Yeah... it's probably just a quirk of my upbringing, but to me, addressing someone by their last name alone in an informal context like this site comes across as a way to belittle them.
I guess mine is not a very common view of the practice.
I was thinking about various ways to make telescope at home with household items or easily accessible items like Steel vessel, magnifying lens, toy binoculars or toy cameras etc.
Reflector telescope
Can I make reflector telescope using steel vessel? Can it give me fine quality as a concave mirr...
Today, I accidentally went through the questions under telescopes tag and all questions confused me totally. Looks like, there are many questions that seem to me like off-topic. I've listed several questions (There are more). They're confusing me a lot... (on-topic or off-topic).
Could someone s...
@Dilaton Comments are for improving the answer. If a comment effectively says "this is wrong", it is OK. Yes, a comment of the form "show us a magnetic monopole" is slightly rude, but all it is saying is "We have never observed a monopole experimentally thus the statement 'monopoles certainly exist' is not correct". The owner of the post may take the comment into account and modify his post. On the other hand, "+1 this is correct" doesn't help improving the post in any manner.
@Dilaton How do you know that other people have not been warned as well? We don't always reprimand people in public. We can do so via private chatrooms, mod messages, and flag decline reasons as well.
@Dilaton none of the comments say that poster does for whatever personal reasons (?) not BELIEVE in magnetic monopoles Tell me which one.
I don't see any such non-deleted comment like that
@DavidZaslavsky Somebody keeps deleting my comment explaining why I think that Ron's answer is not that bad but legitimate, whereas Sklivvz's in a rude manner stated objection is allowed to stay there. If this biased picture, wrongly giving the impression that everybody agrees with with Sklivvz's objection and every comment expressing another opinion (saying it is a good answer and why) gets deleted, I will excalate this to meta. In my comment I have said the following:
Nice answer,+1. In the same way as it is legitimate for more experimentally inclined people to dismiss the existance of magnetic monopoles, theoretical physicists are allowed to explaine why they are rather convinced of their existance from theoretical reasons. This is exactly what Ron nicely does in his answer, so there is nothing wrong writh it from a physics point of view.
@Qmechanic My comment is at least as constructive as Sklivvz's objection to the answer, to not biase the review of the community BOTH comments or NONE of them should be allowed to stay there. Deleting every comment saying anything positive about this answer, is unfair, biased, and wrong.
I notice a some questions that might be better for Photography. These might be a justified merge, or is it? Do we feel this fits with the Astronomy part of Physics SE?
Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?
Telescopes to avoid as a beginner?
This one I kn...
Does anyone know of an existing question about finding the height as a function of displacement of a string under gravity with minimal gravitational potential energy?
But the deal is this: 1. I don't like online websites that have these "tutorials"; I like books instead. 2. I like books that are very easy to read and not in the textbook format :-)
Theoretical physics is pretty cool to talk about, but the place where it gets dirty is where the math comes in!
@Manishearth actually no, just saying "this is wrong" is not OK. Saying "this is wrong because <reasons>" is good.
@Dilaton That's still not a constructive comment. It's not offensive or rude or anything like that, so it wouldn't be proactively deleted, but it also doesn't add anything. It doesn't state an objection to the answer or another comment or suggest an improvement. There's nothing wrong with making such comments, but like I said, they're prone to deletion when we're cleaning up comments for other reasons.
Basically: your comment is polite but not constructive (i.e. neither harmful nor useful), whereas Sklivvz's comment was constructive but not polite (i.e. both useful and harmful, though not excessively so IMO)
On top of the license status there is always the "fair use" provision in copyright law.
IANAL and IP law is horribly complicated, but using one figure out of a paper (appropriately cited) is often fair use, though I believe that this claim assumes that the figure does not make up a large portion of the article you are citing.
I also don't know how the adage equating a picture with a kiloword works into the issue.
@DavidZaslavsky I most strongly disagree with your definition of "constructive". Why is it only constructive to disagree with a given answer (without explaining it by a physics reason) whereas supporting it (by explaining why physically) should not be allowed or constuctive?
I do disagree with another comment, I disagree with Sklivvz who says that this answer is wrong or bad because of theoretical physics reasons!
You seem to think very very biased David in this case and not scientific at all. Leaving only Sklivviz comment there would give a completely wrong and scientifically very badly biased and wrong picture.
If my comment, that disagrees with Sclivvz because of physics reasons gets deleted again, I will escalate this.
There are reasons considering theoretical physics which support Ron's point of view, and not allowing to stat these, while his point of view is critizised is very very very unscientific. It should not happen on a serious physics site that things get distorted like this by suppreppressing completely legitimate and scientifically founded point of view of a topic. This makes Physices SE look not good, in the eyes of bypassing experts who know what is right from a physics point of view,
if such things are allowed to happen.
Hi @twistor59 can you help here? I did not expect things detoriating that far such that certain perfectly valid (rather theoretical) points of view get actievely suppressed by deleting the corresponding comments and mass downvoting the respective (in this cas Ron's) answers by a moderator or anybody with enough power to delete.
Hmm tricky, I personally wouldn't have made the statement "monopoles certainly exist", because I'd always defer that level of confidence to experimentalists. But then Ron knows more physics than me!
@twistor59 if you ask well known theoretical physicists, such as Lenny Susskind for example, Lumo probably too, they would say similar things. The 7 downvotes only occured after Sklivvz has started to complain about the first sentence at about December 23 or 24. Before this the answer had always its well deserved postitive score.
I personally would not stat the first sentence in such a strong way either. But this is only because I do not know theoretical physics as well as people working in the field, such as Susskind, Polchinsky, Lumo, and many others, do.
