If you stop speculation, you stop the future (split from what would you change about SFN)

[Acme]

...

By forcing Maths and rigor on all 'cart blanch ' is mistaken guidance. And again this aggressive style is uncalled for.

 

mike

It is you who is the aggressor here as you decry math and rigor ad nauseam. You not only do it in your own specious speculations but encourage others to ignore math and rigor on this board. You should not be surprised at the push-back.

[swansont]

Not true. I have done this experiment many , many times with my concrete lemon and a real lemon many , many times teaching physics to children.

The speculations section is aimed slightly higher than children. And the speculations section is the reverse of this scenario — you were not soliciting the kids' ideas about physics, and having to explain how they were wrong, and how you knew they were wrong.

 

Yes , i do not disagree with the things you say as regards the detail. but Galileo was able to break the knowledge given by Aristotle . This allowed further advances due to his new speculation that possibly assisted Newton to make further advances , which I agree were mathematical .

 

My point is that it did NOT require Galileo to use math in his original Observation.and Postulation ( speculation).

Which is moot because Galileo predates modern science, and the current formulation of physics that come from Newton's laws of motion. Galileo was disproving philosophy — the knowledge given to us by Aristotle — and establishing a new concept.

 

So today it is important The Young potential designers of the future MUST NOT BE PUT OFF DOING OBSERVATIONS.

A huge non-sequitur, because nobody has advocated doing this, or even hinted at it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Generally, that is what happens:

 

1. Someone states their idea in Speculations.

 

- Note that this rarely a new idea; it is a variation of something we have seen multiple times before.

 

2. They are asked for supporting evidence and how they explain the evidence which contradicts their idea.

 

- Evidence is usually lacking or is too vague to be useful.

- Contradictory evidence is ignored or dismissed with a variety of excuses

- This process normally shows up a number of serious gaps in the speculators knowledge and understanding. The thread may turn into an attempt to educate them. This is not usually taken well as most speculators are not interested in learning.

 

3. Given the lack of evidence or other support, the speculator will be politely asked how they would test their idea.

 

- This requires some quantitative information (how can you test it otherwise)

- Often they will insist that it doesn't need to be tested because it is correct.

 

At this point the speculator may make a number of statements such as comparing themselves to Galileo, saying they are being censored or persecuted, expecting someone else to do their work for them, etc. They will explain that the idea must be right "because I have been working on it for 20 years" or because it is "logical". They may further assert that the idea is important and possibly urgent. They will probably say that they expect to be proved right in a few years. (Go on, have a look; see how many threads include several of these traits.)

 

4. Ramp up tension. Go to 1.

 

And that is for the threads that allow for some sort of sensible discussion. A large proportion are just meaningless gibberish.

 

 

And do you get them to measure and compare the speeds? Or do they just admire them running quickly down a slope?

 

If the former, then MATHS and, potentially, science. (If the latter, then it is no more than children playing with toy cars.)

 

Yes I do understand what you say, and have seen it many times.

 

I would dare to say I think often the style of beating the living daylights of of people can precipitate this result.

 

I could not possibly treat my physics students, that way , when as budding scientists they proposed the crazy ideas they had in all naive ideas. But there is a way of nurturing them to productive development.

 

I think a little more nurturing and little less bombastic, bullying , unpleasant attack .

 

Maybe this has been the way Graduates Doing PHd vivas are tested . Whether this is the case I think it would be possible to set a different intellectual environment so the sequence describe is not precipitated.

 

mike

[swansont]

Ok well that is the nub . Let us kindly ask for their observation . Then ask them kindly ask them how they construct their Speculation . and third kindly how they are going to test it out on the universe.

IOW, keep speculations pretty much as it is, procedurally. Glad you agree.

[Strange]

I could not possibly treat my physics students, that way , when as budding scientists they proposed the crazy ideas they had in all naive ideas. But there is a way of nurturing them to productive development.

 

That is what I always try to do. Gently explain why their idea won't work. Try and get them to understand the scientific process and what they would need to do to test the idea. Encourage them to learn a little basic physics, etc. In about 99% of cases, this is a waste of time as these people are not interested in learning.

[swansont]

We are in danger of frightening some of potential tomorrows scientists away , before they have chance to love physics at its observation , speculation, discovery aspect.

