I want to BELONG

Pooua

New Member
I have deleted two of your posts. Both times for being off topic. In one case you started discussing explosives being used on 9/11 on a thread not about explosives. In neither case did you provide evidence to support your off topic claims.

UPDATE: I found a third post I moderated. It was a "debunk this" type of post which I thought was marginal but you didn't include a link to the evidence. So when you say you can't figure out what I'm saying a third of the time you're talking about one post.
I can appreciate how being off-topic is a problem. At the same time, you might have mentioned that the two posts of mine that you deleted were replies to somebody else, and directly addressed what the other person posted. That was long enough ago that I don't remember the details very clearly, other than it had a video of the firemen hearing explosions. I wasn't the person who brought up explosions in that thread.

The third post you moderated wasn't moderated because I didn't have a link, as it was about my own calculations that I performed on my own. I didn't include my calculations the first time that I submitted my post, only mentioned that I had made them. I would have provided them, if anyone had asked. You asked, so I provided them. As a bonus, I provided titled links to outside references, that you moderated my post for including. I'm supposed to tell people what a link does without paraphrasing the target page, and it apparently needs to be more extensive than just a descriptive page title. I finally gave up trying to figure out what you were getting at with that one.
 

Itsme

Active Member
What exactly was "upended"?

The biggest upset was when stochiometric methods proved the idea of the alchemical elements wrong, plus the upset of the geocentric cosmology.

But I expect the physics in Newton's Principia is still in use today.
Not the physics, only the mathematics (at least for gravity).

You should not confuse mathematical equations by which we can predict things with physics. Physics also encompasses our fundamental understanding of the cosmos we live in.

Newton thought it was ruled by a universal time and masses that attrackt each other. Both concepts were upended by relativity theory.

Quantum mechanics upended our ideas of causality and of particles as being local concentrations of mass/energy. Not to mention 'spooky action at a distance'.

Dark energy upended our concept of empty space (as did quantum mechanics).

So even though much of the old mathematics can still be used, the concepts behind them have been upended for sure.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm supposed to tell people what a link does without paraphrasing the target page, and it apparently needs to be more extensive than just a descriptive page title. I finally gave up trying to figure out what you were getting at with that one.
1. quote or screenshot the important parts of the source
2. link to it
3. (optional) paraphrase the quoted content to make your point more clearly
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't see a problem with that. The scientific method is stable yet the knowledge it produces is not. Scientific knowledge constantly shifts and changes as new data becomes available (as illustrated by the video posted by Mendel above).

Any field of knowledge for which there is insufficient data, or where data is ambiguous, can lead to disagreements that last until more data is acquired. And even knowledge that seems rock solid may change over time (like Newton's concept of gravity).
You may be referring to what is known as 'paradigm shifts' (wikipedia has examples). It means that existing knowledge is seen in a new light because the old way to look at things proved too limited.

I still feel that scientific methods have undergone paradigm shifts as well.
 

Mythic Suns

Member
Metabunk does not attempt to please all of the people, but rather to create something specific. It's not perfect.
To be fair it's not perfect but in my eyes it's close to perfect and acts as the much needed scalpel of debunking that's needed in a world where a lot of sources of debunking tend to take more of a sledgehammer approach. Given the fair need for evidence I will admit that I can't think of an exact example of a "sledgehammer source" (well...apart from maybe YouTube on some occasions) but I can say that a lot of debunks I've seen on the internet, either due to an unsuitable format or the person who made the debunk only creating it in passing before moving on with their life, tend to overlook certain nuances that can potentially undermine the debunk and will often be exploited through comments or even video responses.


Metabunk on the other hand benefits from the addition of discussion; the original poster who created the debunk can respond to any replies that are given and further reinforce their debunk. The rules and moderation can be misinterpreted as censorship but as I believe you stated on the rules page it doesn't really count as censorship as Metabunk isn't the only website on the internet; Metabunk would only be commiting censorship if there were no other sites where you could publicly make a post, message, or comment.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Philosophy of Science basics. There are two main rival views on science that are mutually incompatible and to which any particular scientist might subscribe:

Article:
Scientific realism:

Scientific theories are in a historical process of progress towards a true account of the physical world.


