Why does it seem like there is no moderation in Physics and Math?

The main problem is the constant refuting. Ideally a moderator of such a subforum should hold a degree at the least in the subjects applied. The reason for this isn't to be the lone righteous voice on any subject but a professional with the capacity to be able to see the difference between metaphorical seeds and chaff.

Mathematics and Physics in general are very broad subjects in themselves with many niche specialised subdivisions that some people concentrate to become an "authority of". Generally there will always be someone that knows more about a subject and naturally finds that subject easily understood and this can cause differences in opinion to rise.

The true spirit of science in general is collaboration since science itself is suppose to be a consensus (testable truths) derived from all those "peers" that work towards the same goal, in this instance an appreciation of knowledge. This is obviously something that not everyone that posts to these forums see's through the same light, which is why we end up with hardliner's that can only ever see their particular shade of grey (with their particular niche reasoning) or are just here with the spirit of malice and disruption.

In short, imagine having a subforum on classic cars and being asked to moderate that subforum even though you do not drive, you have no interest in cars or know how a car engine works. Would you make a good unbiased moderator? or would you constant find yourself being goaded by members they have already realised that your expertise isn't actually in that area?

I suppose it could bring up the question what is expected of a moderator. Are they here just to attempt to settle disputes and be intolerant of bad behaviour, or are they here to have involvement in shaping discourse through either their professional credence or build up of "life skills"? (These things need to be clarified so that we can see if Sciforums.com can evolve to suit what is required by it's membership)
 
Layman said:
You guys should really learn how to be able to take a hint. The reason they all left is because babysitting you guys would be a full time job that they couldn't pay anyone well enough to take. It seems like instead of banning all of you they just decided to quit instead. You are all paying members after all. But I mean really, what could you do with a bunch of quack jobs (no pun intended, quantum quack) that think they are right about everything, but they couldn't be any more wrong about everything?

I know why Alphanumeric left, as I was actively viewing this forum when he did. It was cause I explained to him that having to deal with you trolls so much and so regularly that it had actually turned him into a troll himself. That is just naturally what happens when people are always so wrong and so determined to be right, that they can never be persuaded that feel strongly about everyone having the same wrong views that they do. There was that, and I showed him how the addition of velocity derivation used two different versions of the same equation so it couldn't be mathematically valid. Maybe, he just lost his faith in science. Moderating these forums regularly could be a very traumatic experience. I guess I will never know cause suddenly after that he just failed to respond after that. He tried taking a vacation, but it didn't help...
Click to expand...

I don't believe any of them quit or had enough, I believe they are still here operating under an alias.

One day I got a little overheated in a thread, and after many moons of not seeing AN...he miraculously showed up at the perfect time to inflict his wrath. Coincidence? No!

I think I have a few of them figured out already!
 
Stryder said:
The main problem is the constant refuting. Ideally a moderator of such a subforum should hold a degree at the least in the subjects applied. The reason for this isn't to be the lone righteous voice on any subject but a professional with the capacity to be able to see the difference between metaphorical seeds and chaff.
Click to expand...
Why the need for this?
Are members (as a collective) not able to decide for themself what is "metaphorical seeds and chaff"?

Why are moderators not merely guardians of behaviour?
Why should they be deferred to on matters of content, rather than just matters of behaviour?
If a poster posts nonsense, does it need a moderator to state that it is so?
Or are members not able to claim as much, asking for support / evidence etc?
And if that support / evidence is not forthcoming then a moderator should be able to act on that behaviour alone, rather than the content.

In my view, requiring moderators to be "experts in the field" limits the available pool.
And official moderating on content should be sufficient, with the content being self-moderated by the populace at large.
 
Baldeee said:
And official moderating on content should be sufficient, with the content being self-moderated by the populace at large.
Click to expand...
How exactly would that work? Would you have the members voting on moderating decisions like moving and deleting posts and banning users? What if the spammers and crackpots and trolls become a larger group than the quality members?
 
