"Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions" — Discussion Thread

[studiot]

 

I think an honest and slightly more in-depth response is appreciated.

 

Unfortunately this takes a deal of work is is often not well received.

 

BTW I'm not arguing against a God slot per se.

Just that I was pointing out the number of views and replies to such thread v the number on interesting things such as the self healing concrete that was announced today (not here)

.

We have quite a few chemists/chemical engineers/earth scientists here but materials science seems the poor relation.

Edited December 4, 2014 by studiot

[swansont]

On the face of it this seems like a fine idea. But when a member has been posting nonsense, sometimes for weeks, when the shortcomings of their posts have been pointed out in numerous ways, by numerous members, and they post yet another concoction of word salad I think it is wholly appropriate to call it word salad. I think it would be even more appropriate if said member were warned and, if necessary, banned more expeditiously, but until that does happen the word salad option, in the scenario I have described, seems right.

 

We're trying to make this scenario moot. This is part of an effort to keep threads from reaching this point. We give the thread starter a link to the guidelines, and focus their attention on How could this be tested to ensure that it's true? and/or what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve? and if they fail to respond in a reasonable scientific manner, we end the exchange.

[Acme]

... It's still bait for the discussion to continue off on a tangent, though, which is why we'd prefer that people not do it it reduces the number of complaints we have to read. ...

This goes to my point that this is more about making things easier for staff than for members. Yes you're volunteers, thankless job, yada yada yada, but anything worth doing is worth doing well. Nip it in the bud and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure come to mind.

 

... There is a new move afoot to tighten things up and it would be sensible for us to support this.

One more cliché comes to mind; the proof is in the pudding.

[Phi for All]

 

Unfortunately this takes a deal of work is is often not well received.

 

So true. OPs rarely understand that replies are trying to be helpful, that the best thing we could ever do for them is to show them where flaws are messing up their wonderful idea. Perhaps it's partially because most speculative posters aren't professionals, and don't understand that all ideas are wonderful (if only because you're using your brain) but only a small few are right.

[swansont]

This goes to my point that this is more about making things easier for staff than for members. Yes you're volunteers, thankless job, yada yada yada, but anything worth doing is worth doing well. Nip it in the bud and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure come to mind.

 

I don't see how we're adding any burden on members, other than the ones who are posting the speculations. Not posting is less work than posting, and the goal of this is to nip the bad threads in the bud.

[Acme]

I don't see how we're adding any burden on members, other than the ones who are posting the speculations. Not posting is less work than posting, and the goal of this is to nip the bad threads in the bud.

I'm good with the speculations section proposals, it's the religion business I'm at odds with. Perhaps I'm off topic with that here and if so, my bad.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Why do you not use my thread on " quantum gravity and photons , " as an example of how a speculator goes wrong. As clearly I went wrong , as I just got closed down.

 

I had a perfectly genuine " what I thought was a good speculative idea . No desire to troll or any bad intentions . But clearly the system kicked in and closed me down .

 

So where did I go wrong ? First one to be judged, I was told . So use me as a test case to explain where I went wrong.

 

The only thing I would ask is you do not make overly cutting , deflating discouraging remarks. As it was a genuine attempt to speculate.?

 

Mike

Edited December 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I would refer you to the first 5 items in the list in post #5. But f you try and defend your idea here, it will probably not go down well.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Strange

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I would refer you to the first 5 items in the list in post #5. But f you try and defend your idea here, it will probably not go down well.

Like I said I was offering this case as a good test case example, to illustrate how the system works. As so far most of the comments on this thread are spoken as " generalities" ,rather than as specific examples.

 

I am quite happy to sit back and listen to " how I went wrong" ! Provided it is not a personal inflammatory verbal attack .

I would have thought it would be quite educational. Of course if someone thinks the approach was over the top anywhere along the way . Then a candid remark would be appreciated. But I won't be the one to argue why I have been shut down . As that's what I am offering . Use this as an freely offered example. After all it was swansont who commented . " you are the first example to apply the rules to! "

 

Mike

Edited December 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I am quite happy to sit back and listen to " how I went wrong"

 

Sorry, but I think that taking that list (from post #5) and providing examples for each item would basically mean reproducing your thread here. People explained all the places where you appeared to "used terminology without understanding what it means", "used terminology contrary to its meaning", "used terms that are not used in this branch of science", "made assertions without providing any support", and so on. What is the point of repeating them here.

 

In addition you failed to provide any evidential support (scientific evidence is objective and quantifiable, not photos of your swimming pool) or theoretical support (in science, a theory is a mathematical description).

 

But you were told all this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Sorry, but I think that taking that list (from post #5) .........is.

I think you may have missed my offer. I personally , am not asking for especially telling , although I do not mind.