Article:
Instrumentalism:

According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes. Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.


Quantum Mechanics was initially developed as an instrumentalist theory, which is something we've discussed on another thread at length. So it's different from the theory of relativity not only in terms of its semantic contents but also in terms of the purpose of the theory. It provides a useful mathematical model for calculating observation outcomes whereas relativity attempts to explain something true about the cosmos while also generating accurate observation outcomes. More accurately than Newtonian Mechanics. Like Einstein later, Newton earlier also intended his theory of gravitation (NGT) as a realist one, explaining gravity in a manner that is largely rejected today (i.e. every particle in the universe actually attracting every other particle, independent of observers). But his calculations are largely accurate (instrumentalistically) within short distances (earth and the immediate solar system).

Article:
Newton held a realist reading of scientific theory as based upon inference from facts and observation, and his gravitational-theory (or NGT) as deduced from observed phenomena and Kepler’s laws. Duhem criticises this realist approach to scientific-theory and NGT in particular, claiming empirical evidence cannot force theory-adoption.


While sophisticated scientific realism doesn't regard physical reality to be observer-dependent, it still regards the human understanding of it as relative to the language and experimental setups available to us at any given point in time, while both are subject to modification and refinement overtime. Therefore, far from being a perfectly accurate representation of observer-independent reality, the history of science demonstrates an ever-improving approximation of observer-independent reality. Newtonian Mechanics was one important step in increasing our resolution of understanding the universe, as well as improving the methodology of science to generate 'pictures' of better resolution.

In other words, both @Mendel and @Itsme are correct.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Philosophy of Science basics. There are two main rival views on science that are mutually incompatible and to which any particular scientist might subscribe:

Article:
Scientific realism:

Scientific theories are in a historical process of progress towards a true account of the physical world.


Article:
Instrumentalism:

According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes. Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.
A real physicist wants to understand the cosmos on a fundamental level, not merely create algorithms that make more or less correct predictions ;-)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
1. quote or screenshot the important parts of the source
2. link to it
3. (optional) paraphrase the quoted content to make your point more clearly
there are three violations of the this in the proceeding page alone. (4 if we count you didnt provide timestamps).

That's why i keep harping on everyone about posting guidelines and double standards. Newbies are encouraged to read some threads before posting to get a feel for how the site works. If they do do that, and they see how everyone is allowed to post and how they act, but then they get a warning strike for doing what everyone else is doing...it's confusing. And [to use one of Anne's turns of phrase] the subtext of that is "rules for me, but not for thee".

add: i havent been following this thread, so i wont ask you why everyone is discussing gravity and quantum mechanics in a thread about moderation issues.

I can appreciate how being off-topic is a problem. At the same time, you might have mentioned that the two posts of mine that you deleted were replies to somebody else, and directly addressed what the other person posted. That was long enough ago that I don't remember the details very clearly, other than it had a video of the firemen hearing explosions. I wasn't the person who brought up explosions in that thread.
They do that to me too. hit me with "off topic" if i rebut a point another member brought up.

Yours was the "fires alone, with no plane impact" thread. Often there are grey areas for moderators of when an off topic point should be removed or when that off topic convo should be stopped. But i personally dont think you should have gotten a warning strike, even if some posts had to be removed because the convo was going on too long.
 
Last edited:

Pooua

New Member
1. quote or screenshot the important parts of the source
2. link to it
3. (optional) paraphrase the quoted content to make your point more clearly

The links I provided were to give a reader the option of seeing how somebody else approached the same problem as I did, but using a different method than I used. My post did not require any links in it, as all I was doing was calculating physical forces based on standard physics formulas. Other people used other formulas or reasoning to produce their own analysis. So, the entire page is equally important.

Your Step 3 is mysterious, as the rules state that paraphrasing is not permitted. Rule 7 from the Posting Guideline:

"Don't Paraphrase. If you want to say what someone said, then quote them exactly. Do not paraphrase what they said."

