"Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions" — Discussion Thread

[swansont]

This has just been posted, after lengthy discussion with moderators and resident experts. This thread is for commentary, while the other one will be locked and modified as necessary.
======

The speculations forum draws a fair amount of lively discussion. Here are some guidelines for ALL participants.

The official rules regarding the Speculations 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.
• Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.
• Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

For those of you who are posting here: this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down.

1. If you are presenting some new conjecture and insisting that it is correct, or are objecting to some mainstream theory, you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so. It's a far better approach to ask questions if it's a matter of not understanding how some scientific principle works.

Once you insist your idea is right (or some other idea is wrong) the burden of proof is on you, so expect to be challenged and to defend your idea. Some kind of scientific model, comparison with evidence, specific predictions or other ways of falsifying your idea are a MUST. Consider the first question you must address as "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" That's what a model does it allows one to predict outcomes under specific conditions so that they can be compared with experiment.

- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions. V = IR is a simple model in electricity. All of the terms represent something physically measurable. Systematically choosing two of the variables allows you predict the third one, which can be compared with the measurement.

- evidence means scientific evidence, i.e. it is objective and specific, and to be useful, it has to differentiate your idea from any existing model. Anecdotes don't count, and logic without a physical experiment this includes thought experiment is insufficient (though these can be used to make predictions)

2. Huge "walls of text" are usually difficult to get through and discourage participation. Present an abstract a distillation of your idea first. Get into the details afterwards. It has to be posted here, though. Simply linking to an outside site for text or video is not sufficient, and against the rules.

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories, e.g. predicting some result where mainstream theory predicts nothing happens, or some other clear distinction. If you can't do this, it's a sign you need a more detailed model.

4. It's a good idea to explain what new ground you're covering if it's a new hypothesis, what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve? If it's a critique, clearly explain the alleged shortcoming(s) of the existing theory.

To do this properly you need to be familiar with the area of science into which your idea would fit, or the material you are critiquing. You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists. The dictionary is not a good substitute for a science textbook, because science uses specific definitions.

5. You can't ignore criticism of your idea. When someone points out where a prediction fails to match experiment or some other sticking point, you need to address the issue. This is a two-way discussion, not a lecture. It doesn't matter if your idea appears explain one phenomenon if it fails elsewhere that it's expected to work.

6. If your post was moved to speculations and you want know why, read this.




To all of those responding to Speculations posts:

Remember that non-participation is always an option. If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, please stay out of it. Posts that simply state "word salad" add no value. Accusations of trolling or crackpottery, or other snide remarks, are similarly devoid of useful content, and depending on how you phrase the post, can be considered personal attacks. Focus on pushing the thread in the direction of science rather than creating noise.

Responses should be in terms of accepted science, not your own personal theory.

Don't use the post to raise independent questions of your own those belong in a new thread. All conversation should be addressing the original concept, or correcting/clarifying responses to that.

[swansont]

It's a little strange that absolutely nobody has read the guidelines yet (zero views as I post this), especially considering a few people have been specifically invited to do so. (The staff can be excused, since many mods and experts have done so several times while we were editing the content.)

 

One of the motivations for these guidelines was the amount of material that was being posted in speculations that was, frankly, utter garbage. Little more than idle pondering with only a tenuous connection to science. Having a thought about quantum physics but having no idea about any actual physics isn't going to lead anywhere — one is better served by asking questions about what you don't know, rather than posing conjecture that has no basis in science. The general feeling is that we have been too slow to shut down certain discussions — the kind that would lend themselves to a blog rather than a science discussion site — and we're looking to change that.

 

Another motivation is that there's dubious quality in some of the criticism that shows up. Many of these posts are word salad, but just posting "word salad" with no other commentary isn't constructive or conducive to discussion. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, we'd prefer you not post. It's a distraction. Such observations give the thread starter an opportunity to complain about those posts, rather than focus on defending whatever science content they have posted, or have been challenged to post.

[Strange]

Hmmm... I read it when you first posted it. And I think I have seen others mention it (but maybe only moderators - maybe only you!)

 

I suspect the "views" count is not very accurate. (I wasn't logged in when I read it; I don't know if that makes a difference.)

 

I think it is a very good summary of the requirements (for both sides). I have already failed to live up to the spirit of it... Must try harder....

Edited December 4, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

 

I suspect the "views" count is not very accurate. (I wasn't logged in when I read it; I don't know if that makes a difference.)

 

That's possible. It may not have updated yet.

[Ophiolite]

Answering my innate call to be disagreeable, doubtless arising from some unresolved issues as a child, I find myself at odds with the objection to calling something word salad.

