This board is slowing sinking into a terrible sea of pseudo-scientific crap, and only aggressive policing by the moderator can save it. I've hung around sciforums for some time now, and there is a definite downward trend. The moderators here need to quickly identify crackpot threads and shuffle them off to the pseudoscience section where they belong. When someone starts a threat explaining how the universe it really a helical transverse wave packet, or some other such nonsense, it should be moved immediately.

Yes, this is intolerant censorship, but in my opinion there's no problem with censoring incoherent drivel and there is no reason we should have to tolerate crackpots who pollute sciforums without contributing anything back. Let's be honest, most of the time there's really no question whether or not someone is a crackpot. We all know that nobody is going to develop a legitimate paradigm-shifting physics theory and publish it on sciforums.

As of the time I posted this, ten of the top twenty threads in Physics & Math were crackpot threads. You're already looking at a signal/noise ratio of 1, and that's not even including the crackpots who clutter up legitimate threads by trying to answer people's honest questions with incorrect, incoherent ideas.

The way things have been going for the past few months, there are basically two ways this board could go; in another year it could either have relatively few users, all of whom are legitimately interested in science (the way it was back in the good old days, when only maybe one thread in 5 was a crackpot), or it could continue its downward spiral until it's no better than the sci.physics newsgroup.

Well I'm sure correcting those crack-pot's will give the same or even more payoff as talking them down.

Unfortunately crackpots aren't at all interested in being corrected. In all my time here I've never seen one crackpot react with anything other than hostility and/or defensiveness when knowledgeable people try to critique their ideas.

We had the good idea of ignoring their threads, which I do as I couldn't be bothered trying to decifer their self-made language, and they tend to go away. However now they are filling the legitimate threads with their BS and confusing the hell out of the people here who want to learn something. It's pissing me right off:mad:

yea to a layman, crack-pot theories might seem reasonable

Originally posted by Nasor
Unfortunately crackpots aren't at all interested in being corrected. In all my time here I've never seen one crackpot react with anything other than hostility and/or defensiveness when knowledgeable people try to critique their ideas.

That sucks :(

So, when will these relativist crackpots finally get banned ?;)

Vortexx,
I think you misunderstood. They are talking about people without mathematics and experimentation to back them up.;)

ignorance is a bliss!

It's not that easy to police, I think. Crackpot posts can immediately be moved to the appropriate forum. But what about threads about legit science, that are hijacked by crackpots? What do we do to prevent topics on curved space-time to evolve into nonsensical discussions about the aether?

1) Remove obvious crackpot threads immediately. Put them anywhere you want, or simply delete them. Who cares anyway? Despite the hemming and hawing of James R, the line is actually pretty damn clear between crackpot and legit.

2) Delete crackpot posts in otherwise legitimate threads, or split the thread and move those posts into another thread in another forum.

This isssue has been raised here over and over again -- I was one of those who fought it in the beginning. The bottom line is that James R does not want to be a moderator; he wants to be a spectator. He seems to think that any sort of actual intervention is contrary to the purpose of the forum.

We even took votes on what to do with the crackpots. The forum's readership was clear on what it wanted. James R simply responded that he wasn't actually capable of doing what the readership wanted.

It's now time to plug physicsforums.com again. ;) All you folks who are tired of the bullshit and subsequent moderator apathy, come on over. :)

- Warren

Also, I'd like to note something that I think is pretty funny:

James R spends most of his time wearing the moderator hat going through posts and deleting or mollifying the angry language often used in posts here.

He doesn't seem to stop and think about the reason the bad language is there in the first place: because scientists don't much like crackpots, and crackpots don't much like scientists.

Very few of us desire to get into name-calling, credential-bashing nonsense, but often it's the last arrow in the quiver.

Proper moderation would deal with this underlying problem and separate the two classes of posters.

- Warren

sorry chroot, i have to support JamesR's ways.
Afterall, God is but a spectator himself.

If its easy enough to identify quack-pot from non-quacker, then why not just ignore the quacking and bother with those answers that make some sense....

Any thread you open, will inherently wind up in the same boat (or alternate parallel multiverse for those of you who don't like boats), because so long as misconceptions exist, people will post quack-pottish concepts.

I think for those who are not aware of who is a quack-pot and who is not, if they have a real aspiration towards physics, their first year at Uni level physics will dispel the nonsense anyway.

The problem, GW, is not that it's tough to separate crackpottery from legitimacy at all. As I said, it's trivial for most people.

