I recently put up two polls, seeking views on the amount of pseudoscience and "alternative" theory stuff which is currently appearing on the Physics and Math forum, and what should be done about it.

Roughly one third of the respondents said that the current amount of pseudoscience here is discouraging them from visiting this forum. Another third said that if the amount of pseudoscience increases much more, they would consider leaving. The remainder said that the amount doesn't really worry them.

When asked about what should be done with "unconventional" theories, roughly one half of the respondents said that such theories should be given a chance on the forum, before possibly being moved elsewhere. One fifth of the respondents thought that unconventional theories should generally be allowed to remain regardless, and one sixth thought that threads should be moved at the first hint of pseudoscience.

Looking at the concerns raised in the relevant threads, there seem to be a few themes:

A. New posters should not be bombarded with "alternative" theories when they come here asking questions about physics and maths. They should be given alternative explanations only if they seek them out.

B. Posters are concerned about the repetitive nature of some challenges to conventional theories. Certain questions and challenges seem to come up over and over again. Almost invariably, these result from less-than-perfect understanding of the challengers.

C. Posters are concerned about "crackpots" who continue to push their alternative theories long after fatal flaws have been clearly pointed out to them. This takes up too much forum bandwidth which would be better used in some other way.

This thread is aiming to develop a draft set of guidelines for "alternative" theories on this forum. Here are my suggestions:

1. Theories and ideas which depart from the mainstream of Physics and Maths will be given a fair run on this forum. As long as discussion of these ideas is constructive and involves scientific concepts which are testable or otherwise defensible, such ideas will be allowed to stay on this forum.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I hope that the educated members of the forum can teach people who are confused or mistaken about accepted physics and maths. Secondly, I do not wish to prejudge ideas which may turn out to have some merit, even if they are not clearly expressed initially.

2. When a poster asks a question about Physics or Mathematics, as opposed to expounding a personal theory, the poster should be given answers based in conventional physics and mathematics in the first instance. I think it is fair to assume that when somebody asks about black holes, for example, they want to know the views of the mainstream scientific community rather than somebody's alternative theory. If they specifically ask for alternative ideas, then such ideas will be welcome. Where alternative ideas are posted in response to a straightforward question, particularly a "newbie" question, the thread will be split, with the unconventional answer being put into a new, clearly-labelled thread.

3. Posters who are critiquing accepted physical or mathematical ideas should clearly point out what is wrong with those ideas, providing clear examples showing where the accepted theories are or may be incorrect. Preferably, such examples should be testable, backed by evidence of some kind or (in the case of mathematical criticisms) accompanied by proof.

4. Posters putting forward alternative theories should clearly explain the basic ideas of their theory, how their theory differs from conventional theories, and how their theory is likely to improve on accepted theories. Explanations should be backed by evidence. Theories should be testable and falsifiable. In short, alternative theories must be classifiable as science rather than pseudoscience. (I can generate a checklist distinguishing the two for posters who maay be unsure of the difference.)

5. Threads which are blatantly unscientific, which push ideas which are unfalsifiable (at least in principle), will be immediately moved to the Psuedoscience forum. Ideas which have been widely rebutted elsewhere, such as "pyramid power", alien visitations and so on, will be moved, as will discussions which are primarily religious in nature.

6. Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum. If a poster cannot accept legitimate criticism of his or her pet theory, discussion on this forum is not going to be of much value.

I would welcome any comments, suggestions and criticisms of these ideas. Please post them in this thread.

James R.,

I almost regret that I appear to be your first responder. But at the same time I hope you will appreciate what I have to say.

I actually agree with what you have said.

My error frankly was in thinking alternative discussion would be welcome but I hadn't realized that as you say many come here looking for answers and frankly my work and, I'm sure of some of the other (So called) cranks would not be overly useful in that regard.

At the same time I feel (as you indicated) that there may be some value hidden in some of these incomplete or mis-presented concepts.

