This is an issue which has been bubbling away in the Physics & Math forum for a while now.

Last time I polled users of the Physics & Math forum about the best way to deal with non-standard physical theories, they replied as follows:

* 2/3 of respondents said they would like a "Theory Development" or "Alternative Theories" forum separate to the existing "Physics & Math" forum.
* 1/2 the respondents also said they would not post in such a forum if it was created.

I would not wish to restrict any new forum to dealing with alternative theories only in Physics or Math. I suggest that, if such a forum is created, it should deal with alternative theories in all areas of science. However, discussion should be related to science, and not pseudoscience. Therein lies a potential problem.

As I have said before, I personally do not support the creation of a new forum, but I would still like to test the idea with the members of sciforums. In my opinion, it is reasonably easy to divide Physics threads into two groups, belonging either in the Physics forum, or in the Pseudoscience forum. An "Alternative Theories" forum would create a kind of murky middle-ground.

So, as well as replying to the proposal suggested above, I would also like your responses to the following questions:

Assuming such a forum was created:

1. What would be a good name for it?
2. What kinds of theories would this forum cover?
3. How will moderators be able to decide whether a given thread belongs in the new forum, or in the Pseudoscience forum, or in one of the existing Science forums? (And should this be up to the moderators, or to the people starting threads?)

Here are a few case studies. Where would the following threads go (Physics forum, Pseudoscience forum, Alternative theories forum)?

4. "Evolution is wrong. Creationism is right!"
5. "Relativity is wrong. My theory explains things better!"
6. "Pyramid power exists, and I have independent evidence!"
7. "Pyramid power exists. I've experienced it myself!"
8. "Pyramid power exists, and all scientists who say it doesn't are just deluded!"
9. "I don't know if Pyramid power exists, but I'd like to discuss the possibility."
10. "Aliens are landing on Earth every day."
11. "New cosmological theory offers explanation for dark matter."
12. "A new approach to wave-particle duality."

Assuming such a forum was created:

1. What would be a good name for it?
not sure.
2. What kinds of theories would this forum cover?
anything malformed. these tend to be disputations of relativity of quantum theory, but in principle, any poster who has ideas inconsistent with modern science (i.e. disbelieving theories that have long been established experimentally), is crackpot, and does not belong in a science forum.

3. How will moderators be able to decide whether a given thread belongs in the new forum, or in the Pseudoscience forum, or in one of the existing Science forums? (And should this be up to the moderators, or to the people starting threads?)
well, the person who starts the thread can choose where he posts it, and the moderator can choose to move it if necessary. so both.

Here are a few case studies. Where would the following threads go (Physics forum, Pseudoscience forum, Alternative theories forum)?

[quote=JamesR]4. "Evolution is wrong. Creationism is right!"
not in a science forum. Evolution is long established experimentally, and creationism has no scientific basis. i am no biologist, but i would not like to see such a thread in a biology forum

5. "Relativity is wrong. My theory explains things better!"
same response as above.


6. "Pyramid power exists, and I have independent evidence!"
unfortunate choice of words. but evidence is a heavy weight. if you have evidence for something, then we are talking science. OK



7. "Pyramid power exists. I've experienced it myself!"
anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. no.


8. "Pyramid power exists, and all scientists who say it doesn't are just deluded!"
of course not.


9. "I don't know if Pyramid power exists, but I'd like to discuss the possibility."
intelligent discourse about pseudoscience. but still pseudoscience.
10. "Aliens are landing on Earth every day."
pseudoscience
11. "New cosmological theory offers explanation for dark matter."
this totally depends on the thread. there are occasionally new scientific theories that dispute dark energy.

12. "A new approach to wave-particle duality."
in principle, this is an interesting subject. but in practice, the person posting this has no knowledge of the current approach to wave-particle duality, and is just slobbering drivel.

in short, my views are this:

a post is crackpot if:

1. it disbelieves experimentally proven facts
or
2. it disputes theories based on incomplete understanding

the subject can be anything scientific. if it is not concerning something scientific, then the above criteria do not apply


a post is scientific if:

1. it makes statements with experimental evidence to back them up
or
2. it shows explicit mathematical derivations based on physically reasonable postulates.

a post is pseudoscience if:

1. it concerns phenomena that are not measurable in the lab (UFOs, etc)

i think that crackpot science is much closer to science than pseudoscience is. so i can understand why the crackpots would cry foul when you moved their threads to pseudoscience. a misguided thread about gravity is neither pseudoscience (since gravity is a scientific phenomenon), nor is it science, since it is either based on a fundamental misunderstanding of gravity, or it is based on experiments that were not correctly performed (or not performed at all)

You missed the "How to build a Perpetual Motion engine" case study, the number of times that one has come up, although really perhaps there should be a sticky with "Why it's believed impossible".

You could potentially mark the thread titles with a symbol to suggest if they are in line with the forum or if they are pseudoscience.