The problem is that the crackpots essentially pollute, or litter. Almost every single legitimate post on this forum is eventually hijacked by one or more crackpots and dragged down to become the 150th thread in a row about why special relativity is wrong or how flying saucers will soon invade your anus. As a result, no productive discussions can happen on this forum -- unless you think that a mixture of morons, paranoid schizophrenics, anarchists, self-proclaimed quasi-deities, and science-fiction kooks is capable of some collective productivity.

The only legitimate threads that escape this barrage of nonsense are those that are simply too advanced for the crackpots to even digest. lethe's differential forms thread, for example, was immune to the crackpot disease infecting this place.

The bottom line is this: of course, it's easy to separate the signal from the noise. But why should I have to?

- Warren

And another thing -- what about the legitimate, educated, intelligent people who come to sciforums, see that it's full of horseshit, and click on by?

I for one know that if sciforums looked when I first saw it as it does today, I would never have bothered at all. James R was, however, not the moderator when I first joined.

- Warren

Hi Warren,

"I for one know that if sciforums looked when I first saw it as it does today, I would never have bothered at all. James R was, however, not the moderator when I first joined."

This is inappropriate flaming. I've been on sciforums.com for 4 years now (try to beat that :p) and when I first came here, I simply could not understand any of the high-tech talk here (being a second year student etc etc)... At that time, the forum was unmoderated. Moderation has NOTHING to do with the quality of the posts (look up old posts from long-left members like "Plato" or "Boris" and you'll see what I mean).

The reason why there is too much crackpottery here is simply because sciforums.com has grown a lot larger since then (I think there were like 50 members back then... now we're up to 10.000 or something). Also, the combinations of several other forums (religion, pseudo-science) sometimes makes people coming to sciforums.com for those forums peak in the physics&math forum, posting their opinion, blabla...

I think James does a good job at moderating, but from a personal point of view, I would agree that a more strict "no-science = delete/move" policy could do this forum good. Perhaps a second moderator ?

Bye!

Crisp

Why not just ignore quackpot posts.

If you worry about others responding just make it known that you think it's a quack post by.. quacking...

<bgsound SRC="http://www.naturesongs.com/bbwd1.wav">

Originally posted by Persol
Why not just ignore quackpot posts.

If you worry about others responding just make it known that you think it's a quack post by.. quacking...

<bgsound SRC="http://www.naturesongs.com/bbwd1.wav">

Exactly!

Hey, all you people complaining about the signal to noise ratio.... put the people you think are crackpots on IGNORE.

No more noise..........

If people are responding to the crackpots anyway, well that is their choice. Why should you be able to take that choice away from them?

Put the responders on ignore too! If they are someone you respect that you don't want to put on ignore, then THINK about that. They CHOOSE to respond to these people. Why do you want to limit their choices? Because you can't drive by an accident without rubber-necking?

Sheesh, just because you can't control yourself doesn't give you the right to censor other people.

Ignore them. Period. If you can't do that, stop complaining.

Adam

chroot,

Stop whining like a little girl. If someone doesn't agree with you then you think they're a crackpot.

I'm sorry to burst you're bubble, but "crackpot" is a very subjective term that only people with low IQ's use. Why don't you enlighten all of us and tell us what a "crackpot" is? And I want a real definition, not examples.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes me a crackpot. Is it because I have alternate explanations for phenomena explained by relativity? I guess anyone who doesn't accept "conventional" explanations must be a crackpot.

Maybe I'm a crackpot because my knowledge in math is limited. The universe must be too complex for someone without an advanced math degree to visualize, right?

I know, I must be a crackpot because I'm stubborn. Crackpots never admit that there wrong, right? But I've admitted that I was wrong a number of times on sciforums. Does that mean I'm not a crackpot?

Maybe a crackpot is someone who doesn't agree with chroot. Maybe you label someone a crackpot not because their model or theory is not possible or unscientific, but because you're jealous of their creativity or intelligence. Or maybe you're just so closed-minded that all new and original ideas frustrate you.

Let me remind you again, feel free to to start as many "non-crackpot" threads as you wish. You complain about our crackpot threads clogging up the Physics and Math forum, but you contribute nothing. Should all of us "crackpots" stop posting and wait for an original idea to come out of your limited consciousness? You claim that "crackpottery" is killing this forum, but if it wasn't for "crackpottery", this forum would be long dead.

One more thing, James is a much better moderator than you could ever be. Maybe one day, when you resolve your insecurities, you'll gain the wisdom to judge posts based on their scientific values, and not on whether you "like" or "dislike" them.

Tom

Beercules,

What do we do to prevent topics on curved space-time to evolve into nonsensical discussions about the aether?

Well, that was a stupid question. I assume that you think that there is more proof that space-time curves than that aether exists.

