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

[swansont]

A suggested solution to this recurrent debate, by hard liners, as well as the current 'Log Jam '

 

A look at the interest people show in speculative ideas , can be seen in the number of viewings :

Some 80,000 viewings in Speculations . Some 80,000 in Philosophy .

These are some of the largest viewings across the whole of the Science Forum , Which must show audience interest.

 

The speculations forum could possibly be split into Three categories. ( not by subject type as this already exist is the main forum) .

It could be split into

a) . Rigorous , incremental development, SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT keeping the mathematicians and other rigorous scientists happy.

b) . Clever, as yet unproven ideas of a SPECULATIVE CHARACTER where those with useful ideas are given space to make contributions.

 

c) . Way out, AUDACIOUS SPECULATION ideas, so far out as to shock many of a conservative nature, which however could well possess (Tomorrows Science Answers.)

 

Thus not fragmenting into different subject type , But into SPECULATIVE DEGREE

 

mike

 

 

This isn't going to fly, for a couple of reasons.

 

Who does the sorting? Not the thread-starter — they usually start the threads in mainstream science. That places an additional burden on the moderator volunteers.

 

Many complain vociferously when their thread is moved. Can you imagine how loud it will be when a thread is moved to "AUDACIOUS SPECULATION"? I don't want to have anything to do with that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

This isn't going to fly, for a couple of reasons.

 

Who does the sorting? Not the thread-starter — they usually start the threads in mainstream science. That places an additional burden on the moderator volunteers.

 

Many complain vociferously when their thread is moved. Can you imagine how loud it will be when a thread is moved to "AUDACIOUS SPECULATION"? I don't want to have anything to do with that.

 

I do not think you will have a problem.

 

Many are already placing themselves in Speculations to start with.

Those that are strong on maths and rigor will be pleased to set their speculation in the Rigorous category

Those that are not strong on maths , or rigor will avoid that category. Place themselves in ( less rigor ) Clever Middle road category

Those with way out Blue Sky ideas are usually proud of the fact , and will self sort into the Audacious group. ( may be ' Blue Sky ' sounds less frightening to the moderators )

 

I genuinely think your speculating contributors enjoy debate,as do the main stream , but they do not like to be 'trashed ' from the start over maths and rigor.

 

Make a nice HOME for them down here among the trash can and they will love to be here and debate themselves into the FUTURE

 

 

mike

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I do not think you will have a problem.

 

Many are already placing themselves in Speculations to start with.

You are not in a position to know this. A fair fraction of posts get moved without a modnote. So a thread that appears there was not necessarily originally posted there.

 

 

 

I genuinely think your speculating contributors enjoy debate,as do the main stream , but they do not like to be 'trashed ' from the start over maths and rigor.

 

Make a nice HOME for them down here among the trash can and they will love to be here and debate themselves into the FUTURE

That has not been my experience. I think the majority enjoy pontificating and are not looking for criticism of any kind — only validation. And you are forgetting the other side of the coin – the people with whom they would be debating. Would they enjoy it and would they participate, if little rigor was going to be applied? I'm much more interested in accommodating the members who have built the forum up and actively engage others than a random person who shows up with a half-baked idea that's poorly explained and is far-removed from reality. Why should we be catering to such people? This is a science site.

[elfmotat]

 

 

This isn't going to fly, for a couple of reasons.

 

Who does the sorting? Not the thread-starter — they usually start the threads in mainstream science. That places an additional burden on the moderator volunteers.

 

Many complain vociferously when their thread is moved. Can you imagine how loud it will be when a thread is moved to "AUDACIOUS SPECULATION"? I don't want to have anything to do with that.

 

Not to mention that the "rigorous" section would get close to zero activity. Or activity that belongs there, anyway.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That has not been my experience. I think the majority enjoy pontificating and are not looking for criticism of any kind — only validation. And you are forgetting the other side of the coin – the people with whom they would be debating. Would they enjoy it and would they participate, if little rigor was going to be applied? I'm much more interested in accommodating the members who have built the forum up and actively engage others than a random person who shows up with a half-baked idea that's poorly explained and is far-removed from reality. Why should we be catering to such people? This is a science site.

 

It has oft been Quoted " If monkeys sat at a keyboard and randomly tapped the keys, soon or later they would type ' the worls of Shakespeare or E= mcsquared.

