Create an "Alternative theories" subforum?

I think it would be a good idea, so I vote yes.

I think it should be called Alternative Ideas.

Discussion is the spark of new ideas. How boring would the world be if everyone just agreed. Some (most) of the currently accepted mainstream ideas stemmed from people opposing the mainstream at the time. That's how the evolution of science works. New ideas are the root of all science.

Personally, I come here because I am allowed to voice my ideas and not get banned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I respect all the real scientists (especially you, James, you're my hero

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) here and I want legitimate criticism on my ideas from real professionals. If someone hits a nerve and I realize I am wrong, I will move on. Until then...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I vote yes to an Alternative Ideas forum. I bet you will have more thought provoking discussion in that forum than some of the other ones. If you just want facts, go to wiki. If you want discussion, go to Alternative Ideas...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just rename Pseudoscience. Call it Alternative Theories. For New and non-mainstream ideas.
At the moment people won't post there because the name is insulting.
So they post in the main sections.
It's just unnecessary extra work for moderators deciding whether the post has any objective scientific merit.

My vote is yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discussion is the spark of new ideas. How boring would the world be if everyone just agreed. Some (most) of the currently accepted mainstream ideas stemmed from people opposing the mainstream at the time. That's how the evolution of science works. New ideas are the root of all science.

I agree!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I got witches on my side . You are not burning any witches today Hanging Judge.

 

@ James R

WoW! Where to start.

Let us use something controversial like the double slit experiment as an example. I promise I won't express any opinions.

Lets say that CptBork views an interpretation to that experiment that does not conform to his belief set. There are many interpretations to the double slit experiment and they all have thousands of believers backing them up.

So would this person talking about his (accepted by thousands) interpretation be considered

or would they just be

I guess any interpretation of the double slit experiment would find its way to the cesspool if it was opposed to the moderators viewpoint.

At the risk of people thinking I am him, I would say Reikus threads have been thought provoking.

I will admit for the record here that when it comes to pseudoscience, I am a crank. I profit from the paranormal industry and run a paid membership website. I have been involved in telepathic experiments and research ever since I was a teenager. I have a telepathic "how to" video on youtube with over 50000 hits.

Despite the arguments that it is "all in my head", I have seen astounding hit rates in double blind experiments. Like that would ever change a sceptics viewpoint.

Oh; Take the James Randi Challenge.

I have contacted the Real James Randi (Honest to god. Many years ago.). It is impossible to prove something telepathic occurred. Hit rates can only prove that it is "probable" something occurred. Anyways; if people are not active in viewing these experiments and just hear about them I suppose they are easy enough to write off.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that telepathy is real. Ugg! I can't believe I am saying this on Sciforums.

I can never be swayed from my viewpoint that telepathy is not real. I have performed telepathic experiments, and been involved in telepathic experiments (and none of them involved drugs tyvm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

I do not think it is hocus pocus! I think that our minds have the abilities to communicate with each other. How?

I think science holds the answer, and it will probably come from the world of quantum physics. I'd go a step further and say it will probably come from a not as accepted interpretation of the Double slit experiment. I have fleeting hopes I will find such posts here.

THAT is why I have enjoyed fringe theories before they make it to the cesspool. I was a fan of reikus because he had threads like.

"Did the Egyptians know how to create gold"
fun to think about
"Observer-Dependant Models of Physics"
not popular for sure, but a discussion would be fun.
"Ab Thought Experiment that COULD Proove Psychic Phenoms "
"Speed Limit on Thought"

So.. I know he was not popular among the mods or all the phd engineers, but it is fun to "think". Just repeating science we know is not thinking.

Anyways; I also have come to sciforums for answers to real life math problems concerning my fiction writing. I like to at least be accurate to a point with the science.

So yeah; I am a crank by definition in some areas (not all). I still have a lot of education and experience.

I am trying to explain an "alternate viewpoint" from a "crank" perspective.

If we did pretend telepathy was possible, then maybe a phd hard core scientist could come up with a theory that might fit the model.

Wish it was that easy.

Sorry. My fingers start typing and a few minutes later I've got a chapter in front of me. My posts can be a bit long.

 

"alternative theories" gives far too much legitimacy to what is, for the most part, people pulling ideas out of their ass. Pseudoscience is exactly what it is.

 

I voted yes, but that kind of reflects my professional strategy in RL.

Client: Do you think this market will respond to this advertisement?
Me: Maybe. Let's test it and find out!

If it doesn't consume too many resources or impose undue workload on the mods, why not? If the response is there, maintain and perhaps expand it. If not, discontinue it. What is there to lose - am I missing something?

(BTW, I like the name "Alternative Ideas" best of those suggested, placed under Science.)

 

OK, I’ll drop my usual disclaimer where I admit I’m a deluded pea brain and get serious on this one thread, to help James R who may not be perfect (make that “isn’t perfect”) but he has a job I would run from faster than a speeding neutrino.

