Create new "Alternative theories" forum in Science section?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Feb 14, 2004.


Should a new "Alternative theories" forum be created?

Poll closed Mar 7, 2004.
  1. Yes, and I would post there regularly if it existed.

  2. Yes, but I would probably not post there often.

  3. No, the existing forums are sufficient.

  4. No. I have a better idea (see below).

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crazymikey Open-minded Scientist Registered Senior Member

    James, you initially wanted to call this forum "Alternative theories" and from your above, you clearly see calling alternative theories of science, psuedoscience, is inappropriate. Then why don't you change the title of the forum? No one loses anything, if you do.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I think that renaming "Pseudoscience" to "Pseudoscience and Alternative Theories" could be a good solution in regard to moving non-standard theories out of Physics and Math, but I don't think it is the solution that the people who post "alternative" theories want.

    My own opinion on this, as I have said before, is that an alternative theory is always either scientific or unscientific. We make the call, and put it where it belongs - either in a science forum or a pseudoscience one. But some people seem to think there's a grey area between the two, where rigorous standards of evidence and explanation shouldn't apply, but where ideas should be taken seriously nonetheless.

    BTW, I have no power to create or rename forums. That is Porfiry's domain.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R.,

    I would like to make a couple of points here on your post.

    It seems to me that there is a gray area and an area just for such issues is justified. It remains to be seen if it would be used effectively however.

    Mine I believe is a perfect example. My work certainly isn't up to the standard required by the Math & Phyics Forum. Dr Allard's work on my theory is another matter but it was never considered indepth or seriously.

    As it turns out I was right, as well as was Dr Allard, and all the name calling and off topic BS that was thrown was wasted time.

    The point is, not being fully presentable or formal to the standard of mainstream science, does not make ideas pseudoscience. It makes them incomplete. There is and should remain a big difference.

    Something posted in "Alternative Theories" can end up being moved into Pseudoscience if it is unsupportable or hopefully into Math & Physics Forum when ready.

    While UniKEF overall is far from scientific standards at this time, I would not think it belongs in psuedoscience because at this juncture UniKEF Gravity passes mathematical analysis and appears to offer advantages over other gravity concepts.

    I'll not expound at length further. Just wanted to make the point, a gray area, call it Purgatory if you want, is far better than merging with or relying on Pseudoscience for introduction of new ideas.

    Be it technically correct or not "Pseudoscience" carries a stigma. That stigma is not conducive to development of new ideas. (Nor is Math & Physics Forum -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page