Pseudoscience is one of the popular places to put questions, half-baked theories and ideas where the discussion crosses the line between science consensus and speculation. Pseudoscience often gets the threads started by young people who have not learned the basics of science, who have pet theories that are half-baked, or who have speculative ideas that go beyond where science can go when applying the scientific method.
How people are treated in the various science forums should reflect the level of science, i.e. hard science topics or Pseudoscience. I view Pseudoscience as a place to encourage science, to recognize the ideas with understanding, to let people talk and discuss those ideas from the perspective that science starts with ideas, and most of all to help that individual focus on the basics of science that their ideas show a lack of.
Pseudo science is a place where people can post work which is their own or not part of the mainstream view, but which the poster is trying to say "Hey, why isn't this part of science, I think it's good!". A fair assessment of one of the purposes of Pseudo?
Now, if you want something to eventually elevate to the level of being taken seriously by scientists you need to show that what you're pushing meets various criteria, are you making claims you can't back up?
It's entirely possible to have no quantitative framework and to talk about new ideas, non-mainstream ones. This is done by realising that you
don't have 'simple explainations', you don't have results, you don't have much to go on, you are just starting out on your work.
But you and people like CSS aren't doing that. Look at CSS, he claims he's got simple explainations to dark energy but can't describe dark energy, can't provide experiments to test his work, can't provide anything other than vague concepts and poorly explained arm wavings.
So why make those claims?
It should be easy work. But it isn’t accomplished by referring to science that the individual obviously doesn’t understand and then saying they have been “told” they are wrong and yet they still hang around. There is a huge difference between working with a newcomer and “telling them they are wrong” and then starting the character assignation staring with mild ad homs and piling on by those who are charged up by that activity.
CSS claim : I've a model of the universe built using helix fractals
Us : You're wrong because a helix isn't a fractal. Can you provide anything to back up your claims?
CSS : You're mean, go away!
CSS makes a claim he knows he can't back up on something he's easily demonstrably wrong on and
we're the bad people for correcting him? Should we just ignore him and let him make claims which involve "A helix as a fractal" when it's categorically not valid? Why come here if you're unwilling to be corrected
on anything? Seriously, why do you come to a forum if you cry whenever anyone corrects you? You
refuse to accept any correction, why? Do you believe you're perfect and no one can possibly be able to correct you? Given you ignore any and all corrections this must be the case, yet you call
us egotistical for correcting you. It's
our fault you aren't perfect but you wish you were?!
Come on, explain why it's egotistical of us to correct you on simple facts in areas you know nothing about and we do. Why is it egotistical for us to say "That isn't true" when you say something which isn't true? Why is it
not egotistical of you to make claims you're doing work much much better than what you are actually doing? Why isn't it egotistical of CSS to claim he's got a simple explaination for dark energy when he knows nothing about GR or quantum mechanics? Prom and I
do know things about that but we don't make such grand claims, yet we get called egotistical?! :shrug:
I want you to clarify what behaviour you do and don't think is egotistical and why. And I want you to clarify why you're above the scientific methodology and review that other people trying to do science have to submit to. You're
trying to get people to believe your work is worthwhile but you complain when we see if it meets basic scientific criteria. Why? If you don't want to do science, why not post in the religion forum?