Criteria for threads in the Alternative Theories forum

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by James R, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    I would like to see a Hypothesis forum. For anything that's not quite a theory, it's a little insulting to go straight to the Pseudo-science forum.
    Landau Roof likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    The "Alternative Theories" subforum is full of hypotheses, guesswork and vague ideas. It seems that few people were interested in us applying scientific standards to this forum when it was created, so posts here don't have to be proper theories.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    An alternative theory has to have some merit, an alternative theory should have present knowledge defined in it. The reason, an alternative theory is looking to Paradox the present theories, and need more persuasive content than just make believe.

    Years of science and experiment can not be overturned by imagination, without having some credible facts or undeniable to all observers facts.

    However, saying this, it should also not be overlooked, that sometimes the forum member making the theory, may not be aware of the context involved in words alone. And misuse of words, is an often problem for individuals whom believe they have an idea with merit.

    This often results in misunderstanding and not being understood.

    Often the individual will get banned without a second glance, by simply the ignorance of not knowing the correct terminology.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    I second cosmictotem's proposal. It's a very good idea. I know there are a lot of pseudo-geniuses that come here thinking their going to show us how wrong and stupid general relativity is, yet it's a bit fascist to label whatever we see as wrong as stupid as pseudoscience without perhaps really understanding what is being said. If nothing else a Hypothesis/Hypotheses Forum could be a half way house.
    cosmictotem likes this.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Just relabel the present "ALTERNATIVE THEORIES" correctly.
    It should be changed to "Alternative Hypothesis"

    Afterall, there are no "scientific theories" there...they are all hypothesis, of varying degrees of advancement, and need to undergo peer review before advancing to scientific theory stage, or banished to pseudoscience or cesspool.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think that what is needed is a clear mission statement for the "Alternative Theories" forum. It should have had one from the start, but nobody was interested at the time it was created.

    It doesn't matter what it is called, really.
  10. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Alternative speculation would be a better forum title. People speculate, ''form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence''.

    A Hypothesis is ''a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation''.

    Where has a theory -''a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.''

    a supposition - ''a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis''

    So anything but Hypothesis really?
  11. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    IMO, it's the interpreting that's always the problem. for some reason, everyone wants to " interpret " everything. this is usually a resort of comprehension skills. one needs to interpret what is stated in attempt to understand. maybe it does pertain to correct terminology, but for me, i do not see that.
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Why not combine them into a General Bunkum section?
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Isn't this a bit like sorting dwarves into short dwarves and even shorter dwarves?
  14. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    An alternative theory is exactly that, an alternative to present information. Should anything go ? No, there has to be at least some credit to the post

    i.e - if in some instances what the poster is suggesting can not be denied. Axiom evidence is essentially the truth, although a person might have no maths to present at the time, we all know from history maths comes later.

    Psuedo is for sure everything goes in the imagination department, but alternatives have to have truths of a logical nature., such as axioms.

    Alternatives should be treated like Protoscience, so unless better answers show truths to not be truths etc, then theories do have merit if they can not be denied in a discourse of the post itself.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I have yet to see any idea that you have presented, as having credit, sensibility, logic, or anything at all to do with science.

    Which is why near all your gibberish has all ended up at pseudoscience or cesspool.
    Alternative theories/hypothesis are all hypothesis, until at least they follow the scientific method and peer review.
    Even the near certain accepted science theories, were all once hypothesis, that followed the science method, underwent peer review, ran the gauntlet so to speak, and then finally accepted.
    As we know 99.99% of the alternative hypothesis pushers here, all deride the same scientific method and are not Interested in peer review. Near all claim conspiracy of mainstream science against anything alternative, for whatever manufactured reasons they can think of.

    Apologies if I have said all this before, some will never get it, or accept those facts.
    Finally of course, if anyone truly had any hypothesis of any substance at all, re cosmology, physics, SR/GR or whatever, they would not really be here or on any other science forum, but would have gathered all they had to support their concept, write a scientific paper and submit it to their peers for reevaluation.
  16. jaiii Registered Senior Member

    I have my own theory about STR but I dont any chance meets thise point.
  17. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    If by STR you mean Special Theory of Relativity, and it doesn't deviates too far from the mainstream without credible references, post it in alternative theories. You may have to accept some mainstream based critisim but, Alternative Theories is meant for alternative views or interpretations. If you stray too far off the beaten track, it may get moved to Pseudoscience, but you pretty much have to stray a long way before it won't fit in Alternative Theories.