 

There is a member on another forum whose contributions consist mainly of comments such as that. I agree completely that such contributions are pointless at best, annoying and unhelpful at worst. However, if a respected member - for example Strange - posts the comment word salad it saves me a great deal of time, since I am unlikely to disagree with his assessment. (The same holds true for many other established members.)

 

I view it as a concise form of the longer:

 

Your post fails on several levels.

• You are using terminology without apparently understanding what it means.
• In some cases your usage is exactly contrary to its meaning.
• You have introduced terms that are not used in this branch of science, yet have failed to define them.
• You have made assertions without providing any support.
• You have made assertions that are directly contradicted by the evidence.
• There is no logical connectivity between the points of your argument.
• You employ a number of logical fallacies.

Now, I think a post like that would be acceptable under the rules and guidelines as posted. So why would the shorthand form, word salad, be unacceptable?

[studiot]

Like Strange, I read the thread when initially posted, but not the linked rules (which I think your zero count refers to?).

 

Also I read the locked thread first, and gained the impression that here this thread was identical except for the locking, but did not see anything I could usefully contribute at that time.

 

This website is entitled Science Forums and I guess and hope that this is the beginning of a cleanup aimed at bringing in more real science overall.

 

If so, I would applaud.

 

Too many times recently I have logged in to find no science posts in the what's new section but several over well patronised threads entitled

 

Jesus Christ this or Jesus Christ that.............

 

 

Jesus Christ!

 

Is this a scientific or religious website?

Edited December 4, 2014 by studiot

[Phi for All]

Answering my innate call to be disagreeable, doubtless arising from some unresolved issues as a child, I find myself at odds with the objection to calling something word salad.

 

There is a member on another forum whose contributions consist mainly of comments such as that. I agree completely that such contributions are pointless at best, annoying and unhelpful at worst. However, if a respected member - for example Strange - posts the comment word salad it saves me a great deal of time, since I am unlikely to disagree with his assessment. (The same holds true for many other established members.)

 

I view it as a concise form of the longer:

 

Your post fails on several levels.

• You are using terminology without apparently understanding what it means.
• In some cases your usage is exactly contrary to its meaning.
• You have introduced terms that are not used in this branch of science, yet have failed to define them.
• You have made assertions without providing any support.
• You have made assertions that are directly contradicted by the evidence.
• There is no logical connectivity between the points of your argument.
• You employ a number of logical fallacies.

Now, I think a post like that would be acceptable under the rules and guidelines as posted. So why would the shorthand form, word salad, be unacceptable?

 

We make an assumption here that people who concoct a word salad post aren't knowingly doing it. They actually think the words make sense the way they've put them together. They don't know enough to understand that they don't know enough to begin with. So just posting "word salad" as a response doesn't further the conversation, doesn't help the poster understand why common terminology is important.

 

I think the shorthand isn't as constructive a criticism as we'd like. The results are usually more requests for clarification, so the longer version is probably more efficient anyway.

Too many times recently I have logged in to find no science posts in the what's new section but several over well patronised threads entitled

 

Jesus Christ this or Jesus Christ that.............

 

 

Jesus Christ!

 

Is this a scientific or religious website?

 

We've tried NOT having a religion section, but people end up bringing the subject up anyway. Our religion section is an effective way to make sure all those posts stay in an area you don't have to visit if you don't want to. As always, report any posts that bring up religion in a mainstream science section.

[Strange]

I rarely disagree with Ophiolite, but in this case I do. I might copy that list and keep it handy for when it is needed.

[Ophiolite]

 

We make an assumption here that people who concoct a word salad post aren't knowingly doing it.

That is an interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to support it?

[elfmotat]

Accusations of trolling or crackpottery, or other snide remarks, are similarly devoid of useful content, and depending on how you phrase the post, can be considered personal attacks.

 

This is the only part I particularly disagree with. What about when the post in question really does contain trolling or crackpottery? Just ignore it and move on? Pretend we don't know what's going on? That seems counter-productive, if anything. "Trolling" and "crackpottery" are activities that people choose to engage in, not necessarily personality traits. There's nothing personal about attacking the content of a post, and there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

[Ophiolite]

I rarely disagree with Ophiolite, but in this case I do. I might copy that list and keep it handy for when it is needed.

You are just saying that so they don't think I'm your sock-puppet.

 

Elftomat said:

This is the only part I particularly disagree with. What about when the post in question really does contain trolling or crackpottery? Just ignore it and move on? Pretend we don't know what's going on

I think that is when we are meant to report the post and not stir the shit. There are other forums where shit stirring is de rigor. In the past I would have agreed with you, but that's because there was insufficient effort to stamp upon obvious trolling. There is a new move afoot to tighten things up and it would be sensible for us to support this.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Ophiolite

[elfmotat]

Elftomat said:

I think that is when we are meant to report the post and not stir the shit. There are other forums where shit stirring is de rigor. In the past I would have agreed with you, but that's because there was insufficient effort to stamp upon obvious trolling. There is a new move afoot to tighten things up and it would be sensible for us to support this.