The new forum that allows alternative ideas and somehow does away with the smart

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

guys from the hard forums showing disdain without recrimination could be called:

I can’t prove it but …

The rules to post in that forum are that you must have an active thread in that forum that is about something that fits the topic, i.e. to post a reply on any other thread in the “I Can’t Prove it but …” forum you must start a thread of your own in that forum that conveys a topic that can’t be proven yet by science or is controversial but that you think is a legitimate topic for speculation or discussion and you must take a controversial stand, meaning you must state your opinion about the topic.

The moderator will determine if the thread you start qualifies you to post in the forum and as long as you maintain your thread where others in the forum can post criticism or support, you can continue to post in other threads.

No ad homs of course, but if the idea seems stupid you can say so and why, etc. but you must have yourself "out there" too, in order to pass judgement.

Just a seed idea that can be developed if it has merit.

And my "no" vote could be changed to yes if the "proposed' thread that I mentioned earlier would be approved under the proposed rules suggested by James R, or if this idea of an exclusive forum that requires everyone in that forum to submit an alternative idea and support it in order to post on other threads in the forum.

 

I like quantum waves "I can't prove it but" idea. I am not sure I agree with the rule that only thread starters get to chime in, but its name alone might stop some people from saying "facts or please support this."

That might contravene the rules of the website in general though. Posting stuff that has no support/basis in reality.

 

there will always be alternative theories to everything.
some will be outmoded, some wrong.
to outright censor the discussion of these theories is wrong.

Alternative theories

don't know.
probably place pseudoscience and alternative theories in their own subforum and call the subforum alternative science.

 

Let people like Reiku back so long as they posts in the right section.
Like Kwhill, I used to enjoy his threads.
He had fresh ideas, wrong though they might or might not be.

Have a new mod for the section, who doesn't despise people who post on it, and doesn't allow people to be banned for their genuine thoughts.

Calling a section Pseudoscience, is like talking to someone, but before you beginning the conversation saying, "Yes, I will talk to you, but it's on the understanding that your views are complete nonsense. mmmh.......That's called Psychiatry isn't it?

We've already got the section.
Just rename it.
And call off the people who invade it, on the assumption that their ideas, being mainstream, are superior.
Make it a conversation among equals.

 

. . . I was once given some sage advice by Dr. Hatten Yoder (now deceased-Director, Carnegie Geophysical Lab) . . . .

"One should understand his own research, no matter how complicated, well-enough so that he can explain it to a layman in no more than 5 minutes, and the layman will understand it"

 

sure looked like Reiku was exonerated to me . Yet I am looking from a limited view the sampling was very convincing. Plus there was something familiar in the speak. Funny coincident in my own conclusions . I don't know what it was for sure with out bold rigorous analysis ? That would mean I would have to go find it and dissect . Dwell on it for years , all that kind commitment would be way to much so I will go with Me gut on this one . Looked Like Reiku was exonerated to me

 

If the person proposing the interpretation can use it to produce an accurate mathematical description of the results, then the worst they could be criticized for is an inefficient procedure, i.e. Occam's Razor might be invoked to propose that other interpretations are more preferable. That's not what you get here- as far as alternatives to the mainstream views of quantum mechanics are concerned, all I've seen are laymen tossing some word salad in a bowl and then hoping some mathematicians will come along and scientize it for them.

I challenge you to show us a single interpretation proposed here which gave an accurate mathematical description of the double slit interference pattern and still ended up in the cesspool.

I found the only time he wrote anything semi-coherent is when he was busy flaming the people criticizing his incoherent posts.

Well if I told you I took a dump on a pharaoh's sarcophagus and it turned to gold, would you take me at face value? If I had 1000 of my friends verify my story, would you believe it then? In any case, the pseudoscience and parapsychology sections are already there for you- I don't see why you'd need a section for proposing new science theories that explain what you claim to do, unless you plan to demonstrate how it doesn't contradict existing theories in the areas where they're already known to work.

Last I heard, you need to have an established media presence before they'll take you on. Otherwise no one knows who you are, no one will know that you failed/forfeited their tests, and it just wouldn't be worth their time when there are probably millions of people like you who think they can perform similar feats. 50 000 Youtube hits is probably more than most people receive, but that's the kind of thing you can get just by putting "boobs" in the list of tags.

Well if you're looking for stimulating discussion, then it's a shame you missed out when I suggested how the Stern-Gerlach experiment from way back in the early days of quantum mechanics could be used to easily disprove the bulk of the pseudoscientific layman claims about a connection between quantum physics and conscious observation.

 

I don't think there should be recriminations for showing disdain towards an idea anywhere on this board, as long as the criticisms are relevant to the actual topic. If someone wants to post something and not have it criticized for lack of substance or blatant self-contradiction, they should start a website called stupidforums.com and do it there.

 

Strangely, we agree. Giving back personal criticism in kind is not recrimination for criticism relavant to the actual topic. Would you agree that relavant criticism is the right way to go, but personal criticism is not?

Saying some one is too stupid to understand the implications of science theory if they don't evaluate and understand the math that supports it is personal criticism in my book. It is one of the hundreds of ways the smart

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

guys disparage us animals out in the zoo.

