Suggestion: Change "pseudoscience" forum to...

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Arthur C. Clarke
 
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' "

Max Planck
 
Stryder said:
Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.
Click to expand...
Science is, of course, in part speculation. Science is not simply the specific testing portion of research. Science is a complicated set of activities that include speculation, brainstorming, wondering, hypothesizing, exploratory discussion, etc.

The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums.
Click to expand...
Actually I would guess the most irritating ones are older. But whatever their age, those posts can be shifted to a differently titled subforum.
 
Simon Anders said:
Originally Posted by Stryder
Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.
Click to expand...

Science is, of course, in part speculation. Science is not simply the specific testing portion of research. Science is a complicated set of activities that include speculation, brainstorming, wondering, hypothesizing, exploratory discussion, etc.
Click to expand...

Nicely said.


The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums.
Click to expand...

Actually I would guess the most irritating ones are older. But whatever their age, those posts can be shifted to a differently titled subforum.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps they could be left with this forum and theories that clearly have more merit (a certain conspiracy comes to mind) could be shifted over to the new forum. At the very least, certain absurdly large threads should be allowed their own forum, where theories that are forcefully contained in a single thread would be allowed a little more breathing room.
 
James R said:
You're new here, aren't you? Why are you so interested in restructuring the forum, if you haven't been here long enough to even get a feel for it.

It's almost as if you're a disgruntled ex-member, returned under a new name...
Click to expand...

Actually I'm really a new member. It's just that I'm a member on a few forums and so I can tell when the forums are a police-state. Mods shouldn't be injecting their opinions onto the forum in the sense of moving around things they don't agree with or locking threads, or limiting threads. They should keep things civil. That's all.
 
ScyentsIzLief said:
Actually I'm really a new member. It's just that I'm a member on a few forums and so I can tell when the forums are a police-state. Mods shouldn't be injecting their opinions onto the forum in the sense of moving around things they don't agree with or locking threads, or limiting threads. They should keep things civil. That's all.
Click to expand...

Incidentally which forums are you a member of? I mean are they casual forums, gamer forums, etc You'll find depending on the type of forums you deal with there will be a fairly different way of operating. Sciforums while being casual attempts to try and underline the need to be Scientific and that underlining obviously means that "...the Seed needs to be separated from the Chaff."
 
Stryder said:
Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.

The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums. Unfortunately if they aren't made aware of their speculation being nothing but scifi, they will grow up to be complete wack jobs that nobody will take seriously.

In essence perhaps it should be called "The School of Hard Knocks" (albeit maybe it's a lot softer than some usually find in such schools)
Click to expand...

You must think you're better than everyone else. You must think everything you have learned is right. The problem with your arrogance is that it blinds you from the actual truth.

Yes science is black and white, that's why it was so obvious to me what type of mods you people were. I am willing to bet that NONE of the mods has ever checked ANYTHING they put in "pseudoscience" to make sure if its a valid claim. They simply dismiss it if that isn't what they learned in high school or college.

"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford

Maybe this quote should be on the top banner.
 
Last edited:
Simon Anders said:
Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.
Click to expand...

Perfect, except we need to drop one word to make it relevant:

Alternative, Non-mainstream, Speculations
 
Stryder said:
Incidentally which forums are you a member of? I mean are they casual forums, gamer forums, etc You'll find depending on the type of forums you deal with there will be a fairly different way of operating. Sciforums while being casual attempts to try and underline the need to be Scientific and that underlining obviously means that "...the Seed needs to be separated from the Chaff."
Click to expand...

I've been in a couple science forums, general discussion forums, game forums, dating forums (lol), etc.

So I know how mods act. THEY DON'T INJECT SUBJECTIVITY.
 
(Q) said:
Perfect, except we need to drop one word to make it relevant:

Alternative, Non-mainstream, Speculations
Click to expand...

No offense but that's retarded. Speculation suggests that one doesn't have hard evidence to back it up.

When you look at how the towers fell, just simply looking, you KNOW something is wrong. There has been time in history where buildings were on fire for hours and didn't fall, and we should expect the twins towers to fall like it did? And tower 7 to fall for NO reason? BS!
 
ScyentsIzLief said:
No offense but that's retarded. Speculation suggests that one doesn't have hard evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

If by retarded, you're referring to your analytical interpretations and definitions, then no, it isn't retarded based on that fact that whatever is moved into this forum is not a branch of science.

When you look at how the towers fell, just simply looking, you KNOW something is wrong. There has been time in history where buildings were on fire for hours and didn't fall, and we should expect the twins towers to fall like it did? And tower 7 to fall for NO reason? BS!
Click to expand...

Your ill-informed speculations are prime for such a forum, and further demonstrate the need to remove the word, 'science' from the descriptor.
 
Pseudoscience: is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method.

The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?

The Earth Expanding Theory backed by peer-reviewed science isn't adhering to the scienctific method?

Science is truth. Science isn't "what I believe....because my mommy told me back in the day."
 
ScyentsIzLief said:
Well for start, this is the only forum that moves topics without a valid reason.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not all Sciforumers can be taught the right forum to post in:
elephant1.jpg


This is why moderators have to move things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top