstream science then why is the only norm for moderation on this site main stream science in your opinion?

Edited April 25, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Sorry Swansont, but a moderated discussion on a public internet forum is per definition a debate. In this case on science. And yes, there are commonly held rules on how a debate should be held in an orderly way.

 

The forum doesn't belong to you, so no, you really can't use that as leverage for applying the rules you wish to apply, even if it were valid. The people who run the site get to make the rules. You can choose to follow them, or leave. Participation is not mandatory.

 

And because we get to make the rules, it's not valid. And the concept underlying the rules is that this is a science site, and that's how we will approach discussions, even if that gets watered down for political or philosophical discussions. It won't be a free-for-all, and it won't be a clearinghouse where crackpot ideas go unchallenged. There are sites that are more stringent and shut down such discussions immediately. We suffer from a chronic case of optimism that these people will acknowledge the problems in their thesis and actually do a science and modify their model, but the vast majority of the time they just get huffy and have to be escorted off the premises.

 

 

Well what is "Just" is a very complicated issue, but we can also refer to it in a simple way. Again logic dictates that a scientific debate is either Just or Unjust (the latter to make it simple also when partly unjust).

 

If the goal of the debate is for everyone including moderators to have fun, as well as learn and teach science as to try and further science in all its aspects then that can only be done - as is held as mainstream position in science as well BTW - in a Just way.

 

Baring what is exactly meant by "Just" it is near unanimously held position that any infringement on the principle that you hear both parties before ruling is Just and not to is Unjust. The reason is actually quite logical as you have been able to observe that the moderators note in this thread gave me the possibility to point out that I was very much on topic in this case even-though you thought the prior evidence showed different. I.e. you can not exclude the possibility of misunderstanding or not understanding the reasoning behind the way something has been put. As you see it isn't always as clear as you might think. And, it might be that someone made an honest mistake, that need rectification. If you immediately act, you prevent corrections. That spoils the fun and prevents reaching the stated goals in the optimum way.

 

This is not a court of law, in several ways. The standards of evidence for science and for legal matters is quite distinct, and the standard for behavior on the forum is not the same as in the interactions involving the justice system. This is more like being in someone else's home. There are ground rules, and the owner has the right to tell you not to go upstairs (or whatever) and can toss you out if they desire it. You have no right to "justice" as you have described. You do have the right to feel like you've been treated unfairly, if you wish. Nothing anyone can do about that.

 

 

Point is I do use accepted principles of science. The stated position is that not all of science does the same. The norm being logic. The circular argument goes: we follow mainstream scientific principles. These entail that any claim to a TOE should be more succinct than GR and QM on all issues or at least very close to that on mathematical basis before even any effort or funding should be put into it as the fastest and best way to reach a TOE. The evidence this is based on is the past track record of science that shows progress and thus proves fastest progress even though the alternate method has not been used. The burden of proof lies on the alternate to prove that that way is faster. The reason for that is because it is the mainstream scientific position.

 

We're not discussing this, remember?

 

 

So we have I state with reason this main stream position is illogical for a slow progress does not prove fast progress and risk taking action is logically faster than no action and this is rebuked via the statement that it is mainstream science. So we get the circular argument main stream science is best because main stream science is best.

 

This thread is named "Rules of Moderation", not "A Rehash of kristalris's other thread"

 

 

 

Main stream has a democratic mean to it. Something is so because a majority states so.

 

Science is not democratic.

 

 

 

A question on a broad issue like TOE will most probably as history shows not be solved by mainstream science but more over by outsiders like Higgs, Einstein and the like. Not all these outsiders have the time or inclination or knowledge to bring a worthwhile idea to the ultimate standard that is to be used to warrant extreme funding. Therefor a lot of worthwhile idea's are thrown away or not catered for or even attempted because illogically only the extreme norm is used. Mainstream science illogically doesn't cater for intermediate norms to warrant at least some funding or backing. That means the end result is most probably going to be mediocre in the time needed to reach TOE.

 

Need to go now.

 

Well as I see it and understand what you've said this should be your position. If not then I either misunderstood you or you are in a logical fix. So no strawman.

Okay is this position historically correct on Einstein? If so I'm right, if not I'll provide you with further evidence. Point in this link is it took Einstein ten years to get his idea's accross. That could of been catered for quicker. http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html

 

 

I'm only part way through the article and I've found some glaring errors in it. I'd be interested in discussing them in an appropriate thread. But what does this 10-year delay have to with moderation on this site? We weren't in existence then. There was no internet.