    Things are bit more relaxed than those early suggestions James made, as long as it is kept civil.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You have an hypothesis.
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I used to work in a development environment. This is where most things being propose and done would be considered alternate theory, since most of the ideas and approaches are new and therefore is in the process of being developed. This science is not done a deal, ready to be memorized. Much is called blue sky research, This is how all future science begins. If you are not a development person, you might assume babies are born fully grown. This attitude should be considered an alternate theory, since this is not how science works.

    A better way to label alternate theory is the Development section. This is where people present new ideas and everyone is aware that babies are not born ready to walk. There are steps between the birth of the idea and it walking on its own. It would be useful if others assisted in the development of new ideas, so things get settled one way or another, instead of being left in limbo due to fear of novelty. The fearful and slanderous should not be deciding anything. This is science and not politics.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    All accepted scientific theories were once either alternative theories or just hypothesis. Your rambling tells us nothing new.
    Science is a work in progress, the mistake some make is believing that progress will come from unqualified lay people without the proper knowledge and learning.
    The progress will most likley come from established science with their access to the state of the art equipment.
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I'm not convinced that there's a distinction to be made. The two titles, 'alternative theories' and 'pseudoscience' are both value judgements. Both of them suggest ideas that are outside the scientific mainstream as taught in introductory classes. But 'alternative theories' doesn't have the perjorative implication that 'pseudoscience' does. It doesn't automatically imply that the idea is outside the realm of science entirely and is merely bullshit. So alternative theories would seem to be non-mainstream ideas that the reader is willing to consider, while 'pseudoscience' would be non-mainstream ideas that the reader simply dismisses. That judgement is going to be in the eye of the beholder. Paddoboy would label all non-mainstream theories 'pseudoscience'. MR would label all of them 'alternative theories'. I'm not sure that there is any objective truth to that choice, it's a matter of taste.

    I like that suggestion.

    But (problem case) wouldn't MR's UFO threads meet that criterion? MR's UFO theories are better than the alternative in his eyes because he thinks that they better explain the observational evidence. That would bring forth all the familiar arguments about what is and isn't acceptable evidence. We've all seen that play out in some very heated threads.

    I'll say Yes.

    My criterion would be similar to yours, whether the 'alternative theory' really is a theory, as opposed to a fantastic speculation. Does it make sense? Is it laid out in sufficient detail? Does its author present any halfway convincing arguments for its truth? Do any observational results support it? Bottom line: can the alternative theory's author make any kind of case for it in scientific terms?

    I guess that I'm suggesting that to me, the difference between alternative theories and pseudoscience isn't so much the content of the claims, as it is how well they are presented. Even an initially outlandish suggestion might be an alternative theory if its author argues for it well.

    I don't really favor moving threads to 'Cesspool', unless you open it up to continued posting as an 'anything goes' space, where the only moderation is for material that presents a legal threat to the board.

    Not really.

    When somebody fails to explain and justify his/her claims and fails to respond to objections. (Think of all the 'CTMU'/'reality' bullshit. That's paradigmatic 'pseudoscience' material in my opinion.)
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No, paddoboy would not.
    New ideas/hypothesis are always welcome I suggest.
    The problem exists in the proponents of these ideas and hypotheticals in recognising that they are just that...hypotheticals and unsupported ideas.
    Not claiming them outright as theories invalidating incumbent models.

    As the illustrious Richard Feynman said, all science starts out as guesses.

    Pseudoscience I would judge as "claims" that totally go against what observational and experimental results show us. eg: Claiming GR is questionable and/or wrong...claiming spacetime does not curve/warp/twist in the presence of mass, presenting its self as gravity.
    Those of course are models based on observational evidence by many experiments, and worth noting that scientific theories remain always open for change/modification. falsification etc, based on further evidence that can be gathered.
    But even when GR is finally extended upon with a QGT, it does not make GR wrong. GR has passed with flying colours, all tests thrown its way, but just as important to note, it does also have its known parameters. It is a classical theory. GR did not invalidate Newtonian...It simply extended the parameters and used a different scenario, geometry.
    The question re scientific cosmological theories is whether we will ever be able to formulate an all encompassing theory that covers all levels of reality.
    The QGT I mentioned will I suspect, simply push back further the level we now call a singularity, at both the BB and in BH's.
    I don't believe it will encompass all levels of reality...but I could be wrong on that score.

Share This Page