Hi all,

I agree mostly with lethe's comments, and I think the criteria for "crackpottery" and scientific posts are quite good and quite clear to apply as a general policy.

For the record, I'll also give my classification:

4. "Evolution is wrong. Creationism is right!"

If scientific evidence supporting creatonism is found, then this could lead to a debate. No scientific evidence for creationism is available, and to be honest, I doubt there ever will be. So this would go to pseudoscience, it is no science.

5. "Relativity is wrong. My theory explains things better!"

Also depends. If evidence is given, and especially a thorough understanding of where relativity fails at specific points, then this can be in the physics forum. If the understanding of relativity is clearly not good or non-existant, then this would be "Alternative Theories". If no understanding and no evidence are given, then "Pseudoscience" or plain delete.

6. "Pyramid power exists, and I have independent evidence!"

Physics forum. Independent and verifiable and repeatable evidence qualifies as science. Note the "and" "and" ;)

7. "Pyramid power exists. I've experienced it myself!"

Not independent, probably not repeatable and surely not trustworthy. Pseudoscience.

8. "Pyramid power exists, and all scientists who say it doesn't are just deluded!"

The "even more narrow minded than the scientists"-forum

9. "I don't know if Pyramid power exists, but I'd like to discuss the possibility."

Since no scientific evidence of it is given at the moment, but given the possibility of a scientific discussion, then "alternative theories".

10. "Aliens are landing on Earth every day."

Depending on the evidence and repeatability and ... etc..

11. "New cosmological theory offers explanation for dark matter."

Depends on the nature of the theory. If it is scientificly structured, and rigoreous, then this is clearly Physics. If it is the usual "new theory" stuff we get on this forum, "alternative theories" or even "pseudoscience" (depending on the amount of mathematics and supporting evidence given).

12. "A new approach to wave-particle duality."

See 11.


I think the danger of the current setup is (and this was already said previously) that now there is no clear distinction between "mainstream science" and "i have this idea and ... ". This can be very confusing for the non-scientific reader (and we have plenty).

Bye!

Crisp

This is rather pointless. Sciforums has drifted away from being a science forum, most good posters have fled the site and those who remain, lethe, crisp, James, etc. hardly post at all compared to before.

Do UFO's exist? Are aliens creating crop circles? Does antigravity exist? Is relativity wrong?

I don't know the answers to these questions (except for the last one, which is definitely yes ;)), but each debate resulting from these questions can be scientific if the scientific method is followed and there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion. In other words, you can't judge whether a debate is scientific based on the name of the topic being discussed, but on how the topic is being debated.

I agree with what Lethe and Crisp.
Also, I think I have a name for this forum: "the place of the crackpots".

On second thought, crackpots don't believe they are' so they will stay in the Physics forum.

Maybe "Stop Crack" is also a good name (it has a good social message), but I don't know if crackpots will go there.

So I think that "Alternative theories" is an appropriate name.

Prosoothus:

Do you think that "Relativity is wrong" belongs in an "alternative theory" forum, or in the Physics forum, or somewhere else?

While I do not pretend to know what you're all talking about, I got to point out that Sciforums doesn't have a separate Republican section, and a liberal section. Can't you people just agree to get along and discuss crazy ideas?

James,

Do you think that "Relativity is wrong" belongs in an "alternative theory" forum, or in the Physics forum, or somewhere else?

In a perfect world, I would put the "Relativity is wrong" topic in the alternate theory forum along with all other theories that challenge currently accepted theories.

I'm however against an alternate theory forum since I get the feeling that if it was created, it would attract all the crackpots and repel all the legitimate scientists. I would have no reason to post anything in that forum if all I could expect would be replies from crackpots.

As for the term pseudoscience, it's an oxymoron. Either a discussion is scientific, or it isn't.

Perhaps it would be better to have a thread with paragraphs titled with the titles previously stated and the paragraph stating the scientific reasoning to why the theory is wrong without any discussion allowed in that thread, with a note to where they should post if they want to discuss it further (Pseudoscience)

Maybe I have an unstable personality, but I just changed my mind (I believe that tomorrow, or in a few days, I will change it again), but I just read a few threads. Well, before reading them, I was not in the mood and I was feeling down. But after reading them... It was a long time since I laughed so much. Please, let the crackpots write in this forum.

Hehe, I have allready changed my mind. Create a forum for the crackpots, so that we know where the fun is.

our newest crackpot, Aetherdew, has taken to posting crackpot nonsense in legitimate threads. see for example the recent thread on the standard model (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33177), which Aetherdew has effectively hijacked with nonsense about æther theories. as has been previously discussed, it is my opinion that this sort of behaviour is counterproductive, and should be moderated.

It would have been moderated - if I'd seen it earlier.

It seems the thread has been self-moderated at this stage.

My take on your sample threads...