Please prove to me that mass actually curves spacetime and that gravity isn't the result of an exchange of particless. Oh, I forgot, I guess curved spacetime is true because it's included in your physics textbook while aether is not. :rolleyes:

Tom

Hehehehehehe Tom, that was a gem!

- Warren

Originally posted by Prosoothus
You claim that "crackpottery" is killing this forum, but if it wasn't for "crackpottery", this forum would be long dead.

For the first time, I am to some extent in agreement with Tom here. You guys who keep complaining about the pseudoscience here aren't seeing the fact that this forum simply does not have the membership to support the "hard physics" threads that you want to clear the way for. Just look at lethe's thread on differential forms. Where is it? Somewhere at the bottom? And it was mostly lethe just replying to himself with no interaction.

You guys are beating a dead horse here. This forum is not going to change. What's even more puzzling is that you all know where to go. Warren mentioned it in this very thread: Physics Forums. If lethe had posted his differential forms thread there (and I hope he will), it would immediately be joined by the likes of Hurkyl, HallsOfIvy, Mathman, and SelfAdjoint, and the rest of us could sit back and get a free education.

Originally posted by Tom2
Just look at lethe's thread on differential forms. Where is it? Somewhere at the bottom? And it was mostly lethe just replying to himself with no interaction.


yeah, it didn t hang around long. )-:

several people thanked me for posting it, i got one PM from someone who said he found it useful, but the only person that was actually working through it, as far as i could tell, was Ron (RTD2). and when i let it slide for a few weeks because of finals, it sank like a stone, buried by crackpottery. incentive to continue it has been weak lately.

i haven t forgotten about it, though. i posted a new entry last week, there are a lot of things left to say there, and i would hate to see it die.


If lethe had posted his differential forms thread there (and I hope he will), it would immediately be joined by the likes of Hurkyl, HallsOfIvy, Mathman, and SelfAdjoint, and the rest of us could sit back and get a free education.

would you want me to copy it over, wholesale, to PF? i could certainly do that.....

Originally posted by lethe
would you want me to copy it over, wholesale, to PF? i could certainly do that.....

I would say post the first segment and let the other fish bite. I don't doubt that they will.

Several people have suggested that crackpots should be simply ignored. This isn't a good solution, for several reasons. First, as far as I'm concerned the crackpots here are, as chroot said, little more than polluters. They lower the quality of sciforums, detracting from its value and giving nothing in return. The forum would be better off with them gone. Second, many crackpots like to answer people's legitimate questions about science with crackpot nonsense. If people wanted 'alternative' theories they would look in the Pseudoscience section. I would hate for people to come to sciforums with a question and get wildly incorrect information, which is something that I suspect happens here regularly. Third, I believe that the over-abundance of crackpots scares away the really knowledgeable people. Someone commented that if it weren't for the crackpots the forum would be dead, but this forum has shown its self to be historically able to generate many legitimate posts when the level of crackpottery is under control. Perhaps if the crackpots were gone then knowledgeable people would be more likely to join in the discussions.

Poor moderation isn't the cause of all these crackpots posts - generally I think that moderators should do as little as possible - but harsh moderator action seems to be the only solution.

Originally posted by Nasor

Poor moderation isn't the cause of all these crackpots posts - generally I think that moderators should do as little as possible - but harsh moderator action seems to be the only solution.

what do you suppose is the cause? someone mentioned, and i think this is true, the large amount of religion and philosophy going on on this board.

lethe, for petes sake dont let your thread die!!! it will prevail in the end

Originally posted by Nasor
Several people have suggested that crackpots should be simply ignored. This isn't a good solution, for several reasons. First, as far as I'm concerned the crackpots here are, as chroot said, little more than polluters. They lower the quality of sciforums, detracting from its value and giving nothing in return. The forum would be better off with them gone.


No question there.


Second, many crackpots like to answer people's legitimate questions about science with crackpot nonsense. If people wanted 'alternative' theories they would look in the Pseudoscience section. I would hate for people to come to sciforums with a question and get wildly incorrect information, which is something that I suspect happens here regularly.


As recently as 6 months ago, I felt the same way. But then I realized that I can't "walk point" for the whole world. I belong to several message boards. Some are good, some are bad. You'll drive yourself nuts trying to change them all. Yes, sincere novices are being fed a lot of bullshit here, but it's not my (or your) responsibility. That's why an administration is in place.


Third, I believe that the over-abundance of crackpots scares away the really knowledgeable people.