Last edited:
Stryder said:
The main problem is the constant refuting. Ideally a moderator of such a subforum should hold a degree at the least in the subjects applied...
Click to expand...
The main problem is the constant sneering naysayer abuse. And note that we've had moderators here with a degree in physics. But astonishingly, they've known very little physics, and have been so full of ignorant arrogant diehard hubris that they not only permit the abuse, but they even join in with it.

A moderator has to have a sincere honest willingness to ensure that discussions remain civil. Thereafter extensive physics knowledge would be a very good thing, but this must not come with the intellectual arrogance that results in thought-police censorship.
 
Farsight said:
The main problem is the constant sneering naysayer abuse. And note that we've had moderators here with a degree in physics. But astonishingly, they've known very little physics, and have been so full of ignorant arrogant diehard hubris that they not only permit the abuse, but they even join in with it.

A moderator has to have a sincere honest willingness to ensure that discussions remain civil. Thereafter extensive physics knowledge would be a very good thing, but this must not come with the intellectual arrogance that results in thought-police censorship.
Click to expand...

I would agree to those terms... but on the condition that the members who have these "incredible theories" must be willing and able to put them up to scrutiny... and if it fails to hold up, acknowledge and accept it.
 
Stryder said:
I suppose it could bring up the question what is expected of a moderator. Are they here just to attempt to settle disputes and be intolerant of bad behaviour, or are they here to have involvement in shaping discourse through either their professional credence or build up of "life skills"? (These things need to be clarified so that we can see if Sciforums.com can evolve to suit what is required by it's membership)
Click to expand...

That in turn raises the question of what people want the Physics and Math forum to be.

Should the Physics and Math forum be reserved for the kind of orthodox mainstream physics and math that are taught in university classrooms, with all of the 'alternatives' (the seeming-crankery) moved down to Alternative Theories? That would be my suggestion, I guess.

But that would require moderators that are capable of making the distinction, meaning moderators who have themselves studied physics and math in university at a suitable level. Basically that suggests asking the moderator to be something more like a professor.

If that was possible, then what do people picture the Physics and Math forum becoming? What should it ideally be? Would it turn into a high-school and introductory university level homework-help forum, or something like that? (That might be possible, if enough participants have studied math and physics at the elementary levels themselves.) Or would it be a place for laypeople to discuss physics and math developments that they have seen in the media, developments that they are in no position to really understand, with any disagreements that arise being settled by appeals to authority? (That's certainly defensible, if a little lame.) Or what?

(That raises questions about Sciforums itself. What kind of discussion does a layperson's science discussion forum like this picture itself hosting?)

The main problem is the constant refuting.
Click to expand...

If Sciforums adopts a more aggressive policy in the Physics and Math forum of moving alternative/crank threads to Alternative Theories (and I personally think that should happen, if a moderator competent to do it can be found), then the latter forum might end up the more intellectually exciting place. It wouldn't just be people quoting the textbook. People would find themselves investigating the foundations of theories and hopefully discovering the reasons why orthodox physics says the things it says. In other words, proposing alternative hypotheses and refuting crank theories might sometimes be better occasions for learning than merely quoting authorities, early medieval style. There's going to be more room for creative thinking.

I guess that I think that both 'Physics and Math' and 'Alternative Theories' have their place and both of them can be 'respectable' in their own ways. (I might enjoy the latter more.)

In short, imagine having a subforum on classic cars and being asked to moderate that subforum even though you do not drive, you have no interest in cars or know how a car engine works. Would you make a good unbiased moderator? or would you constant find yourself being goaded by members they have already realised that your expertise isn't actually in that area?
Click to expand...

If you go that way and appoint Physics and Math moderators who don't know very much about physics and math, you will essentially be opting for moderating on rhetorical decorum as opposed to content. The moderator would be in a position to intervene in cases of rudeness and insulting behavior, but wouldn't be in any position to prevent cranks and those who get their pleasure from battling cranks from taking over and dominating the forum. (Which would render the Alternative Theories forum kind of redundant, instead of making use of it.)
 
Yazata said:
I guess that I think that both 'Physics and Math' and 'Alternative Theories' have their place and both of them can be 'respectable' in their own ways. (I might enjoy the latter more.)