Physics forum
6. "Pyramid power exists, and I have independent evidence!"
9. "I don't know if Pyramid power exists, but I'd like to discuss the possibility."
11. "New cosmological theory offers explanation for dark matter."
12. "A new approach to wave-particle duality."

Pseudoscience forum
4. "Evolution is wrong. Creationism is right!"
7. "Pyramid power exists. I've experienced it myself!"
8. "Pyramid power exists, and all scientists who say it doesn't are just deluded!"
10. "Aliens are landing on Earth every day."


Alternative theories forum
5. "Relativity is wrong. My theory explains things better!"

I don't really think that the creation of an alternative theories forum is the solution. Of the threads listed, only one would be an 'alternative theory'... and I see no reason to seperate generally honest theories from the physics forum. Technically string theory should also be 'alternative'.

The problem however is in the CONTENT. The two pyramid power threads are acceptable in the physics forum IF they have something to do with physics and the thread doesn't resort to 'it exists because I said so'. The 'relativity is wrong' is even fine in physics, as long as there is some actual content and an understanding even the smallest hint that the poster understands the theory. Similarly, alternative theories are fine... as long as they actually have a consistant theory and are willing to discuss it. Not more 'I am right because I say so'

I don't think that this is very practical.


I admit that I rarely make productive or sensible posts, but, when I do, I do it in the Physics and Mathematics forum. So I'm definitely not somebody who wants that holy-of-holies further blackened by these unsavory hypothoses.
Truth is, though, I really don't think that making a new subforum is an effective solution.

The proponents of alternative theories probably aren't interested in having their precious creations relegated to some second class category.
They've got to know that if they cooperate no one is going to read about their brilliant new ideas.


I mean... if the powers-that-be decide to set up this subforum, I'm probably going to read it about as often as I purposefully microwave metal spoons... which isn't too often, in case you wanted to know.

All the anti-relativity-ites and ether-ites out there are bound to realize that people like me aren't going to expend the energy required to access a newfangled subforum and take a gander at their theories. They wouldn't even use it.


The whole thing'll cost the moderators effort and probably accomplish nothing.

In conclusion, the immediate eschewal of this "alternative theory" area proposal is likely in everyone's best interests.
:)

The proponents of alternative theories probably aren't interested in having their precious creations relegated to some second class category.
They've got to know that if they cooperate no one is going to read about their brilliant new ideas.
this is true. the crackpots do not want to put their theories in the crackpot forum. if we don't have a policy to move all crackpot threads to the crackpot forum, then the forum will be completely useless.


I mean... if the powers-that-be decide to set up this subforum, I'm probably going to read it about as often as I purposefully microwave metal spoons... which isn't too often, in case you wanted to know.
same here. however, you should observe that in the Math & Physics forums, by far the most popular threads, the most read threads, the most replied-to threads, are the crackpot threads.

people like James, Crisp, Persol, Tom2, 1100f, all have impressive records of posting in the crackpot threads. just go to Math/Physics, sort threads by most posts, or by most views, and look at the enormous traffic these threads get. crackpot posts and peoples responses to them probably make up more than half of the posts to Math/Physics

if these people are willing to post in crackpot threads in the Math/Physics forum, perhaps they will continue to be willing to do so in a crackpot forum.

All the anti-relativity-ites and ether-ites out there are bound to realize that people like me aren't going to expend the energy required to access a newfangled subforum and take a gander at their theories. They wouldn't even use it.
the whole point is not to give the crackpots the choice (although they will have the choice), but to give the rest of us a choice to <i>not</i> read the crackpot posts.


The whole thing'll cost the moderators effort and probably accomplish nothing.
of course, this system would only work if the Math/Physics moderator were willing to move all crackpottery to the crackpot forum.

In conclusion, the immediate eschewal of this "alternative theory" area proposal is likely in everyone's best interests.
:)
my interest is in seeing more math and science, and less crackpottery. leaving things as they stand is not the best course, in my opinion.

James R.,

I have voted for an "Alternative Theories" or "Theories Development" forum. I do question just how sucessful it might be because there seem to be a handful of participants that will deliberately distort what is being said and to post unrelated nonsense to a string rather than make any bonafide effort to give some ideas a fair hearing.

Your thread "UniKEF Analysis" is a perfect example. It mushroomed into a series of totally unrelated issues and unfounded claims and challenges rather than its agreed purpose which was to determine the primary mathematical basis for the theory was valid or not.

I hope that thread remains open in any case since I have others working an a new and properly scripted calculus presentation. I can tolerate and deal with the nonsense being posted by those that don't want to see the actual result of such a calculation.

In the final analysis it will be up to the moderator to determine if something posted there has any scientific basis for consideration. In the case of my own work that would (at least initially) be limited to the calculus evaluation.

Nothing else about the theory would qualify. If the underlying mathematics is proven then I suggest some room for speculation as to what that might mean could then be open for discussion. Such as the prori predictions that were based on the concept. If not supported mathematically THEN it would become pseudoscience.