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 

Inti

Senior Member.
A real physicist wants to understand the cosmos on a fundamental level, not merely create algorithms that make more or less correct predictions ;-)
Isn't that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy? After all, wasn't it precisely to refute that veiew in the context of quantum mechanics that Richard Feynman said "Shut up and calculate? Or was Feynman not a real physicist?

Many instrumentalist philosophers of science and physicists believe that" understanding the cosmos at a fundamental level" actually implies indulging in metaphysics which goes beyond what can be empirically tested even in principle. That is the view of the celebrated empiricist Bas van Fraassen, as outlined in this recent interview;

 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The links I provided were to give a reader the option of seeing how somebody else approached the same problem as I did, but using a different method than I used. My post did not require any links in it, as all I was doing was calculating physical forces based on standard physics formulas. Other people used other formulas or reasoning to produce their own analysis. So, the entire page is equally important.

Your Step 3 is mysterious, as the rules state that paraphrasing is not permitted. Rule 7 from the Posting Guideline:

"Don't Paraphrase. If you want to say what someone said, then quote them exactly. Do not paraphrase what they said."

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Don't forget these:

  1. Videos must be accompanied by a description of the video, identifying the claim made in it, with time location if longer than 1 minute. See the Link Policy.
  2. Links must be accompanied by an excerpt from the link, and/or a focussed description of what is being linked to. Not just a "this is interesting" line. See the No Click Policy.
  3. Don't just post something and say "what do you guys think?".
If you are not going to follow the Posting Guidelines (all of them) don't post.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
My post did not require any links in it,
then you should have left them out, if preparing them to metabunk standards is too cumbersome

i agree that this is a weird rule, but some conspiracy theorists like to shore up their argument by linking to pages of "evidence" that allegedly supports their point (but often does not), and it falls upon the debunker to nail down what the submittet thinks the important parts are.
The CTist can this foist work off on the debunker, and the link polica counteracts that.

But it can be a nuisance if you're just trying to be helpful.

Your Step 3 is mysterious, as the rules state that paraphrasing is not permitted. Rule 7 from the Posting Guideline:

"Don't Paraphrase. If you want to say what someone said, then quote them exactly. Do not paraphrase what they said."

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Yes. Spirit of the law and such. Once you have provided the quote, you have fulfilled this rule; the rule only affects paraphrasing from linked sources, not paraphrasing stuff you already quoted.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Don't forget these:

  1. Links must be accompanied by an excerpt from the link, and/or a focussed description of what is being linked to. Not just a "this is interesting" line. See the No Click Policy.
Content from External Source
Excerpts are safe.
I think I've gotten one-line-description links moderated, and it's hard to predict your standards.

You can often get away with just the description when it's deep in a discussion, and especially if it's something technical, and the poster has standing. But I wouldn't recommend it to new members, and not on thread starter posts.

Internal links to metabunk resources are not covered by the policy and are ok to give just as "see also".
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Excerpts are safe.
I think I've gotten one-line-description links moderated, and it's hard to predict your standards.

You can often get away with just the description when it's deep in a discussion, and especially if it's something technical, and the poster has standing. But I wouldn't recommend it to new members, and not on thread starter posts.

Internal links to metabunk resources are not covered by the policy and are ok to give just as "see also".
I think a standard of "you can often get away with (it), is not a good one. Follow the rules. Easy
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think a standard of "you can often get away with (it), is not a good one. Follow the rules. Easy
The rule says "focused description", I've been explaining when that works and when it doesn't; excerpt quotes are safe and always work.
 

jtveg

New Member
This is a screenshot of 14hm14's post.
Screenshot_20220913-173404_Chrome.jpg

No description, nothing. The rules are pretty clear.
Why does:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date. Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded".

Not count as a description?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Why does:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date. Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded".

Not count as a description?
Because it doesn't tell me anything about what's on the video.

The description could be referring to any of these, or another one altogether.
Screenshot_20220929-112456_Samsung Internet.jpg
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Why does:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date. Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded".

