Jump to content
Science Forums

Policy Question


Ben
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Phys & Math, the only sub I look at, there seems to be a culture of "you ask, we have the answer". I have no problem with this, absolutely none.

 

There are also posters there with, shall we say, anti-mainstream theories they wish to promote. These seem usually to be properly evaluated, and debunked by well-qualified members. This is a Good Thing

 

My question, though, is this: Is there any appetite for someone who has just learned something, to post what might be called a "tutorial thread"? That is, carrying other members along with the poster's recent learning experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

My question, though, is this: Is there any appetite for someone who has just learned something, to post what might be called a "tutorial thread"? That is, carrying other members along with the poster's recent learning experience?

 

I've had some good luck here along those lines. Best to just cook it up and serve it and see if anyone comes to the table. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if there are more and more of such threads we could make even a subsubforum for this. I like it a lot, I actually read more than I post (just so that you know).

 

Actually pondering it a bit more I think the idea of such a sub-sub-forum looks great to me, because so everyone knows what to find in those threads and/or where to create threads to share the illuminations of the own learning curve. But I don't like the name the name tutorial, would prefer something like "my intro to" or "my understanding of" or "????"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if there are more and more of such threads we could make even a subsubforum for this. I like it a lot, I actually read more than I post (just so that you know).

 

Actually pondering it a bit more I think the idea of such a sub-sub-forum looks great to me, because so everyone knows what to find in those threads and/or where to create threads to share the illuminations of the own learning curve. But I don't like the name the name tutorial, would prefer something like "my intro to" or "my understanding of" or "????"...

 

So, would each discipline have its own area for illuminations? It seems to me that if there's just one for all of hypography it would need to be somewhere that's highly visible.

 

In other words, I think the idea is great. If we can toss false modesty aside for just a few moments, we're all here at least partly to let other people know about little things we've learned. One problem, though, is that we might be tipping the table so everything in all of the threads will eventually seep into whatever forum is set up for the illuminations.

 

I have to admit I like the self-reflective discussion too.

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great idea. Any ideas on how it could be implemented practically?

Well, a section entitled "Challenges to Scientific Authority" obviously would not be well received by the administration. (My "spacetime" thread being a recent case-in-point.)

 

"Inspirations" are not considered valid science either, for the most part, I have gleaned... and certainly not "Visions!"

 

I'm just kidding the Admin and the moderators who assume authority in the form of power over those with "maverick*" ideas ... and beat up on them! :scratchchin:.. .

(*Please excuse the political key word reference from the recent election! )

 

But seriously... I would recommend a section entitled "Brainstorming Beyond Empirical Evidence and Mathematical Number Crunching" or similar intent.

(The saving grace would be a rule to define key terms up front and insist that replies either consent to the OP's definitions or be clear on his/her different meanings for the key words.

(This would have saved my "spacetime" thread from the disaster it became... in hindsight!)

Good idea. Hope something like that works out.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Brainstorming Beyond Empirical Evidence...

:lol::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::hihi::lol::hihi::lol::hihi::hyper::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::lol:

 

Yes, Michael. That'll be called "Science". As in "Science Fiction".

 

One of the pillars of the Scientific Method, is to be led by the data. If the data (empirical evidence) doesn't fit the theory, then the theory is wrong, wrong, wrong and needs revision.

 

Science is Empirical. You are at a Science Site. Connect the dots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously... I would recommend a section entitled "Brainstorming Beyond Empirical Evidence and Mathematical Number Crunching" or similar intent.

Michael, I was not suggesting a new "section", not even a sub-sub-forum. Others seem to like the latter idea, though. Obviously, if implemented, it would be a child of the parent sub-forum, and so all the usual expectations in the parent would apply equally to the child.

 

Now what's so hard about that?

 

You seem to be asking for your own funny-farm forum. I doubt this will be granted - just guessing..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::hihi::hihi::lol::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::hihi::lol::hihi::lol::hihi::hyper::hihi::hyper::lol::hihi::hyper::lol:

 

Yes, Michael. That'll be called "Science". As in "Science Fiction".

 

One of the pillars of the Scientific Method, is to be led by the data. If the data (empirical evidence) doesn't fit the theory, then the theory is wrong, wrong, wrong and needs revision.

 

Science is Empirical. You are at a Science Site. Connect the dots.

Maybe this needs another thread, but you, a moderator opened this particular can of worms.

 

Quite often in science, theory (in the broadest sense) develops from speculation, envisioning, brainstorming, etc. Science does not forbid such activity or insist that empirical data must be available to support all the above or it is just "science fiction."

