Why is there a speculation section?

[Unity+]

It just seems more like the Trash Can section then a speculation section. It would be more efficient just to remove it or rename it the Trash Can because it mostly carries crackpot theories and hogwash.

 

That is just my opinion. I can understand that there maybe some speculations that are worth talking about, but I see none of them actually benefiting anyone.

[md65536]

In my opinion, removing it would be like admitting that speculation no longer has a place in science, and that would be a huge loss. It's already at the bottom of the front page, as if it's of the lowest value.

 

Just because there is rare (or no) valuable speculation, doesn't mean that the opportunity should be closed to all, discouraging any future conceivably valuable posts.

 

Ideally all posters would be encouraged to "do science right", especially when it comes to speculation, but that's unrealistic because speculation attracts a lot of people who are neither interested in nor capable of learning the slow, difficult, right way.

 

In my opinion, the best way to handle speculations is to encourage individual improvement, and not waste too much time forcing people to see what they don't want to see, and not treat speculations as a single coherent group of bad posts, so that a rare valuable post (intriguing or thought-provoking to others, or even just a path for the poster to learn) isn't assumed to be garbage and tossed aside.

[WWLabRat]

Unity+, Md65536 has a point. removing it Speculation would in a way, kill science. Scientific study started as a means to understand things. Hypotheses that help to make great leaps in discovery are sometimes from a speculative point and they just happen to be right. Yeah, there will also be crackpots who will argue for Theory X, when the common known and accepted theory is Theory Y. Speculation also allows for brainstorming. At least when done properly...

 

Also, if you get rid of Speculation, which does have some scientific basis, then there would be no need to keep the Religion section as religion is oil to science's water. And just as there are crackpots trolling the Speculation section, there's just as many zealots trolling the Religion forum as well.

[StringJunky]

Not having a speculations section would send the signal that this forum was closed-minded which is anathema to the spirit of science. In reality, It's probably no different to Arxiv which is the repository for some mainstream science research. Although the articles within in it will be be well-researched and presented, the vast majority of them will be wrong, in the final analysis, as accurate descriptions of reality. It's important to have an area here as a matter of good scientific principle where novel ideas can be expressed, even though most of it is not very good.

 

I think the best way to look at speculations is as a sandbox for exposing ideas to critique without muddying the waters of the proper science sections for people that want to learn the established science.

Edited September 14, 2013 by StringJunky

[ajb]

I can understand that there maybe some speculations that are worth talking about, but I see none of them actually benefiting anyone.

In my opinion, removing it would be like admitting that speculation no longer has a place in science, and that would be a huge loss.

 

Unity+, Md65536 has a point. removing it Speculation would in a way, kill science. Scientific study started as a means to understand things. Hypotheses that help to make great leaps in discovery are sometimes from a speculative point and they just happen to be right.

Speculations have a huge role to play in science. However, a speculation is not just some "made up random idea". They come from an understanding of the currently accepted science and the want to push this to the limit to find new results in science. Speculations should be made in a scientific way using the correct language and formalism. All science resarch work is to some extent based on speculation.

 

Now have a look at the typical posts in the Speculation forum here.

 

 

In reality, It's probably no different to Arxiv which is the repository for some mainstream science research.

The arXiv does have a general physics section (where you don't want your work to go) and preprints can get rejected, though this is rare.

Edited September 14, 2013 by ajb

[Unity+]

Unity+, Md65536 has a point. removing it Speculation would in a way, kill science. Scientific study started as a means to understand things. Hypotheses that help to make great leaps in discovery are sometimes from a speculative point and they just happen to be right. Yeah, there will also be crackpots who will argue for Theory X, when the common known and accepted theory is Theory Y. Speculation also allows for brainstorming. At least when done properly...

 

Also, if you get rid of Speculation, which does have some scientific basis, then there would be no need to keep the Religion section as religion is oil to science's water. And just as there are crackpots trolling the Speculation section, there's just as many zealots trolling the Religion forum as well.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the religion section going away because I merely came here for talking about science, but that is another matter.

 

Of course, speculation has a place of science, but what I notice is some speculations that are clearly hogwash and trollish are not put in the Trash Can where they belong(at least, when I have been here this hasn't happened much).

 

It just gives people the idea that "Oh, I am going to think up some random idea and post it in here and since it is merely speculation, I clearly need to no evidence." I might be blind to the moderators not deleting or moving speculations to the trash when they are trollish, but I just don't see any of them heading in that direction.

