Add a Speculations Section?

[Ken Fabian]

This forum attracts proponents of crank science seeking to overturn existing science based knowledge and promote their own hypotheses. I'm not usually impressed by them and have no desire to engage with them but letting those that do have a dedicated space to butt heads might be good.

 

[Catastrophe]

Seconded.


Cat

 

[COLGeek]

There is a downside to establishing a dedicated section for this content. It "acknowledges" and "encourages" such.

Honestly, we have more than enough of this without drawing more attention to it.

Still, a valid recommendation. Will ensure the right folks are aware.

Thank you.

 

[Zaphod the Elder]

There is a downside to establishing a dedicated section for this content. It "acknowledges" and "encourages" such.

Honestly, we have more than enough of this without drawing more attention to it.

Still, a valid recommendation. Will ensure the right folks are aware.

Thank you.

Does the whole Forum section not already acknowledge and encourage it? Seems so.

 

[COLGeek]

Does the whole Forum section not already acknowledge and encourage it? Seems so.

Not really. Real science is obviously preferred.

Misunderstandings are expected, as is a lack of knowledge. That is where we hope that more knowledgeable members will help educate others (without putting them down or trolling others).

 

[Classical Motion]

I am having trouble understanding this proposition. In what manner can crank science disturb real science in any form or fashion. Does physics need protection? Guarded? Can it be polluted?

I am a little slow. I can’t see the concern or worry of it. Other or new ideas have never given me doubt of what I have worked with. And lived with. And taught my children.

I just don’t see a problem. And I am amazed of what and how others think. That’s the surprising product.

I get new mini series all the time from it. At least from the parts I can follow. If it’s a bunch of math I just ignore it. For me physics is motion, not math. Math is only valid after understanding. An after thought. Newton was the first to use math as a pre-thought. And he gave a warning with it. That all have ignored.

But then again, maybe I am the crank.

 

[Helio]

In what manner can crank science disturb real science in any form or fashion. Does physics need protection? Guarded? Can it be polluted?

Perhaps we could restate the question of whether or not there are benefits in separating the ATM (Against the Mainstream) posts from mainstream science?

There are several benefits, IMO, in separating the two.
1) An ATM section would help everyone understand that something novel may, or may not, be proposed. For those knowledgeable enough to understand the arguments, they can help support or counter the claims made. Any claim that is false would need modification or dismissal for that science to advance.

This may require the proposer to be willing to take the scientific scrutiny that may come.

But not every weird thought is ATM, When someone comes here and asks a question that clearly suggests ATM ideas, then this isn't something that would need to be moved to an ATM section. However, sometimes questions are disguised for this reason and it soon becomes an ATM claim

2) Newcomers might be discouraged by a lot of scientific hand-waving. Unbridled ATM posts, if numerous enough, will discourage growth, IMO.

3) A website that allows free ideas to surface and be discussed is one of the reasons I come here, so the above is not meant to discourage this feature.

4) The problem, I suspect, is the burden it puts on moderators. How will the moderator know whether some advanced looking idea is counter to mainstream? There are a ton of legitimate theories for Inflation, DE, Dark Matter, etc. that await objective tests that will support or falsify them. How does one look at them and tell if any of the claims are already false?

Then there's the concern a poster may have, or may not have, regarding their ideas being classified as ATM.

I've been active on more than this astronomy website. One site has a number of advanced amateurs, physicists, astronomers with the majority being amateur astronomers or having other science interests. They force all ATM posts into an ATM forum where the poster is required to defend all those that present scientific scrutiny of their claim. If any one claim survives the scrutiny, it could lead to an advancement of science, To the best of my knowledge, this has never happened, unfortunately.


Though each non-ATM thread reveals mainstream knowledge, unfortunately, you won't find that site growing much, AFAIK.

There may be ways to address this ATM issue, but this should be discussed between moderators, not us, I suppose.

I am a little slow. I can’t see the concern or worry of it. Other or new ideas have never given me doubt of what I have worked with. And lived with. And taught my children.

I suspect this is another "kind" vs. "degree" question. There's only so many bell peppers you can put on my plate before I leave the table. I want the enjoyable stuff, and wild scientific word salads are only ok in ...moderation (pun intended ).

For me physics is motion, not math. Math is only valid after understanding.