I still urge the consideration of a cleary marked section of the board to be a place for posting "Alternative Concepts", not just "Text Book" or "Comic Book" catagories.

I am attempting to keep my post more in line with questions than statements.

James R.,

By establishing a third catagory between "Text Book" and "Comic Book" posts, you give the members a choice to enter if they want and to keep the dialog out of the mainstream. You would make it easier for those that chose to participate with serious challenge of an idea to simply end by saying "Based on what we currently believe I have told you where you are wrong", terminate the participation and to not venture off into the character assination and slander that I have seen here.

I understand now that that is done in frustration to drive such posters out of the mainstream. But if you relagate ALL of them into the "Comic Book" section, it will remain comic book conversation and there will be no main stream input and any valid thoughts that might be there will be lost.

I really believe that you need (3) levels here.

Thanks for listening.

Originally posted by Andre
Perhaps the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) of John Baez may help as a unbiased guide to distinguish science from gossip. Let's say you're counted out at 10.

I like that but '10' might be a bit uncharitable - given the rate at which some people would get there.

Cheers,

Ron.

P.S Actually, I could argue that some of my work is as good as Newton's - but that would be Gavin Newton, in our Physics Dept (great name for a physicist working on gravitational waves).

James,

I have to agree in part with MacM. Setting these types of rules will only bring problems to this forum.

I would have two groups in the "Physics and Math" forum, the "Textbook Science" group and the "Alternative Theories" group. Unlike MacM, I see no need for a "Comic Book" group, that's what we have the "Pseudoscience" forum for.

At the top of these two groups, there should be two locked sticky post threads called "Read First Before Posting". The thread would explain the differences between the two groups and explain that if a person wants a textbook answer, to only post his/her question in the "Textbook Science" group. However, it the person is expecting an unconventional and a conventional answer, then they should either post their question in the "Alternative Theories" group, or in both groups.

This two group idea seems to be the most efficient idea. This way, you won't have to judge or move any threads and get people angry, and people who only want conventional answers to their questions can post them in the "Textbook Science" group and only get conventional answers.

I have no problem in posting my theories in the "Alternative Theories" group. However, if you decide to label the "Alternative Theories" group as a "Crackpot Theories" group or any other name that suggests that it's less scientific or valid than the "Textbook Science" group, I won't be posting anything anymore on the "Physics and Math" forum.

Tom

Originally posted by Prosoothus
I won't be posting anything anymore on the "Physics and Math" forum.
You promise????

- Warren

I agree with Tom and want to clarify that my use of the term "Comic Book" meant the currently existing group officially named "psuedo-science" but repeatedly referred to as the spot for "Crackpot Science".

An "Alternative Science" catagory provides a suitable starting point before judgements are made to move it to P-Science.


quote:
**************
You promise????

- Warren
**************

:D

I too would have no hesitation to post into an "Alternative Science Group". I would go one step further and suggest that instructions for posters should be that if one has an alternative view of a topic that they open another string to discuss that issue in the Alternative Science Group and to not do what I suggested earlier and did yesterday, which did appear to anger the original poster, and that was to suggest that he might be interested in looking at an alternative.

In otherwords I don't think having a lot of solicitations to get people into the Alternative area is a good idea. They should remain totally seperate.

The only thing that Alternative Science posters should do in the "Text Book" group would be to ask pertinent questions.

chroot,

You promise????

Of course. :) When I post a model on this forum, I don't assume that it's less valid than the conventional model. If I did, I wouldn't post it.

Before I post a model I first confirm that:

1) Experimental data supports it.

2) There are no logical flaws in my model.

Since I'm not a physicst, I need other, more educated, people to point out if there is experimental data that contradicts my model. That is the main reason I post here. If no one reads my model because it's posted in a group called "Crackpot Theories" or something similiar, my posting it would simply be a waste of my time.

Tom

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Of course. :) When I post a model on this forum, I don't assume that it's less valid than the conventional model.
There's your problem. You don't understand the conventional model, so you don't understand why your model is less valid.