 

what is important is the truth being recognised. That is even if the originator is monkey like, if he taps out E=mc squared , as a monkey might , highly highly speculatively almost randomly. If a scientist has this drawn th their attention , by an anybody , all well and good.

 

Of course that speculation has already been dealt with. But what of the future.

 

Why stop the monkey's typing , even if some are very bright monkeys or even human ?

 

mike

[swansont]

 

It has oft been Quoted " If monkeys sat at a keyboard and randomly tapped the keys, soon or later they would type ' the worls of Shakespeare or E= mcsquared.

 

what is important is the truth being recognised. That is even if the originator is monkey like, if he taps out E=mc squared , as a monkey might , highly highly speculatively almost randomly. If a scientist has this drawn th their attention , by an anybody , all well and good.

 

Of course that speculation has already been dealt with. But what of the future.

 

Why stop the monkey's typing , even if some are very bright monkeys or even human ?

 

mike

 

 

Randomly churning out works is not science, and you're ignoring that we'd have to evaluate all of the output to see if made sense — we're not comparing it to known science, we want to evaluate if it's valid new science. Signal-to-noise is essentially zero.

[elfmotat]

Why stop the monkey's typing , even if some are very bright monkeys or even human ?

 

Nobody is stopping them. Notice how the speculations forum is still there.

[Strange]

That is even if the originator is monkey like, if he taps out E=mc squared , as a monkey might , highly highly speculatively almost randomly.

 

The only reason we would recognise this bit of randomness as meaningful is because someone else has already derived it from first principles and it has since been tested.

 

Just making up random stuff and hoping it might be right is not science. I could write a very short program to do that. It certainly doesn't require any intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

Randomly churning out works is not science, and you're ignoring that we'd have to evaluate all of the output to see if made sense — we're not comparing it to known science, we want to evaluate if it's valid new science. Signal-to-noise is essentially zero.

 

Ah yes ! well I have already worked that one out .

You might be in for a bit of a shock .

 

The device ( if that is the word ) for deciphering the ( signal ) within the noise is :-

 

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF . It tests out the random happenings . If it is good it works if it is no good it does not work. The rest is history

 

Mike

[swansont]

 

Ah yes ! well I have already worked that one out .

You might be in for a bit of a shock .

 

The device ( if that is the word ) for deciphering the ( signal ) within the noise is :-

 

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF . It tests out the random happenings . If it is good it works if it is no good it does not work. The rest is history

 

Mike

 

Um, what? How would "the universe itself" test to see if a random bit of quasi-conjecture contained any viable science?

[Strange]

It tests out the random happenings .

 

No, that is what we do. It is called "science".

 

It requires a process based on evidence, mathematical models, testable predictions and willingness to admit an idea is wrong. All of which are severely lacking in the typical Speculations thread.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Um, what? How would "the universe itself" test to see if a random bit of quasi-conjecture contained any viable science?

 

This is where the speculation is tested not by the science forum itself. But by the mechanism that it has, within itself with :-

 

The Speculation should have come from some 'observation' of some sort. If the interpretation of the observation ( namely the speculation as to what is going on ) is correct then the universe will show it working . If the Speculation is not correct , it will not work correctly .

 

Although this sounds an over simplification. The function of the science forum can be to see if the observer of the universe undergoing the test of the speculation either Works or does not work in the Universe.

 

By universe I do not mean necessarily stars, galaxies . It could be fish food flakes on a still pond . or Pollen grains in a tank of water , like Einstein Used.

 

This, is open to anybody with a 'scientific - Universe scientific observational ' , investigative mind .

 

Doctors do not cure you . it is the natural chemicals, and your own bodily systems that mainly cure you. True doctors need to learn of the correct chemicals or operational procedures or manipulations. This is not to minimize the skills and incredible work of Doctors. But I am sure they would admit , it is the incredible mechanisms of the body , that do the healing. Not the Doctor.

 

So with this issue , of speculation, You yourself have said this to me in the past . The proof of Speculation is under ' Actual Test ' by nature.

 

So the Speculations can be tested by there performance within the environment. If the observation with its attached speculation by the thread proposer is correct. It will work under test by then universe/Nature. If the speculation is incorrect it will not work This is Science

 

This does NOT necessarily need MATHS . it will work , or not work WITHOUT the MATHS.

 

Similarly IT can work WITHOUT the RIGOR . ( Perhaps Once is enough for the speculation ) Rigor later.