 

For instance, how does M-theory stack up for supporting data vs being fantasy physics?

 

Or theories on the origin of the universe....?

Here is a "for instance" from Pluto's link in a cosmology thread... a NASA statement on the big bang... from:

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

 

It is not really forbidden for science to "speculate prior to supporting empirical data.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Michael. That's called "theorizing".

 

A "theory" is presented, and then predictions are made from this theory. Those predictions are tested against empirical data, and the theory predicting the closest results to the observed data steps out as the temporary winner.

 

And I have to stress the temporary part, because very much Newton/Einstein-like, the next theory which might be a closer fit to the data might always lurk around the next corner.

 

Theories are invented not for their own sake, but to explain the data. The empirical data is always the prime motivator for explanation, and if you're mulling over some grand scheme which is clearly in contradiction of the data from the get-go, then you're wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Michael. That's called "theorizing".

 

A "theory" is presented, and then predictions are made from this theory. Those predictions are tested against empirical data, and the theory predicting the closest results to the observed data steps out as the temporary winner.

 

And I have to stress the temporary part, because very much Newton/Einstein-like, the next theory which might be a closer fit to the data might always lurk around the next corner.

 

Theories are invented not for their own sake, but to explain the data. The empirical data is always the prime motivator for explanation, and if you're mulling over some grand scheme which is clearly in contradiction of the data from the get-go, then you're wasting your time.

 

You have totally dodged my point.

What predictions and and empirical data validate M-theory? Is it not "science" then by your very myopic definition?

 

How about NASA's admission that what was before the Bang remains speculative? Is science not allowed to "speculate" until it has empirical evidence to support whatever "theory?"

 

Is envisioning what might lie beyond our cosmic event horizon wasted speculation since we probably will never know?

 

Your idea of what science may legitimately include is very small minded.... not to mention your vehement bigotry against mystics and what metaphysics might be... Oopse... I just did mention it.

 

I am done with this little confrontation in an inappropriate thread.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have totally dodged my point.

What predictions and and empirical data validate M-theory? Is it not "science" then by your very myopic definition?

No. M-Theory and String Theory in general is not "Science". What it is, is a massive attempt at working out brand new maths for explaining the universe. As such, it currently has limited application and predictive power. It's a work in progress. Hence, M-theory. But the root cause, once again, is to reach a point where empirical data can be described. There's that word, again...:)

How about NASA's admission that what was before the Bang remains speculative? Is science not allowed to "speculate" until it has empirical evidence to support whatever "theory?"

Due to the fact that no information whatsoever could cross the Big Bang from whatever was before and the universe after, you could speculate to your heart's content as to what was there before. But apart from ignoring the obvious point that there was no "there", in the classical sense, before the Big Bang, it has absolutely no explanatory power towards the current universe. You can speculate till you're blue in the face, but if its not testable, it's not science. My personal favourite is that there was just this big yellow rubber duck floating in the empty void. And then it exploded. And there is no way that any speculation from your point of view towards what was before the BB can disprove my Rubber Duck Hypothesis. So you can speculate, sure - but you cannot extract anything worth a tom tit's tosser from speculation unless there's supporting data. Why don't you get it?

Is envisioning what might lie beyond our cosmic event horizon wasted speculation since we probably will never know?

Pretty much, yes. But don't let me stop you. Just make sure you open your threads regarding this in the "Strange Claims" Forum. Because it's not science. Unless you have data. In which case it will be Science, and you can open your threads regarding it basically anywhere relevant.

Your idea of what science may legitimately include is very small minded....

Calling the Scientific Method "small minded" is certainly your prerogative. But it works. I just wish you'd start understanding that simple concept.

...not to mention your vehement bigotry against mystics and what metaphysics might be.

:hihi:

From Wiki: (my bold)

The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Thus the original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists often consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences.

'Nuff said. I won't even bother with explaining why mysticism has no place at a Science Site. I think I've done my bit in exorcising that paricular evil here.

I am done with this little confrontation in an inappropriate thread.

I don't think so. I'm sure you'll reply. But I think we've done enough thread-jacking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boerseun,

 

Mysticism and science can get along just fine. They're vastly different ways of looking at the same world. It is possible to work toward a greater understanding of those things that can be understood while accepting that some things can't be understood.

 

That looks silly when I read it, so please don't ask me to explain it.

 

This seems off-topic. Is there a topic for it to be off?

 

Confusedly,

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...