I'm not so much "scared" as "repulsed". ;) But I know what you mean, and it is indeed a problem. I, for one, am not a "regular" here simply because there are so few threads worth participating in. There was one good one on photons shortly after I arrived, and that was quite fruitful. But by the time lethe put up his differential forms thread, I had stopped checking this board on a daily basis.


Someone commented that if it weren't for the crackpots the forum would be dead, but this forum has shown its self to be historically able to generate many legitimate posts when the level of crackpottery is under control. Perhaps if the crackpots were gone then knowledgeable people would be more likely to join in the discussions.


Well, you've been here longer than I have, so I suppose you know better. My point was that you are fighting "The Will of the People" here. It is not just the majority of members that want things to stay as they are, it is also the administration. That is why I think nothing will come of this, despite the numerous outcries over the past few months.

Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
lethe, for petes sake dont let your thread die!!! it will prevail in the end

what am i supposed to do? i can t make people participate! i can t delete all the crackpot threads that push it to the second page, and i can t make people read it.

just make sure you save it on your computer, so you wont lose your work. i'd participate if a could, but i'm working getting up to that level. I'm just saying it was good, dont lose it. Taking it to PF might get you more participation.

Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
just make sure you save it on your computer, so you wont lose your work. i'd participate if a could, but i'm working getting up to that level. I'm just saying it was good, dont lose it. Taking it to PF might get you more participation.

meh. i don t really think i need to save it on my computer.

i mean, i sometimes whip out a shit of paper when i m at the bar, and explain something to someone, like differential forms, or projective representations, or the first fundamental group. but do i keep those pieces of paper?

no. in the garbage they go. with beer stains on them. to me they are useless. i have the knowledge in my head already, not to mention in dozens of books, with better typesetting and better exposition, and more precise mathematics. so to be honest, the thread is only as useful to me as the discussions that come out of it.

well thats not entirely true. someone once said "you don t really understand a thing until you teach it to someone else" or maybe it was "you learn something better if you teach it", or something like that. so explaining these things probably helps me to understand them better.

true that lethe

Thankyou all for your comments. Let me try to sort through some of the issues here.

<b>Nasor</b>

<i>This board is slowing sinking into a terrible sea of pseudo-scientific crap, and only aggressive policing by the moderator can save it.</i>

At what stage do you suggest that threads be policed, exactly? Presumably, you want it to happen at the first sign of anything which smells a bit like pseudoscience. So, whenever somebody posts something like "I believe relativity is wrong because ...", you would, I assume, like to see the thread immediately moved to the Pseudoscience section.

This is not my current policy, and I'll tell you why. The reason is that what the poster has said <b>has not been refuted</b> yet. As far as I am concerned, all ideas deserve a fair hearing on this forum. I am not God and I do not presume to put myself in a position to be the ultimate judge of the worth of everything posted here. To do that, I would need to know everything, and freely admit that I don't.

I will not shut down discussion. To do so helps nobody. It doesn't help the original poster learn that they are wrong (if they are wrong). It doesn't help an unbiased reader learn any real science. If incorrect posts on physics are moved to Pseudoscience, there is no guarantee that a legitimate physics explanation will ever be given, but the crackpot post will remain for anybody to digest, unrefuted. Is that what you want?

<i>When someone starts a threat explaining how the universe it really a helical transverse wave packet, or some other such nonsense, it should be moved immediately.</i>

How do we know <i>a priori</i>, that the universe is not a helical transverse wave packet? You haven't even started to unpack the idea and you're already labelling it and dismissing it. That is not a scientific approach.

<i>Let's be honest, most of the time there's really no question whether or not someone is a crackpot.</i>

Yes, it usually becomes rapidly apparent. But not all crackpots are irredeemable. Some are willing to learn.

Ask yourself, though: do you respond to a crackpot solely for the crackpot's benefit, or for other reasons? Personally, when I respond to a crackpot, I hope the crackpot will learn but I'm realistic enough to realise that that is unlikely. But I also have the opportunity to educate people who are sitting on the fence - the unbiased observers. I also sometimes solidify my own understanding of physics. In order to teach a subject, you need to have a really good understanding of it yourself, so teaching is a great way to learn.

<i>We all know that nobody is going to develop a legitimate paradigm-shifting physics theory and publish it on sciforums.</i>

How do we know that?

<i>The way things have been going for the past few months, there are basically two ways this board could go; in another year it could either have relatively few users, all of whom are legitimately interested in science (the way it was back in the good old days, when only maybe one thread in 5 was a crackpot), or it could continue its downward spiral until it's no better than the sci.physics newsgroup.</i>

It is almost inevitable inevitable that, as a forum gains more users, the standard of the average contribution tends to drop. The good stuff is still there - it's just harder to get to.