- Warren

James

What is the possibility of creating another forum where these alternative theories can be discussed as opposed to moving them to pseudoscience?

chroot,

There's your problem. You don't understand the conventional model, so you don't understand why your model is less valid.

I don't understand what? Relativity? I don't want to dissapoint you, but Relativity is not brain surgery.

All the assumptions that Relativity is founded on, come from a simple experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment. Not only do I understand this experiment very well, but I came up with a model that explains the results of the experiment without having to use length contraction or time dilation.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
I don't understand what? Relativity? I don't want to dissapoint you, but Relativity is not brain surgery.
You still don't understand the TWIN PARADOX kid! You don't know anything about relativity!
All the assumptions that Relativity is founded on, come from a simple experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment. Not only do I understand this experiment very well, but I came up with a model that explains the results of the experiment without having to use length contraction or time dilation.
Uh, no. Relativity was first noticed in the strange behavior of Maxwell's equations, and then was applied to experiments like the M-M experiment.

Your model of the M-M experiment offers nothing. It makes no predictions. It is not science.

- Warren

Q,

That has been my view. An "Alternative Science" section can act as a filter. It is an acceptable forum to act as a sounding board to either improve upon or crush concepts without making assumptions that religate an idea to the trash heap where no serious development exists.

I know I have been part of the problem here, so I hope to be heard. I know there are many that don't want to give UniKEF any consideration and to some extent I understand why. But at the same time gentlemen, I'm telling you that there are some truths contained in the concept.

I don't say that, as has been suggested, as a matter of having convienced myself but as a consequence of the testing that has been done.

I know there are those that have made light of it, even suggesting that no such data will ever be published. The fact is I have already begun drafting the report.

I can tell you this without an appropriate place to post that material, I would not post it under pseudo-science. Nor are the underlying UniKEF principles ready to be considered "Test Book Science". So currently there is no place for such information.

chroot,

You still don't understand the TWIN PARADOX kid!

Read the last page of the twin paradox. You will find that James agrees with the explanation that MacM, synergy, and I were using to explain the twin paradox. So I do understand the twin paradox, I just don't understand your explanation for it.

I really see no need for an "Alternative Theories" forum separate from Physics & Math. Look at my original proposal again:

1. Theories and ideas which depart from the mainstream of Physics and Maths will be given a fair run on this forum. As long as discussion of these ideas is constructive and involves scientific concepts which are testable or otherwise defensible, such ideas will be allowed to stay on this forum.

4. Posters putting forward alternative theories should clearly explain the basic ideas of their theory, how their theory differs from conventional theories, and how their theory is likely to improve on accepted theories. Explanations should be backed by evidence. Theories should be testable and falsifiable. In short, alternative theories must be classifiable as science rather than pseudoscience. (I can generate a checklist distinguishing the two for posters who maay be unsure of the difference.)

6. Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum. If a poster cannot accept legitimate criticism of his or her pet theory, discussion on this forum is not going to be of much value.
An alternative theory is either legitimate science or pseudoscience. If it is a <i>prima facie</i> legitimate alternative to existing theories, it will not be moved elsewhere. If it is Pseudoscience, it will be moved only if the poster continues on about it long after it has been shown to be worthless.

If posters want a forum that does not have the high standards of evidence required by legitimate scientific theories, then there is one available already - the Pseudoscience forum. But if you want your theory to be taken seriously, then the requirements listed here are the minimum that any scientific person would require.

I am, of course, happy to be told why this reasoning is wrong. If you can put up a good argument for an "Alternative Theories" forum distinct from both Physics & Math and Pseudoscience, I am happy to listen to it.

James

Perhaps you’re right. I suggested the ‘alternative theory development’ forum for two reasons. One is because I’ve seen them created on other sites when this type of problem got out of control and it appeared to work well. The conventional scientists were very happy with this change.