 

In the case of trolling I agree that using the report button is probably for the best, but what about in the case of crackpottery, which happens much more frequently? AFAIK crackpottery in itself is not against the rules.

[Phi for All]

That is an interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have to support it?

 

The ONLY evidence I have, really, is an observed desire to make their ideas known. It is an assumption that stringing together important-sounding words is an attempt to seem more knowledgeable, as well as trying to take the idea in their head and make it understandable to others.

 

I do base some of this on personal incredulity that someone would join a science discussion forum and purposefully try to sound so dodgy. It's human nature to try to fit in, and I think that's what word salad posts attempt to do. I suppose there is a brand of troll out there who tries to see how far they can get professionals to take them seriously, but I think most of our speculators just think they've found an easy fix that everybody else has missed all these years.

 

This is the only part I particularly disagree with. What about when the post in question really does contain trolling or crackpottery? Just ignore it and move on? Pretend we don't know what's going on? That seems counter-productive, if anything. "Trolling" and "crackpottery" are activities that people choose to engage in, not necessarily personality traits. There's nothing personal about attacking the content of a post, and there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

 

I think this is in reference to posts where the accusations of trolling or crackpottery are the ONLY content in the post. These are the posts that don't produce anything effective. Calling a spade a spade is one of those sound-bytes that seems perfectly logical, but begs the question that this is always appropriate.

[swansont]

 

In the case of trolling I agree that using the report button is probably for the best, but what about in the case of crackpottery, which happens much more frequently? AFAIK crackpottery in itself is not against the rules.

Trolling or anything that falls under a rules violation (trolling is under the umbrella of the soapboxing rule, since a discussion is not what's being fostered) should be reported.

 

Crackpottery should be fought with science. The guidelines are here to better outline what kind of discussions we will shut down (not enough science), and better define those that become soapboxing (ones where the idea is not being defended with science) which would then be shut down. We want to have the conversations pushing the discussion toward science, and reduce the distractions from that. If the poster not defending their idea after having a reasonable chance to do so, then it's soapboxing and should be reported.

 

I think this is in reference to posts where the accusations of trolling or crackpottery are the ONLY content in the post. These are the posts that don't produce anything effective. Calling a spade a spade is one of those sound-bytes that seems perfectly logical, but begs the question that this is always appropriate.

 

Indeed. There are ways of calling out crackpottery for what it is that are constructive, rather than jeers from the gallery.

[elfmotat]

I think this is in reference to posts where the accusations of trolling or crackpottery are the ONLY content in the post. These are the posts that don't produce anything effective.

 

Fair enough.

 

Calling a spade a spade is one of those sound-bytes that seems perfectly logical, but begs the question that this is always appropriate.

 

I wish I had a less cliche way to put it. I can't think of any examples of where calling something out for what it is would be bad in a scientific setting. Some social settings may call for lack of honesty in order to preserve people's feelings. But in science we're interested in honesty, not feelings. The usual social courtesies do not and should not apply. It's usually illuminating to see things put bluntly instead of tippy-toeing around the issue -- if not for the people directly involved then for any third parties who stumble upon the conversation.

 

 

Trolling or anything that falls under a rules violation (trolling is under the umbrella of the soapboxing rule, since a discussion is not what's being fostered) should be reported.

 

Crackpottery should be fought with science. The guidelines are here to better outline what kind of discussions we will shut down (not enough science), and better define those that become soapboxing (ones where the idea is not being defended with science) which would then be shut down. We want to have the conversations pushing the discussion toward science, and reduce the distractions from that. If the poster not defending their idea after having a reasonable chance to do so, then it's soapboxing and should be reported.

 

Indeed. There are ways of calling out crackpottery for what it is that are constructive, rather than jeers from the gallery.

 

I don't disagree with anything you say here. I just don't see the problem with simultaneously calling crackpottery crackpottery.

[Phi for All]

 

I wish I had a less cliche way to put it. I can't think of any examples of where calling something out for what it is would be bad in a scientific setting. Some social settings may call for lack of honesty in order to preserve people's feelings. But in science we're interested in honesty, not feelings. The usual social courtesies do not and should not apply. It's usually illuminating to see things put bluntly instead of tippy-toeing around the issue -- if not for the people directly involved then for any third parties who stumble upon the conversation.