Good initiative. If one is not going to debate scientific topics with the proper language nor wanting to learn the language (mathematics) then one is not going to make any meaningful contribution to the forum anyway. I know, hell, I used to be a crackpot. Along the way I found out that it's not about childish fantasies about greatness any longer, it's about doing it (or learning it) for real.

the whole point is not to give the crackpots the choice (although they will have the choice), but to give the rest of us a choice to not read the crackpot posts.

But you already have that choice.

Well no, you don't have the choice until after you've read the crackpot thread.

But you already have that choice.
but i do not. i have the choice not to read all the crap that is posted in the religion forum, but if i want to read the math/physics forum, then i have to see, everytime i log on, UniKEF analysis at the top of the list.

at this point, my choice is clear: view crackpot threads, or stop using sciforums.

the point of this discussion is that there could be a third alternative: view sciforums, without viewing crackpot threads. that is the point under discussion, whether such a forum would be worthwhile.

But you already have that choice.

No I do not have the choice, since at least 50% of the legitimate threads turn into crackpots discussion.

If I see a thread title about unikef analysis, I have the choice not to read it. However, if I see a thread on the standard model, I believe it should deal with the standard model. not with ether. If I see a thread about EM waves, it should be on EM waves and not on ether.

lethe:

but i do not. i have the choice not to read all the crap that is posted in the religion forum, but if i want to read the math/physics forum, then i have to see, everytime i log on, UniKEF analysis at the top of the list.

A couple of points:
1. You are not forced to read the UniKEF thread, even if it is at the top of the list.
2. The UniKEF thread is at the top of the list because people keep posting to it. Users of the Physics forum seem to maintain an ongoing interest in the content.

1100f:

No I do not have the choice, since at least 50% of the legitimate threads turn into crackpots discussion.

That can be a problem. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult one to solve, particularly as the forum software lacks a function which allows the moving of individual posts from thread to thread. Even if such a function was available, it would be a full-time job for a moderator to police every single post and cull all the ones which are "crackpot" contributions to science threads. Then there would be the inevitable arguments as to what constitutes a crackpot post etc. etc.

If I see a thread title about unikef analysis, I have the choice not to read it. However, if I see a thread on the standard model, I believe it should deal with the standard model. not with ether. If I see a thread about EM waves, it should be on EM waves and not on ether.

I agree. Can you suggest a solution to this problem?

2. The UniKEF thread is at the top of the list because people keep posting to it. Users of the Physics forum seem to maintain an ongoing interest in the content.
Well, if you think that's the case... I'll stop posting to it.

However, when he stops getting attention in one isolated thread he'll start spewing everywhere else. You'll notice he hasn't been active in spreading his ideas through the others threads like he usually is. I'm willing to bet that will start again once his stage has no audience.

1. What would be a good name for it?How about "Trash Bin?" Are you afraid of offending people?




3. How will moderators be able to decide whether a given thread belongs in the new forum, or in the Pseudoscience forum, or in one of the existing Science forums? (And should this be up to the moderators, or to the people starting threads?)This should certainly be up to the moderators (if they are up to it). Whose forum is this anyway? Is there some legal issue? Are the moderators getting paid or something, and must therefore adhere to some inadvertant policy. What bad could possibly come of eliminating bad threads? Prune the hedges if you want them to be healthy, I say.

I agree. Can you suggest a solution to this problem?

Unfortunately, I don't have a solution to this problem, however a partial one would be to have an alternative theory forum, this is the reason why I voted yes for the creation of this new forum

How about...

"Interpretive Physics"
or
"Unconventional Physics"
or
"Conjectural Physics"
or
"Alternative Physics"
or
"Independent Thought"?



I guess there are other, less flattering options like...

"Make-believe Physics"
or
"Bizarro Physics
or
"Good-Grief-Man Physics".

Rappaccini:

I wouldn't want to see it restricted to physics. If somebody has an alternate biology theory, it might go there.

(Hmm... I wonder where the Creationists belong? Mostly, they seem to pop up in "Religion", though Creationism is also clearly "Pseudoscience". I wonder whether it even qualifies as an "Alternative theory", since it isn't really a theory in any scientific sense of the word.)

James R.,

Posted by Persol: Well no, you don't have the choice until after you've read the crackpot thread.

This is where the "Development Forum" would pay off. Unconventional or unproven concepts can be posted there and those that don't want to participate simply don't go to that forum.

James R.,

Posted by Lethe: but i do not. i have the choice not to read all the crap that is posted in the religion forum, but if i want to read the math/physics forum, then i have to see, everytime i log on, UniKEF analysis at the top of the list.

ANS:

1 - Personally I don't find it difficult to not click on a thread they don't like.

2 - It is only his opinion that it is crap.

3 - If there was a development forum UniKEF would be there and he would not have to see it.