 

 

Well if you agree that science is more than mainstream science then why is the only norm for moderation on this site main stream science in your opinion?

 

Mainstream science in not the norm for moderation, it's the norm for discussion in the science section. We have a speculations section. It's quite active. Mainstream science is not the topic of discussion there.

 

As I've explained at least three times now, there is a difference between the theories of science and the protocols of science. We apply the protocols of science, because (and I'm sure you've heard this somewhere), we're a frikkin' science site. If you want to discuss the protocols of science and how they are wildly successful, or even if you have objections to them, you can do that. If you want to discuss some alternative theory, you can do that, to. What you can't do is both at the same time — discuss an alternative theory while also discarding the protocols.

[kristalris]

 

The forum doesn't belong to you, so no, you really can't use that as leverage for applying the rules you wish to apply, even if it were valid. The people who run the site get to make the rules. You can choose to follow them, or leave. Participation is not mandatory.

 

Of course, I don't contest that. Yet if I put valid points across in your Suggestions, comments and Support forum as you put it, in lieu of the claim to be a scientific site, then I guess that can on your rules be debated?

 

And because we get to make the rules, it's not valid. And the concept underlying the rules is that this is a science site, and that's how we will approach discussions, even if that gets watered down for political or philosophical discussions. It won't be a free-for-all, and it won't be a clearinghouse where crackpot ideas go unchallenged. There are sites that are more stringent and shut down such discussions immediately. We suffer from a chronic case of optimism that these people will acknowledge the problems in their thesis and actually do a science and modify their model, but the vast majority of the time they just get huffy and have to be escorted off the premises.

 

I don't contest that. The question then is what is science as the on topic question to be debated in this forum on the rules for moderation.

 

 

 

This is not a court of law, in several ways. The standards of evidence for science and for legal matters is quite distinct, and the standard for behavior on the forum is not the same as in the interactions involving the justice system. This is more like being in someone else's home. There are ground rules, and the owner has the right to tell you not to go upstairs (or whatever) and can toss you out if they desire it. You have no right to "justice" as you have described. You do have the right to feel like you've been treated unfairly, if you wish. Nothing anyone can do about that.

Well, indeed someone else s home opened up for moderated scientific debate which has a forum to debate the way of best moderation, which is what we are doing. being Just as such has nothing to do with the legal system per se. That is a strawman.

We're not discussing this, remember?

Well now that is indeed difficult then because you asked me the question remember? I stated this in an on topic reaction to your I quote:

" We cater to logical discussion based on accepted data and principles of science. If you don't use principles of science, the discussion does not belong here. There is no circular argument." You state what I indeed do use scientific principles based on logic and put evidence and logic reasoning to counter prove your position that there is no circular argument at the heart of your moderation. Being the topic. Otherwise as stated earlier I'm in a Catch 22 position.

This thread is named "Rules of Moderation", not "A Rehash of kristalris's other thread"

catch 22 I'm forced by you rules to pose argument and evidence for my position in lieu of your objection, that this constitutes a rehash can't be the point, the point is is it logical? Your problem then is it is indeed logical, and you are out of arguments.

Science is not democratic.

We agree on that. The use of the "norm mainstream science"for moderation brings a democratic touch into play however.

I'm only part way through the article and I've found some glaring errors in it. I'd be interested in discussing them in an appropriate thread. But what does this 10-year delay have to with moderation on this site? We weren't in existence then. There was no internet.

It disproves your point that the best norm for moderation on a scientific site concerning speculations should be "mainstream science". I.e. you would of moderated Einstein out of this site in the ten years prior to his ideas having become mainstream. So that is on topic. The only relevant question is thus - which you asked me to provide - and that your rules correctly require me to provide is that it took Einstein ten years to get hies ideas across.

 

So it would I guess be a good idea if that is so, and I see you don't contest it took ten years (the only relevant bit of the link), that you cater for a way of moderation that will not of expelled an Einstein if he comes along.

Mainstream science in not the norm for moderation, it's the norm for discussion in the science section. We have a speculations section. It's quite active. Mainstream science is not the topic of discussion there.