 

I went over to Pisa ( ONCE ) to drop a concrete lemon and a real lemon . Off the top of the tower of Pisa . To see if they both landed at the same time.

 

An Italian shop keeper in the street leading up to the Tower , nearly wet himself with glee. He Exclaimed " This is what we need is more real science going on here." I must admit the police/guards had other views.

 

Where is the Maths Where is the Rigor Just Pure Science Desk Top Science

 

Mike

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

...

So the Speculations can be tested by there[sic] performance within the environment. If the observation with its attached speculation by the thread proposer is correct.[sic] It will work under test by then[sic] universe/Nature. If the speculation is incorrect it will not work[sic] This is Science[sic]

 

Mike

No; this is a misunderstanding of science. No matter how much you squeal & squirm there is no making a silk purse of a sow's ear. That is to say their is no making a scientific speculation of a wild ass guess. (Notwithstanding the fella that boiled down a sow's ear and made fibers of the result.) The material you present here and that is presented by those you ostensibly support belong in a personal blog and not a science discussion forum. It's all nothing more than a royal waste of time. Good grief.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Acme

[Strange]

This does NOT necessarily need MATHS . it will work , or not work WITHOUT the MATHS.

 

It needs maths. For example, your two "lemons":

 

What is the significant difference between them? Their mass (or, perhaps, their weight). How do you know what they weigh? Maths.

 

How do you know that they should land at the same time? Because that is what the maths says.

 

What does "at the same time" mean? For example, I can guarantee that the concrete lemon landed fractionally before the real lemon. But does that invalidate the result? How much difference in time would be significant? Guess what: maths required.

 

And so on...

 

No maths, no science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

It needs maths. For example, your two "lemons":

 

What is the significant difference between them? Their mass (or, perhaps, their weight). How do you know what they weigh? Maths.

 

How do you know that they should land at the same time? Because that is what the maths says.

 

What does "at the same time" mean? For example, I can guarantee that the concrete lemon landed fractionally before the real lemon. But does that invalidate the result? How much difference in time would be significant? Guess what: maths required.

 

And so on...

 

No maths, no science.

 

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.

 

We dropped from upstairs fire escapes to arrive later on the grass below, photographed arriving at the same time . I did not manage to get a photograph for obvious reasons from the base of the Tower of Pisa. But a Local Italian Hotel owner allowed me to drop them from the top of his hotel, and I have photos. I might even be able to find them somewhere. No Maths. No rigor . Just an observation, a principle ,and science and fun and learning .

 

True the rigor can come later, the detail can come later, Formula, Maths, but the speculation proposed everything works equally under the same influence. Galileo Speculation overthrew Aristotle who said heavy things rush quicker to get to the center of the Earth. Galileo made the Correct observation and has proved to be correct in saying they respond similarly . Obviously Newton put ' meat on the bone' with formulas, and Einstein with his general theory of relativity and the structure of space. But it was Galileo ( At the Tower of Pisa) made the FIRST correct observation and Speculation. So no reason why we can not do Observations today and make Speculations.

 

mike

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

 

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

 

How do you know that arriving at the same time is significant without maths? How would you know what it meant for one to arrive before the other without maths?

 

 

We dropped from upstairs fire escapes to arrive later on the grass below, photographed arriving at the same time .

 

That is the thing: they didn't arrive at the same time. But, without maths, you can't define what "at the same time" means and so all you can say is, "it looked like they arrived at the same time".

 

How do you know that the difference wasn't too small to see? What was the exposure time of the photo? How do you demonstrate that this is inconsistent with an alternative theory of gravity that says the real lemon should arrive first (by a really tiny amount)?

 

You can't answer any of those questions without maths. Therefore, you might be doing a fun demonstration but it isn't science. Any scientist (or test engineer) would tear this to shreds as an experimental setup.

[Acme]

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.

We are not children and you are teaching us nothing. (Save perhaps what a monumental load of crap one person can pile up.)

 

...

True the rigor can come later, the detail can come later, Formula, Maths, but the speculation proposed everything works equally under the same influence. Galileo Speculation overthrew Aristotle who said heavy things rush quicker to get to the center of the Earth. Galileo made the Correct observation and has proved to be correct in saying they respond similarly . Obviously Newton put ' meat on the bone' with formulas, and Einstein with his general theory of relativity and the structure of space. But it was Galileo ( At the Tower of Pisa) made the FIRST correct observation and Speculation. So no reason why we can not do Observations today and make Speculations.