The other reason is due to the subtitles under each heading:

Math & Physics – sub. frontier physics, theory

Pseudoscience – sub. ufos, paranormal, unexplained phenomena

If I were to post an alternative theory, my first choice upon reading the subtitles would be Math & Physics. I certainly wouldn’t understand why it might get moved to Pseudoscience considering the theory had nothing to do with ufos, paranormal or unexplained phenomena.

However, if there were an “Alternate Theories” or “Theory Development” forum underneath the Math & Physics forum with the appropriate subtitles, there would be no question where I would post the new theory or why it might get moved there. Conventional scientists would need not have to deal with any issues.

It’s no big woop of course, just a little confusing.


:)

James R.,

In response to your closing:


quote:
****************
I am, of course, happy to be told why this reasoning is wrong. If you can put up a good argument for an "Alternative Theories" forum distinct from both Physics & Math and Pseudoscience, I am happy to listen to it.
*****************

And further in response to Q's post:

*************
I suggested the ‘alternative theory development’ forum for two reasons. One is because I’ve seen them created on other sites when this type of problem got out of control and it appeared to work well. The conventional scientists were very happy with this change.

The other reason is due to the subtitles under each heading:

Math & Physics – sub. frontier physics, theory

Pseudoscience – sub. ufos, paranormal, unexplained phenomena

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

Take a look at the typical topics in pseudo-science.



*******************
Bible/ UFOs, Giants, Annunaki 1 2
NenarTronian 35 320 03-04-03 09:20 PM
by TheVisitor

Spontanious Human Combustion
Elbaz 14 2562 03-04-03 04:48 PM
by Persol

Report of Brazilian Farmer Abduction
VanillaCapuccino 4 49 03-03-03 06:29 PM
by Dr Lou Natic

Poll: Aliens 1 2 3
hotsexyangelprincess 53 636 03-03-03 06:20 PM
by Dr Lou Natic

the brain hologram system! 1 2 3 4
Markquis 69 820 03-03-03 01:13 PM
by Markquis

Crop Circles
zechaeriah 7 102 03-03-03 09:32 AM
by zechaeriah

The moon isn't real 1 2 3 4
CounslerCoffee 74 866 03-03-03 07:29 AM
by psycho_nut
****************

I don't want to generate some laughs, but I'm sure it will, but where in these catagories do you see UniKEF fitting.?

It may well be wholly flawed (I don't believe so but that reamins for me to prove otherwise, which I am working on). Flawed or not it deals with real science subject matter. Should any part of it be validated it is parallel in importance to subject matter in your "Math & Physics" section.

Spontaneous combustion, even it it were proven hardly qualifies as a base line physics subject, albeit, it might have some physics interest, it would most likely be more chemistry.

Right or wrong, UniKEF is a physics subject or topic.

Thanks again for your consideraton.

James,

First, do you realize how much work it would be for you if you have to go and judge every thread, and post, to make sure that it doesn't break any rules? If they do break the rules, do you move the entire thread to Pseudoscience or just the offending posts? How will a thread look with half of its posts moved or deleted??

And what about the critizisms that you'll get?? Half the people will be angry because their "theories" were moved to Pseudoscience, while the other half will be angry because the theories they consider pseudoscience, were not moved.

What about the rules? There is no clear distinction between valid theories and pseudoscience. They both have some evidence, so how will you determine how much evidence is enough??

And finally, aren't your rules a little strict???

4. Posters putting forward alternative theories should clearly explain the basic ideas of their theory, how their theory differs from conventional theories, and how their theory is likely to improve on accepted theories. Explanations should be backed by evidence. Theories should be testable and falsifiable. In short, alternative theories must be classifiable as science rather than pseudoscience. (I can generate a checklist distinguishing the two for posters who maay be unsure of the difference.)

It looks like it would be easier to post a theory in "Nature" or some other reputable scientific journal, than it would be to post it on the "Physics and Math" forum.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
It looks like it would be easier to post a theory in "Nature" or some other reputable scientific journal, than it would be to post it on the "Physics and Math" forum.
I assume you've never published in a scientific journal.