4 - Concepts, such as UniKEF which have testable attributes, are not pseudoscience until shown mathematically or by test to be in error. But nor are they accepted science.

5 - I do find it amusing that those complaining about UniKEF and say they do not want to jparticipate in a "Development" forum also regularily go to pseudoscience and participate.

/at this point, my choice is clear: view crackpot threads, or stop using sciforums.

It is unfortunate that he or anyone seem to feel they can declare something crackpot when they have not even picked up a calculator in an effort to falisify or verify a claim. This is not just old MacM making a claim but the claim is supported by a highly recognized physicist. Let me suggest they address the issue of the thread before commenting about a crackpot thread.

the point of this discussion is that there could be a third alternative: view sciforums, without viewing crackpot threads. that is the point under discussion, whether such a forum would be worthwhile.

ANS: We agree here, with the exception of his claim to know what is crackpot and what is not without actually thinking about the presentation. However, the intermediate step between science and crackpot rating does allow for the presentation of new ideas, which can be avoided in the conventional or accepted physics section without relagating anything new to being crackpot before it has even been seriously considered.

Speaking for myself and UniKEF, I would be more than content to post only in such a forum until it is falsified or verified. If falsified it can be placed in pseudoscience or deleted. If it passes muster it could remain in the development area or become elevated to a more general discussion underscience with the understanding that it has at least some merit.

1100f,

No I do not have the choice, since at least 50% of the legitimate threads turn into crackpots discussion.

If I see a thread title about unikef analysis, I have the choice not to read it. However, if I see a thread on the standard model, I believe it should deal with the standard model. not with ether. If I see a thread about EM waves, it should be on EM waves and not on ether.

ANS: We are in complete agreement. With the new forum available all alternative concepts should be kept off the standard board.

James R.,

Posted by Persol: 2. The UniKEF thread is at the top of the list because people keep posting to it. Users of the Physics forum seem to maintain an ongoing interest in the content.
Well, if you think that's the case... I'll stop posting to it.

However, when he stops getting attention in one isolated thread he'll start spewing everywhere else. You'll notice he hasn't been active in spreading his ideas through the others threads like he usually is. I'm willing to bet that will start again once his stage has no audience.

Unfortunately just as with most of his posts, he presumes to know to much. I have already made it clear that I would refrain from posting UniKEF views as long as the "Analysis" thread was open and being pursued. He should not expect that he could come on there and make a bunch of false allegations or claims and that I would not respond.

errandir,

How about "Trash Bin?" Are you afraid of offending people?

ANS: Nobody is offended by positive criticisim or being shown where there is an error or flaw in their concept. What is offensive is the tendancy of some to think it is all over and there is nothing new to discover. Such that anything not coming from standard text books is therefore crackpot.

James R.,

(Hmm... I wonder where the Creationists belong? Mostly, they seem to pop up in "Religion", though Creationism is also clearly "Pseudoscience". I wonder whether it even qualifies as an "Alternative theory", since it isn't really a theory in any scientific sense of the word.)

ANS: I would hate to see Creationists end up there but actually if they presented some claim which is testable then I suppose they would qualify. Once they (or UniKEF) were falsified (assuming it was) then they could be deleted from the "Development" forum.

This is where the "Development Forum" would pay off. Unconventional or unproven concepts can be posted there and those that don't want to participate simply don't go to that forum.
your attitude regarding this matter seems refreshingly reasonable, and in tune with my own.

why should people who don't want to participate in the development of new theories have to wade through a multitude of such threads, if they are only interested in discussing standard textbook theories?

this sums up my position in a nutshell.

James R.,
[color=red][b]ANS:

1 - Personally I don't find it difficult to not click on a thread they don't like.
true. it is not so hard. i would just prefer if things were more clearly separated.

3 - If there was a development forum UniKEF would be there and he would not have to see it.
exactly.

4 - Concepts, such as UniKEF which have testable attributes, are not pseudoscience until shown mathematically or by test to be in error. But nor are they accepted science.
precisely. there should be a clear distinction between pseudoscience, and alternative science.

5 - I do find it amusing that those complaining about UniKEF and say they do not want to jparticipate in a "Development" forum also regularily go to pseudoscience and participate.
OK, you have me there. i have not read anything about UniKEF, and so perhaps i have judged it unfairly.

to be blunt, i operate under the (perhaps overly arrogant) assumption that anyone who is not well versed in the intricacies of modern physics cannot possibly develop a valid theory.

on the other hand, i could be wrong, since i have spent zero time determining whether these alternative theories have any validity.



It is unfortunate that he or anyone seem to feel they can declare something crackpot when they have not even picked up a calculator in an effort to falisify or verify a claim. This is not just old MacM making a claim but the claim is supported by a highly recognized physicist. Let me suggest they address the issue of the thread before commenting about a crackpot thread.
that is fair.