As forums grow, moderation becomes increasing difficult too. It is very hard to separate the crackpots from the legitimate responses and still maintain the flow of conversation for readers. More on this below.


<b>ryans</b>

<i>However now [the crackpots] are filling the legitimate threads with their BS and confusing the hell out of the people here who want to learn something.</i>

I have a problem with that too. Unfortunately, as a moderator I am constained by the functionality of the software of this forum. As I recently explained to lethe, it is practically impossible to move individual posts from one thread to another (as opposed to splitting a thread in two or moving an entire thread from one forum to another, which is relatively easy). So, much as I might like to move crackpot responses out of legitimate threads, that is not always possible.

So, why not simply delete them? Well, think about it from my point of view for a minute. Things usually go like this:

Legitimate question
Crackpot response
Response of legitimate poster to crackpot
leading to... further discussion which includes both crackpot ideas and legitimate maths or physics.

Now, try to remove all references to the crackpot stuff and keep the legitimate stuff. That would be a full-time job, involving editing of almost every post, deletion of some posts and the insertion of explanatory material to explain why there seem to be "gaps" in the discussion.

Perhaps some of the posters in this thread have a simple practical solution to the problem, but I haven't seen one so far. I'm open to suggestions.


<b>chroot</b>

Obviously, you have some unresolved personal issues with me. For the benefit of readers who may be unaware, chroot does not like being moderated at all. He thinks that he is a special case, and should be able to freely insult anybody at any time in whatever way he wants. If he labels somebody a crackpot for whatever reason, then in his opinion that person is fair game for all manner of insults.

I politely told him that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in my forum. I expect a reasonable degree of courtesy between posters. Attacks on ideas are fine, but attacks on people are not. chroot can't seem to distinguish the two, so somebody else occasionally needs to do it for him.

chroot left to go to physicsforums. A little while ago, he essentially stated that he would not post any useful content on sciforums any more, but would only come here "for a laugh", presumably to make trouble. That will not be tolerated either. Legitimate posts are welcome here, no matter who posts them. But cross the line and action will be taken.

Now to specifics:

<i>The bottom line is that James R does not want to be a moderator; he wants to be a spectator. He seems to think that any sort of actual intervention is contrary to the purpose of the forum.</i>

You have little concept of how much moderating I actually do here. I don't make a big deal of it - most of it is done behind the scenes, without me posting anything. The intervention you've been most aware of, of course, is where I've intervened to edit or delete your posts. I know that right now you disagree with my actions in that regard, but so be it. This is not a popularity contest.

<i>We even took votes on what to do with the crackpots. The forum's readership was clear on what it wanted. James R simply responded that he wasn't actually capable of doing what the readership wanted.</i>

Specifically, I said that I do not have power to create an entirely new forum for "Theory development" or the like. My policy on alternative theories is clearly set out in a sticky thread.

<i>James R spends most of his time wearing the moderator hat going through posts and deleting or mollifying the angry language often used in posts here. He doesn't seem to stop and think about the reason the bad language is there in the first place: because scientists don't much like crackpots, and crackpots don't much like scientists.</i>

No. That's not it, chroot. Bad language is unacceptable even when you don't like somebody. As I often note, it adds nothing useful to an intellectual discussion. In fact, all it does is to attach a social label to the person using it. One day you may learn this.

<i>Very few of us desire to get into name-calling, credential-bashing nonsense, but often it's the last arrow in the quiver.</i>

Surely somebody with your knowledge should be able to fight bullshit with facts rather than personal abuse, don't you think?

<i>Proper moderation would deal with this underlying problem and separate the two classes of posters.</i>

As I said, if you can think of a viable way to do that that isn't a full time job, then I'm all ears.


<b>slimshady2357</b>

Good point about the "ignore" list.


<b>Tom2</b>

You seem to like physicsforums. So does chroot. I'm sure it's great, though I don't have time to go there. It's a free web, and anybody can vote with their feet at any time. If you don't like the way things are at sciforums, by all means look elsewhere. Each to his own.

But as long as you're here, why not contribute rather than simply telling everybody how much greener the grass is on the other side? Let's face it - all you people reading this right now must be here because you want to be. So, why not help make sciforums the place you want it to be? Lead by example.


<b>lethe</b>

Please don't feel as if nobody reads your threads (such as Differential forms). I, for one, appreciate that kind of input, and am waiting for future installments. I may not always reply to threads, but I always read them.


<b>To all</b>

I'm always open to suggestions. If you have any practical suggestions on how I could moderate this forum better, while still keeping it as an open forum (as opposed to a forum for an elite few with postgraduate physics degrees or the like), then please post them.