- Warren

chroot,

I assume you've never published in a scientific journal.

Your assumption is correct.

Mac

I don't want to generate some laughs, but I'm sure it will, but where in these catagories do you see UniKEF fitting.?

Right or wrong, UniKEF is a physics subject or topic.

Perhaps you didn’t understand my post. I was eluding to James exactly your concerns. If a theory, like UniKEF, is to be brought to a forum and does not fit into the descriptions listed in Pseudoscience, but fits somewhat into the Math and Physics realm but is not conventional physics, then perhaps it should be placed into a “theory development’ forum where it can be critiqued without prejudice. Or if it is placed into the Math and Physics forum and does not follow conventional physics, then it would be moved to a theory development forum for further analysis.

Although I know James is competent enough to know whether a theory follows conventional physics or not, he could remain detached and open for comment by placing those threads in a theory development forum rather than lumping them together with threads about crop circles and alien abductions. He need not worry about being judgmental.

In my opinion, once a thread like UniKEF gets dumped into Pseudoscience, it will never see the light of day. The theory has now been officially “labeled” as Pseudoscience simply because it doesn’t follow conventional physics. That may be very well be true, but for someone new coming into sciforums with a theory similar to UniKEF, for example, they will not be so discouraged with their treatment if the theory has been given a chance for discussion within a theory development forum. If their theory simply gets tossed into Pseudoscience, they’ll probably leave here with a bad taste in their mouth, so to speak. Or they may decide to retaliate in some way.

How you would feel if UniKEF were immediately tossed into Pseudoscience? Would you be somewhat upset? Would you go back to the Physics and Math forum and start a new thread – perhaps one that is used to complain about your treatment? Would that not turn into a flame war between you and the other members? In the heat of the moment, one could easily get banned.

A theory development forum would solve most, if not all of these current issues now present in Math and Physics.

I hope I made myself clear this time.

James

A further thought occurred to me. A theory development forum need not just be dedicated for new, unconventional Math and Physics theories, but could accommodate any new unconventional theory from any of the sciences.

Q,

We are in total agreement. And I am not one of those that think the theory is complete. I know it isn't, which is why I came here to try and put some persepective into the concept. My error was to attack Relativity. But even had I not done that the theory is not sufficiently developed to present in Math & Physics at the same time I would not post it as pseudo-science.

It should only goto into pseudo-science if it is shown blatantly wrong and I refuse to adjust (if possible) the theory to be acceptable.

For what it's worth I feel that the initial proposal by JamesR is very good. However I suspect that it won't be practical. Time will tell.

To me it would destroy the value of this forum if it stuck to text book based discussions. We have not explained everything about the world yet so we know for certain that the text books are inadequate in various ways. The value of forums like this is precisely that it mixes those with faith in the current orthodoxies with those who feel that we have not yet got a proper grip on reality and need to explore new ways of thinking. This benefits both sides.

Like Prosoothus I believe it is possible to have views which contradict scientific orthodoxies but which are nevertheless scientific and logical. One does not have to dispute the evidence in order to question its interpretation.

To me it is more important to keep out those who are arrogant and unreasonable, one of whom posts here regularly in the name of science.

Sorry to go on but - I also feel that the problem is partly a general deficit of clear understanding of the science by its some of its apologists. Scientists with a real understanding of current theory can usually speak simply and clearly about it and thus end silly discussions fairly quickly regardless of the technical competence of those in the discussion.

Of course there is no solution to the problem of crackpottery. But wouldn't life be a bore if there were?

Canute,

I happen to agree with your post. As another asked would I be upset if UniKEF were to immediately be placed in pseudo-science.

Yes. But only because of the term "Immediately". As chroot mentioned UniKEF is a volume of material. It is complex and attempts to link a lot of things into an overall view.

In that regard there may be (I am sure will be) areas that are crap as stated but there will be areas such as the gravity portion which seem more secure due to actual testing.

So it would require a bit more tolerance than to scrap it at the first sign of conflict or failure in one area.