ANS: We agree here, with the exception of his claim to know what is crackpot and what is not without actually thinking about the presentation. However, the intermediate step between science and crackpot rating does allow for the presentation of new ideas, which can be avoided in the conventional or accepted physics section without relagating anything new to being crackpot before it has even been seriously considered.

OK, fine. it was a loaded choice of words. we may agree that it is alternative science, but it is only a matter of my (possibly ill-informed) opinion that it is crackpot science. i apologize.
]

Lethe,

OK, fine. it was a loaded choice of words. we may agree that it is alternative science, but it is only a matter of my (possibly ill-informed) opinion that it is crackpot science. i apologize.

ANS: Great. We are in full agreement. I even agree that SHOULD my claim be disproven then it would have been jproperly dubbed crackpot.
]

James R.,,

Before leaving this discussion I just wanted to share these two examples from UniKEF; which sponsors an "Other Theories" forum and where such subjects are openly discussed without the crackpot labeling but with honest objection to those things we find inconsistant with acceptable science.

************************************************** *******

#1 - From: cynique_1 Sent: 1/31/2004 11:54 PM
Thank you for allowing me to join. I have been visiting your site for a while and appreciate that people can discuss without arrogant censure. I appreciate your essays on skepticism.


#2 - From: Kirk_Gaulden Sent: 2/22/2004 10:00 PM
Thanks for the send off june or july tapten is gonna look at my stuff to prepare it for seas and funding I hope. I got my start here as many more will. gods speed Mac.

************************************************** ******

#2 has reached a point with his ideas that he is getting some interest and may actually get some funding for research of the idea.

It is a shame that SF has not had a simular forum and attitude toward those that are attempting to aadvance things, if they can or not is another matter.

I think you've all changed my mind.

With the necessary moderation, an "alternate" forum would be a good idea...

... as long as it has a proper name... hmmm

I am sure you guys are not aware of the history of science.

All theories today started as "crackpot theories".... just get over it.

If you know so much science then debunk them.... properly, not just throw a hissy fit because someone has the audacity to not agree with you.

Your job then is to educate them or they educate you, or you both agree to disagree or just maybe a totally new approach can be made..

Why are people so challenged when someone points out difficulties in any theory ?

You can be sure tomorrows theories will be totally different to what you believe.

That is the nature of scientific endeavour... if you wish to practice science then sure practice what works, but always be on the lookout for clarification, because it has been shown many many times that new concepts can come from a complete novice.

But if you know better and your ego can not accept challenge then I suggest you are not practicing science.

It seems to me from all the forums I have had discussions in, most science interested people are pseudoscientists because they are ego driven. People like this should go somewhere else and mastabate in the mirror.

Science is alive it is not some dead meat written is a text book.... and what in the world makes YOU think you know the text book answer is correct FOREVER... grow up and accept that science is not static and you will have to learn it forever.

Discussing the pros and cons of anything, pseudoscience, crackpot thoughts, established theory..... it all brings out the LIVING science.

Kill this and you kill the very nature of thought.

Science can be MAGIC if you let it and...
group thought such as this forum, can really rock

For the first time in history, mind to mind contact from all over the world from all disciplines WITH a massive library just at the finger tips..

And all James R can do is..... Oh my god it's stupid pseudoscience....

I call this attitude scientific fascism... yep it is alive and well, and has been destroying great scientist's lives for millenia and holding back progress

You want that ? then I suggest you go somewhere else

All theories today started as "crackpot theories".... just get over it.
Well... no. People have claimed this many times, and people have shot it down each time.

If you know so much science then debunk them.... properly, not just throw a hissy fit because someone has the audacity to not agree with you.
You can only point out flaws in a theory. If the poster decides to ignore them or doesn't understand them (and isn't willing to learn)... there is little you can do.

And all James R can do is..... Oh my god it's stupid pseudoscience....
Hehe... now THAT is funny. JamesR is much more patient and forgiving than just about anybody else on the forum. This poll seems to exist more because users want it then because JamesR wants it.

Hi Persol. maybe the adjective "crackpot" was too strong.... but I am sure to a layman such a description would be apt.

The James R of your perception is not the same perception I have had to deal with.

In my observation, most "alternative theories" are posted by extremely young people who have not come close to completing their education. For the most part they are based on an incomplete understanding of uncontroversial principles or a failure to have caught up with current research. Since SciForums is part of their education and we are their de facto elders, what they need is to be shown where they went wrong. To elevate their clever but flawed reasoning to the level of a "theory" would give them the ego-inflating impression that they are on a par with Einstein. To ghettoize them in their own forum would deprive them of the corrective review they require to get back on the right track in their education. It is our duty to help these kids, not shove them aside and smirk.

It is our duty to help these kids, not shove them aside and smirk.
Not all of them are kids, and not all are willing to learn. There are posters who have had things explained to them multiple times, and still claim ignorance. With some people crackpottery seems to be a religion of from which they can not be converted.