If you go that way and appoint Physics and Math moderators who don't know very much about physics and math, you will essentially be opting for moderating on rhetorical decorum as opposed to content. The moderator would be in a position to intervene in cases of rudeness and insulting behavior, but wouldn't be in any position to prevent cranks and those who get their pleasure from battling cranks from taking over and dominating the forum. (Which would render the Alternative Theories forum kind of redundant, instead of making use of it.)
Click to expand...
Good post. It is difficult to get any meaningful discussion out in the Fringe. In Alterntive Theories, only five threads have posts this month; three of them recently moved there. P&M should be hard science and math. If active and civil discussion was the norm in the Alternative Theories forum, people wouldn't feel they had to start out in P&M to get meaningful responses. If someone conducted a thread in Alternative Theories to the point that they developed it to be meaningful science, then they should be able to request that the thread be moved to P&M. That would encourage people to start out in AltTheory and to show why the "theory" or hypothesis had enough merit to move to the hard science forum.

And infractions should be even handed and warnings quickly issued without favoritism.
 
As far as Physics and Math is concerned, it would probably be more useful were Alternative Theories a part of Science, rather than On The Fringe, where there is little difference between it and Pseudoscience... As it is, it leaves no place in Science for the exploration and discussion of any conceptually alternate interpretation of either historical or contemporary mainstream views, without confusing what is in the text book(s).., with those alternate conceptual explorations.

This is mostly an interested lay oriented discussion group and while there is certainly a place and need for discussions of both historical and mainstream scientific models and theory, there is also a need for somewhere that the alternate conceptual interpretations that rise from that interested lay understanding can be discussed. I don't think it will ever be practical to expect both kinds of discussion to coexist, without trouble.., within the context of a single sub forum... And yet both should be legitimate areas for discussion under the umbrella of Science.

This is an argument for moving Alternative Theories, to Science, likely with some redefinition of posting guidelines.

HOWEVER....
The greater problem it seems to me is keeping discussions civil! How management deals with enlisting and keeping content moderators, is something I cannot offer any advice on. However, it should be possible to have playground monitors who can deal with abusive and obviously off topic posts, without the need of a PhD! And when I say off topic I don't mean side discussions, I mean posts that have nothing even abstractly to do with science. ... Though it may be just as hard to find competent playground monitors...
 
Kittamaru said:
I would agree to those terms... but on the condition that the members who have these "incredible theories" must be willing and able to put them up to scrutiny... and if it fails to hold up, acknowledge and accept it.
Click to expand...
That shouldn't be too much of a problem. Members want to put things up for scrutiny. That's the whole point of a discussion forum. But some other so-called members want to stifle discussions. Of course it can be difficult to arbitrate as to whether something holds up or not, but IMHO the members who put things up for scrutiny are by and large sincere, and we haven't been seeing too many "my theory" guys. These are typically very young people with very little physics knowledge who declare that Einstein etc was wrong. People like me help keep them in check via peer pressure and education.

However the above pans out, I'd say there's a clear need to stop the nastiness. A forum just can't survive that.
 
Farsight said:
That shouldn't be too much of a problem. Members want to put things up for scrutiny. That's the whole point of a discussion forum.
Click to expand...
the key word is "discussion"

But some other so-called members want to stifle discussions.
Click to expand...
the whole point being to destroy sciforums which was IMO a very successful fora years ago.

However the above pans out, I'd say there's a clear need to stop the nastiness. A forum just can't survive that.
Click to expand...
and it is IMO, this deliberate and planned nastiness and the orchestrated attempt to prevent/stifle discussion that will indeed ultimately destroy this forum. It has almost achieved that already.
Obviously the more sciforum is diminished the bigger membership other fora will achieve. The larger the membership the higher the income returns via advertising.
Currently Sciforums.com is worth $ 48,703 with a rating of about 59%
ref: http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/sciforums.com
Physicsforums.com is worth a cool : $ 12,095,000 with a rating of about 81%
ref: http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/physicsforums.com
forums.randi.org : $ 258,085 with a rating of about 73%
ref: http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/forums.randi.org

disclaimer: (all valued using the same algorithms and for comparative values only)

I guess what I am attempting to say is that the idea of destroying a successful forum is not a new one....with big bucks at stake...
With every science/philosophy interested Guest that turns up, having to wade through mountains of abusive posts guess where they end up going?

