Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:07

OK, we probably should discuss the non mainstream one now. In the meantime, think about "engineering questions" and see if you can come up with a good wording if necessary

Colin McFaul

@DavidZaslavsky If the math-specific reason is supposed to be temporary, and non-VTC'ers are meant to use the general "belongs somewhere else" reason, then we should get rid of the math-specific reason.

ManishEarth

@ColinMcFaul Belongs somewhere else has a specific Math subreason now :)

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth Ah. Even better.

ManishEarth

About the non mainstream policy, here's the way I put it:

Crazy Buddy

@DavidZaslavsky I had proposed it for scicomp and chem...

Bad luck - only math had higher migrations...

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:09

> Any post that attempts to work within the bounds of what we have determined to be "mainstream physics" is considered on topic for this site. A question that proposes a new concept, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK.

> Similarly, a wrong answer that makes false statements but claims to work within the bounds of a mainstream theory is also allowed. On the other hand, if a question or answer uses a non-mainstream theory as its premise and attempts to go forward in that direction, it can be safely deleted.

~~See also, the discussion below this meta.MO thread~~

Basically, our current reason conveys that established physics (one which you don't see journal articles about) is off topic

wait wrong meta.mo link

See the comments below this thread

One alternate wording is:

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Posts should be about topics that have been published in reputable journals.

Alternatively

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Posts should work within the bounds of physics that has been published in reputable journals.

David Zaslavsky

Well, but physics doesn't have to have been published in a reputable journal to make it mainstream

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth I think this is far enough for theories...

ManishEarth

That one's a bit awkward

@DavidZaslavsky We allow posts that propose new (mainstream) theories?

David Zaslavsky

@Manishearth well, like what?

ManishEarth

Not sure

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 17:14

I haven't seen any yet ..! :P

David Zaslavsky

If a post is literally just proposing a theory, then it's not a question

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky Asking for evaluation of a new theory, then it is

"Does this make sense?"

David Zaslavsky

Well, if it's more specific than "Does this make sense?" then yeah, it should be fine

ManishEarth

kk

user54412

This is tricky - we want to exclude people from proposing their own theories ("neutrinos are really cupcakes!!111!") - while still allowing people to ask "Is this theory I heard about on solid ground?"

4

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:15

So, any idea what the reason should be?

@ChrisWhite yeah

David Zaslavsky

But I'm also thinking about things like Newton's laws. Their discovery was not published in a journal, because journals didn't exist at the time, but they're definitely mainstream physics

What @Chris said

Colin McFaul

@DavidZaslavsky Yes, I was going to mention that exact example.

user54412

it almost seems like the discriminant is "did you come up with this, or did someone else?"

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky yeah the journal reference is likely to be misleading

ManishEarth

Hmm, yeah

David Zaslavsky

Jul 9, 2013 17:16

@Chris I don't think that should be it though. If someone manages to ask a good question about their own, legitimate theory, that should be allowed.

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky not trying to be cynical, but has that ever happened?

David Zaslavsky

Non-mainstream physics is kind of one of those "I know it when I see it" things

@Chris probably not

but I'm not sure

ManishEarth

Again, there's a difference between a theory that proposes new physics and a theory that proposes a new way of looking at old physics, and asks for evaluation within the framework of established physics

Yeah, doubt that will happen.

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything giving an aura of child pornography is off-topic for this site.

user54412

(Obligatory supreme court reference.)

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:18

lol

Crazy Buddy

Let me conclude..! *Proposal* --> NO..!
*Check if something is right?* --> Not yes... Okay'ish --> I have seen "closed as TL" if it's far too basic ..!

ManishEarth

For example, this controversial question is the latter type. It doesn't propose a new theory, it proposes a new way of looking at strings and asks if it works.