It is our duty to help these kids, not shove them aside and smirk

It is an imperitive that all sides of an argument are presented to our kids, not just a personal point of view.

You want closed science, basically that is what Persol wants, James R wants... his version ( mmmh agrees with the established view.... so what!!!! )

If you do not teach the new generation to think for themselves, CRITICALLY THINK, then might as well stop scientific investigation NOW.

There have been so many times in history when some short sighted people thought it is all known, all they had to do was cross the t's and dot the i's.....

LOL, how many times do I have to say this.... basically nothing is known.... it is all theory.... and any observations are only theory based... change the theory and even the observations change...

Just get over it, and hone your arguments and always be open to new insight.

Encourage critical thinking by supplying as many options as possible..

The devil is in the detail of all options... the more options the closer to the bullseye you will get, but you may never hit the centre.
:)

If you do not teach the new generation to think for themselves, CRITICALLY THINK, then might as well stop scientific investigation NOW.
That's fine and good, but also teach them that hundreds of others also have done this 'critically thinking' and that they must at least understand these ideas for they try to blindly replace them.

There have been so many times in history when some short sighted people thought it is all known, all they had to do was cross the t's and dot the i's.....
Well no... I doubt most people on this board would say that. That doesn't mean that every new unsupported theory is worth listening to.

the more options the closer to the bullseye you will get, but you may never hit the centre
And the majority of these shots aren't even hitting the wall that the bullseye is mounted on. Rather then just shutting their eyes and shooting, learning how other people shoot is a good step.

>> Rather then just shutting their eyes and shooting, learning how other people shoot is a good step.

Yeaaa, I agree, but even hitting the wall is good for a beginner, so CONSTANTLY people must miss to learn to shoot straight.

In your mind you have done the hard yards.... remember you are not an expert of experts, and constantly the bullseye is moved, (just when you think you have it all down pat).

To be aware of limitations in a theory is most probably more important than knowing the theory itself.
:)

To be aware of limitations in a theory is most probably more important than knowing the theory itself.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with why alternative theories should have their own forum. You need more then a simple 'i think this is how it works' to have a theory that is worth reading. The theories which are posted here are for the most part by people who don't understand what the current theory says, don't understand how science works, and don't seem too care about learning.

>> You need more then a simple 'i think this is how it works' to have a theory that is worth reading.

OK, define what is necessary for a theory to be worth reading.

1. Math?
2. Consistent with current experimental data?

3. What happens if the words are different and yet 1 and 2 are fulfilled?

Should there be open discussion or derision as is usual here ?

What if a few points need clarification, does that sink the whole discussion?

What if the theory flys in the face of current theories and yet performs better, is simpler, more logical, is more accurate and extends explanations into areas not explained by current theories?

Just what has to be to get a decent, rational discussion?

From what I can see, all people here and other in places are doing, is inflating their egos,,
and when they are cornered, instead of learning via interchange, all I see is the fight or flight syndrome.

Well in my world view, this behaviour is par for the course.... but it is a very poor show to present to people who are genuinely interested in discussing fields of science, within and without their field of expertise.... or just interested novices seeking an understanding of what science is about.

I am afraid this forum has gone the way of all internet forums.... it is full of arrogant rude big heads... the incestuous few who rule the roost.


There is never anything to learn from such people.

I think the majority of people who would post in Alternative Theories would in fact be trying to elevate their pseudoscience a step. Without full-time, hard-ass moderation, the two forums would quickly become indistinguishable.

Rename the current Pseudoscience forum "Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience". If someone posts something that a moderator would have moved from physics to AT, move it here.

With as many posters as there are, the moderators already have their hands more than full. Why add another level of complexity (and argument) onto it?

James R.,

I have been reading some of the responses regarding criteria and policy recommendations for classifying posts. Generally I agree with most but there was one which appeared more than once which I would like to qualify a bit before this thread closes.

It was said that any post that rejects accepted science is psuedoscience. I believe that is to broad.

1 - If I reject that light is invariant or that it requires added energy to accelerate mass at relavistic speeds, then yes it would be pseudoscience but,

2 - If I reject Relativity regarding the conclusions of the findings of those things it might not be pseudoscience should I have a reasonable alternative explanation. Especially if it is testable but no actual evidence has been generated.

So simple rejection of existing science is not a good basis since any new theory which ends up being validated would indeed reject prior existing science.

Silverback:

I think your idea of renaming "Pseudoscience" to "Alternative theories and pseudoscience" is worth considering as an alternative to an "Alternative theories" forum.


MacM:

I also agree with you that merely disagreeing with a majority scientific viewpoint does not automatically make somebody a pseudoscientist. The difference between science and pseudoscience has little to do with being pro- or anti-authority (and this is a mistake many pseudoscientists make). The difference has everything to do with method.


Zarkov:

I am afraid this forum has gone the way of all internet forums.... it is full of arrogant rude big heads... the incestuous few who rule the roost.