 

I think the real issue here is that, for science discussion purposes, we need to have more than just, "This is nonsense, I'm calling a spade a spade". I think an honest and slightly more in-depth response is appreciated.

 

We're not looking for social sensitivity here, we're looking to have productive discussions. That usually requires a more thorough "calling out" or "calling spade". I think we can be honest AND explain more fully why an idea is wrong, no tippy-toe, no ridicule, no multiple pages of misunderstanding.

[elfmotat]

 

I think the real issue here is that, for science discussion purposes, we need to have more than just, "This is nonsense, I'm calling a spade a spade". I think an honest and slightly more in-depth response is appreciated.

 

We're not looking for social sensitivity here, we're looking to have productive discussions. That usually requires a more thorough "calling out" or "calling spade". I think we can be honest AND explain more fully why an idea is wrong, no tippy-toe, no ridicule, no multiple pages of misunderstanding.

 

Agreed. That pretty closely mirrors my thoughts.

[Acme]

...Too many times recently I have logged in to find no science posts in the what's new section but several over well patronised threads entitled

 

Jesus Christ this or Jesus Christ that.............

 

Jesus Christ!

 

Is this a scientific or religious website?

Here here! More often then not when I see the preachy threads littering new content I just leave.

 

...

We've tried NOT having a religion section, but people end up bringing the subject up anyway. Our religion section is an effective way to make sure all those posts stay in an area you don't have to visit if you don't want to. As always, report any posts that bring up religion in a mainstream science section.

As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar. Seems to me the big fuss is not that this stuff doesn't deserve acrimony, rather that y'all don't want to deal with it.

[Phi for All]

As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar.

 

IIRC, we've requested that of the Admins, and the software wasn't capable of it. We'll ask again, maybe an update has solved this.

[StringJunky]

Here here! More often then not when I see the preachy threads littering new content I just leave.

 

As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar. Seems to me the big fuss is not that this stuff doesn't deserve acrimony, rather that y'all don't want to deal with it.

We had this discussion a few years ago and the consensus was to keep it.

[Strange]

As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar. Seems to me the big fuss is not that this stuff doesn't deserve acrimony, rather that y'all don't want to deal with it.

 

If you click the "View New Content" link, there is the option to "Filter by forum" (bottom of the panel on the left). This lets you select which-sub-fora you want to see updates from. (Not sure if this is available in the mobile view.)

Edited December 4, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

 

We're not looking for social sensitivity here, we're looking to have productive discussions. That usually requires a more thorough "calling out" or "calling spade". I think we can be honest AND explain more fully why an idea is wrong, no tippy-toe, no ridicule, no multiple pages of misunderstanding.

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.

[Acme]

 

...

As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar. ...

IIRC, we've requested that of the Admins, and the software wasn't capable of it. We'll ask again, maybe an update has solved this.

 

Danke.

 

We had this discussion a few years ago and the consensus was to keep it.

That was then and this is now. I'd say it's time to review the decision.

 

If you click the "View New Content" link, there is the option to "Filter by forum" (bottom of the panel on the left). This lets you select which-sub-fora you want to see updates from. (Not sure if this is available in the mobile view.)

Maybe, but that puts the onus on the members. Moreover it's no fix for the guests visiting and thinking of joining who on seeing not science but religion decide this place is not for them. Then too, such guests as are inclined to post religion are only encouraged by seeing a passel of preachiness in new content. Throw the lot out and the problem is solved.

[swansont]

I don't disagree with anything you say here. I just don't see the problem with simultaneously calling crackpottery crackpottery.

 

We want to refrain from calling crackpots crackpots, because that's a personal observation and to be avoided. Calling crackpottery crackpottery is also to be avoided if that's all you're going to do — it adds nothing to the conversation.

 

If you've pointed out several of the problems with the proposal, there's not much reason at that point to call it crackpottery, but I think we're much less worried about such an observation being made in that context, because you've made the clear case and you're characterizing the work. 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. That said, any complaint that falls under the category of "you disagreed with me and that hurts my feeling" doesn't carry any measurable weight with me.

[Phi for All]

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.

 

If we've allowed a thread to get to this point, I can't imagine that someone wouldn't have given an acceptable argument against stringing words together in non-mainstream ways. As long as the poster has had others mention it, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out more infractions.

 

Speculations seems to draw people who want to bounce ideas off the membership, while most of the membership wants something more than just guessing, opinion, and wishful thinking. We don't want to be the place where you can baselessly claim your opinions might be the next huge breakthrough in science. We'd like to be the place where new ideas can be discussed productively for everyone. OPs generally want people to grab their concept and run with it, while responders want an idea to be grounded in basic science and supported by evidence, with no obvious conflicts with reality. It's all about encouraging discussion to be fruitful.