 

mike

Again no. It is not that rigor can come but that it must. Galileo put the meat on the bones with rigorous math. >>Galileo ramps

Why do you insist on continuing to irritate and provoke us? Good grief again and again.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

How do you know that arriving at the same time is significant without maths? How would you know what it meant for one to arrive before the other without maths?

 

 

That is the thing: they didn't arrive at the same time. But, without maths, you can't define what "at the same time" means and so all you can say is, "it looked like they arrived at the same time".

 

How do you know that the difference wasn't too small to see? What was the exposure time of the photo? How do you demonstrate that this is inconsistent with an alternative theory of gravity that says the real lemon should arrive first (by a really tiny amount)?

 

You can't answer any of those questions without maths. Therefore, you might be doing a fun demonstration but it isn't science. Any scientist (or test engineer) would tear this to shreds as an experimental setup.

 

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).

 

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

 

They can go out into the world tomorrow . Make an observation. think through a possible Speculation. Then go Try it out . All without at this stage Maths and Rigor .

 

Mike

[Strange]

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

 

They can go out into the world tomorrow . Make an observation. think through a possible Speculation. Then go Try it out .

 

Again, this is the same straw man argument as before. No one is saying that observation and new ideas should be ignored. However, those are almost totally lacking in the Speculations forum.

 

All without at this stage Maths and Rigor .

 

In which case they will be wasting their time. How do you "try it out" as you say, without maths? You can't. As the example of Galileo demonstrates.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We are not children and you are teaching us nothing. (Save perhaps what a monumental load of crap one person can pile up.)

 

...

Again no. It is not that rigor can come but that it must. Galileo put the meat on the bones with rigorous math. >>Galileo ramps

Why do you insist on continuing to irritate and provoke us? Good grief again and again.

 

Yes . I agree Galileo went on to do further experiments with slopes. But the Maths that is shown in that quote were not Galileo formulas.

These were produced later by Isaac Newton and used in this clip. Galileo made the Observation and showed changes in speed. Isaac Newton put this in a Formula later . NOT GALILEO

 

mike

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Galileo made the OBservation and showed changes in speed.

 

He didn't just show changes in speed ("oh look it goes faster"). He measured and quantified the changes. In other words: maths.

[Acme]

Yes . I agree Galileo went on to do further experiments with slopes. But the Maths that is shown in that quote were not Galileo formulae.

These were produced later by Isaac Newton and used in this clip. Galileo made the OBservation and showed changes in speed. Isaac Neuton put this in a Formula later .

 

mike

 

mike

Balderdash. As Strange pointed out, measuring time is a mathematical construct as are ratios. Your blatherings are a disservice to science and this board as well as to any youth who read your postings here.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Again, this is the same straw man argument as before. No one is saying that observation and new ideas should be ignored. However, those are almost totally lacking in the Speculations forum.

 

 

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.

 

Instead of beating the living daylight out of them because they have not quoted copious Maths.

Further beating the living daylights telling them they are not scientist because they are not demonstating rigor, And every other type of abuse and bullying to beat the last glimmer enthusiasm out of them.

 

 

 

In which case they will be wasting their time. How do you "try it out" as you say, without maths? You can't. As the example of Galileo demonstrates.

 

No I would dare to suggest ALL THAT MATHS is Isaac Newtons. His was enjoying playing with his slopes. Yes he made measurements based on set divisions of the slope . And yes he used a simple formula for speed distance over time . and he noticed by this observation that the speed changed known as an acceleration.

 

Again I have had students running model cars down a slope .etc etc We have tried it out then with bigger cars and bigger slopes.

 

I am inclined to say quite the opposite.

 

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.

 

True there are a number of students that detect and learn to love the power of maths, the beauty of formula . These will go on to become excellent supportive scientists etc but I would say , not all scientists , have, or need to have these feelings.

 

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

 

mike

Edited November 7, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Again I have had students running model cars down a slope .etc etc We have tried it out then with bigger cars and bigger slopes.

 

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.)

Edited November 7, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

 

This is where the speculation is tested not by the science forum itself. But by the mechanism that it has, within itself with :-

 

The Speculation should have come from some 'observation' of some sort. If the interpretation of the observation ( namely the speculation as to what is going on ) is correct then the universe will show it working . If the Speculation is not correct , it will not work correctly .

 

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.