[swansont]

Phi for All, on 24 January 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Well then, what if we change the format for Speculations? We could provide a template members can copy/paste and then input their thesis, supportive evidence and what predictions this allows them to make. There should be some questions they have to answer that will show us any educational bypasses or lack of testability.

We'll identify crackpots earlier on, as well as those who can be guided. I still say that, in much the same way Archie Bunker taught a generation about how NOT to treat racism and tolerance, a good crackpot can show how NOT to approach science, but I also think we might err on the side of caution when it comes to treating speculative subjects.

I also think that those people who have a hard time with what is posted in Speculations should refrain from posting disparaging remarks right off the bat. We often have to deal with people who are already irate because they're being shot down in a way that makes it tough to separate the person from the idea. If you're the type of person who calls up Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern just to complain about how stupid the show is, you should stay away from Speculations.

We could have a subsection for proposed new theories, since this doesn't really apply to the "relativity (or whatever) is wrong!" style of posts. That seems reasonable and, from the logistics aspect, fairly easily sortable.

[StringJunky]

swansont, on 24 January 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

We could have a subsection for proposed new theories, since this doesn't really apply to the "relativity (or whatever) is wrong!" style of posts. That seems reasonable and, from the logistics aspect, fairly easily sortable.

Perhaps you could put a sticky in this subsection with the header "Read This First!" that gives a template or guide on how a hypothesis must be presented and details it must contain; failure to comply could then be issued with a warning that it will end up in the Trash. In my thinking, it doesn't matter if the idea is erroneous (it most likely will be) just that they present their idea in a prescribed way with set compulsory elements as described in the sticky. The sticky guide should be written in a way understandable to a high school student that is easy for them to digest and apply.

In the proper science forums, if a person can't point to a peer-reviewed example of their hypothesis, transfer of their thread should automatically go into Speculations...no ifs ..no buts. There needs to be a clear line between established science or science executed by professionals (which may actually be speculative eg Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc) and amateurs thinking stuffup in their homes.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 24 January 2012 - 08:08 PM

[Klaynos]

With a "If you can't at least attempt to fill out all the sections you don't have a scientific theory, read this link for some information about what science really is, here's a clue it's not pulling crap out of the air and arguing it's correct until you're blue in the face with no evidence"

[Phi for All]

D H, on 24 January 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

My main gripe has always been that the moderators and admins bend over backwards to cater to the crackpots.

I resent that. A lot.

[homie12]

swansont, on 24 January 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

For those posters proposing a new paradigm, the very first questions should include "What specific predictions do you make?" and "How is this testable/falsifiable?" if that information isn't included in the OP, and it usually isn't. But they are generally convinced that this isn't a required part of their thesis.

Yes this helps define the discussion, thanks

yes some of my posts are presented in an undisciplined way. But just they articulate manner this thread is being discussed convinces me, the administration here is committed to the true nature of these very ranging topics. Now i wanted to say that the true value of a society is its capacity to be inclusive. ya ya ya but im not doing the intellectual maintainence here. Pretty good site you have here gentlemen and ladies. i can say that making it easy for status quo is not my talent. I am thinking about creating an agenda of experiments that i would like to offer for review here. I now actual feel comfortable enough here to do that. thanks for your responses and this thread

i really must proof read before posting

[michel123456]

I said that before (bis repetita placent) about a year ago.
To me this site is well moderated.
The problem with the speculation forum is its location, down into the abyss, outside of science, next to the malodorous waste basket.

Eventually, one could consider another way to handle speculations. Moderators could put a banner on the thread, reading "WARNING, SPECULATION" without even removing the thread from its original location. So a speculation about DNA structure would remain under Biology, and a speculation about how Einstein was wrong would remain under Relativity.
The banner could even differ and go from "warning this thread is slightly speculative" from "DANGER, COMPLETE CRAP" under appreciation from the Mods.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 11 February 2012 - 01:53 PM

[Tres Juicy]

michel123456, on 11 February 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

"DANGER, COMPLETE CRAP"

I think there are certain people who should have this forceably inserted into their signature

[michel123456]

Tres Juicy, on 11 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

I think there are certain people who should have this forceably inserted into their signature

Certainly not.

[StringJunky]

homie12, on 11 February 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Yes this helps define the discussion, thanks

yes some of my posts are presented in an undisciplined way. But just they articulate manner this thread is being discussed convinces me, the administration here is committed to the true nature of these very ranging topics. Now i wanted to say that the true value of a society is its capacity to be inclusive. ya ya ya but im not doing the intellectual maintainence here. Pretty good site you have here gentlemen and ladies. i can say that making it easy for status quo is not my talent. I am thinking about creating an agenda of experiments that i would like to offer for review here. I now actual feel comfortable enough here to do that. thanks for your responses and this thread

i really must proof read before posting

It's good that you are seeing the various positive qualities of this forum and hopefully over time, as I did, why things are the way they are here but even then it is constantly evolving with each new insight gleaned from discussions like these. It is the very nature of the Speculations forum to have threads that are mostly failures in terms of scientific validity and people shouldn't feel dispirited when their thread is put there because it is important in terms of SFN properly disseminating the established scientific picture to distinguish between professional science and amateur science, otherwise, non-scientific members will end up confused as to what is properly "scientific" and what is not.

Quite honestly, I think people with speculative personal ideas should be at least happy that their ideas actually do have a space to go in to be aired for consideration by real and up-coming scientists...most science forums will trash them on sight. If your idea gets shot down with evidence and logic don't get upset...it's not personal....it's the nature of scientific peer review to do this clinically and dispassionately. I used to think some of the experts here were rather terse in their responses but realise eventually they are not here to nurse damaged egos. Tip: Leave your ego at home...put out your idea...take the criticism...thank the respondents for their views...post-analyse what people said. Failure is a crucial part of learning. As my grandad used to say: the man that never made a mistake never made anything.

Embrace your mistakes.

[homie12]

i am getting good experience on how to present my point properly thanks. and i see some same old adages. power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home. so if 1 wants to function in said home he has to find a viable talent or service. im working on it boss.

[imatfaal]

homie12, on 13 February 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

i am getting good experience on how to present my point properly thanks. and i see some same old adages. power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home. so if 1 wants to function in said home he has to find a viable talent or service. im working on it boss.

"power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely." So who is corrupt? Or just a slur in general?

"but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home" No, but you could also acknowledge that they might be defending it for a reason other than blind clan loyalty. Perhaps because they believe in a shared concept of the importance of science, intellectual rigour, and rationalism which is common to both the forum in general and the individual members in particular.

[homie12]

imatfaal, on 14 February 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

"power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely." So who is corrupt? Or just a slur in general?

"but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home" No, but you could also acknowledge that they might be defending it for a reason other than blind clan loyalty. Perhaps because they believe in a shared concept of the importance of science, intellectual rigour, and rationalism which is common to both the forum in general and the individual members in particular.

Yes you are right about that. I should list in order of importance. But I should just concentrate my point and then have everything thrown out im saying with some blanket statement or even a cheapshot. The important thing i think is what ever my idea is, it's not getting forwarded by chaotic trashing of subject matter. So as i try i will learn and thanks for your response