Actually, as a follow-up to that, I should make it explicit that I intend to run this forum as an open forum rather than as an Advanced Physics or Higher Mathematics forum. It is not a specialist research forum. If you want that, such forums are available elsewhere, or you can simply do your research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. I intend to keep this forum as one for both professionals and interested amateurs - for people who know their science and maths as well as those who don't know much but would like to know more.

If that's not your cup of tea, then you've been warned. But if it is, then I value your input here. A forum is only as good as its contributors.

Originally posted by James R
At what stage do you suggest that threads be policed, exactly? Presumably, you want it to happen at the first sign of anything which smells a bit like pseudoscience. Not at all; I would like them to be deleted or moved if they are clearly crackpots. Like I said, there's usually little question as to whether or not someone is a crackpot. If you aren't 99% sure, by all means don't censor it. Most of the time, however, it's easy to be 99% sure.This is not my current policy, and I'll tell you why. The reason is that what the poster has said <b>has not been refuted</b> yet. As far as I am concerned, all ideas deserve a fair hearing on this forum. You're knowledgeable about physics. If it's quite obvious to you that a person is a crackpot and could be easily refuted, simply delete/move it. This will prevent crap from cluttering up the forum, save people with little knowledge of physics from confusion and incorrect information, and possibly attract some new members.
I will not shut down discussion. To do so helps nobody. It doesn't help the original poster learn that they are wrong (if they are wrong). It doesn't help an unbiased reader learn any real science. If incorrect posts on physics are moved to Pseudoscience, there is no guarantee that a legitimate physics explanation will ever be given, but the crackpot post will remain for anybody to digest, unrefuted. Is that what you want?Like I said above, in some cases shutting down discussion can be helpful to a great many people. As I said in an earlier post, I have never seen a single crackpot show an interest in learning; they generally just want to spout off their nonsense and react with hostility to anyone who tries to correct them. The possibility of correcting one crackpot is not worth the trouble of dealing with the other 99 who refuse to learn anything. As for letting crackpot posts sit unrefuted in the pseudoscience section…what's the problem? It would fit right in. How do we know <i>a priori</i>, that the universe is not a helical transverse wave packet? You haven't even started to unpack the idea and you're already labelling it and dismissing it. That is not a scientific approach.I can't 'know' that the universe in not a helical transverse wave packet because you can't prove a negative, but that doesn't mean that the idea deserves space on the forum.Yes, it usually becomes rapidly apparent. But not all crackpots are irredeemable. Some are willing to learn.Examples? I've never seen any. To be fair, maybe I just missed them. Ask yourself, though: do you respond to a crackpot solely for the crackpot's benefit, or for other reasons? Personally, when I respond to a crackpot, I hope the crackpot will learn but I'm realistic enough to realise that that is unlikely. But I also have the opportunity to educate people who are sitting on the fence - the unbiased observers. I also sometimes solidify my own understanding of physics. In order to teach a subject, you need to have a really good understanding of it yourself, so teaching is a great way to learn.We wouldn't have to correct things for the benefit of 'unbiased observers' if the crackpots would keep their mouths shut in the first place. The benefit of understanding something better after explaining it is frankly not worth it in this case. I can kind of see what you're getting at here, but please don't try to convince anyone that these crackpots are somehow educating people or benefiting the forums. It's quite the opposite. They do far more harm than good.How do we know that (someone won't publish a breakthrough theory on sciforums)?Let me put it this way: even though it is vaguely possible that someone will want to publish a true breakthrough on sciforums, the odds of it happening are so small that we would be far better off, on the whole, if the crackpots were censored. The risk of prematurely censoring the next Feynman or Einstein does not justify having to wade through the pseudoscience that is littering our forum. It's like wading through a garbage dump on the off chance that you might find a treasure chest. Since anyone who has a legitimate breakthrough theory is bound to publish it and get attention sooner or later, we don't need to worry very much about holding back physics.

Is this a physics forums or not. If someone has a breakthrough discovery, they should display it else where. This forum should be used to discuss physics and maths using currently accepted physics and maths. Non of the crackpots here even seem to have a genuine knowledge of the theory they are trying to debunk. I am sorry but Einstein knew Newtons laws, Feynmann knew Maxwells equations. I seriously doubt that any of these dipshits proposing the existence of the aether to describe the cosmos even Know general relativity. Do they understand Maxwell's equations and realise any theory that debunks relativity would also either prove maxwell's equations wrong, or will require them to be reformulated. No they see relativity a simple trigonometric exercise. And how the f*** did that shithouse H Linder thread last so long. This is clearly crackpottism. For God's sake, the dick refers to homself as a physician.

