- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 24,508
Science and technology is open to anyone interested in any area of science and technology to have friendly discussions. You don't have to be a professional scientist to contribute to this forum; interest, enthusiasm, and a willingness to discuss your interests are all that are necessary.
Science and technology are at the heart of BL. Without all those chemists tinkering away, we wouldn't have the drugs we discuss in the harm reduction forums, nor would harm reduction be nearly so effective without tireless research in multiple fields. Without the internet protocol stack, semiconductors, graphical displays, and a wealth of other technologies, BL would not be able to exist, certainly not in this format. Hence, BL is a natural product of Science and Technology, and thus we think these subjects merit their own subforum.
1. BE NICE, RESPECTFUL, AND STAY ON TOPIC; BLUA applies
2. NO POSTING JUST ARTICLES AND VIDEOS WITHOUT EXPLANATION, why you think it fits the remit of this forum, and points you think would be interesting to discuss
3. NO PSEUDOSCIENCE OR MISINFORMATION. moderator's decisions on what constitutes these are final. some points to consider are:
- does what is suggested contradict a large body of work, and if so, does it explain all the same data points that that body of work explains? if the first part is true, and the second part is not clearly met, then there is a very low probability of the work being correct
- what are the qualifications of the people putting forward the idea? even if they have good looking qualifications, e.g., a research position at a world-class institution, they may not be relevant to the field they are talking about; for example, if an astrophysicist wrote a paper about neurology, we would not consider their professional expertise to make them suitable for that type of research
- do the people putting forward the ideas stand to garner fame or money from their suggestions?
- have attempts to replicate the research failed?
- more info here
4. DISAGREEMENTS. Given the nature of the forum, disagreements are expected and best resolved by providing clear arguments, data, and citations.
5. SOURCES/LINKS - Please provide links to all articles, either at the top following the headline and publication or preferably at the bottom. If possible, remove ads and other irrelevant detritus from the article for ease of reading. Please use reputable sources to cite your claims. For example, journal articles in high-quality journals are considered the gold standard. We appreciate that these do not make for the most accessible reading, so other sources will be allowed. Blogs and articles can be great sources, or they can be awful sources. Discernment is needed to differentiate, some pointers to consider.
- Who is their author, and what are their qualifications? Scott Aaronson can usually be trusted on all things complexity and comp sci related because he is a world-renowned complexity theorist. His blog would not be a good source of information about novel cancer therapy, and hopefully, he'll never overstep to post about such.
- How well cited is it? If numerous citations to peer-reviewed articles are posted, and the text accurately represents these, it is likely a trustworthy source.
- Do any graphs/figures support what is claimed in the text? These should match, if they do not, this sets off red flags.
- No gish-galloping. Posting a link that supposedly provides 1000s of papers backing up your position is the same as posting none, usually, these links do not stand up to scrutiny.
- Does the source you are citing back up your own claims? Quite often a sensationalist headline can be misleading, make sure to read the text first.
- Tweets, videos, etc are not considered sources except in exceptional circumstances. For example, tweets can be valid sources for sentiment analysis, and a few examples would be relevant. Videos are used in behavioural studies, and again would be valid examples. In this case, individual tweets and videos are not the primary sources themselves, these would be the research write-ups they are constituents of but are considered additional material.
Again, moderators' decision on what constitutes a source is final. The burden of proof for your claims lies with you and claims repeated without substantiation will be moderated.
6. REMEMBER YOUR AUDIENCE - Present your ideas as clearly as possible and as succinctly as possible. View your post not just as a writer, but also as a reader.
7. TAKE IT EASY - Don't take shit too seriously. While it's good to be passionate about what you believe, in S&T no one knows your real name, knows what you look like (unless you post in the nudie threads in The Lounge), and chances are you'll never physically meet (trying to keep the murder statistics down, y'know?).
So if you find yourself getting too upset or overly emotional about someone's response to your post--sit back, relax, and remember that it's probably a better thing to make your mark in real life than in here. Just don't become one of our news stories...
8. REPORTING POSTS - If you see personal attacks, spam threads, racial slurs, articles without links, inappropriate images, etc., use the REPORT feature. It's the little "exclamation point" in the lower-left corner of each post. Please don't abuse this feature, for example, to complain that someone disagrees with you so they must be an idiot. Use common sense.
8a. Given that our mods do not have infinite available time to read this forum, reporting posts that break these guidelines--and/or the BLUA--is the best way to ensure an environment conducive to quality discussion.