[ajb]

I might be blind to the moderators not deleting or moving speculations to the trash when they are trollish, but I just don't see any of them heading in that direction.

The trouble is that one does not want to "punish" anyone for being interested in science and trying to make sence of the world. Being wrong or misunderstanding something cannot be a criteria of thread removal.

 

Typically, quackish behaviour soon arises in the speculation section and the threads are closed or they die a natural death. Qucakish behaviour normally revolves around the ethos that I am right you are wrong, without actually attempting to understand what is being said by mainstream science.

 

Sometimes threads seem to go on longer than they should.

 

Also, I think there is an inverse proportinality law with the quality of the opening post and the number of subsequent posts in that thread. The better opening posts get less replies, generally. Not always, but if you ask a well posed question you get a well posed answer, the thread is now over.

 

The speculation section threads can just go on as people try to explain what is going on to no avail. Maybe we should be less tolerant than this. I think I have been guilty of allowing things to go on too far.

 

But somethimes I can learn from it. Not usually from the ideas presented, but from looking at the reasons why they are wrong. This can get me to have a quick look at something I would not have looked at otherwise. For example, some experimental tests in general relativity that I would never have naturally looked up. So it is not all bad...And it can be fun

[WWLabRat]

The trouble is that one does not want to "punish" anyone for being interested in science and trying to make sence of the world. Being wrong or misunderstanding something cannot be a criteria of thread removal.

 

Typically, quackish behaviour soon arises in the speculation section and the threads are closed or they die a natural death. Qucakish behaviour normally revolves around the ethos that I am right you are wrong, without actually attempting to understand what is being said by mainstream science.

 

Sometimes threads seem to go on longer than they should.

 

Also, I think there is an inverse proportinality law with the quality of the opening post and the number of subsequent posts in that thread. The better opening posts get less replies, generally. Not always, but if you ask a well posed question you get a well posed answer, the thread is now over.

 

The speculation section threads can just go on as people try to explain what is going on to no avail. Maybe we should be less tolerant than this. I think I have been guilty of allowing things to go on too far.

 

But somethimes I can learn from it. Not usually from the ideas presented, but from looking at the reasons why they are wrong. This can get me to have a quick look at something I would not have looked at otherwise. For example, some experimental tests in general relativity that I would never have naturally looked up. So it is not all bad...And it can be fun

 

I wish that were always the case. I try to make sure my posts are well written to keep misunderstanding to a minimum, although there are times where the aggressive ignorant will try to repeat things endlessly to make sure you know they are there. Unfortunately, as well written as I like to think my posts are (one of which was in Speculations) people will respond however they see fit, with or without moderation. Best thing to do on any forum is to not feed the trolls. This is because when trolls are fed, they produce troll ATP at an exponential rate and then there's just no stopping that much energy without banning.

[Unity+]

 

I wish that were always the case. I try to make sure my posts are well written to keep misunderstanding to a minimum, although there are times where the aggressive ignorant will try to repeat things endlessly to make sure you know they are there. Unfortunately, as well written as I like to think my posts are (one of which was in Speculations) people will respond however they see fit, with or without moderation. Best thing to do on any forum is to not feed the trolls. This is because when trolls are fed, they produce troll ATP at an exponential rate and then there's just no stopping that much energy without banning.

Someone should start the theory of trolls. It would be interesting if someone actually made a scientific hypothesis on the nature of trolls.

[WWLabRat]

Someone should start the theory of trolls. It would be interesting if someone actually made a scientific hypothesis on the nature of trolls.

The fantasy genre creature, the toy dolls, or the people?

[Unity+]

The fantasy genre creature, the toy dolls, or the people?

The people trolls...?

[swansont]

The speculation section is in part a representation of our eternal optimism that the proponents of these alternative views will actually want to learn some science.

[ajb]

The speculation section is in part a representation of our eternal optimism that the proponents of these alternative views will actually want to learn some science.

 

 

I found myself laughing when I read this, but it is absolutly true.

[iNow]

Someone should start the theory of trolls. It would be interesting if someone actually made a scientific hypothesis on the nature of trolls.

Mommy issues usually accompanied by a sense of powerlessness in life. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all and feel less insecure about their place in this world upon realizing they have the power to trigger an emotional response and rise out of others via a few rather easily typed words in an online forum.

 

There are different kinds of trolls, though, so there are important nuances to be considered, but I suspect strongly that the above are foundational to all of them.