Pull your act together James, we all want to see this thread go well, and your original ideas on the crackpots were well founded, but it seems that they have pushed you further into the realms of being lenient with their pseudo-science BS.

Originally posted by James R

<b>ryans</b>

<i>However now [the crackpots] are filling the legitimate threads with their BS and confusing the hell out of the people here who want to learn something.</i>

I have a problem with that too. Unfortunately, as a moderator I am constained by the functionality of the software of this forum. As I recently explained to lethe, it is practically impossible to move individual posts from one thread to another (as opposed to splitting a thread in two or moving an entire thread from one forum to another, which is relatively easy). So, much as I might like to move crackpot responses out of legitimate threads, that is not always possible.

So, why not simply delete them?

whatever you do, i don t think posts should ever be deleted. for any reason. there is a difference between editorial moderation and censorship.



No. That's not it, chroot. Bad language is unacceptable even when you don't like somebody. As I often note, it adds nothing useful to an intellectual discussion. In fact, all it does is to attach a social label to the person using it. One day you may learn this.

i don t agree. i hear people say that use of profanity indicates a bad vocabulary, or otherwise is a sign of lack of intelliigence or speaking ability. profanity actually augments your vocabulary, in my opinion, curse words are, after all, just words, and sometimes you feel so vehemently about something that profanity is just the best way.

what you really mean is that personal attacks don t add anything to the discussion. i don t see what this has to do with one s choice of wording.




<b>slimshady2357</b>

Good point about the "ignore" list.

ignore list isn t very effective. i have tried it.

<b>lethe</b>

Please don't feel as if nobody reads your threads (such as Differential forms). I, for one, appreciate that kind of input, and am waiting for future installments. I may not always reply to threads, but I always read them.

thanks for the support.

Originally posted by lethe
whatever you do, i don t think posts should ever be deleted. for any reason. there is a difference between editorial moderation and censorship.Personally I don't think that they should be deleted either; I just want them moved to pseudoscience. I mean, why do we have the pseudoscience forum in the first place? I really don't see why our moderator is so reluctant to move threads there. The moderators here move threads to more appropriate forums all the time. Go ahead and start a thread about genetic engineering in the math & physics forums and see how quickly it gets moved to the biology forum. I don't know why the same standard wouldn't apply to people who start pseudoscience threads in the wrong place.

i honestly don't see what all the whining is about. i think the senior members here do a great job of pointing out when someone is talking shit. we should be free to make up our own mind whether a post is useful or not. there should be no deletion and almost no moderation at all.

i have only been participating for a week or so but i have learned a great deal. when i am off track someone tells me.

as far as i'm concerned a good moderator is one who you barely notice.

Originally posted by yayacatfight
a good moderator is one who you barely notice.
I agree. Unfortunately I notice James all the time because he doesn't do anything.

- Warren

chroot:

your biggest concern is that the obvious crackpot statements are not removed immediately:

1) the intelligent people can differentiate between what is "crackpot" or not themselves
2) you clearly don't care about the ignorant people or you would simply try to tell them where they are wrong.

a lot of people, including me, get a lot out of some of the senior members straightening out the "crackpot" posts. they ADD to the thread.

HURRAY FOR CRACKPOTS!!!!!

*chroot clicks his heels and dances a jig.

<b>Nasor:</b>

The main problem with moving crackpot posts, as I said earlier, is that the forum software does not provide any way of doing so apart from moving an entire thread or splitting a thread in two. Individual posts cannot be simply moved from one thread to another.

The practical effect of that is that if a thread contains both good science and crackpottery, then there is no way to simply remove the crackpottery and leave the good stuff - apart from simply deleting the crackpottery, which would be seen as very unfair by many.


<b>ryans:</b>

<i>Is this a physics forums or not. If someone has a breakthrough discovery, they should display it else where. This forum should be used to discuss physics and maths using currently accepted physics and maths.</i>

Really? You don't want to hear about speculative theories? What about the current thread on the "cosmic rip" scenario for the end of the universe? That's far from accepted, but it is, nonetheless, entirely legitimate physics, produced by professional physicists.

Where do you draw the line?

<i>...And how the f*** did that shithouse H Linder thread last so long. This is clearly crackpottism. For God's sake, the dick refers to homself as a physician.</i>

I don't believe anybody has refuted it (here) so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<i>Pull your act together James, we all want to see this thread go well, and your original ideas on the crackpots were well founded, but it seems that they have pushed you further into the realms of being lenient with their pseudo-science BS.</i>

I have no sympathy for crackpots, but as a moderator I must not let my personal opinions create a climate of censorship on this forum. Far from being lenient towards pseudo-science, if you read many of my posts it should be quite clear that I am healthily skeptical of all claims.


