Create an "Alternative theories" subforum?

You think JamesR is doing this for amusement?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually no
the new forum will be called Alternative Theories
it will be nested under Science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What will happen to Pseudoscience?
What is the difference between alternative theories and pseudoscience?

Will creationists go in alternative theories, or will their posts be moved to religion, or to pseudoscience?

What about luminous cryptobeasts, einstein-was-wrongs, ESP experiments, anti global warming. All presently in pseudoscience.

I can't see the point in having pseudoscience and alternative theories.
Why not just change the name of pseudoscience?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James is talking about renaming "Pseudoscience" to "Alternative theories" in order to split it up into different subsections like "Conspiracy Theories", "'Alternative' Physics", "UFOlogy", etc.

 

i find it difficult to believe that you would think anyone was 100 percent right all of the time.

questioning "the gods of science" is what peer review is all about.

 

Thanks.
That sounds like a very good idea.

A creationist section would be very useful.
People come on here convinced that their arguments are strong, but they don't stand up to good argument.

 

Accepted.
He was wrong about QM.

 

Personally, I would just rename "Subcultures" to "Alternative Theories" and create a number of new sections in it.
I would split up "Pseudoscience" and leave the other two sections ("Sci-fi & Fantasy" and "Parapsychology") as they are.

 

I'd...well I don't know how I'd fall out on this. Can we have a definition of just how 'alternative' Alternative is meant to be? Is Alternative Science going to become a separate section altogether? Should it be highlighted this way on a pop-sci site?

 

What we have now is this:

What I am proposing above is this:

Which is pretty much (perhaps not exactly) what James had in mind if I understood him correctly.

Perhaps "Sci-fi & Fantasy" could better be lumped in with the "Life" section though ( which consist now of "Free Thoughts", "Art & Culture", "Health & Fitness" and
"Formal debates").

 

Well...I guess it's not too obstrusive. I mean, parapsych is there already. But shouldn't Sci-Fi be in literature? It's literature.

 

I edited. We don't have a "Literature" section ("Linguistics" is in "Science" if you meant that) so perhaps it's better to lump it in with the "Live" section which also includes "Art & Culture".

On that note, perhaps "Formal debates" should be moved to the section "sciforums.com" which now consists of "About the Members", "SF Open Government" and "Site Feedback".

 

Pfft, there are pundits who would disagree severely with that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it's also films and TV series.

 

Yeah, aw coud agree w'thet.

Yeah, aw coud agree w'thet.

Anyway, piss on the pundits. Lots of things are films and TV series! I saw a TV miniseries on Pride and Prejudice t'other day, but Price and Prejudice isn't unliterary because it were on telly. It's unliterary because it sucks.

 

Oops, I gave two separate clauses.
SF, in and of itself, even when appearing in book isn't widely regarded as literature. (By a great many - hence the number of "proper" authors who distance themselves by claiming they write "speculative fiction" rather than SF).

 

Yeah but that's their own label. If not literature, surely they'd start every sentence in their books with "You know what I think would happen in the future?"

 

Yes, about time. I can fulfill the criteria and have submitted an essay to the FQXi which has received some welcome encouraging comments from experts in the field. I don't think Sciforum moderators could handle it though. We all have our deep-seated prejudices. The standard model is likely to be debunked by Xmas, so they say, one way or the other at least.

 

I thought that myself at first reading.
But I was still thinking in terms of the subcultures being a dumping section.
If it is to become positive rather than the opposite, we need a change in the overall purpose of the section.
To discuss new ideas unacceptable to the establishment.

Attracting this kind of poster seems to be an accidental talent of the site.
It is burgeoning with woo woo excellence.
Despite saying "Look, go away" for twenty years or so, they are thronging to get on here.
(How old is this site anyway?)
You may be slightly woo woo yourself. I certainly am.
Why not use it to boost the site's prominence.

Also, if there can be a complete ban on rudeness on the section, it could be very educative.
Rudeness is always banned, of course,
but here it could be made a Cardinal rule.
People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons,
but if they want to believe in things for scientific reasons,
then they must be subject to scientific rigour.
Despite that, they must not be insulted for their beliefs.


Of course, people still must defend their ideas on the section.
But the scientific standard could be dropped for the posters.
If their ideas are unscientific, they probably are unused to debate.

I wish I had the time to put myself forward for the new mod of this new section,
Because I think it is going to be fun.
Because it is valuable to science.
It will need to be someone tolerant, with a sense of humour, and wide ranging interests,
and time. Best of luck whoever it is.
You'll have one of the best sections here.

 

The what now? Are you going for Mod? If so, I'd back that.

Yeeess... but is a positive contribution to the anti-establishment a net positive or negative thing? I suppose it would boost the site's prominence, and it is an anonymous forum.

But why a complete ban on rudeness? Sure, I think it could be toned down generally; and certainly I, too, have engaged in woo-woo smacking. Mea culpa. But complete? I suppose handling new ideas is a bit like juggling eggs. Thin shells and so forth. But some of the ideas are completely crazy, or at least as I see it. I suppose at the least the Moderator should religiously avoid woo-woo baiting, anyway. This was my supposition regarding Pseudosci moderation. Maybe the bull-in-a-pseudoscience-china-shoppe posters could be asked to tone it down in that forum (*cough* Dwy *cough*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

So put your name forward. I think you should, at least.

 

The "bull in a china shop" posters would be less so IF the woo woos were held to, for one, the forum rules: i.e. substantiating, or at least supporting, claims made.

Further, if the woo woo in question is looking for scientific credibility then they should be held to the standards to which they aspire.

A f*cking idiot is a f*cking idiot if all he presents is claims (especially ones which run counter to known, supported and verifiable science). And should be reminded so until he learns, adjusts or simply goes away.
Some people refuse to learn, why should they be accommodated?

Unless, of course, Sci intends to turn into a free-for-all: "I've got an inane idea, it's my right to espouse it at every opportunity, and it must be right because I can't be bothered to explain it" (as we get with certain posters in the Philosophy & Religion sub-forae).

If that's the case then SciForums isn't the place for me anymore[sup]1[/sup].

1 Don't all cheer at once.