 

Perhaps my post should be limited to the speculations forum, though. :roll:

 

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/types-of-troll-youll-meet-on-the-internet

[Unity+]

Mommy issues usually accompanied by a sense of powerlessness in life. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all and feel less insecure about their place in this world upon realizing they have the power to trigger an emotional response and rise out of others via a few rather easily typed words in an online forum.

 

There are different kinds of trolls, though, so there are important nuances to be considered, but I suspect strongly that the above are foundational to all of them.

 

Perhaps my post should be limited to the speculations forum, though. :roll:

 

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/types-of-troll-youll-meet-on-the-internet

I was merely joking, but somehow this makes logical sense as a scientific study.

[Sayonara]

The speculation section actually helps in a few ways:

• It lets us keep all the crackpot or ill-advised threads, which will always be posted, out of harm's way.
• It's a place where people can go to practice scientific debate by watching how not to do it.
• The people who started studying physics last year but have already conclusively disproved relativity have the option of having their embarrassing mistakes pointed out to them without an audience from the "proper" forums.
• Speculation discussions that go on for pages and pages without any evidence or calculations don't get to aggressively push "legitimate" discussions off the front page of any given sub-forum.
• As others have said, it's a place where people know they can go to speculate.

[md65536]

Speculations have a huge role to play in science. However, a speculation is not just some "made up random idea". They come from an understanding of the currently accepted science and the want to push this to the limit to find new results in science. Speculations should be made in a scientific way using the correct language and formalism. All science resarch work is to some extent based on speculation.

Perhaps separating "speculations" and "pseudoscience" might be beneficial. They are grouped together (both included in the Speculations forum description). Speculations is perched on the edge of Trash Can, with the threat of cutting off the conversation.

 

If Speculations and Pseudoscientific Discussions were separated, with separate rules, then there would be not just the threat of killing bad discussions, but encouragment to improve them, as topics could be "promoted" to Speculations if they met the requirements of the stricter rules.

 

 

However, I don't think it's worth it to try to make it great. This is an internet forum, and most of the topics in any section are from amateurs interested in science, or from people who are learning, and I don't see a lot of professionals actually doing original work here. It would be unrealistic to expect that of the Speculations forum. A "Good Speculations" section might go empty, perhaps only symbolic of the "eternal optimism" that they exist and are welcome. But if people are doing it right, they're probably doing it elsewhere than an open forum on the internet?

[ajb]

Perhaps separating "speculations" and "pseudoscience" might be beneficial.

The speculation section was named pseudoscience in the past.

 

A good well founded speculation posed in the right language that comes from a good undertsanding of current physics, in my opinion should stay in the physics section. So could "what if" type questions if they are posed and used for gaining a better understanding of accepted physics.

 

Most of the things that end up in speculations seem to be based on peoples' own "pet theories" that do not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Edited September 14, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

Perhaps separating "speculations" and "pseudoscience" might be beneficial. They are grouped together (both included in the Speculations forum description). Speculations is perched on the edge of Trash Can, with the threat of cutting off the conversation.

 

If Speculations and Pseudoscientific Discussions were separated, with separate rules, then there would be not just the threat of killing bad discussions, but encouragment to improve them, as topics could be "promoted" to Speculations if they met the requirements of the stricter rules.

The main reason, I think, is for the sanity of the mods. The amount of caterwauling we get simply for moving some posts to speculations is tiresome. The feedback from moving something to pseudoscience is something I don't want to imagine. As you note, the proximity of the trash can, even though this is a schematic rather than a physical juxtaposition, already causes some consternation, because of all those precious snowflakes that might be tainted by being close to the trash can.

[pears]

The speculation section is very useful to those of us with little formal scientific training. If a topic is in the main forum I can 'trust' it more. If it's in speculations I can understand immediately that it's not mainstream. I suspect that having a speculations section means such topics get moved there quickly whereas if there wasn't a section, a bit of discussion might need to be had in the mainstream section before a topic was deleted. I think I'd find that confusing.

[ajb]

If a topic is in the main forum I can 'trust' it more. If it's in speculations I can understand immediately that it's not mainstream.

Quite often it is the answers to reasonable questions that get cut off and thrown into speculations.

 

As this site is largely a "questions" forum, one cannot simply throw poorly structured questions based on misunderstanding science into the speculations section. Asking questions is great, it is stating answers that in truth hold up to no scrutiny that get put into speculations.

 

"Speculations" here seems to be more about "answers" than questions.

Edited September 15, 2013 by ajb