<b>lethe:</b>

<i>whatever you do, i don t think posts should ever be deleted. for any reason. there is a difference between editorial moderation and censorship.</i>

Practically the only posts I delete are <i>ad hominem</i> attacks and posts which actually make no sense or have no useful content.

<i>what you really mean is that personal attacks don t add anything to the discussion. i don t see what this has to do with one s choice of wording.</i>

Fair point. You're right. I don't have a problem with a certain amount of profanity, provided it is not directed at a person. On the other hand, excessive profanity is a distraction which nobody needs.

<i>ignore list isn t very effective. i have tried it.</i>

I understand. You still get the replies to the ignored people.

To All: I was surprised to some extent that old Mac didn't draw specific mention but I still saw my name all over this thread.

I think most here have made good points and I would like to do the same.

I recognize that I have not redeemed myself yet for my appearance on this MSB with the heavy hand against Relativty which I couldn't support.

Nor have I provided overwhelming evidence much less proof to support my own views. But I'm sure some of you have seen my latest post which is currently running.

I have in the interim tried to minimize my objections to some of the conventional ideas and to not post alterantives which can be classed as nothing more than conjecture (if not indeed crackpot) but this last post which I think may have prompted this string I think is valid science and is appropriate for peer review.

In that regard only through James R., common sense and correct leadership of being a moderator has there become any effort to actually do peer review on the concept.

The concept will either stand or it will fall. Of course I care but in the end it is the truth that counts and if my work is legitamately overturned then I think this forum has served a useful purpose or for that matter (and hopefully) actually the inverse. that is some merit may be found for the concept and it may cause some advance in research and testing in that area.

Wouldn't that be the shits? Something useful might have ended up in the pine box and never see the light of day because some members don't want to put forth the effort to actually evaluate something. Frankly I don't call that science. I call it predjudice.

Some members seem afraid that they might have to go back to school and learn all over again and prefer to accept the text book without challenge.

I acknowledge such challenges should be based on actual scientific endeavors.

If a new theory actually has potential, an internet forum is not the way advance the theory into science. At one point it'd have to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal of some sort... and I have yet to see a crackpot idea that would stand up to even harsher reviewers.

Persol,

We agree once more. It has not been my intent to expect this group to facilitate actual publication of something but more to use as a sounding board to see where to concentrate on concept Weakness.

In that reagrd this MSB has been most helpful:D

I think that there's a point being missed here. I come to this site specifically to find out if I'm a crackpot. Partly I do this by finding out more about current scientific orthodoxy, (or the opinions here about it anyway) and partly by expressing my opinions and waiting to see what happens.

There wouldn't be much point in my doing this in exile on a site populated completely by crackpots.

The line between a crackpot and a non-crackpot cannot be drawn based on the theories that people hold. It should be drawn based upon whether their ideas stand up to logical analysis and whether they are open to reason in discussing them. IOW crackpottery is not a function of what people believe, but of why they believe it.

Still, I can see that too much unscientific nonsense would spoil the site, and perhaps already does for some.

IMO the problem with the site is not crackpottery - it's the vast range of ages, skills and abilities that are represented. This wouldn't occur anywhere else. Perhaps there should be a section of the site where specialists can meet in peace, and where they can talk together without having to deal with so many naive questions and comments. But please don't ban the crackpots - the baby will almost certainly disapear with the bathwater.

Originally posted by Canute
I think that there's a point being missed here. I come to this site specifically to find out if I'm a crackpot. Partly I do this by finding out more about current scientific orthodoxy, (or the opinions here about it anyway) and partly by expressing my opinions and waiting to see what happens.

There wouldn't be much point in my doing this in exile on a site populated completely by crackpots. There's no problem with people asking questions about science – that's half the reason this board exists, and no one is suggesting that you shouldn't be able to ask whether or not your ideas make sense.

The problem comes in when crackpots make bold, authoritative-sounding statements about things that they obviously don't understand. If you don't know much about physics, don't start threads or answer other people's questions as if you knew what you're talking about.

Fair point - and I'm not arguing with it. But there is a very thin line between testing ones ideas by honestly defending them and sounding like you're trying to promote them as the truth. I've fallen into that trap a couple of times.

One problem I have found is that if one asks a question and then disgrees with the answer and questions it, some people assume that your question was a trap and get annoyed. In other words some people expect their answers to be accepted too readily, and cry foul when they are not. I suppose the problem is that email discussions lack body language.