So every abusive, derailing or deliberately false post, has a negative value in dollar terms...not to mention the fact that discussion is rendered almost impossible.
Further, it is not hard to imagine that posters can be paid per destructive post, not hard to imagine at all especially if you have worked around the net for 8 or more years as I have.
 
A little rhyme for the trolls...
blah blah blah...you know who you are.
Not to be confused with the ...BOOM BOOM BOOM rhyme from Blackadder.
 
Quantum Quack said:
...this deliberate and planned nastiness and the orchestrated attempt to prevent/stifle discussion that will indeed ultimately destroy this forum. It has almost achieved that already...
Click to expand...
It has, hasn't it? There's no sensible posts today in the Physics and Maths section. I'm close to doing the old Favourites Delete myself. Last one out turn off the lights.
 
Farsight said:
It has, hasn't it? There's no sensible posts today in the Physics and Maths section. I'm close to doing the old Favourites Delete myself. Last one out turn off the lights.
Click to expand...
ever heard of the anti plagiarism software called Viper?

It's great for taking portions of text and finding matches all over the web..
One infamous never to be named and never to return poster actually pretended to be a graduate at a university students fora so that he could, apparently, using copy and paste physics vitriol, berate the young legitimate 1st year students. How weird is that?
 
Farsight said:
It has, hasn't it? There's no sensible posts today in the Physics and Maths section. I'm close to doing the old Favourites Delete myself. Last one out turn off the lights.
Click to expand...
I personally believe that sciforums is not over yet...but the nastiness and deliberate false/lie posting has to be dealt with rather ruthlessly.
 
Farsight said:
It has, hasn't it? There's no sensible posts today in the Physics and Maths section. I'm close to doing the old Favourites Delete myself. Last one out turn off the lights.
Click to expand...
Come on, get with the program, Farsight. Get yourself out to the Alternative Theories sub-forum and help make it a better place, instead of berating those of us who post there, in line with SciForums guidelines. Help make it a better place by participating, not complaining that you are being censored. Just go there, start a thread, and see if the members you like to chat with don't just follow you out there.
 
Russ_Watters said:
How exactly would that work? Would you have the members voting on moderating decisions like moving and deleting posts and banning users? What if the spammers and crackpots and trolls become a larger group than the quality members?
Click to expand...
Apologies, that last comment should have read: "And official moderating on behaviour should be sufficient..."
This would then make that last bit consistent with the rest of my post.

So moderation is on behaviour only (which includes failure to provide support for argument etc).
Content would be self-moderated, with members supporting their position, etc.

Trolls, spammers and their ilk would fall foul of behaviour-moderation.
 
quantum_wave said:
Come on, get with the program, Farsight. Get yourself out to the Alternative Theories sub-forum and help make it a better place, instead of berating those of us who post there, in line with SciForums guidelines. Help make it a better place by participating, not complaining that you are being censored. Just go there, start a thread, and see if the members you like to chat with don't just follow you out there.
Click to expand...

The screw thread actually has legs in my opinion , but he is gong to have a hell of a time getting it up...using the level of physics that those opposing it are using. Gotta dig deeper IMO...
 
Quantum Quack said:
The screw thread actually has legs in my opinion , but he is gong to have a hell of a time getting it up...using the level of physics that those opposing it are using. Gotta dig deeper IMO...
Click to expand...
Agreed. There may very well be something there. My view is that the combined knowledge about existing science and math associated with EM is good here, but there are aspects of the science that may be improved by future theorizing and discovery. Maxwell and Einstein both did their work with the intention of it being compatible with a medium in space, but also both can mathematically stand without it. Let's see where his idea goes out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top