I'm curious as to why this forum decided to include the whole "On The Fringe" sub-forum? It seems to attract the opposite of what it would seem that the overall forum was meant to attract in the first place. I can see keeping "The Cesspool" or "Free Thoughts" as a single catch-all category but why have "On The Fringe" with all of its further sub-sub-categories? Is there really a difference between "Alternative Theories" and "Pseudo-science"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! UFO's, Ghosts, and Monsters ... really, in a forum called SciForums? Just curious how all this came to be.
Strictly speaking Alternative Theories should meet certain criteria: 1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena. 2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one. 3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory. 4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in order to determine which is superior. have been suggested. They should, at least, be theories (or approaching such). Pseudosci on the other hand is just random uninformed bollocks.
I have yet to see any alternative hypothesis put on this or any other forum, that has been deemed reasonable or ever likely to replace any incumbent model. My reasoning tells me that if anyone had anything worthwhile, with any evidence that matches observations better then the incumbent model, in reality, they would not be posting here. I understand your frustration, and I'm only a lay person..that same frustration must be 10 fold for any scientists seeing science dragged through the gutter as it often is by unscrupulous trolls as did chinglu, undefined and at least three other presently active trolls. Why cannot we put a months grace on any alternative hypothesis, to show real evidence supporting their stance against the incumbent models, or any evidence genuinly invalidating that incumbent model. That and answering properly all questions put to them regarding their hypothesis...running the gauntlet in actual fact, just as present incumbent theories needed to do. After one month, if no evidence is forthcoming, or questions are not answered, then the thread is closed. This worked on another forum I was on.
That would require mods who actually care about the content being posted. That is apparently not the case here.
I agree with the view that there aren't likely to be any valid alternative theories put forth on this board and I don't quite see the point in having some of these threads last for a month. It's not like any original research is going on here so nothing new is going to happen in a month. All of the data is already out there. The question is do you provide a forum for cranks or do you try to discourage that kind of forum membership?
Concisely, the names tell you: "Alternate theories" should be scientifically approached. "Pseudoscience" is only sorta scientific.... Not that SF has or applies clear definitions.... I am a member on another forum that tried several approaches of various rigor (including a paper submission forum), but it produced no value for the time spent moderating it. Moderating crap forums is tough because crappy subjects, by definition require violations of forum rules, so the forum has to find a way to balance the contradictions to make it work....or just choose the no moderation route, like this place does.
The problems are: 1. Most unknowns have already been researched, even if they yet have no answers. So they can go in the main sections. 2. Laymen rarely, if ever, produce publication quality work (a properly formatted and researched paper), much less publication worthy work (an actual/valid new theory). So by letter of the law, the Alternate Theories forum should be empty or contain only locked threads...which would be pointless.
I've posed the question to the mods in several threads and the answer essentially is (paraphrase) "yes, we want to be a forum for cranks" and "freedom is more important than quality". Moderator comments in the current TC thread confitmed: we have to be nice to the crackpots, but the crackpots have no responsibility for quality content (contrary to forum rules that say they do).
I wonder... if they made the nutcase sub-fora not viewable to non-members (like the Cesspool is) then we'd probably get fewer loons joining AND the added bonus that, since the rational posters wouldn't be so concerned about "protecting" / informing the less-educated (i.e. newbies/ lurkers who don't know how to tell crap from science) there'd be fewer relies to the loons and shorter (thus-shorter-lived) nutcase threads. Most the "traffic" in idiot threads is pointing out how stupid they for the benefit of the non-involved (because we all know that the proponents of such threads aren't going to learn of change their minds), so: fewer corrective posts, shorter threads and a quicker die-off.
I think a good start would be (if possible) to make the crank sub-forum not be reflected in "new posts" so that you would have to actually go to the sub-forum to see those threads.
I don't know why we have any of those sub-forums other than perhaps the cesspool if someone thinks one is needed. Who starts a science forum and then adds in crank forums?
I'm sure it does as there is going to be very little science traffic pulled in given the forum's current reputation. How many "scientists" are going to want to hang around here?
Nah, it would work by simply altering the access/ view rights to those sub-fora. If there were "aggressive" (or even active) moderation then there wouldn't be a need for my suggestion.