As I said for other potential speculators who "may end up in the same boat " . I feel it might be quite educational ,if, rather than generalities like .. For example not " used terms that are not used in this branch of science " is a generality , whereas your mention of " not photos of your swimming pool " is a specific example .

 

For example " when asked for the specific maths formulae with reference to " bubbles " in space , his quotation about bubbles in liquid was not relevant enough to be viewed as proof " say .

 

Is this not a good idea.

 

When I ask a colleague of mine to guide me in my art , he says things like . " what do you see , in your painting " I say a bright red flower. He says " is that what you want your audience to see . I say , no , I want them to see my boat . He says " then fade the red flower down , or paint it out. " I say , " but it's there " he says " it's not relevant , cut it out , concentrate on the boat !

 

These are not generalities like " always paint the important bits " they are constructive specific examples , given in a master class .

 

But , this was just a suggestion

 

Mike

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Stick to the topic, please. Mike, this thread isn't about you. If you have queries about why the thread was shut down, you know where to ask them.

[Strange]

I suppose Mik'e example does show that even the extended list response doesn't really help any more than just saying "word salad". People posting their ideas, genuinely think they make sense. They don't think they are misusing terminology, think that unformed speculations genuinely don't need evidential or theoretical support, and so on.

 

The only solution is probably a much more rapid move to close speculation threads that don't (and clearly won't) meet the new standards. (And that seems to be happening already.) This will, inevitably, lead to an increase in threads complaining that "perfectly good" ideas have been shut down by The Man. But ... meh.

[SamCogar]

Given the Rules ..... I assume I will also be prohibited from posting my science based ideas and commentary on this, the Speculation Forum.

 

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

 

Speculation - The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speculation

 

 

 

spec·u·la·tion
a. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speculation

 

 

Interesting, ...... a Speculation Forum where one is prohibited from posting their science based speculations unless they also provide actual, factual, testable scientific evidence and/or proofs to support and/or prove their speculations are scientifically factual.

[Phi for All]

Interesting, ...... a Speculation Forum where one is prohibited from posting their science based speculations unless they also provide actual, factual, testable scientific evidence and/or proofs to support and/or prove their speculations are scientifically factual.

 

We've determined that evidence is one of the best benchmarks of science, and provides the perfect way to make sure discussions are rigorous rather than simply chatting about someone's sloppy, wild-ass guesswork.

[Lord Antares]

/cut

 

Hey Sam, I made the same exact observations in another thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102612-suggestion-about-the-speculations-forum/

 

I think what they are missing is that we're not objecting to how the speculations forum is policed, only how the rules are worded.

The rules weren't clear to me at and I thought they were contradictory all until swansont explained them in that thread.

 

I think this further proves the point that there is an ambiguity. Really, only a 10 second correction is needed to eliminate the ambiguity.

[swansont]

Given the Rules ..... I assume I will also be prohibited from posting my science based ideas and commentary on this, the Speculation Forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, ...... a Speculation Forum where one is prohibited from posting their science based speculations unless they also provide actual, factual, testable scientific evidence and/or proofs to support and/or prove their speculations are scientifically factual.

 

 

 

By posting the guidelines and rules, we are clarifying what we mean by speculation. Note that the definition includes "the formation of a theory or conjecture", and we are saying that this needs to be in the context of science — the use of theory in the definition is probably not the scientific definition of the word — a dictionary is not a technical reference. Anybody with a passing familiarity with science should not be surprised that lay definitions and science definitions don't always agree.

 

You are wrong about one important thing here. If your ideas and commentary would not be welcome it would be precisely because they are not science-based. If they are science-based, then you should have no trouble presenting evidence and/or a testable model.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Recent discussion that has drifted away from the thread's topic has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103402-wht-is-scientific-evidencesplit-from-guidelines-for-speculations/

 

[thetwoyous]

Your rules on speculations. 

These rules limit "speculations," and open the door for the naysayers that enjoy trashing new ideas and concepts that are in conflict with theirs.  

Until testable, Einstein's theory of relativity was just a speculation. By the rules posted here his theories would have been moved to the trash can because they were initially untestable. He comprehended the concept of relativity then spent years trying to define and describe the concept.  Many accepted theories are speculations that do not pass the test of "based on what." Example: The accepted terms and theories as relating to short and long term memories.  We know that some memories are short, lasting a few seconds and some memories last a life time.  But we cannot yet prove scientifically what determines their longevity, and so according to the forum rules we cannot speculate or offer a theory as to the root cause basis of memory longevity.  ARG! 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, thetwoyous said:

Your rules on speculations. 

These rules limit "speculations," and open the door for the naysayers that enjoy trashing new ideas and concepts that are in conflict with theirs.  

