From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: How about sci.physics.speculation as well?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:36:35 GMT

In article matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>Sci.physics.research is to be a newsgroup for discussions related to
>current physics research.
>
>This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated---that is, the moderators
>will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any
>that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest
>to an audience of professional physicists.  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.

I see that (4) as currently written can be abused, since it, by definition,
focuses on the *person* rather than on the merits of the post.  Even though
many label me a "crackpot" for my Bearden and Puthoff posts, what guarantee
would I have, based not on personal promises ("oh, we promise to let those
through") but by what is written in the charter, that a "straight" post by
me on, for example, classical thermodynamics (my field of strongest
competency), would be accepted by the moderators, particularly if they saw
my name attached to the post?  Or, putting it another way, (4) has enough
loopholes that it can be taken advantage of by those who deep-down have a
personal agenda that is not in the spirit of what the sci.physics community
wants.  That is the reason why we have a written Constitution in our country
(with my apologies to those outside the U.S. reading this) which is reasonably
unambiguous as well as a Supreme Court to interpret it just in case ambiguities
arise.  History shows that many dictatorships came into existence and were
sustained by written loopholes in their political constitutions.

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.

For example, I believe that most of Jack Sarfatti's theoretical posts (but not
his "otherworld" stuff dealing with conspiracies, psi, etc.) should be allowed
on sci.physics.research.  I do know that a few people who do not like the
ramifications of his research have stated that they would not have let
Sarfatti's theoretical posts onto the proposed moderated group, while I would
if I were a moderator (believe it or not, I would not let Bearden's stuff be
put on sci.physics.research since it is totally qualitative suppositions with
no quantitative, nor published experimental results (i.e., "meat") to back it
up.)

So, unless item (4) is rewritten to be a lot less unambiguous (I know, that's
hard to do), I cannot support the proposal to create the newsgroup and urge
others not to support it.  I probably would also vote against the group if
the rewritten (4) would not let Sarfatti's more straight physics posts be
posted on sci.physics.research, but that's another matter.  I've set his
theoretical posts as the frame of reference that I'll go by (except maybe
for another proposal which I'll make below).


*** point #1 finished, now on to a semi-related point #2 ***


I always go by the dictum that unless proven otherwise, there is always "the
stated reason" and behind it is "the real reason" which is usually not the
same.  Unless I'm blind as a bat, and am misreading between the lines, it
seems that the "real reason" of the proposed moderated newsgroup is to
"clean-up" sci.physics of speculations and theories, even well-supported ones,
that do not fit current "orthodox" thinking, which will be defined by
a few physicists with their particular prejudices and biases (I won't name
names, but you know who you are).

For example, I know a top-notch theoretical physicist at the lab where I work,
who thinks that General Relativity is full-of-shit (my wording, not his), and
he gives what sound like plausible reasons dealing with several of the
fundamental postulates, including geometry (I'm not in a position, however, to
evaluate his, or anyone elses views on GR - I'm only stating this as an
"outsider" who takes in this data and says, "hmm") .  Yet, probably because of
the unusual power that "orthodox" thinking has in the physics community, he
keeps fairly quiet in this matter (it's not worth the battle and possible loss
of support among his peers by coming out of the closet.)  This example also
shows that there is no such thing as unity of thought in the physics
community, only power plays.

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.


Now, even with this tirade, I have no problem with a moderated newsgroup
devoted to discussion of "orthodox" physics only (I won't even attempt to
define orthodox, btw), as long as this is stated above board.  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).

Though one may argue that we already have such a group in alt.sci.physics.new-
theories, it's just not the same.  First of all, the distribution is not as
extensive as the sci.* groups.  Secondly, a sci.physics.speculations (moderated)
would then exist truly beside the "orthodox" group, and would be a place where
the moderators of the .research group could refer papers and protect themselves
from charges of "suppressing" the information since there is a moderated
newsgroup of somewhat equal stature that should make the poster satisfied.
It may also reduce the workload and anguish the moderators of the .research
group would face with posts that are on the borderline.  I also would like to
see a sci.physics.speculations.d (unmoderated) to be created where the "steam"
can be vented.  And of course, if sci.physics.speculations is created, I'll
personally rmgroup alt.sci.physics.new-theories.

This, to me, is a good compromise, no matter our personal feelings (you know
mine, and they are definitely not pretty to some).  But despite our great
differences and animosity, this is a solution that satisfies both parties,
and will end up allowing sci.physics.research to go into business with the
newsgroup the creators want and also gives them an added means to protect
themselves from charges of "censorship".  Even "adversaries" can come up with
solutions that are mutually beneficial.


Jon Noring


(I just read what I wrote above in the two sections, and see slightly different
views expressed on the creation of the proposed newsgroup(s).  Oh well, life
is full of ambiguities isn't it?  Maybe I have a split personality?  Maybe I
should post this to alt.psychology.personality for their opinion on my mental
state.  :^)

If I had more time, I'd clean this up and make my points clearer, but I gotta
run.  You'll just have to comment/flame with what I wrote.)


-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22145 sci.astro:13685