Create an "Alternative theories" subforum?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Sep 26, 2011.

?

Should sciforums have an Alternative Theories subforum?

Poll closed Oct 3, 2011.
  1. Yes

    46.9%
  2. No

    46.9%
  3. Abstain/don't care

    6.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    My "no" vote simply says that I think Pseudoscience is fine right now. Promises of change are not always what they seem to be, lol.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i see
    the timing of this endeavor and conspiracies are a concern
    good to know


    umm
    lets stick with convention and move to pseudo
    why the fuck are you goosestepping?
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ James R.

    Yes. I did vote no. Sorry about that.
    I do appreciate the thought. It would be nice to have a forum to expand upon fringe theories.

    I just do not see how it could work. You can go to ANY FORUM in Pseudoscience, Parapsychology, or especially religion, etc. I am not sure there is a single topic amongst those forums where a conversation actually takes place. It is more like "you bloody crank this", and you bloody crank that". Sigh..........

    Goes with the territories I guess. I don't know how these discussions work so well on other websites like (I decided not to say here).com, but not on Sciforums. I guess the argument would be is that there are more "cranks" there.

    You can see just from the post above me "Cpt. Bork". That pretty much sums up what the response would be like here.

    What if a rule existed in "weird or not so scientific science areas", that for the sake of argument you must assume that some conditions existed as outlined by the thread poster.
    i.e. "the poster could state,
    a) For the sake of this thread we must assume that ghosts exist."

    Then it would be necessary for anyone commenting in that thread to "pretend" that that condition were true. I really don't know how you could repair some sections of Sciforums.

    I know I could do without threads about fart noises though.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    James R, I really don't care. My no vote should not be taken into consideration, but in Zoodoscience I am allowed to stretch the rules by responding to personal criticism in kind and I like it that way. I know it must feel good for a smart

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    guy to tell a zoo creature he is stupid and there are over 100 ways to do that. Do you understand that us pseudo animals might enjoy the latitude we have to respond out there in the zoo?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    We'll see what the majority opinion is.

    I take your point about Subcultures.

    Regarding alien gizmos, it really depends on the topic. Speculation about the possibility of life out there somewhere is one thing; saying your cow was mutilated by aliens in spaceships visiting Earth now is another.

    I tend to agree.

    An alternative is not to require any such criteria, but simply to allow free reign in the alternative theories section, leaving the hard science forums free of some of the rubbish.

    You don't seem to be the only one here who thinks I have some kind of hidden motive for this proposal.

    Maybe it goes with the tendency of alternative theorists to buy into conspiracy theories.

    Speaking of which, conspiracy theories might also fit into an alternative theories subforum.

    No need to apologise. Your opinion is your opinion, and you're totally free to express it in your vote.

    If somebody insults you, I suggest you hit the "report" button on their post. I will deal with personal insults.

    On the other hand, it is important to distinguish between the following replies to an alternative theory:

    "You are a crank."
    "You are a crank because ... [precise explanation of why proposed theory has a high crank index]."

    I'd say so.

    I think that one of the reasons that some alternative theorists choose to post here is that here there are some members who actually have Science qualifications. We have a few science PhDs here, and quite a few members with at least an undergraduate degree in science.

    If a self-taught physics hobbyist only posts on sites populated by cranks, he never gets to find out how his pet theory stacks up when put to real scrutiny. On a site entirely dedicated to "alternative" science, I guess the usual response is more along the lines of "That's a good idea! I've been thinking along similar lines myself. Here are my ideas..." That is, not much analysis or criticism or real rubber-meets-the-road scientific review.

    Actually, I am quite interested in why you alternative theorists do come to sciforums. Is this just one more place to publicise your pet theory, or is there some other reason?

    I don't see much of a problem with that, except that it risks the discussion being more about fantasy than anything real. I mean, you could start a thread with "For the sake of this thread, we must assume the Moon is made of cheese...", but that would be unlikely to produce anything of value to science.

    It's a valid scientific question as to what causes fart noises.

    To give you another example, there has been a proper scientific investigation of why belly-button fluff is usually blue or grey.

    You may not be interested in such matters, but that doesn't mean there isn't something at least a little bit interesting there.

