I've noticed quite a bit of it popping up in the Philosophy of Science forums, and none of it is even remotely reminiscent of anything in the subject of Philosophy of Science; it is all nonsense and idle speculation. If we are to carry out this sort of idle speculation we should have a pseudoscience and speculation section.

I've noticed an immense wave of new age/ fringe science/ crack-pottery in that segment of the site. I think that we need to crack down on it because it detracts from legitimate lines of inquiry. Questions of physics should be asked in an area devoted to speculative physics or metaphysics, not an area that declares itself devoted to a subject that would normally feature the debate over whether or not Khun has strong points on this or that or Popper might be wrong on point x, y or z.

Does anyone else feel frustrated by this flood of nonsense?

Ultimately, I think there will always be issues with the philosophy of science subforum absent a science forum worked into this forum (much like with religion). Then we can add a science fiction/speculation subforum to send all of these threads to when appropriate.

I don't know if it's alright, but can you not just ignore them? I find it funny that you find frustration for yourself.

I understand your point. Perhaps a workable solution would be to make Kuhn or Popper the theme of particular threads. This avoids censorship, and still imposes, in theory, a certain "entry fee" of having read some Kuhn or Popper, for instance. If a forum law of "keeping to thread topic" was imposed, this would eliminate some of what annoys you, would it not? Still, one would have to wrestle with those who have only read the back of a book, or those who do not understand what they have indeed read. This takes us back to the realm of taste and opinion.

I think that it is better to expose falsehood than leave it be. Maybe I'm wrong in that preference.

And are you going to be the arbiter of the truth?

I never look at the heading of a thread before I comment, should it be science or general forum my response will be the same.

I find those who try to impose unfounded theories even if scientifically proposed, crack pot, when given as if they were facts.

I understand your point. Perhaps a workable solution would be to make Kuhn or Popper the theme of particular threads. This avoids censorship, and still imposes, in theory, a certain "entry fee" of having read some Kuhn or Popper, for instance. If a forum law of "keeping to thread topic" was imposed, this would eliminate some of what annoys you, would it not? Still, one would have to wrestle with those who have only read the back of a book, or those who do not understand what they have indeed read. This takes us back to the realm of taste and opinion.

I suspect a physics forum would offer a higher level of philosophy of science, but that's just a guess.

I just noticed you live in my state. Always good to see a neighbor around the forum.

Not at all, I was hoping we could have some basic standards of intellectual rigor that could be generally mutually agreed upon by most somewhat reputable members. For instance, in scientific threads, the requirement of being able to produce at least 2 papers published by researchers in the area you are making claims about if you actually make a truth claim (that is, if you want to claim that you are doing anything more than raw speculation).

Or, if you start a subject about a well researched area of philosophy, the requirement that you put in one or two links that could summarize your position; such as might be found in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Although; if you don't have anything very specific to say about a well known problem in full academic rigor, then this shouldn't be a requirement.



Wait, do you mean you have an automatic introductory response to every thread? Why do you do this? How does that aid you?



That is the general notion of crackpot as I understand it. For instance; the colloidal silver people who try to push their dangerous products with pseudo-scientific rhetoric. If someone claims that their theory is well founded and well tested; then they should be able to support such a claim with some manner of evidence tantamount to something like a few articles published in a well respected journal on the relevant topic, even if only the abstracts are available for general viewing (which is often the case). They have to be able to lend some degree of credibility to the claims they make.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 03:27 AM ----------



Most physics forums offer no level of philosophy of science, unfortunately. Also, I do like the law of "keeping with the topic", but I had thought there already was one instated here. As I have indicated above; I am looking specifically for standards of rigor when a specific topic is being talked about. When we are simply discussing, pondering, shooting the breeze this isn't necessary, however; when truth claims are made they have to be defended. That should be the dividing line.

Yes, it's good to see neighbors:).

If science fiction, then why not magic and necromancy? How about having philosophy forum? Is that such a bizarre notion?

Not at all, I was hoping we could have some basic standards of intellectual rigor that could be generally mutually agreed upon by most somewhat reputable members. For instance, in scientific threads, the requirement of being able to produce at least 2 papers published by researchers in the area you are making claims about if you actually make a truth claim (that is, if you want to claim that you are doing anything more than raw speculation).

Or, if you start a subject about a well researched area of philosophy, the requirement that you put in one or two links that could summarize your position; such as might be found in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Although; if you don't have anything very specific to say about a well known problem in full academic rigor, then this shouldn't be a requirement.