Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101001
That's a solution I never imagined being proposed. Could you expand on your vision of how that would succeed?
My own bleaker vision of that would be: instead of having to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them not to rehash a topic, we'd have to continuously follow up on the perpetrators' articles challenging their viewpoint and asking them to rehash the topic in Q&A. So, how would their behavior actually be modified? Or, is the rehashing just moved to a different forum? Is there some magical property of Q&A that would mean there would be one final rehash?
|
An example: BAUT member "J" writes a post - in the Astronomy section, say - ostensibly based on a preprint (let's say), a post which includes all sorts of misunderstandings, distortions, wild leaps of logic, and (let's be blunt) just plain old nonsense*.
The preprint may be very interesting, or dull as dishwater, or anything in between; several BAUT members may be able to put it context, to answer questions on it, etc.
Having the preprint in the OP of a Q&A thread, with a question such as "what does this have to do with quantum gravity?" - an open question (not yes/no, not a wild assertion) - may generate more questions, and a good discussion. So where, hithertofore, lots of misunderstandings, distortions, wild leaps of logic, and just plain old nonsense polluted the Astronomy section, a 'please ask questions first' policy may lead to a substantial reduction of pollution, and an increase in interesting Q&A threads.
A somewhat pertinent example:
Is the value of the Hubble constant locked down?; another, more pertinent:
Breakdown of relativity? (also MAGIC delayed photon) ("
I'm not clear on why these results imply the effects of quantum gravity").
(more later)
*
There are quite a few of these