David Zaslavsky

I would say the characteristic most shared by non-mainstream posts is a disregard for existing evidence

@Chris thanks ;-)

Crazy Buddy

Oops... No TL now..! :/

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky hmm, yep

David Zaslavsky

Jul 9, 2013 17:20

@Manishearth One thing about that question is that the OP did not seem to have the requisite background knowledge to be proposing new ideas in string theory

ManishEarth

yes, but I'm not sure if that's a good criteria

David Zaslavsky

It certainly doesn't cover all non-mainstream posts

ManishEarth

yeah

Also, it sounds like "Only PhDs can talk about new physics here". Not really, but along the same lines as that.

David Zaslavsky

And posts like that can perhaps also be grouped under too broad or unclear. So I don't think we necessarily have to tailor our non-mainstream reason to them.

ManishEarth

Yeah

David Zaslavsky

Jul 9, 2013 17:24

@ManishEarth yeah, pretty much. Not that you need to have a PhD to ask about new physics, but you need to have a solid understanding of the relevant existing physics to ask about new physics, and that solid understanding is at a level that most people can only acquire in grad school

ManishEarth

true

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Personal ideas that propose alternatives to standard treatments are off topic unless they have been deemed worthy of investigation by some part of the physics community, or have been shown to explain previously unexplained observations. As a rule of thumb, topics that would not be mentioned in reputable journals are a poor fit for this site.

user54412

^ Meh - just a draft to get people commenting on something definite

David Zaslavsky

Not bad

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Oh.. my... What a lengtheeeyy comment for personal theory..? Wouldn't the theorist be busy to read that?

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:28

@ChrisWhite I like it

Colin McFaul

More possible thoughts: We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, your question will need to
be specific in order to fit this format.

user54412

@CrazyBuddy you'd be surprised how industrious crackpots can be - many of them I feel would make good scientists/mathematicians if only they had been given a mainstream education

ManishEarth

@ColinMcFaul Yep. That would also go nicely in the accompanying meta post

David Zaslavsky

@ColinMcFaul That I think is the main idea that should underlie this close reason: that we can't evaluate new theories.

But it doesn't necessarily need to be in the close reason.

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite Very true... ;-)

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 17:31

@ColinMcFaul that is definitely needed somewhere - several of the other science sites already make it explicit that they are not there for preprint checking, and we should follow

Colin McFaul

I agree; we don't necessarily need it in the close reason. I'm mostly trying to feel out what the difference is between "good" new theory questions and "bad" new theory questions.

ManishEarth

CS has this:

> Questions about the general correctness of unpublished preprints and solutions of major open problems are off-topic. For more information, see [our policy for questions about preprints]."

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth Er... do we have a policy on personal theories..? :P

ManishEarth

N-M physics = personal theory

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth I like that wording with "preprints and solutions of major open problems" replaced with "personal theories."

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 17:36

@ManishEarth == ? or are you assigning your personal theory to NM physics? :P

Colin McFaul

and maybe adding a sentence to the effect of "specific questions might be on topic."

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Grr. free(ChrisWhite). There. Problem solved.

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. While specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are allowed, questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic. For more information, see Physics Meta

Colin McFaul

i like that.

ManishEarth

Yep

David Zaslavsky

Jul 9, 2013 17:40

I'd like to see something more along the lines of "may be allowed" in the first part of the second sentence.

ManishEarth

Yeah

Crazy Buddy

@ChrisWhite: Okay... the 10k user is contributing now :D

ManishEarth

"generally off topic"

@CrazyBuddy hat did he do? Vote to delete in the review queue?

user54412

whoa - [meta]() -> [Physics Meta](http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com) in chat? Testing: Physics Meta()

ManishEarth

No, [meta] --> Physics Meta

[main] --> Physics

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 17:41

@ManishEarth VTD? I thought it was for 20k users..!

(Nah... he doesn't review at all)

ManishEarth

[help] --> help center when used in a comment

David Zaslavsky

Maybe flip it around:

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Physics Meta.

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Oh, also you can see full review queue history now. And you can vote to delete closed questions with <=-3 score.

