Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: New sub-forum (again)

  1. #1 New sub-forum (again) 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    I suggest the creation of a new sub-forum called something like "New Theories" or "Beyond the Accepted" or whatever.

    I speak only from my experience in the Physics and the Math sub-fora. Here we have members who have ideas which, to say the least, are not explicable by main-stream thinking. So what? Who is to say their ideas are worthless? They also often seem to have adherents in these sub-fora, but they also appear to create a lot of anger, frustration, and, at times, bad language.

    This is Not Good

    As a "last resort", whatever that means on a forum, the mods move these posts to Pseudoscience, which is like "go to the remedial class".

    This is Not Good either.

    My pitch then is to give revolutionary thinkers their own sub-forum, which we old stick-in-the-muds can visit or not, at our choosing.

    What d'yall think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Sure. But the problem is most of these posts ARE pseudoscience. If a post were written discussing the probability that weak EMF cause long-term health problems, that would go into the new thread.

    But if it was conducted in some stupid unscientific manner (not arguing the statistic-taking methods, not providing any ideas, claiming it's fact, etc), it goes to pseudoscience. That's generally how it's done.

    I'm willing to read threads made by intelligent people. the main problem is most of them are not intelligent.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    it goes to pseudoscience.
    This is the point that none of you mods seem able to understand, in this or in my earlier thread on this topic.

    You seem to regard Pseudoscience as a place where you, the mods, send stuff originally posted elsewhere, on your own judgment. I don't like this arrangement.

    If, for example, I thought I had a revolutionary way of thinking about some aspect of science, would I voluntarily post in Pseudoscience, it being generally understood that no post in that sub-forum had anything to do with science? No, especially if I knew that that sub-forum contained mostly those posts that the mods, in their wisdom, sent because they deemed it pseudoscience.

    However, in the circumstance that I believed in my theory, say, I may, realizing I'm a bit against the main-stream, offer a thread in a forum called "New Theories" or some such.

    In short, you, the mods, regard pseudoscience as a place where you, the mods, send stuff. I am suggesting a sub-forum where members would willingly send their own stuff.

    What's so hard about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    it goes to pseudoscience.
    This is the point that none of you mods seem able to understand, in this or in my earlier thread on this topic.

    You seem to regard Pseudoscience as a place where you, the mods, send stuff originally posted elsewhere, on your own judgment. I don't like this arrangement.
    Not really. If something is extremely unscientific it justly is moved to pseudoscience. Many of the mods offer the original poster a chance to prove their view in an empirical or philosophical manner. The latter mostly if it's hypothetical.

    Moderators occasionally have to move it because it simply doesn't fit in any other science thread, AND is by definition pseudoscience. They don't do so based on whim, they do so based on the fact it usually is pseudoscience.

    If, for example, I thought I had a revolutionary way of thinking about some aspect of science, would I voluntarily post in Pseudoscience, it being generally understood that no post in that sub-forum had anything to do with science?
    I see. If that's the case, and your "revolutionary way" isn't in fact pseudoscience, you could post it in whatever thread it applied to. Physics or otherwise. I fail to see a real problem here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Could you provide links to any threads that would fit in this section, or could you suggest a subject that might fit in this section?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: New sub-forum (again) 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    I suggest the creation of a new sub-forum called something like "New Theories" or "Beyond the Accepted" or whatever.

    What d'yall think?
    Speaking personally, this would make very little difference to me. I know what you are driving at, but I would probably want to read both kinds of topics, unless they were posted by certain forum members with whom I am already familiar, and whose posts I do not open anyway.

    If said individuals post on threads started by someone else, that is a different issue which would not be fixed by the proposed sub-forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Guitarist, I have several points:
    1) I definitely applaud your desire to make the forum a more useful, interesting and effective place. Most share that aim.
    2) I have been pondering a name change for the pseudoscience forum to New Theories or Interesting Speculations, or some such. This would remove (hopeflly) the stigma that attaches to the name pseudoscience. That in turn might encourage those with interesting, but poorly formed ideas, to lay them out for discussion.
    3) The problem is, as Jermey has succinctly observed, practically all the items we are talking about are pseudo science. (I echo Homo Universalis's apppeal for you to identify any item that isn't.)
    4) As a science forum I believe we have a duty to adhere to the principles of science. Certainly this is meant to be a fun place and we shouldn't take ourselves to seriously. Equally, with the assault being made on science by religious fundamentalists of all types, it behoves us to explain the methodology and to make it clear that bandying around a few technical words is not the same as science.
    5) You say "If, for example, I thought I had a revolutionary way of thinking about some aspect of science would I voluntarily post in Pseudoscience, it being generally understood that no post in that sub-forum had anything to do with science?" I hope you would not. It would, if it matched your prior contributions to the forum, not be pseudoscience. It might be revolutionary in its conclusions, but if it arrived at these using the methodology of science then it would quite appropriate to remain in a 'proper' section of the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I haven't seen hardly any posts in pseudoscience that don't belong there. Most often it's a case of posts OUTSIDE of pseudoscience that need to go INSIDE pseudoscience.