    Your "no" vote counts the same as everybody else's vote. Why would it not?

    If by "responding to personal criticism" you mean you ought to be allowed to throw insults around, then I'm afraid we're not about to relax that particular rule. If somebody insults you by saying you are stupid without providing appropriate evidence or argument in support, then hit the "report" button on the relevant post and we'll deal with it.
     
  9. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    there is a larger context.....a bigger and better sciforums. that is your responsibility. the community way is insular and provincial. i would ignore
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Lol, never mind.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Interesting. Usually we get the opposite complaint - that the community doesn't get enough of a say in the decisions made around here.
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    That was what I was concurring about.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i disagree.
    there are mods here that INSIST on so called "hard science".
    putting a "fringe science" subforum in its own catagory we can let these mods remain mods AND please the masses at the same time.
     
  14. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Yeah I agree . You got to keep the hard sciences hard , Then having the play field for new innovation for real science to develop further . Then have the playing field were new Ideas can crop out from . The whacked out mad scientist in all of us so to speak. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde .
    You got your pure science
    You got your Hypothesis
    You got your Cowboy science ( some Cowboys are real stupid too, good at shooting from the hip though)
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    How about Claims from the Alternatively Intelligent?
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Maybe even "The Lunatic Fringe" would be better than that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    Hmm, I'm with James R on "Ideas". "Fringe Ideas" is OK too

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Let me offer an example of a submission for approval of a thread in the new forum based on your list of requirements and let’s see if the thread would be approved.

    Briefly, it is not a theory; it is an opinion and some speculative ideas.
    The opinion is that our known universe must have had preconditions.

    No matter how far you go back in time, if the universe had a beginning at some past point in time, it had no preconditions.

    Therefore, the only explanation for the presence of a universe that had preconditions is that it has an infinite past, i.e. it has always existed.

    Hence a postulate that the universe has always existed would accompany the opinion.
    From the postulate that the universe has always existed, then our Big Bang which is evidenced to have occurred ~14 billion years ago would have had preconditions.
    The standard cosmology is Big Bang Theory which consists of General Relativity, Inflation, and the Cosmological Principle, and the opinion being offered for discussion differs in that BBT does not address preconditions.
    It is not a theory; it is opinion and speculation about preconditions to the Big Bang.

    Big Bang Theory does not explain any preconditions.
    Big Bang Theory does not address the cause of the Big Bang.
    Big Bang Theory does not address the presence of energy, the formation of matter, or the cause of action at a distance out side of a spacetime field that requires a beginning.

    The opinion being offered uses energy from pre-existing conditions to fuel the Big Bang.
    The opinion and speculation being offered uses pre-existing energy for expansion and for matter formation.

    The standard cosmology does not address the source of energy but it implies that a singularity of infinite density and zero volume contained the energy equivalent of our known universe.
    Big Bang Theory does not explain any preconditions.
    Big Bang Theory does not address the cause of the Big Bang.
    Big Bang Theory does not address the presence of energy, the formation of matter, or the cause of action at a distance.
    Look for evidence of the intersection of our expanding big bang universe which we call an arena, with other possible similar arenas.

    Would that proposal fly in the new forum?
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  17. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    there are those that will argue against the religion and politics forums. what is your usual response?

    are you willing to put the existence of those up to a vote? will you countenance the consequent drop in readership?

    most here argue from a selfishly aesthetic pov. it is not from the perspective of a website try to attract members and grow.

    we are talking of laying down some infrastructure and not quibbling over some obscure epistemological interpretation

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

    i also want some regional forums. uk, aus, japan india, etc
     
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    it is easy enough to see that those who voted no would have to argue against the existence of some of the fori currently in place in order to remain logically consistent

    therefore i move to strike those votes of the ballot and declare them null and void.

    i further move that we ban the nay votes for treason with a special fate reserved for those who voted with a frivolous purpose
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Finally, some words of reason :shrug:.
     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    all you have to do is request your vote be changed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Do you think my proposal for a thread under the proposed rules would be granted, or nit picked to death?
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    proposed is the keyword.....


    would this criteria not satisfy the strictures of p&m as well? what then is the distinction b/w the two??
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Excellent point.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page