You have your own forum in which you rule the roost, Zarkov. Perhaps you should retreat there, away from all the nasty arrogant people. Or maybe you should just give up on the internet completely. What do you think?

I think your idea of renaming "Pseudoscience" to "Alternative theories and pseudoscience" is worth considering
Thanks, here is another thought to add to the reasoning behind it. A lot of people with personal theories that may have some merit, just no statistical data to back it up (math, experimentation results, etc) might be offended to have it simply moved to pseudoscience. With the expanded title (I know, it's not much) at least the arguement can be made that without sufficient backup data, it can't co-exist with mainstream science yet. Provide such data, the mods may reconsider the move at a later date.

Until that happens, we can't tell if it is a valid Alternative Theory or just Pseudoscience, but you can feel free to continue to try to make your point.

It's only a wee bit less harsh and yet a whole lot less work.

That's actually a really good idea silverback.

Case in point.

machiaventa and the "Myths and Precession" thread in Astronomy. I tried to pry out of him ANY supporting data, even a simple reason for his contentions, but he provides nothing. It's time for the mods to drag it out of the Science section, IMO.

At face value it looks like pseudoscience and probably is, but I did try to give him an honest chance to explain what he was getting at. After a point, the mods should be in charge of making a decision on these kind of cases. How much burden should it be to chose between three forums? Two is easier. Valid data? Y/N. It does not require any "crackpotteryometer" to figure it out. :)

Edited to add: The reason I use that thread as an example is not because it holds any scientific merit to carry it above pseudoscience, but rather that some people will always post their ideas to a "higher" forum than the science behind it deserves, no matter how many forums we create.

Yeah... maybe that's the solution we're after.

Seems to be the most thermodynamically efficient... err... least demanding of moderation.

How about a separate unmoderated Trashheap forum where one can post anything from rants to forum code tests, and where the moderators can just move threads they feel are completely irrelevant to their material, as a sort of trashcan for mods? :D

We already have one of those. It is called "Free thoughts".

:)

Hahaha! :D

Seriously, though, a place that is 100% unmoderated and where random trash threads are transferred. The Free Thoughts section is moderated in rare cases, and it doesn't function as a thread-trashcan.

MacM:

I also agree with you that merely disagreeing with a majority scientific viewpoint does not automatically make somebody a pseudoscientist. The difference between science and pseudoscience has little to do with being pro- or anti-authority (and this is a mistake many pseudoscientists make). The difference has everything to do with method.

James, you initially wanted to call this forum "Alternative theories" and from your above, you clearly see calling alternative theories of science, psuedoscience, is inappropriate. Then why don't you change the title of the forum? No one loses anything, if you do.

crazymikey:

I think that renaming "Pseudoscience" to "Pseudoscience and Alternative Theories" could be a good solution in regard to moving non-standard theories out of Physics and Math, but I don't think it is the solution that the people who post "alternative" theories want.

My own opinion on this, as I have said before, is that an alternative theory is always either scientific or unscientific. We make the call, and put it where it belongs - either in a science forum or a pseudoscience one. But some people seem to think there's a grey area between the two, where rigorous standards of evidence and explanation shouldn't apply, but where ideas should be taken seriously nonetheless.

BTW, I have no power to create or rename forums. That is Porfiry's domain.

James R.,

My own opinion on this, as I have said before, is that an alternative theory is always either scientific or unscientific. We make the call, and put it where it belongs - either in a science forum or a pseudoscience one. But some people seem to think there's a grey area between the two, where rigorous standards of evidence and explanation shouldn't apply, but where ideas should be taken seriously nonetheless.

I would like to make a couple of points here on your post.

It seems to me that there is a gray area and an area just for such issues is justified. It remains to be seen if it would be used effectively however.

Mine I believe is a perfect example. My work certainly isn't up to the standard required by the Math & Phyics Forum. Dr Allard's work on my theory is another matter but it was never considered indepth or seriously.

As it turns out I was right, as well as was Dr Allard, and all the name calling and off topic BS that was thrown was wasted time.

The point is, not being fully presentable or formal to the standard of mainstream science, does not make ideas pseudoscience. It makes them incomplete. There is and should remain a big difference.

Something posted in "Alternative Theories" can end up being moved into Pseudoscience if it is unsupportable or hopefully into Math & Physics Forum when ready.

While UniKEF overall is far from scientific standards at this time, I would not think it belongs in psuedoscience because at this juncture UniKEF Gravity passes mathematical analysis and appears to offer advantages over other gravity concepts.

I'll not expound at length further. Just wanted to make the point, a gray area, call it Purgatory if you want, is far better than merging with or relying on Pseudoscience for introduction of new ideas.

Be it technically correct or not "Pseudoscience" carries a stigma. That stigma is not conducive to development of new ideas. (Nor is Math & Physics Forum - :D )