    As for complaints against the mods...has anyone complained about posts being thrown into pseudoscience? If so, what happened? Chances are they stayed in pseudoscience because the mod(s) couldn't be convinced by arguing parties that the posts needed to come back out. And after all...they're mods. It's their purpose to make judgment on posts and do as they see fit. They're mods because someone decided they have the particular disposition that lends to the decisions deemed appropriate for this forum.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    2) I have been pondering a name change for the pseudoscience forum to New Theories or Interesting Speculations, or some such. This would remove (hopeflly) the stigma that attaches to the name pseudoscience. That in turn might encourage those with interesting, but poorly formed ideas, to lay them out for discussion.
    To be honest I can't help myself to giggle when I hear the word pseudoscience.

    And you may have noticed in the past on the other forum that I often come forward with new theories, which are not serious but based on application of serious scientific principles and data.

    Mocking science and learning about science.

    That stuff would almost fit under the new description.

    Now. does that worry you or not? That's the big question.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Now. does that worry you or not? That's the big question.
    nah, there's more to life than worrying about forums
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I definitely applaud your desire to make the forum a more useful, interesting and effective place.
    You flatter me, that had not been my motivation at all; it was somewhat baser than that. Leave it for now.

    As a science forum I believe we have a duty to adhere to the principles of science........ it behoves us to explain the methodology and to make it clear that bandying around a few technical words is not the same as science.
    Now. This is an interesting point, one that I confess had not occurred to me. Do I share this view of the forum? I am not sure.

    It's perfectly true, I am (in)famous for starting tutorial threads (most of which seem unwelcome, incidentally), However, I never thought of myself as a "crusader" for good science. Should I?

    Wouldn't this mean debating with the *ahem* free-thinkers here? I'm not sure I'm strong enough, frankly.

    Anyway, to return to the baser motive for my suggestion. As you say, there is a certain stigma attached to the notion of Pseudoscience. If you could come up with an alternative, or even additional sub-forum with a title that made it seem like a cool, "edgy" place to post, maybe our free-thinkers might leave us old fuddy-duddies alone in our boring main-stream sub-fora.

    But now I've blown my cover. Damn (and double damn!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I haven't seen hardly any posts in pseudoscience that don't belong there. Most often it's a case of posts OUTSIDE of pseudoscience that need to go INSIDE pseudoscience.

    As for complaints against the mods...has anyone complained about posts being thrown into pseudoscience? If so, what happened? Chances are they stayed in pseudoscience because the mod(s) couldn't be convinced by arguing parties that the posts needed to come back out. And after all...they're mods. It's their purpose to make judgment on posts and do as they see fit. They're mods because someone decided they have the particular disposition that lends to the decisions deemed appropriate for this forum.
    I have not received such complaints at all. When this matter was first discussed.. Many people who buy into pseudo-science feel that the scientific establishment is conspiring against them or their viewpoint, and are quite proud of the brand. From my experience anyway, for what that is worth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Look at the header for astronomy, it starts off "The scientific study...etc"
    have a glance at the psuedoscience header "The Discussion regarding theories, methodologies or practices that do not conform to what is currently accepted by the scientific community. "

    Simple to me, if you ask whether pink fairies might be responsible for dark matter it can go into astronomy/cosmology (you are asking a question) and stay there IMHO. If however you propose they are then that's psuedoscience. Wheras I might feel a thread might be crap others will feel different and I have found in the past that where I might move a thread another mod might move it back the net result (for me) I no longer move threads to/from Psuedo If you are unhappy with a thread or think it's crap the best thing is not to add to it, then it will slip down the list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    ...Many people who buy into pseudo-science feel that the scientific establishment is conspiring against them or their viewpoint...
    I usually don't have a problem with those folks... It's only when they come in with some new or twisted theory, then demand everyone listen-to and accept their ideas without giving any evidence, logic, reasoning, or anything.

    There's a clear line between revolutionary and whacko.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Now. does that worry you or not? That's the big question.
    nah, there's more to life than worrying about forums
    let me give you an example then.

    http://spuriousmonkey.com/lectures/lectures/027.html
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Hey, can I join your university?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    it's closed.

    its been replaced with an institute of the ethical studies of lab animal use and abuse.

    www.spuriousmonkey.com
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    I'll join that one then!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    the only requirements are

    love for shampoo in the eye

    and

    an innate urge to be miserable
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    Well I _AM_ part masochist. Does that count?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    it's a start!
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Huzzah. Now I give you a quote that will make you scream.

    "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
    - President George H.W. Bush"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    wow.

    isn't he wiping his ass with the US constitution there?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    Not really. Freedom of RELIGION does not include non-believers.

    Whoops.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Not really. Freedom of RELIGION does not include non-believers.

    Whoops.
    Actually, if one understands the history of the first amendment and how it came to exist in its final form; the intentions of Madison and Jefferson - there is no doubt that it was intended to include non-believers. The first two drafts that were rejected before congress talked about it only applying to believers.

    Supreme-court rulings have always affirmed this, although the addition of a fifth religious monkey to the supreme-court is rather close. That is to say, the US is bordering on theocracy. This makes, ironically, the election of a democrat the best choice, since they don't have a religious right that skews their view. The GOP has somewhat forsaken its libertarian tradition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    ...unbelievable. It's like you're psychic. I've been, just today, writing a lengthy article on how our conservative party has lost it's libertarian routes and been infected with religion. Expect to see this article eventually...maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •