The description of the GQ forum says that the forum is for factual questions with factual answers.
The mods for GQ seem fairly lenient as long as the thread is not too far afield from GQ territory. But I think it would be a good idea to expand the description of GQ to also allow the general discussion of hard science and science news.
If you were to follow the current forum guidelines strictly, such discussion would probably go to IMHO (“What do you think about this science paper”) or MPSIMS (“I just wanted to share this breaking science news”). My problem with this is that I believe that a lot of the “science type” posters spend much of their time in GQ and may miss an interesting thread posted to IMHO or MPSIMS.
As an example, I saw an item in Nature about a nobel laureate physicist describing his new theory on the underpinnings of quantum physics. Since I have also now read the full paper of his talk, I could certainly come up with a factual question or two on the details of his theory, but my real purpose would to be to get the opinions of the great minds of GQ on what they think about the theory in general.
I want to make it clear that I would NOT find it appropriate for a doper to post his New and Improved Theory of why Einstein was Wrong in GQ. Just hard science (and associated theory) discussion.
In my example, I doubt that the mods would bother moving the thread out of GQ, but I would like to see a clarification and possible update to the officail policy.
I think I disagree. I like things the way they are – chitchat (regardless of how worthwhile it is, which it frequently is) in MPSIMS, Q & A only in GQ. You start making allowances, things get murky.
I wasn’t thinking of “chitchat”. More along the lines of expert opinion and analysis. As it is much of what goes on consists of that already in GQ. I was just looking for an official “OK” in the case of science related items.
Maybe I shouldn’t worry about it. I could just post in GQ with a question such as “Is this an accurate model for QM at the Planck scale”? In principle that has a factual answer, although no one would be able to answer definitively today.
rsa
Why not post in GD? I, for one, would be thrilled to see some more hard-science cross-pollination from GQ. First, hard science posters might be tempted to lend their perspective to some other not-strictly-hard-science threads. Second, a rousing QM debate would make a change, especially from the never-ending waive of threads on religion.
I was thinking about the latter recently because I’ve made a couple of posts like that. I’m okay with the status quo, but I’d be interested in hearing what the mods and admins think about this suggested change in posting policy.
The term “factual answer” is, of course, not precise. We’re really trying to distinguish between “How much wood could a woodchuck chuck?” (GQ) and “What is justice?” (GD) and “Who starred in this movie?” (CS) and “Where did I leave my car keys?” (MPSIMS). While some questions fit clearly and neatly into our make-shift categories, others are greyer and fuzzier and could be argued to fit in two or three forums. Then the mods can take turns shoving them around (“It’s yours, dammit!” “No, no, it’s yours!!”)
Questions such as you suggest (“Is this an accurate model for gravitational fields near black hole?”) could reasonably go in GQ or GD.
The other side of that, frankly, is that there are various people who tend towards certain forums. There are people who read GQ but rarely read MPSIMS; there are people in GD who rarely show up in GQ; etc. etc. My gut feeling (not based on scientific sampling) is that scientists and science-minded people (in the “hard” sciences like physics and chemsitry) tend to look in GQ first. So, I think from a practical perspective, if you really want discussion on Planck’s constant, you will find a better audience in GQ than in GD. That’s my feelings, anyhow.
I think this is the right way to go here. We get lots of discussion topics in GQ, particularly on the hard sciences. But if we start encouraging “what do you think of this” type stuff, I’m afraid the standards of the forum would go down.
And I definitely don’t want a “what do you think” thread for every “science” story that appears on MSNBC, for example.
Let’s leave the forum description as it is – as you note, if something “belongs” in GQ despite an unclear OP, we ususally leave it there, sometimes asking for clarification.
:eek:
We’d all drown in the ensuing flood of ignorance ! The General Astronomy forum over at BA probably comes pretty close to what rsa is suggesting, but I don’t see how it could be successfully implemented in a place as large and diverse as the SDMB; even as a separate forum from GQ.
Thanks for the responses. I also would not want to see every run-of-the-mill science story posted in GQ with a “gee, isn’t this neat” comment.
In the example I gave, the new theory was developed by a famous Nobel laureate (Gerard ’t Hooft). Similarly, I stumbled across a new paper by Stephen Hawking last year which was posted at the LANL archives which didn’t receive any press coverage but which I think would have been of interest to many GQ participants. After all, it’s not every day that Stephen Hawking publishes a new paper.
Thanks again, and I’ll just continue to use by best judgment on where to post.
I posted this in MPSIMS and got quite a bit of “real science” posters. Depending on how I worded it, it could have gone in Cafe, IMHO, or GQ. The point is, it got the discussion I was looking for when I posted.
How you word the OP is important, but sometimes, the responses will determine the forum in which it belongs. At least, that’s what I’ve noticed in my Doping.