Yeah, I just don't have enough knowledge of those issues to make a statement like that with 100% confidence. If you'd asked me 9 months ago if the Higgs exists, I would have said "almost certainly", but I wouldn't have gone for the 100%. But I'm just an armchair physicist!
Mass downvoting this answer just because of this strongly stated first sentence, whereas the physics of the whole answer is ok, is definitively over the top and not appropriate. About this nothing can be done.
But if David says only critisicing Ron's theoretical point of view is allowed, whereas defening it by physics reasoning is not allowed or constructive, this is very biase and unscientific.
As Lumo and I explained in the corresponding meta discussion, it is normal for cutting edge not yet settled open questions, such as the existance of magnetic monopoles as (at present not measurable) heavy elementary particles, the have diverging points of view when you ask different esxperts.
As I said in my comment, which David conntinuosly describes as useless and not constructive, it is natural the experimental physicists are in such a situation more sceptic and theoretical physicists are often more confident for theoretical reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, you only have to look at the firewall stuff to see an example. Big names having opposite opinions. I think, though that it's good when the experts point out that their stated opinion is not the only one, i.e that there are other views.
But what IS wrong is intentionally suppressing the one or the other point of view, such as David (or the person who continuously deletes my comment stating the alternative point of view) does.
It is not constructive to disagree with a given answer without explaining it. A statement like "I disagree with this" is no more constructive than "This is wrong" or "+1 this is correct."
@DavidZaslavsky if you dont mean or said that, then why do you not accept that my comment, stating the alternative point of view, disagreeing with Sklivvz, and supporting Ron's anwer, accept and be there too? If you dont and only allow critival opinions about the answer, you ARE suppressing the rather theoretical point of view, which is hold by many well know theorists knowldedgable about the subject.
A comment which says something like "Sklivvz, it's not necessary to have observed a magnetic monopole to know that they exist because <reason>" would be quite fine.
I did in my actual comment just say +1 this is correct. I said a similar thing like I said in a (highly upvoted!) now deleted comment in the corresponding meta discussion. I explained why Ron's point of view is valid to. Why do you not understand and/or accept this @DavidZaslavsky? You are biasing the physics by continuously deleting my comment.
I don't see what I have to understand or accept. Like you just said, in your comment you simply said effectively "+1 this is correct," and as I'm telling you, that is not a constructive comment.
Also note that it is not my job to avoid "biasing the physics."
@DavidZaslavsky I can expand the comment to include what you suggest. But is it your job to CONTIBUTE to the biasing of the physics here, I thought rather not ...?
A moderator's job is to help maintain the site, by deleting nonconstructive and inappropriate comments, among other things. If a majority of the comments expressing one opinion are constructive and a majority of the comments expressing the opposite opinion are not constructive, then by doing our job, yes, we will introduce some bias into the discussion. That's not something we are expected to avoid.
It's up to the people posting the comments to make them constructive. As I've explained in detail, you can post a constructive comment taking either point of view.
@DavidZaslavsky his is just hair splitting. I guess you rather want to delete comments explaining the theoretical point of view, because you personally agree with the more experimentally inclined people. Saying my comment is not constructive for formal reasons, whereas it is clear (Manishearth agreed with me) what I am talking about, is just nitpicking.
Hi Sklivvz. Please do not think I am attaking you. I just want to achieve that I have the right to equally state my different physics opinion too. Both or our comments should be allowed to be there because both are objectively legitimate points of view.
OK - I didn't state an opinion on the matter though
i mean on monopoles :-)
only on the answer itself. I personally tend to agree with Ron on the specific position
However, if a physicist detected a monopole, they would certainly win a Nobel prize. This, in my view, gives a much better idea of how uncertain the position is.
2
Most physicists were convinced of the existence of ether. They tried really really hard to find it but... :-)
I think if Ron answers the monopole question from his theoretical point of view, he is not oblidged to mention the alternative opinions who are not his own too. He could of course. People who have an other point of view, usually write their own answer to complete the spectrum of actually valid scientific points of view.
@Sklivvz concerning the ether it was probably the same issue ;-). Before it was excluded for sure, both points of view were valid I guess (maybe I am wrong).
But what I strongly disagree about with you, is the strange definition of (non) constructive comment to delete comments. I am not sure if all of the four other moderators see it in the same way.
And that you take the risk of stongly biase the science or physics truth stated on the site by deleting specific important physics comments just for "formal" reasons is really shoking to me.
I always thought that doing our best in being scientifically or physically most accurate is among the goals of the sites, which should not be sacrificed just for formal nitpicking about the form of a comment if the content is valid. If it is allowed that the science gets strongly biased for now good reasons, this site is really lost.
@Dilaton: Dude, stackexchange has long had a policy against '+1, nice answer' comments. They really don't add content, and they clutter up the page. I think David is completely in the right here.
@user1504 it is not only this, I do not only say +1 there, I have extended my reasoning even more now. In the corresponding meta discussion about the monopoles, highly upvoted, polite, and important physics comment of Lubos and me were deleted too. I am still shoked that David is willing to intentionally sacrifice or at least endanger the scientific integrity of the site.
That is what his sentence "If a majority of the comments expressing one opinion are constructive and a majority of the comments expressing the opposite opinion are not constructive, then by doing our job, yes, we will introduce some bias into the discussion." actually means in my opinion.
I notice a some questions that might be better for Photography. These might be a justified merge, or is it? Do we feel this fits with the Astronomy part of Physics SE?
Novice interested in buying a used telescope. What questions should I ask?
Telescopes to avoid as a beginner?
This one I kn...