Of well, then what are we on about. If you can discuss in another thread then your own non mainstream science then that must be okay then? I understood it wasn't.

As I've explained at least three times now, there is a difference between the theories of science and the protocols of science. We apply the protocols of science, because (and I'm sure you've heard this somewhere), we're a frikkin' science site. If you want to discuss the protocols of science and how they are wildly successful, or even if you have objections to them, you can do that. If you want to discuss some alternative theory, you can do that, to. What you can't do is both at the same time — discuss an alternative theory while also discarding the protocols.

Even if such basis for moderation would expel a future Einstein who doesn't have the perseverance of Albert on a major scientific topic off this site? You don't object to the historic fact that it took him ten years to become mainstream. Yet you would only allow him to post his idea but not discuss that with others on this site on the speculation forum because it isn't then yet mainstream? If he does so, what he historically did, albeit without internet debate it with others, you would of kicked him out because its is a frikkin' science site?

 

And, am I now then not just doing that what you want? Discussing in a debate the correct protocols of science to be used and applied in the speculation (and philosophy) fora? But you can't ask and object to me providing evidence at the same time according to your own rules that dictate the use of logic as well as providing evidence.

Edited April 25, 2013 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

I am curious Kristalris: have you always been hornery and disagreeable, or did you have to take classes?

 

It is a simple matter: science is a process. On this science site we seek to honour that process. Your objections, ultimately, are to the character of that process. If we change the process it is no longer science. It doesn't matter if it is better, or more just, or more fun, it is no longer science. Very simple.

 

You are clearly an intelligent person so you know this to be true, so I ask again, why so disagreeable?

[swansont]

It's getting a tad annoying that I have differentiated between theories and protocols, and you continue to lump them together in your discussion.

 

Einstein is a really bad example for you to bring up in terms of moderation and discussion in speculations. Why? because Einstein followed the protocols of science in developing special relativity. His postulate of invariant c is part of Maxwell's equations and the idea that the laws of physics apply in all frames is likewise not new. His results — the model known as special relativity — follow from an application of the principles to the equations of motion. In short, while the conclusion one draws from the result — that time and length are not invariant — he did not violate any protocols. Indeed, that's probably why it got published in a science journal, and drew attention from other scientists.

 

If anyone else showed up with an idea, one thing we ask for is a model that can be tested*. EXACTLY as Einstein had done. Expel him? Not at all. It's the template for what we beg of everyone who shows up in speculations!

 

*alternatively, we ask for a discussion of experimental evidence. It depends on the nature of the post.

You don't object to the historic fact that it took him ten years to become mainstream.

 

No. Ideas take time to develop. They don't spring forth, fully-formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus.

[kristalris]

I am curious Kristalris: have you always been hornery and disagreeable, or did you have to take classes?

Now I know horny and slang ornery and I guess you mean the latter. And I guess you mean to say that I disagree with a lot and that is to be deemed disagreeable? BTW on tone in this case it's quit pro quo, isn't it? I.e. I'm in my reaction to your post just as disagreeable to you as you are to me, or would you care to differ?

 

The problem is that if you have, like I do, a dissenting opinion on a paradigm it according to current psychology leads to angst and a thus an emotional response. This I can only remedy by not hitting the angst button. In this case on a topic concerning mathematics I can't comply, because I'd have to use mathematics in order not to press the angst button, where my point is that it isn't necessary to use mathematics for developing a first idea to a concept in a scientific way on a TOE topic, like Einstein first did. Using hard logic is always deemed disagreeable. (Actually I'm quite a friendly guy, but you won't believe that I guess, because I can also be a though cookie. Sometimes I even think I can be funny as well.) So, I'm not seeking an emotional response but a rational one, although I expect and accept an emotional response, to which I'll react within bounds dito.

 

Ergo it is simply impossible to comply to your expectations and be logical at the same time.

 

It is a simple matter: science is a process. On this science site we seek to honour that process. Your objections, ultimately, are to the character of that process. If we change the process it is no longer science. It doesn't matter if it is better, or more just, or more fun, it is no longer science. Very simple.

????? Now this is extremely unscientific on your part. (Sorry to be so disagreeable again.) Do you actually mean to say that a proven better scientific process then the current one would constitute a per definition non scientific procedure??? Come off it please!

You are clearly an intelligent person so you know this to be true, so I ask again, why so disagreeable?

Thank you, but my medium intelligence tells me it is NOT true.

 

But if you know a way in which I can bring the point across to you in an agreeable way, them I'm all ears.

 

It's getting a tad annoying that I have differentiated between theories and protocols, and you continue to lump them together in your discussion.

I also differentiate theories from protocol. Yet in order to evaluate the mainstream protocol I need to use a theory/ idea / concept in evidence as a thought experiment or as a historic scientific fact as to why the one is superior to the other. The annoying bit see my last post please.

Einstein is a really bad example for you to bring up in terms of moderation and discussion in speculations. Why? because Einstein followed the protocols of science in developing special relativity. His postulate of invariant c is part of Maxwell's equations and the idea that the laws of physics apply in all frames is likewise not new. His results — the model known as special relativity — follow from an application of the principles to the equations of motion. In short, while the conclusion one draws from the result — that time and length are not invariant — he did not violate any protocols. Indeed, that's probably why it got published in a science journal, and drew attention from other scientists.

No, it is an extremely good example because only after ten or so years did he finally succeed in complying to the protocols. Had he been helped earlier, it would have complied to those protocols much sooner. BTW I don't object to the protocols as the ultimate test to which any idea or concept or theory must ultimately be brought to comply. What I'm on about is that you must not apply the ultimate norm to a first idea or concept, because that would be illogical towards reaching the stated goal of science. See Einstein. Had his idea's been picked up sooner we would have had SR & GR much sooner. Now we had to wait ten years for him to battle it alone in discussions with those who were open minded enough to do so and so help him to formulate and further his idea.

If anyone else showed up with an idea, one thing we ask for is a model that can be tested*. EXACTLY as Einstein had done. Expel him? Not at all. It's the template for what we beg of everyone who shows up in speculations!

Okay then someone comes along with such an idea that can be tested that as Einstein at first doesn't have the mathematics. Who helps him with the mathematics? Who helps him get the proposed test actually get tested?

*alternatively, we ask for a discussion of experimental evidence. It depends on the nature of the post.

The nature of the post is the test that is proposed. And the possibility to discuss this idea in the appropriate threads of others without being deemed a thread hijacker as Einstein would of done as well.

No. Ideas take time to develop. They don't spring forth, fully-formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus.

Fully agree, then what is the problem?

Edited April 25, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

Fully agree, then what is the problem?

The problem is making this claim jibe with the claim that Einstein taking 10 years to come up with special relativity is somehow a failure of science. But that's not germane to the discussion of moderation.

 

I also differentiate theories from protocol. Yet in order to evaluate the mainstream protocol I need to use a theory/ idea / concept in evidence as a thought experiment or as a historic scientific fact as to why the one is superior to the other. The annoying bit see my last post please.

 

You can't use an unproven concept as evidence, because the concept is unproven, i.e. it could be wrong, and that's means it's not an example. I asked you before to present examples of new results that were arrived at via a route other than accepted protocols.

 

No, it is an extremely good example because only after ten or so years did he finally succeed in complying to the protocols. Had he been helped earlier, it would have complied to those protocols much sooner.

 

There was nothing stopping him from getting help (assuming that's what was needed; the math involved is pretty straightforward so I doubt that was the bottleneck), nor is there anything stopping anyone here from getting help. People ask for it all the time. However, nobody is obligated to give that help, especially if the asker can't demonstrate that the concept is worth spending time on.

 

The time it takes to come up with a model or some kind of result is NOT in any part a moderation requirement. Which is what we're discussing. What we ask is that you get to that point before you show up. If all you have is some half-baked idea you were kicking around in your dorm room while drinking beer, it doesn't belong here. We want you to bake it long enough that it can be discussed, and be debunked if it's wrong. If you can't comply, go somewhere else where they discuss half-baked ideas. We have no obligation to host that discussion.

 

BTW I don't object to the protocols as the ultimate test to which any idea or concept or theory must ultimately be brought to comply. What I'm on about is that you must not apply the ultimate norm to a first idea or concept, because that would be illogical towards reaching the stated goal of science. See Einstein. Had his idea's been picked up sooner we would have had SR & GR much sooner.

 

You don't actually know that. You can't say what the creative process was in his ind that got him to the final point. maybe it was the juxtaposition of imagery, like Leo Szilárd seeing a stop light change, when he got the idea of a chain reaction for fission. You can't know that anything would have speeded that up.