How many pre-teen future scientists do you think are posting in speculations?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

You speak of this as if it will be trivial. Tying a speculation to actual observation (i.e. experiment) is one of the chores that's like pulling teeth for people doing thought experiments and citing logic as justification for their idea.

 

Yes, I agree. But if we had a simple sequence..........That they need to go through before the whole thing turns int a Fight

 

1] What is your Observation ? ......bla de Bla ... no What is your observation....etc ok

 

2] What is your Speculation ? .....Bla de Bla no What is your Speculation etc...... ok

 

3]What is your test of this Spec ? Bla de Bla .... No that was not a test ....Thats better Ok

 

4]Now what are you thinking . Use ? de de de de de ...................................................

 

.Ok see what others think ..General Free for all .

 

mike

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

But that is what happens (or what we try to get to happen). It is usually a waste of time because these people are not interested in science and not interested in learning. They just want people to accept what they say.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

That is what I always try to do. Gently explain why their idea won't work. Try and get them to understand the scientific process and what they would need to do to test the idea...................... In about 99% of cases, this is a waste of time as these people are not interested in learning.

...Gently explain why their idea won't work... is directly full frontal provocative .

....... telling them they should go away and learn is confrontational

I am not saying you are wrong , but it is provocative

These people might have been thinking about this, or proud of their idea.

These people might have done, or are learning currently .

There must surely be a way of getting them to explain the three things I have said without using a provocative style .

Get them to fill out themselves 3 Boxes

 

1] OBSERVATION ................2].SPECULATION .................3] TEST......................4]. WHERE CAN THIS BE USEFUL .............

 

Only then can they invite discussion .

 

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes, I agree. But if we had a simple sequence..........That they need to go through before the whole thing turns int a Fight

 

What is your Observation ? ......bla de Bla ... no What is your observation....etc ok

 

What is your Speculation ? .....Bla de Bla no What is your Speculation etc...... ok

 

What is your test of this Spec ? Bla de Bla .... No that was not a test ....Thats better Ok

 

Now what are you thinking . Use ? de de de de de ....................................................Ok see what others think ..General Free for all .

 

mike

So, asking someone "How can you test your work to see if it properly explains and predicts what we observe?" or something along those lines?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83382-gravity-by-i-try/?p=807527

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86180-vacuum-energy-universes-within-universes/#entry833112

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85507-gravity-energy-mass-energy-two-different-concepts/page-2#entry827222

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83590-look-ma-no-maths/page-4#entry822683

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So, asking someone "How can you test your work to see if it properly explains and predicts what we observe?" or something along those lines?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83382-gravity-by-i-try/?p=807527

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86180-vacuum-energy-universes-within-universes/#entry833112

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85507-gravity-energy-mass-energy-two-different-concepts/page-2#entry827222

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83590-look-ma-no-maths/page-4#entry822683

Yes . I appeciate , and have seen you ask these questions many, many times .

 

I am suggesting this it put to a proposer , before they start .

 

Almost like they need to fill out these four Questions in the initial Post Post #1

 

 

 

TITLE IDEA OF ROTATION OF POOLS IN THE SEA Post #1

 

I ] Observation ...................

 

2] Speculation .....................

 

3]. Test .........................

 

4] .Future Use .....................

 

 

END

 

Only Then Invite Comments

 

 

mike [ I am off to bed ]

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

...Gently explain why their idea won't work... is directly full frontal provocative .

 

....... telling them they should go away and learn is confrontational

I am not saying you are wrong , but it is provocative

These people might have been thinking about this, or proud of their idea.

These people might have done, or are learning currently .

There must surely be a way of getting them to explain the three things I have said without using a provocative style .

Get them to fill out themselves 3 Boxes

 

1] OBSERVATION ................2].SPECULATION .................3] TEST......................4]. WHERE CAN THIS BE USEFUL .............

 

Only then can they invite discussion .

 

 

Mike

As has been pointed out this is pretty much the approach taken. Also as pointed out it goes ignored, much as you ignore what others are telling you now. Your response is to amp up the rhetoric with your endless provocations and argumentation. Whether you or others are proud of the gobbledygook you and they write up is immaterial to the content. Y'all make discussion useless and achieve nothing but discord and trashing up the board to a degree that makes finding legitimate discussion here an exercise in futility. If anything I think the patience shown to you & others by staff here in Speculations is overdone.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

angry:

Acme , I have no idea why you sound off like that.