If it has been totally reviewed and totally rejected, I would have no option but to accept such findings. Would I be happy, probably not. Would I retaliate - no.

I would attempt to see where I had gone so terriably wrong.

Hope this better places my attitude.

My current thinking is to not pursue UniKEF here until the gravity report is released. I feel if that doesn't pass muster then certainly none of the rest can.

If it does pass muster then that should yield a bit more tolerance for the speculation which has steemed from the UniKEF gravity view.

How about we ask a bit of good-will from our fellow forum members?

First of all, as James R. said, whenever a newbie asks a question about physics whithout clearly asking about alternative theories, he should be answerd curtiously and using theories and concepts accepted by mainstream science.

Now if someone does spout out a "crackpot" theory, we should ignore it, instead of going on and on in an uninterrupted series of condescending comments that insult people instead of claryfing the situation.

Redrover,

I agree, except I am one of those newbies that came on here and not underestanding the standard you suggest, posted alternative answers to a question. That did start an extensive name calling series and cluttered up the original post.

It does seem to me that it would be better to set clear standards. Perhaps place a notice that must be read and "Accepted" before a new member can post here as to what the standards expect. And that if they have alternative ideas that they should post them under the "Alternative or Development" forum.

Then should I or anyoneelse get out of line, simply delete the post and if it is chronic pull their posting priviledges. They could still be members and read the Math & Physics Forum but couldn't post here.

I as a past offender find that perfectly acceptable.

MacM:

<i>It does seem to me that it would be better to set clear standards.</i>

That's precisely what I suggested in the first post to this thread.

James R.,

Yes, I recall that was your statement. However, that leaves those of us with some alternative thought left to post them over to explain "Alien Abduction", while some may view them as that quality, they certainly aren't matches to the subjects there.

Plus, you would be exluding any new ideas that actually end up becoming new accepted science. You would be leaving sciforums to be the last to know or last place to look for the newest ideas.

Ideas that make it into a "Development" area and manage to remain there becomes a library of potentially valueable ideas. They might even become sufficiently formalized here to make there way into mainstream.

If there were 1,000 such mediocare concepts there and ony one (1) made it to the top, that would speak quite well of sciforums.

Originally posted by MacM
Plus, you would be exluding any new ideas that actually end up becoming new accepted science.
Since crackpot theories end up becoming accepted science nearly every day, right?

- Warren

chroot,

I think the point was made in general terms 1,000/1 in my post.

I am not suggesting my view is one of those but you must admit that Relativity was considered "Crackpot" by most of the science community for some years.

Then came some evidence supporting the wild idea - How about that.

Originally posted by MacM
you must admit that Relativity was considered "Crackpot" by most of the science community for some years.
Why must I admit that? Your knowledge of science history is totally incorrect.

- Warren

most of the aspects of relativity were suspected by poincaré, lorentz, et al. before einstein published his theory. as soon as he published, it was immediately recognized as a correct theory, and a new way of thinking about space and time.

i believe that his photoelectric effect paper, which was published at the same time, was met with a bit of resistance. but that does not mean it was considered "crackpot". just considered incorrect. then the experimentalists weighed in. einstein correct on all counts.

chroot,

I would not challenge your statement other than to say I have read substantial material that has stated that his work was rejected up until the Mercury orbit match.

And his Universal Constant error.


lethe,

quote:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i believe that his photoelectric effect paper, which was published at the same time, was met with a bit of resistance. but that does not mean it was considered "crackpot". just considered incorrect. then the experimentalists weighed in. einstein correct on all counts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------quote

I would agree the term "Crackpot" would not be correct but his work was not fully accepted immediately. At least that is what I have read several different times, in several different sources.

Originally posted by MacM


I would agree the term "Crackpot" would not be correct

then why did you say it?

Perhaps we should all read the Post"Trials of Einstein".


Seems he had a FEW strong supporters but the bulk of the scienc community took 15 years to give him attention.