But the discussion of a new forum like "I can't prove it but ..." with the requirement that you for example put something out there that showed you taking a stand on something that couldn't be proven would show your were able to think beyond standard theory. Put yourself out there with a thread on an alternative subject that you are interested in and you could then qualify under the proposed forum rules to say someone was too stupid to read and understand the popular media aimed at the layman. You would be defending a thread in the same forum and subject to the same types of criticism. I take it that either you are not likely to qualify to post in such a forum because you don't have any alternative ideas or would never subject your self to the same kind of criticism leveled out there?

 

what if a person DOES have proof but not the "peer reviewed" kind?
i tinker around in my homemade lab and i discover something.
where can i post it?

how about calling the subforum "mainstream alternatives"?

 

@ Cpt Bork

Take James Randi Challenge here. I went further and was emailing for the purpose of finding out what they would accept as proof in the way of probabilities.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

I think ANYBODY could perform psychic experiments that would defy billions to 1 odds in favour of it being true. This would however take thousands of experiments with the above percentage hit rates slowly defying the odds.

Probably the old guy is less available nowadays. Is he even alive still?

also @ Cpt Bork,

If 1000 people verified you took a shit on a sarcophagus I would probably agree that you did shit on a sarcophogus, unless the claim was refuted by an impressive amount of people.


posted by Cpt Bork,

So...

It is my understanding that you could never believe in psychic phenomenon even if it was proved scientifically. You just don't want to give it a chance.

I am unsure how the Stern-Gerlach experiment could disprove anything. We do not even know how it is done, so how can we rule it out as a possibility?

There are people who can discuss psychic phenomenon and have intelligent conversations without contradicting existing theories as you mentioned.

This is an excerpt from
Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality

Professor Brian D. Josephson and Professor Fotini Pallikari-Viras
(both of whom are very educated.)

You can look at the entire paper here
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html

also..
other people who could add insight to psychic phenomenon might include,

J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., 1987).
J.S. Bell, "The Theory of Local Beables," Epistemological Letters (March 1976).
P.J. Bussey, "Super-luminal" Communication in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments," Phys. Letters A 90, 9-12 (1982).
N.D. Mermin, "Is the Moon there when Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory," Phys. Today 38(4), 38-47 (1985).
H.L. Edge, R.L. Morris, J. Palmer and J.H. Rush, Foundations of Parapsychology (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1986).
D.I. Radin and R.D. Nelson, "Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems,"Found. Phys. 19, 1499-514 (1989).
D. Bohm, B.J. Hiley and P.N. Kaloyerou, "An Ontological Basis for the Quantum Theory," Physics Reports 144, 322-75 (1987).
S.J. Freedman and J.F. Clauser, "Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories," Phys. Rev. Letters 28, 938-41 (1972).
E.H. Walker, "Consciousness and Quantum Theory", in Psychic Exploration, ed. J. White (Putnam's, New York, 1974), 544-68.
J.S. Bell, "On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics," Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-52 (1966).
N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958).
A.J. Leggett, "Reflections on the Quantum Measurement Paradox," in Quantum Implications, ed. B.J. Hiley and F.D. Peat (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1987), 85-104.
M. Conrad, D. Home and B.D. Josephson, "Beyond Quantum Theory: A Realist Psycho-Biological Interpretation of the Quantum Theory," in Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism, Vol. I, eds. G. Tarozzi, A. van der Merwe and F. Selleri (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1988), 285-93.
B.D. Josephson, "Limits to the Universality of Quantum Mechanics," Found. Phys. 18, 1195-204 (1988).
D.J. Bohm, Unfolding Meaning (Ark, London and New York, 1987).
P. Pylkkaenen (ed.), The Search for Meaning (Crucible, Wellingborough, Northants. 1989).
C.N. Villars, "Microphysical Objects as Centres of Perception," Psychoenergetics, 5, 1 (1983).
D.J. Bohm, "A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter" J. Amer. Soc. Psychical Res. 80, 113-35 (1986).
J.E. Lovelock, Commentary on the Gaia Hypothesis, Nature 344, 100-2 (1990).
L. LeShan, Clairvoyant Reality (Turnstone, Wellingborough, Northants., 1982).
L. LeShan, The Science of the Paranormal (Aquarian, Wellingborough, Northants., 1987).
H.E. Stapp, "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics," Found. Phys. 12, 363-99 (1982).

Just because you do not believe something does not mean it cannot exist. A few hundred years ago the idea of radio or television would have made you a laughing stock. Even if you had the know how to build a radio back then I doubt you'd ever get funded.

Why such a closed mind?

Do I need to go to the University of Cambridge to find scientific discussions about this, or could such a thing be possible on the internet?

 

I don't think there is a "market" for it. In my entire stay at SciForums I have only seen one alternative theory posted by Synthesizer Patel in the Pseudoscience sub-forum. It was quickly identified as valid science and promoted to a corresponding science sub-forum.

In my opinion, alternative theories should be welcome in any science sub-forum as long as the theories are science.