This is a genuine suggestion well though out , to overcome the two difficulties I see the forum happening with SPECULATIONS

 

A ) Is getting people to cover the four points I have mentioned.

My suggestion is that it is a pre-requisit to starting a speculation entry ,must complete this box ,style

 

B) Also to not be overtly hostile . Provocative , insulting etc Throughout the thread

 

I thought that was a positive way forward . Hope you can see it that way .

 

Mike

[Acme]

Acme , I have no idea why you sound off like that.

This is a genuine suggestion well though out , to overcome the two difficulties I see the forum happening with SPECULATIONS

A ) Is getting people to cover the four points I have mentioned.

My suggestion is that it is a pre-requisit to starting a speculation entry ,must complete this box ,style

B) Also to not be overtly hostile . Provocative , insulting etc Throughout the thread

I thought that was a positive way forward . Hope you can see it that way .

Mike

What I see is you habitually whining over how balderdash is received here. That is not limited to this thread but others you have initiated as well. Inasmuch as you have to be aware of people's reactions to your postings I find it is you who is stirring the pot and provoking hostility overtly and covertly. Pretending otherwise is not going to fly IMHO. Please spare me/us any further rebuttal as I have had my say and I know you won't leave off this inane complaining regardless of what others have to say.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The title of this thread is Suggestions, Comments and Support.

 

I really do hope my replies are accepted as exactly that . Because that is how they are offered.

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Almost like they need to fill out these four Questions in the initial Post Post #1

 

If they are not willing to do this already, why would it change?

 

Do you think there should be some sort of formal application form that has to be filled out before they are allowed to post anything?

 

But they would never do that. (And it is more work for the moderators.) These people are arrogant and intellectually dishonest. They would claim this was censorship and suppression of their rights. They would continue to post nonsense in other threads, etc.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

If they are not willing to do this already, why would it change?

 

Do you think there should be some sort of formal application form that has to be filled out before they are allowed to post anything?

 

But they would never do that. (And it is more work for the moderators.) These people are arrogant and intellectually dishonest. They would claim this was censorship and suppression of their rights. They would continue to post nonsense in other threads, etc.

Because , This would be formalized to only be possible to proceed if completed. ( Four Boxes ). This is similar to ordering up a purchase on the net , say a Flight ticket eg * compulsory field . Either by Software or by initial moderation, which i am sure moderators look at all new Speculations .if they do not comply, then put into a holding bin ,until they do. This would save all this repeated nagging to get something that would be a requirement before the start, at least in brief . [ No 4 answers, no way forward , right at the start.]

 

More detailed points can be obtained as the thread proceeds.

 

mike

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes . I appeciate , and have seen you ask these questions many, many times .

 

I am suggesting this it put to a proposer , before they start .

 

Almost like they need to fill out these four Questions in the initial Post Post #1

 

 

 

I ] Observation ...................

 

2] Speculation .....................

 

3]. Test .........................

 

4] .Future Use .....................

 

 

Only Then Invite Comments

 

 

 

AFAIK there is no way to implement this with the forum software. Getting people to read and follow the directions from a stickied post would probably be as effective as getting them to read and follow the rules. Our success rate is not exactly stellar there.

 

B) Also to not be overtly hostile . Provocative , insulting etc Throughout the thread

 

 

That's been under discussion for a little while amongst the staff.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

AFAIK there is no way to implement this with the forum software. Getting people to read and follow the directions from a stickied post would probably be as effective as getting them to read and follow the rules. Our success rate is not exactly stellar there.

 

 

If Boxes are not possible at least it could have been self regulation. But if it was a screen printed statement , it could be pointed back to . I would guess people do not read rules. I think too much reading itself has problems , I often wonder sometimes when I write longer text if people will read it. That is one of the reasons I use diagrams and pictures,

 

mike

[ajb]

What Mike says is good, for children learning to explore their world and school students writing project reports. Of course children should thrown stones in ponds to see how waves 'work'. Of course they should drop things out of windows to 'test' gravity. Of course they should rub balloons on their jumpers to 'test' static electricity and so on.

 

But this is not what we are talking about here.