Not count as a description?
I'm casually familiar with Ed Hunt's low budget "UFO's (sic) Are Real" and am unsure
why anyone would nakedly assert that it is "Perhaps the best UFO documentary."
Or is that comment, alone, supposed to be evidence of that?

That it's on VHS is of no help.
That "the quality is low" is of no help.
That it's on YouTube is no help.

UFO'S ARE REAL.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • UFO'S ARE REAL.jpeg
    UFO'S ARE REAL.jpeg
    7.1 KB · Views: 22

deirdre

Senior Member.
Why does:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date. Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded".

Not count as a description?

If i have to click on your video or article link in order to understand what information you want me to know, it is against posting guidelines.

meaning, i should not have to click on anything. the only exception would be movement..if we need to see the movement of a ufo, but screenshots of the ufo at different angles are included in the comment already, as well as ufo date location etc. and a timestamp of when i need to start watching to ONLY see the movement. Making a gif is better, but many members dont know how to do that.

Article:
Links

The reader should not have to click on a link in order to understand what the post is about. When you link to something to back up something you are discussing then:
Describe what is in the link, and why it is relevant to the thread topic.
Quote relevant excerpts using EX tags,
Include images and screen-grabs from the link.
Links themselves are not content, they are references.

Videos

The reader should not have to watch the video in order to understand what is in it.
Describe what the video is about, explain how it is relevant.
Use time codes to precisely locate the relevant portions of the video (preferably wth the time encoded in a link).
Provide a transcript of any important speech or text in the video.
Use annotated screen grabs to convey the content.
If you can, create an animated looping GIF (under 2MB) of the most relevant part.



That is the premise of the rules/guidelines. Often not followed or moderated (see post 171 above), but that is the premise.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Why does:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date. Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded".

Not count as a description?
Break it down:

"Perhaps the best UFO documentary to date." This is an opinion. Someone is telling us that they think this might be the best documentary, but it tells us nothing about the video itself or what we should look for in the video or where to find anything in the video. It gives no idea what is in the video.

"Only released on VHS, so quality is low, but Youtube and other platforms have it uploaded". While this could be argued as a description of a sort, its purely technical info relating to the format and quality. Once again, we are left with no idea what's in the video or what we're supposed to be looking at.

If the OP wanted us to watch an entire hour+ of an old documentary and then render an opinion, that's not how it works around here. In most cases we try to stick to once claim per thread in an attempt to keep discussions on track. More or less.

If the OP had linked to the video and included a description something like this, it might have had a better chance (the Lancaster UFO is completely made up on my part for demonstration purposes):

"Here is a documentary I found from the "80/'90s. Unfortunately, the quality is fairly low, however, I find that there is a lot of interesting evidence presented in it. Here I want to focus on the Lancaster UFO. This starts at 45:30 in the video and last about 10:00 minutes, but most of it is repetitive and the gist of the claim is in the first 3:00 minutes. I have queued up the link start at that point.

This took place in the outskirts of Lancaster CA. The UFO appears from behind the barn and then passes in front of it but behind the trees, before rising up again.

The person that took the video said, "It made a low rumbling sound".

As this is from the '80s, CGI seems unlikely. If it's a model, how did they make one that big and move it around and over the barn and trees? It appears to be an actual saucer and not just a camera artifact. I have included a few screen grabs below."


This would be followed by the mentioned screen grabs of interest and a link to video, preferably queued to start at the relevant section. Not saying this is perfect, but it focuses on one specific claim or experience. We are told where to find this in the video. The description and some screen grabs lest' us know what we'll find and expect to see. We have a common starting point.
 

obiwanbenobi

Active Member
Here is the auto generated message sent to you yet you still do not know why it happened?

yes, i do now, but at first i was scratching my head since i was just asking a question about the whole concept as shown in the video and that it was apparent to me that the first few seconds were showing the strange thing i was asking about.

note i still haven't had much time to go back to it and try again. ;) i'll see if i can do that now...
 
Top