Policy Question

[Ben]

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?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Ben

...
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.

[sanctus]

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 "????"...

[lemit]

Originally Posted by sanctus

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

[Tormod]

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

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Tormod

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! .. .
(*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

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Brainstorming Beyond Empirical Evidence...

:hy per:

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.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

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..............

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

:hy per:

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

[Boerseun]

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.