Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Personal theories


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 sevensixtwo

sevensixtwo

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:01 PM

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?

 

17313.PNG

 

 

 


  • 0

#2 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,885 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:03 PM

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?

 

 

They are as long as they abide by the rules. "Repeated hijacking" is not discussing an idea.


  • 0

#3 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,666 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:56 PM

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?

 

17313.PNG

 

 

 

 

Strawman argument. He wasn't "discussing his own theory", he was interjecting it into someone else's mainstream thread, thus hijacking the discussion over to his unsupported ideas. It's the equivalent of getting everyone to the table to discuss the moon's gravitational influence on Earth tides, and having someone interject with a personal "theory" about green cheese having negative mass. It's simply not the place for that idea. 


  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,454 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:57 PM

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?

 

17313.PNG

 

 

 

Zephir was allowed to, up until he was sanctioned for persistently breaking the rules. As would be true of anyone. Follow the rules and you will be OK.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 sevensixtwo

sevensixtwo

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:10 PM

 

Strawman argument. 

 

I can assure that my question wasn't an argument, much like I can assure your of own ability to analyze rhetoric for fallacious reasoning.


  • 0

#6 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,885 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:15 PM

 

I can assure that my question wasn't an argument

 

 

It was a leading question. It appeared to be a rhetorical device to argue that a "developer of a scientific theory is not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website".

 

As there are many threads where people do discuss their personal theories, your initial assumption seems to be false.


  • 0

#7 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,454 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:19 PM

Any characterization of such crackpottery as a scientific theory contains some sort of fallacious reasoning. Not much point in quibbling over which particular fallacy it is.  


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#8 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,666 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:19 PM

I can assure that my question wasn't an argument, much like I can assure your of own ability to analyze rhetoric for fallacious reasoning.

 

Your question poses the argument that it's wrong not to let the developer of a theory discuss it on a science discussion forum. I agree with that argument, but that's not what happened here, therefore the argument is fallacious. I can assure you that this is called a strawman. Whether or not you agree is superfluous, since the goal of informing you about what really went on with the member in question has been reached.


  • 0

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#9 sevensixtwo

sevensixtwo

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:43 AM

 your initial assumption seems to be false.

 

Is what you're calling my "initial assumption" this picture?

 

17313.PNG

 

Much like I can assure you of many things, I can assure you that this is a real screen shot of a post by a real admin on this forum.


  • 0

#10 Endy0816

Endy0816

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,052 posts
  • LocationOrlando

Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:12 AM

Probably for posting personal theories in the mainstream sections. Has been a number of years, so I can't tell you what the actual rule said.

 

There is a separate Speculation Section for this express purpose and if he had confined his activities there, along with backing up his speculations with evidence, he would have been fine. I count several suspensions leading up to his ban. Certainly shouldn't have come as a surprise.

 

http://www.sciencefo...rs/#entry391714

 

Edit: After searching with Google, members even mention as much to him in posts.


Edited by Endy0816, 20 May 2017 - 03:27 AM.

  • 0

#11 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,885 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:18 AM

 

Is what you're calling my "initial assumption" this picture?

 

 

No. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The implied assumption in your post was that: "the developer of a scientific theory is not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website".

 

The picture you posted has no relevance to that point.

 

If it were a moderator saying: "You are not allowed to discuss your own theory on this website" then it might be relevant to your question. But it wasn't and so it isn't.

 

 

Much like I can assure you of many things, I can assure you that this is a real screen shot of a post by a real admin on this forum.

 

 

Yes. I had to go and track down the source. I don't know why you posted it as an image and without a link to the source. 

 

For the benefit of others, the post is here: http://www.sciencefo...users/?p=388903


This forum has a pretty relaxed approach to people discussing personal theories. There are some forums where it is not allowed at all and any such thread will be closed immediately. There are others where there are very strict rules, which are rigorously enforced.

 

Here, even though there are rules, the moderators are pretty easy going.


Edited by Strange, 20 May 2017 - 08:15 AM.

  • 0

#12 Lord Antares

Lord Antares

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 592 posts

Posted 20 May 2017 - 09:38 AM

You were clear, don't worry. It's on him for not understanding you.

 

I don't think the mods are relaxed about it. If the hypotheses are good, they are allowed; if they are bad, they are locked. That's not relaxed in my book, it's exactly how it should be. So far, not one of them has been acknowledged (to my knowledge), so that shows that much rigor is needed.


  • 0

#13 John Cuthber

John Cuthber

    Chemistry Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 13,799 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 20 May 2017 - 11:06 AM

 

I can assure that my question wasn't an argument, much like I can assure your of own ability to analyze rhetoric for fallacious reasoning.

Your question

"Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?"

was meaningless because the developers of scientific theories are allowed to discuss them here.

Moreover, your implication that Zephyr's posts were scientific theories is also incorrect.

They might manage to classify as hypotheses - on a good day.

 

I could compare your initial post to one that said 

"Why am I not allowed to use words with nine letters on this site?

Fred Bogs was thrown off for using the word 'unquestionably ' "

 

Do you see why that makes no sense?


  • 2
What's this signature thingy then? Did you know Santa only brings presents to people who click the + sign? -->

#14 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,454 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:31 PM

 

Is what you're calling my "initial assumption" this picture?

 

17313.PNG

 

Much like I can assure you of many things, I can assure you that this is a real screen shot of a post by a real admin on this forum.

 

 

Yes. It shows that Zephir was suspended for hijacking discussions, which is a rules violation. It is not an example of someone not being allowed to discuss a scientific theory, or even their own personal hypothesis.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#15 Sensei

Sensei

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,239 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:10 PM

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?


Hijacking means introduction of 3rd party idea/hypothesis/theory into somebody else thread.

If you stay in your own thread discussing there your hypothesis/theory, there will be no hijacking.
At the worst case, thread could be locked by mods, if you won't be participating in discussion (soapboxing), by not answering other members questions and raising doubts about theory or providing counter-arguments disproving it (typically results of experiments rebutting hypothesis).


Edited by Sensei, 21 May 2017 - 04:00 PM.

  • 1

#16 Outrider

Outrider

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 44 posts
  • LocationAlabama USA

Posted 21 May 2017 - 10:34 PM

You were clear, don't worry. It's on him for not understanding you.
 
I don't think the mods are relaxed about it. If the hypotheses are good, they are allowed; if they are bad, they are locked. That's not relaxed in my book, it's exactly how it should be. So far, not one of them has been acknowledged (to my knowledge), so that shows that much rigor is needed.

Well relaxed in the way they will give you a chance especially if you're not a repeat offender. Sure they have no problem dropping the hammer when called for.
I like this board the best because it allows for new ideas without descending into chaos.
Even though I'll never have a thread there speculations is one of my favorite forums. I just like to see what people think.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users