New sub forum? "testing ground".

[sunshaker]

With more and more people taking an interest in science, And forums no longer being just for academics,

 

Perhaps it may be time for a new sub forum,

Somewhere between speculation/trash, (TESTING GROUND)

 

Where new posters who are unsure where their post fits , or pet theories which may need a bit of work to move to speculation go,

it could be a more relaxed forum where those more knowledgeable can "advice" what is needed for their theory/idea to be testable or what prove they should look for or advice on how to present an idea.

 

Topics can then be moved to the right forum by mods, Or stay where they are until they are of a standard to be moved, This will also stop topics appearing in forums with 1 post from OP who never reposts again.

 

Perhaps the rep system could also help to decide a topics worth for further debate in correct forum.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Are you defining "more relaxed" as "let me propose whatever I feel like"? That's what blogs are for.

 

In my experience, discussions about science need structure and a decent amount of rigor. "People taking an interest in science" should include a substantial amount of mainstream knowledge in order to be meaningful.

 

If we could somehow get people to understand that most of the pushback they receive in Speculations is due to their insistent assertions that their pet theory is entirely correct right from the start, I think it would really help everyone. It's pretty typical for these posters to simultaneously admit they don't know much real science AND assert that their idea is a better explanation than the current models. Skeptical science minds are ALWAYS going to object to ideas presented this way, and they aren't going to want to continue a discussion until these mistakes are addressed. If they don't, it lends a tacit approval to methodology that lacks any sort of rigor.

 

And I wouldn't let the rep system be the arbiter of any kind of topic's worth. All it really does is show a member's ability to discuss science within our rule system.

 

Also, what you propose sounds like an awful lot more work for me.

[Bignose]

or pet theories which may need a bit of work to move to speculation go,

I think you'll find that the mods are fairly relaxed as it is in giving posters a chance in the speculations section. There are a lot of threads that are breaking a strict interpretation of the rules.

 

I think what we've got set up here works pretty well. Can't please anything.

 

What you're asking for here would be a lot more in place on a metaphysics, philosophy, or 'alternative' science forum. I like that we're grounded in the rules of science here and demand that ideas present at least some semblance of evidence supporting them.

 

As Phi says, I think this is actually an easy thing for people to understand, if they would take a step back and actually read the objections instead of assuming they are personal attacks and that science is a cult protecting its members. If there is something to improve, it would be this. How to get the message across that we aren't just going to believe someone at their word and we need evidence to support their ideas.

[Phi for All]

As Phi says, I think this is actually an easy thing for people to understand, if they would take a step back and actually read the objections instead of assuming they are personal attacks and that science is a cult protecting its members. If there is something to improve, it would be this. How to get the message across that we aren't just going to believe someone at their word and we need evidence to support their ideas.

 

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I do think this suggestion could accomplish the OP's goal without starting a new sub-forum. We've talked about setting up some kind of template for speculative ideas, and I think we have a boatload of stickies trying to tell folks how to approach the board with non-mainstream ideas.

 

I'm always baffled when people insist instead of inquire when speculating. Perhaps it's the very common misconception that "proof" is required as opposed to evidence in support. If you say, "This is the way it really is" rather than "Could this be the way it really is?", you should expect your idea to be attacked with vigor, especially when you have no math to check and the logic you claim to rely on looks like Swiss cheese.

[davidivad]

that sounds like a great idea.

as much of a pain they can be, they are a potential resource.

[swansont]

I'm always baffled when people insist instead of inquire when speculating. Perhaps it's the very common misconception that "proof" is required as opposed to evidence in support. If you say, "This is the way it really is" rather than "Could this be the way it really is?", you should expect your idea to be attacked with vigor, especially when you have no math to check and the logic you claim to rely on looks like Swiss cheese.

 

That's a criterion I usually apply when pondering of a post should be moved to speculations. If the poster is inquiring about something, even if they are mistaken, it's a mainstream science discussion. As long as they are receptive to the accepted science. But once it's clear they are pushing an idea, it goes into speculations.

 

Personally, I am not receptive to a new class of discussion that is less scientifically based than what we have here. This is a science discussion site. If you have an idea and want to know if it has merit, it can fit into the existing structure. The key is being able to formulate it as a question rather than as a declaration, because that's going to trigger the requirement of a model and evidence. Once you insist something is true, you'd better be able to back it up.

 

Bignose has already pointed out that the rules are somewhat relaxed, depending on the kind of inquiry that is in play. As Phi notes, the proper platform for this might be a blog.