Until testable, Einstein's theory of relativity was just a speculation. By the rules posted here his theories would have been moved to the trash can because they were initially untestable. He comprehended the concept of relativity then spent years trying to define and describe the concept.  Many accepted theories are speculations that do not pass the test of "based on what." Example: The accepted terms and theories as relating to short and long term memories.  We know that some memories are short, lasting a few seconds and some memories last a life time.  But we cannot yet prove scientifically what determines their longevity, and so according to the forum rules we cannot speculate or offer a theory as to the root cause basis of memory longevity.  ARG! 

His ideas were mathematically sound and were built on what came before. You can't just pull something out of your arse and create something in a vacuum with no reference to past endeavours.

[thetwoyous]

They "were" after he defined the math to describe it.  Prior to that it was speculation that was untestable and that's my point about the posted rules of speculation topics.  I have theories that describe a root basis that determine memories longevity, but are not yet scientifically testable, because we do not know all the chemical that represent a memory, nor their electro chemical potentials  

[Strange]

1 minute ago, thetwoyous said:

They "were" after he defined the math to describe it.  Prior to that it was speculation that was untestable and that's my point about the posted rules of speculation topics.  I have theories that describe a root basis that determine memories longevity, but are not yet scientifically testable, because we do not know all the chemical that represent a memory, nor their electro chemical potentials  

Then he would have been in violation of the rules if he had posted his ideas here with no math and no evidence.

As it is, the math was developed in parallel with the idea and so it was pretty much always testable (his first version of the math for GR actually gave the wrong result).

3 minutes ago, thetwoyous said:

I have theories that describe a root basis that determine memories longevity, but are not yet scientifically testable, because we do not know all the chemical that represent a memory, nor their electro chemical potentials  

Then that is barely even a hypothesis. As such it does not meet the requirements for this forum. Tough.

(You will find that scientists who develop such speculative ideas spend some time discussing it with colleagues, bouncing ideas off others, thinking of ways it might be wrong, how it could be tested etc. They then discard something like 99% of the ideas they have, because these discussions and musings show the flaws in it.)

And if there is no way of testing it, then it is not even science.

But you could use this forum to ask questions to see if others have ideas how aspects of it could be tested, or if there are obvious flaws  that you haven't thought of yet, etc.

 

And if you really have a sound, scientific idea this forum is not really the place for it. This is a general discussion forum for people interested in science (a few of whom happen to be working scientists). It is not really an appropriate place for new theories. (The only reason we have the Speculations forum, in my opinion, is to avoid polluting the sensible science discussions.)

[thetwoyous]

OK Thanks for the info.  Einstein comprehended the concept of relativity "before" he figured out a way to prove it. At that point it was speculative.  In the brain, comprehension comes first and then we try to through word associative language to define the concept.  Thanks for your response.  Have a great evening. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, thetwoyous said:

Einstein comprehended the concept of relativity "before" he figured out a way to prove it.

In the case of special relativity, most of the evidence and mathematics already existed. The main thing Einstein did was provide an explanation and show how the math could be derived from first principles. 

In the case of GR, it is more complicated but some math was always there. 

(But this is off topic. If you want to discuss it further then I suggest you start a new thread.)

[Eise]

15 hours ago, thetwoyous said:

These rules limit "speculations," and open the door for the naysayers that enjoy trashing new ideas and concepts that are in conflict with theirs.  

In line with the other reactions you already got:

I distinguish between wild speculations and scientific speculations. Speculations are an essential part of scientific praxis. Our observations and experiments do not bring ideas by themselves: scientists doing them generate ideas, and when they are not tested (yet), they are speculations. But well-founded speculations. Scientists know the present theories, and about possible shortcomings of them. Speculations without sufficient knowledge about present theories, that are based on gut feelings, and contradict established science, are scientifically worthless. And yes, this is a science forum.

Your illustration with Einstein is therefore as wrong as it can be. He knew about the problems of harmonising electromagnetism with classical mechanics (he was also not the first to work on this problem), and aimed at solving this, without using many additional hypothesis. This became special relativity. And if you meant general relativity: Einstein soon saw that Newton's law of gravitation could not be the last word, because it allows faster than light communication via gravitation. This turned out to be the harder problem, e.g. while a much more complicated mathematical toolset had to be used. But when Einstein succeeded, he immediately applied it to the orbit of Mercury, which shows an extra movement that Newton's law of gravitation could not account for, and Einstein succeeded in explaining it with his equations.

So Einstein's 'speculations' were firmly rooted in his knowledge of physics, and he was aware of the necessity to check his ideas. So if you have a firm knowledge about the physiological basis of memory, can show why present ideas fail, and can show that your ideas fit very well in what we do know, please, present your ideas. But as said, why not publish them in a scientific journal?

And if you are not sure: just ask if your ideas have any merit. But accept the answers, even if they are negative.

And being polite always helps. Also, not throwing in conspiracy theories about science oppressing new ideas helps. Scientists love new ideas: but they should not be in clear contradiction with established science, or not testable at all.