 

 

Now we had to wait ten years for him to battle it alone in discussions with those who were open minded enough to do so and so help him to formulate and further his idea.

Okay then someone comes along with such an idea that can be tested that as Einstein at first doesn't have the mathematics. Who helps him with the mathematics?

 

Again, why the assumption that he needed help with the math, and that this was somehow a bottleneck for him?

 

And, to the point of the discussion: it doesn't matter. Einstein did not appear in the community and claim aspects of relativity without the math. You're using him as an example with a hypothetical of what would happen if he did. i.e. if he claimed that time slows down for moving objects, but without any math. That's why he's a bad example — he didn't do anything like this.

 

The question of what would happen to someone who showed up with the questions he was asking (e.g. what would it be like to ride on a light wave), or any other sort of "what if" question, is different from someone claiming to have a new theory. But they would have to be answered with accepted physics, just like Einstein answered his own questions with accepted physics. Relativity is/was NOT based on conjecture, as I have already pointed out, and that same standard is applied in speculations.

[kristalris]

The problem is making this claim jibe with the claim that Einstein taking 10 years to come up with special relativity is somehow a failure of science. But that's not germane to the discussion of moderation.

Given that we take as a fact that it took him ten years, then it is a reasonable question why that took so long and whether or not more support would of speed-ed up the process. I guess I don't have to point out he importance of getting to what Einstein had to say as mainstream science sooner than later?

 

Now lets analyze this without the burden of trying to be historically exact (or scientifically exact on history because history is inherently not an exact science); we do a thought experiment based on the fact that it took Einstein ten years and do that then and now.

 

Lets say Einstein dreamt up a thought experiment that light would curve in at more than the Newtonian value and also dreamt up the idea for a test that this should be observable when stars move behind observable planets. Because he at that moment wouldn't have had the mathematics to give the formula from which you can see that it will be exactly twice the Newtonian value, would that then render his idea as meaningless? As would be the case using current main stream science and thus rules of moderation on this site? Of course not. Had science on that bases then done the test they would of indeed observed (as we know now) that it even curves in at twice the rate, what Einstein then as yet wouldn't of known.

 

So yes science then made repeated air-crashes and didn't get airborne until after ten years. With hindsight they deserve a straight F, they flunked something they should of spotted ten years earlier. The correct analysis is that science needs the protocol to be adapted in such a way that good idea's are filtered out more quickly. You do not do that by applying incorrect norms. Of course ultimately you want the full grown tree of wisdom as a law of science on a subject. Then and there you of course apply the highest norms of succinctness completeness correctness etc. i.e. then do you apply current protocols. You don't get there by putting the flamethrower to the saplings. You get there by filtering out the saplings (ideas) that have potential in a timely - matter of course - fashion. You do this via probabilistic reasoning using verbal logic, thought experiments and the such, as Einstein did and comparing these. (Even if Einstein failed to present his idea's then still science fails because it should of invited anyone like him to do so. As now the mood then was much more flammatory because even after he complied to the protocol he at first got flamed. If you a priori know that you of course won't ask help, because yo know you won't gt it.)

 

The more so today, with internet. Probability has it that you will have much more Einsteins on line than where involved in the game a hundred years ago.

 

Now then, how do you filter out the saplings that deserve attention, water and cultivation? Actually that is quite easy. You already have the correct division on that matter on this site. Einstein goes to the speculation thread and puts his idea on there. And you put it to the test of verbal logic at first and you see if it indeed addresses all the problems involved on the subject. You don't need to be creative to do that. Simple matter of course. And, you look whether the idea is presented in a potentially testable way (as you rules correctly state) .

 

Then you see how many of these idea's fit these criteria. of the ones left you look at which is most simple (Occam) or easy to check (Popper). If you then still have a great many left then indeed it will become more of a problem to see which is probable, because that also requires imagination to see - given looking back a hundred years that you believe in Newton - and you guess that the M&M experiment is actually a fringe issue (like DM & DE is seen by some/most) to spot that this crank Einstein with his relativity of time and length contraction is actually probably or even possibly right instead of providing bs. Even before Einstein got to the mathematics.

 

Nowadays even the more so because Einstein only had to get to grips with relatively straight forward mathematics as you say. Well probably now you will need rheology advanced statistics and what not. Yet as Einstein you can't dispense with the sapling idea, dreamt up as a testable thought experiment for the a priori garbage or non garbage to put into the mathematics, the latter to be found via tests in trial and error.