9. MODERATION IN GENERAL - Notwithstanding anything else in these Guidelines, S&T may be moderated in any way to further the purposes of Bluelight and to enhance the value of S&T to its members.
Science and technology are at the heart of BL. Without all those chemists tinkering away, we wouldn't have the drugs we discuss in the harm reduction forums, nor would harm reduction be nearly so effective without tireless research in multiple fields. Without the internet protocol stack, semiconductors, graphical displays, and a wealth of other technologies, BL would not be able to exist, certainly not in this format. Hence, BL is a natural product of Science and Technology, and thus we think these subjects merit their own subforum.
1. BE NICE, RESPECTFUL, AND STAY ON TOPIC; BLUA applies
2. NO POSTING JUST ARTICLES AND VIDEOS WITHOUT EXPLANATION, why you think it fits the remit of this forum, and points you think would be interesting to discuss
3. NO PSEUDOSCIENCE OR MISINFORMATION. moderator's decisions on what constitutes these are final. some points to consider are:
- does what is suggested contradict a large body of work, and if so, does it explain all the same data points that that body of work explains? if the first part is true, and the second part is not clearly met, then there is a very low probability of the work being correct
- what are the qualifications of the people putting forward the idea? even if they have good looking qualifications, e.g., a research position at a world-class institution, they may not be relevant to the field they are talking about; for example, if an astrophysicist wrote a paper about neurology, we would not consider their professional expertise to make them suitable for that type of research
- do the people putting forward the ideas stand to garner fame or money from their suggestions?
- have attempts to replicate the research failed?
- more info here
4. DISAGREEMENTS. Given the nature of the forum, disagreements are expected and best resolved by providing clear arguments, data, and citations.
5. SOURCES/LINKS - Please provide links to all articles, either at the top following the headline and publication or preferably at the bottom. If possible, remove ads and other irrelevant detritus from the article for ease of reading. Please use reputable sources to cite your claims. For example, journal articles in high-quality journals are considered the gold standard. We appreciate that these do not make for the most accessible reading, so other sources will be allowed. Blogs and articles can be great sources, or they can be awful sources. Discernment is needed to differentiate, some pointers to consider.
- Who is their author, and what are their qualifications? Scott Aaronson can usually be trusted on all things complexity and comp sci related because he is a world-renowned complexity theorist. His blog would not be a good source of information about novel cancer therapy, and hopefully, he'll never overstep to post about such.
- How well cited is it? If numerous citations to peer-reviewed articles are posted, and the text accurately represents these, it is likely a trustworthy source.
- Do any graphs/figures support what is claimed in the text? These should match, if they do not, this sets off red flags.
- No gish-galloping. Posting a link that supposedly provides 1000s of papers backing up your position is the same as posting none, usually, these links do not stand up to scrutiny.
- Does the source you are citing back up your own claims? Quite often a sensationalist headline can be misleading, make sure to read the text first.
- Tweets, videos, etc are not considered sources except in exceptional circumstances. For example, tweets can be valid sources for sentiment analysis, and a few examples would be relevant. Videos are used in behavioural studies, and again would be valid examples. In this case, individual tweets and videos are not the primary sources themselves, these would be the research write-ups they are constituents of but are considered additional material.
Again, moderators' decision on what constitutes a source is final. The burden of proof for your claims lies with you and claims repeated without substantiation will be moderated.
6. REMEMBER YOUR AUDIENCE - Present your ideas as clearly as possible and as succinctly as possible. View your post not just as a writer, but also as a reader.
7. TAKE IT EASY - Don't take shit too seriously. While it's good to be passionate about what you believe, in S&T no one knows your real name, knows what you look like (unless you post in the nudie threads in The Lounge), and chances are you'll never physically meet (trying to keep the murder statistics down, y'know?).
So if you find yourself getting too upset or overly emotional about someone's response to your post--sit back, relax, and remember that it's probably a better thing to make your mark in real life than in here. Just don't become one of our news stories...
8. REPORTING POSTS - If you see personal attacks, spam threads, racial slurs, articles without links, inappropriate images, etc., use the REPORT feature. It's the little "exclamation point" in the lower-left corner of each post. Please don't abuse this feature, for example, to complain that someone disagrees with you so they must be an idiot. Use common sense.
8a. Given that our mods do not have infinite available time to read this forum, reporting posts that break these guidelines--and/or the BLUA--is the best way to ensure an environment conducive to quality discussion.
9. MODERATION IN GENERAL - Notwithstanding anything else in these Guidelines, S&T may be moderated in any way to further the purposes of Bluelight and to enhance the value of S&T to its members.