David Zaslavsky

This is for the close reason, right?

user54412

yes

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:42

@DavidZaslavsky yep

That works too

user54412

Yeah, I was debating which order that sentence should be written

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Btw, see Magic links

@ChrisWhite By far, the most useful one is How to Ask ([ask])

user54412

David's wording definitely flows better; I think there is a small chance someone reads it as "Some personal theory questions are bad, but some are good, and yours might just be in this category"

ManishEarth

Well,

> specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science

is pretty objective

so if a question is a non "within the context" question, that immediately shuts it down

If a question is "within the context", then we may have issues

user54412

I'm just talking about word order - usually when there is a "but" I think the wording following it is what really applies; everything that came before was a setup for a plot twist

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:48

ah right

user54412

but smoothness of speech is just as important as parsing rules, so I'm not against David's wording

ManishEarth

David Zaslavsky

My thought is that by putting the wording about non-mainstream questions being off topic first, we subtly induce people to first think that their question is off topic by default, but then if (specific exception) applies to it, maybe it is on topic.

user54412

It's a meme!

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky yeah

user54412

Jul 9, 2013 17:51

@DavidZaslavsky do we want these questions to be reworded? are some of them salvageable? (I don't know the answer to this - just asking)

ManishEarth

For those of you who use the terminal a lot: finalterm.org

@ChrisWhite Sometimes.

See, we have those "PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE TROLOLOLOL" questions

And then we have the ones which propose something newish and ask for evaluation, but have a good question hidden in the core

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth Cool ;-)

David Zaslavsky

@ChrisWhite I think in most cases they are not

ManishEarth

Yeah that too

most cases (the ones you don't see) aren't

Colin McFaul

@ManishEarth "essential stuff such as vim does not run inside Final Term yet" :(

ManishEarth

Jul 9, 2013 17:54

I know, I know

user54412

Ok, well then I like David's wording - can we apply bold?

user54412

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta].

ManishEarth

yep

same bolding as the current one

David Zaslavsky

Yeah, I was just too lazy to copy the bold

BTW now I want cupcakes :-/

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky If you were using Final Term it would have copied the bold for you :P

David Zaslavsky

Jul 9, 2013 17:56

huwhat now?

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite This is an example of what most non mainstream things look like (we get more N-M answers, though)

@DavidZaslavsky finalterm.org. Terminal that's really a GUI in disguise

David Zaslavsky

I see

cool :-)

Crazy Buddy

Even 2 hrs. isn't enough for us to discuss a simple close reason... Lazy? or Complex'ey?

user54412

I think we're within $\epsilon$ of a consensus on this one

ManishEarth

@CrazyBuddy The whole point of these close changes was to introduce clarity

On both sides

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 17:58

I know...

user54412

@ManishEarth I remember that post - I have a downvote on it

ManishEarth

It's now much clearer to me what I can flag on SO. And I bet some of our VTCers have realized that HW sans concepts is off topic even if work is shown

@ChrisWhite ah

5 mins ago, by Chris White

> We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see [Physics Meta].

^ any objections/improvements?

Crazy Buddy

Crap... I hate HWs to the core..! Shall we ban homework and kill everything in it? :P

David Zaslavsky

@ManishEarth It might be worth making a faq meta post about non-mainstream physics now and putting that link in the close reason

The post can just be a stub for now, and then we can fill it in afterwards

user54412

Agreed

Crazy Buddy

Jul 9, 2013 18:01

@ManishEarth: I was satisfied with 3 quotes I think..!

ManishEarth

@DavidZaslavsky Yep

Anyone up to doing that?

I could try

But not right now

David Zaslavsky

Same here, I don't feel like doing it right now. I could later today (~10 hours) though.

ManishEarth

kk

Crazy Buddy

So, we've finally clarified 2 of our reasons..?

Non Mainstream Physics close reason discussion

The h Bar

Participants