 

Now then how many TOE theories has this site generated since its start that meet these criteria? 1000? 100? 10? 1? 0? I guess no more than one or two. So you probably won't even get to the problem of having to discern the probability at all.

 

And, why not ask funding as a site? In order to provide this? That will thus certainly change you rules of moderation. (So yes, this is on topic.)

 

 

You can't use an unproven concept as evidence, because the concept is unproven, i.e. it could be wrong, and that's means it's not an example. I asked you before to present examples of new results that were arrived at via a route other than accepted protocols.

 

Of course I can. That a concept as a sapling is unproven as a large wise tree, doesn't mean it can't be proven to be a potentially better sapling then other saplings? That is exactly what you do if you are in the tree growing business: cultivate the best saplings. And not to only accept the near full grown trees that have grown in the wild. The business of science should be to get the best saplings knowing full well that a lot of these will fail to grow. So the problem is how to distinguish between good and bad saplings.

 

There was nothing stopping him from getting help (assuming that's what was needed; the math involved is pretty straightforward so I doubt that was the bottleneck), nor is there anything stopping anyone here from getting help. People ask for it all the time. However, nobody is obligated to give that help, especially if the asker can't demonstrate that the concept is worth spending time on.

What I'm saying is, that if the correct criteria are met, then yes science (as does this site if it claims to be scientific) should organize the help, via changing the rules of moderation in order to fit that.

 

It should be a matter of course question and not a personal conviction or preparedness to take personal risk question whether science / this site provides help. I.e. the one that provides help shouldn't run the risk of being deemed a crank for providing any help because the idea proves busted. (The actual problem in fact, why it takes so bloody long)

The time it takes to come up with a model or some kind of result is NOT in any part a moderation requirement. Which is what we're discussing. What we ask is that you get to that point before you show up. If all you have is some half-baked idea you were kicking around in your dorm room while drinking beer, it doesn't belong here. We want you to bake it long enough that it can be discussed, and be debunked if it's wrong. If you can't comply, go somewhere else where they discuss half-baked ideas. We have no obligation to host that discussion.

Well then there goes Einstein with his half backed but as we know now correct idea. You threw the sapling out as part of your rules of moderation. Proving that this IS totally a moderation requirement problem. Your position is inwardly contradictory.

You don't actually know that. You can't say what the creative process was in his ind that got him to the final point. maybe it was the juxtaposition of imagery, like Leo Szilárd seeing a stop light change, when he got the idea of a chain reaction for fission. You can't know that anything would have speeded that up.

No, if you apply exact scientific norms to psychology or history, as you are evidently now doing, you can indeed prove nothing in those areas. So don't apply such norms in those area's.

Again, why the assumption that he needed help with the math, and that this was somehow a bottleneck for him?

Is this a "don't know" or is it a "certainly would't of made a difference" position of yours on this question? And why run the risk of it indeed being a major problem, (what it of course extremely probably was) had Einstein got massive backing quicker than later, it would of all happened sooner.)?

And, to the point of the discussion: it doesn't matter. Einstein did not appear in the community and claim aspects of relativity without the math. You're using him as an example with a hypothetical of what would happen if he did. i.e. if he claimed that time slows down for moving objects, but without any math. That's why he's a bad example — he didn't do anything like this.

Well, yes and no, we know / may assume he discussed it within a befriended community containing scientists while working his idea's. Anyway if he didn't he should of and if he did he should have received backing.

The question of what would happen to someone who showed up with the questions he was asking (e.g. what would it be like to ride on a light wave), or any other sort of "what if" question, is different from someone claiming to have a new theory. But they would have to be answered with accepted physics, just like Einstein answered his own questions with accepted physics. Relativity is/was NOT based on conjecture, as I have already pointed out, and that same standard is applied in speculations.

Immaterial, because we don't and never will know exactly as you pointed out earlier. What we do know is that extremely probably part of his idea's did stem from thought experiments. I.e. the correct way to do it. Once he got enough mathematics under his belt it becomes difficult to see how he went about it, because then he will of course comply by presenting his idea.s even if derived from a thought experiment in a mainstream thus mathematical way. Ergo no reason not to review you rules for moderation, quite the opposite.