Create an "Alternative theories" subforum?

@ James R.,
I like post # 21 from 2003. Call it that, and then make it against the rules to post any real science in there. Anybody could make up stuff. Would at least be an interesting read. Srsly!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So essentially you keep asking the question every so often until you get the answer you want?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, I see you haven't yet canceled my 'no' and turned it into a 'yes'. That would make 10 against 11 instead of 9 against 12.

 

Ah ok. Thanks!

 

We's already got a subforum for alternative theories: Parapsychology. Hell, why not change the name to "Alternative Theories"? Parapsych implies that all these abnormalities spring from the human mind, which may not actually be the case. Fortean phenomena aren't of the imagination, but could fall under such a definition: unusual, and divergent from classical perception.

 

Rename it The Woo Woo Bin?

 

Whoever abstained really messed up our tie! Vote is 12 vs 12 with 1 abstainer at this time. Anyways; it's Friday, heading up north. Back in a few weeks hopefully. Need to take my comeuppance over the cold fusion debate if It fails miserably. I hope I'm dancing a Jig though.

 

Let my evil done unto the day be sufficient thereof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, your post seems to me a better argument for a separate folder from Parapsychology. Though I am mostly interested in the physics area and Fringe Science would fit, there is potentially a need from the perspective of other sciences that would suggest Alternative Theories as a better choice. That is something that "the Management" will have to decide unless some of you follow a sufficiently wide set of topics to way in on that.

In any even it will be an experiment. There have been some good arguments for and against. Personally I have been around this forum (or any for that matter) for only about six months. Some of you with 'years' have a different take on many aspects.

 

What about a backwards forum where everyone had to argue for the complete opposite of what is true. The totally wrong statements might attract hits from people web browsing, and could be fun.

Instead of people resorting to insults to defend their stances they would have to praise their counterparts.

i.e. a square would make a more efficient tire than a circle.

this forum would not satisfy those wishing real discussions in pseudoscience, but it might be fun just to try to word things completely wrong.
(I can hear it now)
(Not for me.)
I would have walked into that.

 

It's not. Poor evidence unites Parapsychology and Alternative Science. If anything, Parapsych should be a folder within Alternative Science.

 

What came to mind was that parapsychology often involves the paranormal and psychic phenomena, where Fringe Science or especially Alternative Theories is not so constrained or stereotyped. Either of these could include speculative models involving physical models that don't meet or fall short of qualifying as theory under the more rigid standards of mainstream science. Parapsychology is really a separate and unique "fringe" aspect of a hybrid between psychology and science. What I saw the intent of this thread to be was an alternate home for ideas, models and "theories" within the sciences that are not consistent with or at odds with, contemporary consensus within the mainstream scientific community.

The Peudoscience folder is closer to the mark, but holds some preconceptions in definition. There seems to me a valid place for all three, pseudoscience, parapsychology and Alternative Theories. (Alternative Theories would likely be less objectionable "psychologically" than Fringe Science, though I believe the later to be a better description of much that would fall into the category, at least from the area of theoretical physics.

The main idea, as I see it is to create an area where ideas and models that do not or cannot meet the standards of evidence required under a science folder can be presented and perhaps discussed.

Keep the science folders more on track, while allowing for some free thought and exploration.

Both parapsychology and pseudoscience carry some baggage of historical meaning that could inhibit some from posting in those folders unless as now they are sometimes forced to. A folder title within the science folder that is less emotionally weighted could be of some advantage.

In the end some of this will all boil down to how the rules of such a folder are set up and even then it will be an experiment. It could wind up being a benefit or proving itself to be an unsuccessful attempt, to resolve a currently difficult situation, with respect to moderation.

I follow Physics Forums some also, just there and here. I don't often post there as I respect the objective of providing support for students working on degrees and the need to remain consistent with the content of corse work. I have been away from the mainstream to long to be confident that I would be contributing consistently to that goal.

SciForums has a more relaxed mandate and allows greater freedom to deviate from the ridged mandate of Physics Forums. This is a better place for general discussion and some brainstorming, as well as a place for those with ideas, models and theories that are.., not widely accepted to discuss a wider range of perspectives.

However, I do believe that if it can be successfully pulled off a sub-forum to separate Fringe ideas, models and theories from discussions of science more focus toward the mainstream views and developments in science, could be a useful and even productive.., experiment.

 

the instance cited had 15 for and 8 against
what happened?

------------------------------------------------------------

if anybody wants to change their vote, do so now
ja, reconcile the goddamn rhetoric with the actual vote

 

Why not a "Hard Science" subforum?
Where are allowed only well-known theories and aren't allowed criticism.

 

Emil, though sometimes the bickering and name calling bother me it seems a part of the more flexible rules and standards here in SciForums. The science folders now are for real or hard science discussions. The issue is that there are discussions that don't meet the scientific criteria necessary to be accepted. Some are actually legitimate discussions that just lack that formal evidence based support and some are a bit further off the mark. Both need a place for reasonable discussion and exchange of ideas, where the strict standard of mainstream scientific proofs is not a requirement of discussion.

The real irony is, that from my experience in one on one discussion, many working physicists are more than willing to entertain and discuss ideas on the Fringe. They don't generally want to devote a great deal of time and effort in such digressions, but also don't seem to object to providing their opinions in a constructive way.

 

Very well. You've convinced me.

 

You would have to keep others from brow beating one another to death. Maybe make the forum within the understood framework of "if this were real" then do not allow the "its not so who cares", or "the it's not because" then multiple sources to show that its not posts. If its understood that its for fun and not serious it might work but idk.

 

good question gustav.

i have no idea what these naysayers fear.