From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: How about sci.physics.speculation as well?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:17:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.023635.8057@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
[According to Matt's straw-man, "clearly inappropriate postings include:"]
>>	(1) Personal attacks;
>>	(2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics; 
>>	(3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
>>	(4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."
>
>
>Items (1) to (3) sound good and unambiguous.  However, I believe that item
>(4) should be clarified.

As a prospective co-moderator, I'm not entirely comfortable with this
definition either.  Problem is, we couldn't come up with anything better.
In any event, crackpottery (at least to me) may have less to do with content
than with style.  A post that starts with "THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO, THEY
LAUGHED AT EINSTEIN, NOW THEY'RE LAUGHING AT ME!", all in capital letters,
looks more crackpottish than one with exactly the same content but without
the hysteria.  Think of it this way: the items unacceptable under condition
4 are the crackpottery likely to lead to postings unacceptable under the
*other* conditions.  Crackpottery *not* likely to lead to that is more
likely to be accepted; remember that one of Matt's points is "light"
moderation.

>Thus, to protect the integrity of the proposed system, as well as to protect
>the moderators from charges of taking advantage of a fuzzy rule (e.g., to
>disallow posts because they don't like their "implications"), I suggest that
>(4) be more carefully defined, and that the extent of the definition be 
>pre-approval by the sci.physics community before going for the full-bore
>CFD/CFV.

Well, make a suggestion.  You wouldn't *believe* the amount of e-mail that
Matt and the prospective co-moderators exchanged trying to get the
wordsmithing right ...  As noted, I'm not all that happy with point 4
either, but I sure can't think of anything better; I'd be more than happy
to listen to alternatives.

>Thus, as an outsider looking in, all I see in the world of physics are big-
>egos, turf wars, and an intolerance by many to look at new ideas and approaches
>only because the ramifications may shake basic tenets they learned from their
>mentors.  And I believe that the real reasons to create a sci.physics.research
>is simply a smoke-screen used by those who are intolerant of any deviation from
>"orthodoxy" as they define it.  This reminds me of a quote by a very famous
>physicist (I'm sure there are many here who know the quoter and the exact
>quote, but let me paraphrase the general idea):  "When will a new idea in
>physics take hold?  When the older, established physicists die-off."  It seems
>that even physicists observe that they are, as a rule, not very open-minded
>when it comes to alternative theories to explain the Universe.

That's not what's at issue, and even if it was, the co-moderators are a more
heterogeneous group than you seem to think they are; certainly you will find
no general agreement among us on what constitutes "heterodoxy," even if we
felt it appropriate to suppress it (which I for one don't).  I think you'll
be pleasantly surprised at the number of highly heterodox things that make
it through the moderation process -- if the proponents of heterodoxy simply
make their points in a way that is cogent, consistent, non-repetitive, and
not personally insulting.

> And let me
>go on to offer an olive branch and propose that along-side a
>sci.physics.research (it should really be called sci.physics.orthodox), that
>a parallel moderated newsgroup, called sci.physics.speculations be created
>as well (I'd be happy to be a moderator for such a group).

Without judging the merits of such a group, let me note that *my* main
reservation about sci.physics.research is just that its creation may delay
or prevent a more global reorganization of sci.physics -- and other groups
where similar questions exist (ever read sci.med?  Hoo, boy...) -- along
preferable lines, whatever they may be.  But that reorganization is a subject
for another place and time.  Want to get a discussion of s.p.speculations
going?  Fine with me, although I will stay out of it and probably wouldn't
vote one way or the other on it.

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"