Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swansont

Why has my post been moved to Speculations?

Recommended Posts

Having posts moved to Pseudoscience & Speculations is not a punishment; it is meant to provide, for any casual reader, a clear divide between mainstream science and that which is still inadequately tested. By posting you have invited objective criticism, and if your post is moved, consider that one critique.



Most posts moved here often fall under one or more of the following:


No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved.


Incomprehensible. Science uses well-defined terminology, so if you have made up your own, or you have equations and calculations but they are not explained so that anyone can understand them, the material will be moved. The burden is upon you to present the material using the framework that already exists.


You are contradicting accepted science. Accepted science has a large amount of data supporting it, so if your thesis runs contrary to experimental results, you have basically pre-falsified your work. If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it's supplanting. Remember, you have to be consistent with all of what has been observed, not just some small subset of it.


No evidence. You have presented no scientific evidence to support your claims. In this context, this means data or observations consistent with your thesis, and also not predicted or explained by accepted science. Vague predictions that can be satisfied by a wide range of results carry little weight.


No physical basis A reasoned rationale to justify the hypothesis must exist. A bunch of unconnected numbers or unjustified statements is not science.


Obvious errors. A quick inspection shows statements that are not true. Your conclusion can't be valid if based on a flawed argument.


It's not science. Science concerns itself with empirically describing how nature behaves. There must be a means by which the hypothesis can be proven false. Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, considered speculation.



I have evidence, from this book and article


Books, especially by someone writing outside of their area of expertise, and popular articles, are not peer-reviewed. Anybody can write them. They often carry little or no weight in a discussion. When you are asked for a citation to support a claim, these are not what are being requested.

Edit (10/20/10): X is wrong! posts are likely candidates to be moved, if X is a well-established theory, such as relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. Such posts typically ignore the vast amount of evidence in support of the theories, and fail to cite any actual contradictory experimental evidence.

 

 

Edit (10/4/16): We generally draw a distinction between posts that ask a question and posts that make an assertion that is contrary to mainstream science. "Is the moon made of green cheese?" is a question that can be addressed by science, and so it is legitimate to post in the appropriate science subforum. The answer happens to be no, and we have evidence that can be cited to support that answer. "The moon is made of green cheese!" is an assertion, and something that would be moved to speculations, where it would be refuted, though the author would be expected to post evidence in support of his/her claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.