Someone, perhaps Einstein, once said that if you can't explain your math, then you don't understand the physics. But math is what leads to new areas of discovery. It was the math in Einstein's GR that opened the door to the BBT. It was also GR that gave us blackholes thanks to the math-crunching of Schwarzschild.

 

[COLGeek]

Please be advised, the decision makers are assessing this request.

 

[George²]

There are a ton of legitimate theories for Inflation

More like hypotheses? A theory is something sufficiently advanced that there is observable or experimental confirmation of the full or near full set of statements in the text.

 

[Helio]

More like hypotheses? A theory is something sufficiently advanced that there is observable or experimental confirmation of the full or near full set of statements in the text.

I don’t actually know where the dividing line is between hypotheses and theories. Both must be objective based; both must make predictions that can be tested even if only in principle. Yes, the broader-based views are theories. But I see DE and Inflation shown as theories, perhaps because they affect the entire universe.

But your point is noteworthy for this topic because it won’t be easy to distinguish these with some ATM views. Climate science is not close to something like orbital mechanics, or GR. Consensus science is not science, and “science + politics = politics”, thus not science.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I have no objection to people posting and discussing the "ATM" views (note, my OP was not proposing bans or silencing) but a forum like this doesn't put those views to relevant experts, except by chance. These discussions have none of the rigor or guardrails that mainstream science conducted within academia has; those with out of the box views may find those entry requirements for being taken seriously onerous and excluding but there are sound reasons for them. I seriously doubt that we are missing out on significant or monumental insights - mainstream science is far to big, diverse and wide ranging for that. The bar may be very high (as it should be) but I don't see having such bars as evidence of jealous exclusivity or monolithic power. More like quality control.

In my experience anyone with well grounded hypotheses that are able to make the cut are unlikely to turn to science type internet forums at all - sorry but the quality as well as quantity of those that turn to forums like this is problematic.

I remain primarily interested in mainstream science and the remarkable achievements that continue to flow from it. I don't see discussing and arguing the validity of ATM views of relativity or cosmology or climate science or whatever as a good use of my time, nor entertaining. When Space.com has an article and forum discussion about something related to relativity or cosmology or climate science I don't want to wade though objections and arguments and conspiracy theories to find points of interest to discuss. Too much such wading and I become disinclined to participate.

I don't expect those discussions to be excluded but having derails of the subject under discussion redirected (by Moderator choice) to a Speculations/Hypotheses section might be a good compromise.

 

[Helio]

... I don't want to wade though objections and arguments and conspiracy theories to find points of interest to discuss. Too much such wading and I become disinclined to participate.

Yes, that's nicely put. Some threads have "water levels" that even "wading" is inadequate. Some occasional wading is fine.

It's hard to suggest, unfortunately, just where guard rails are needed to balance quantity with quality. Bueno suerte!

 

[mdswartz]

As a crank science guy myself, I'd appreciate a separate sub-forum, because other sites will permanently ban you just for expressing your truly believed ideas if they're outside of mainstream science. It would be a service to guys like me to provide such a sub-forum, placing you ahead of other science forums in this regard. Plus, it might help clear the more scholarly areas of your forum of crank science. So as a member of the crank science arena, I'd vote yes on a sub-forum and I'd be grateful.

 

[Ken Fabian]

@COLGeek - I do hope this isn't something that will load you up with extra duties; it does seem to require Moderator attention and some intervention.

 

[COLGeek]

@COLGeek - I do hope this isn't something that will load you up with extra duties; it does seem to require Moderator attention and some intervention.

It would just be another section, if approved, to monitor.

In that regard, not a big deal. Same rules for the rest of the forums would apply there as well.

There is a significant drawback, from my moderation experience, that would be a concern. Many that have these theories often advertise/self promote themselves (we would handle as spammers) -OR- they get really attached to their theories (lashing out at those who fail to grasp their meaning or challenge them). When that second thing happens, attacks are often employed and those end badly.

This is true regardless of whether a new section is added or not.

The moderation team will handle like we always do.

 

[George²]

truly believed ideas if they're outside of mainstream science.

Out of real science has many, hmm constructions for fraud with target to acquire money from believers. It use some like scientific terms and language, even mathematics to make it look like science, even though it is not science. Example is astrology.