Should I get banned?
So, I've been posting on some other forums, such as physicsforum and I got banned for a thread I started here. I don't know if the same policy should be applied here; but, undoubtedly I would already be banned here if it were.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Comments (55)
Make time to get out of your head.
I couldn't bear those content blocking ads, so I didn't look over the entire discussion, and I was unable to fully assess the situation. I briefly read through your posts on the first page and they didn't seem to require any moderator action, if I were to apply the standards that I apply here.
What was the reason given for your ban?
If the earth were an apple, we wouldn't have ever broken its skin. The Russians (I believe it was) once did try to drill to the mantle, but then gave up half-way through. They say that we know more about the sun's core than the earth's, and in star trek, they had yet to explore the abyss in the year 2400 or whatever.
Reminds me of that episode of futurama, where the spaceship is dragged underwater, and they're like "we've just passed five atmospheres of pressure", and Fry is like "how many can it take?", so the professor responds "well, it's a spaceship, so anywhere between 0 and 1."
So I don't know if this is some disingenuous attempt at bad-mouthing another forum...
Not quite. I can refer you to this post that settled the matter.
[URL="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/whatever-happened-to-geothermal-energy-production.900141/page-2#post-5675839"]Whatever happened to geothermal energy production?[/URL]
I had a temporary ban for saying something to the matter of "If one cannot see the long term benefits of geothermal energy production then one is either ignorant or can't see the woods from the trees." Which they took as a "personal insult".
This was in response to the economics of the matter along with the positive externalities of geothermal energy production, which in this case were presented in the link above. The LCOE of geothermal mining is actually higher due to the possibility of using the heat underground for heating cities along with sewage treatment.
As to geothermal:
Just leave the Yellowstone Caldera alone. You might want to move close to Yellowstone so that your demise will be quick when it blows. KABOOM sic transit gloria Question.
In several geothermal projects water has been injected into hot rock to produce steam. But... putting relatively cold water into hot holes had the entirely predictable effect of cooling the rock off. Project went pffft.
Both in California, Oklahoma, and Switzerland, injecting liquids into rock produced earthquakes. Earthquakes make yahoos twitchy. The yodeling yahoos got their rifles out of the closet and went looking for the usual suspects.
Rather than look for exotic sources of energy, we should be more like you and live simply. Living simply would reduce our energy needs significantly.
Is that what caused those earthquakes in Turkey that Gokcek was talking about?
Are you saying, they closed the thread, AND banned you? What grounds did they provide for that?
Physics Forum has much tougher mods than philosophy forums, generally. (Their mods wear white coats, and carry clipboards.)
Both.
//ps// your member profile on Physics Forum doesn't give an indication that you're banned.
None whatsoever.
Well, I have my name crossed out and I don't think I can post anything to any topic. Sad times.
I think the sentiment presented in my eyes is to "conform". They really want me to read the forum guidelines.
As a Tractarian I am committed to solipsism. I am helpless, and wallow in my helplessness.
9. The self is not outside the world. (4&7)
10. The self does not belong within the world but is a limit of it, or coincides with
it in its entirety. (4,6 & 9)
‘I am my world.’ (5.63)
‘The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world.’ (5.632)
Each forum has its own standards and they're welcome to 'em. I've seen nothing from you here that would warrant you being put on our ban radar.
Yay! So happy about feeling safe here at TPF. Happy dayz.
(Y)
I'm always happy to assign blame to the IDIOCY of both conservative politicians AND their running-dog-lackey-sort-of-liberal-lick-spittle cooperating allies.
My personal opinion is that geo-energy is a non-starter, especially since more abundant -- and sustainable -- energy is available at ground level. Except in places like Iceland.
Evidently, Question never saw Man of Steel, else he'd know that tapping a planetary core can only lead to disaster.
Quoting Question
I could see someone making a case that this counts as an ad hominem attack. The argument would turn on interpretation of the phrases "cannot see" and "is... ignorant".
At least taken out of context here, the statement could be read as stating or implying that anyone who disagrees with the speaker is an ignorant fool (and not merely ignorant of the relevant facts).
It might also be called question-begging, if assessment of "long term benefits" is part of what's at issue in the disagreement among interlocutors.
Putting these two charges together, the prosecutor might aim to characterize the statement as having the form: "Anyone who rejects premise p is a fool", and as implying something like "Anyone who doesn't agree with me about the long-term benefits is too dumb to make sense of the sources cited in this thread."
I'm sure that's not at all what you meant. It seems a close call at most, and a severe policy that would ban a speaker solely on the basis of that one sentence. But I might agree it falls in, or at least approaches, a fuzzy boundary in which appropriate speech and inappropriate ad hominem speech are hard to tell apart.
>:O
No, I think the skins are thicker here.
The world is full of people with ideas for perpetual motion machines, cheap abundant energy, and purported falsifications of excruciatingly tested mathematical and physical theorems. Policy is to close such threads down and, if the poster persists, to ban them. If they didn't, the real valuable insights would just get lost in a sea of wannabe pretention. I like it that way. It's so much easier to learn, discuss and teach when the air isn't cluttered with nonsense.
I didn't read enough of your thread to see how far you went in your insistence that geothermal energy was an easy, viable source, but you were certainly treading on dangerous territory as soon as you started to reject the detailed, factual reasons you were given for why it would not work.
Have no fear though Question. That sort of a moderating approach would not work in a philosophy forum, where everything is up for grabs and proofs are restricted to a very small subset called logic. And I like it that way here too.
It's horses for courses.
The philosophy forum has much higher tolerance for offensive posts compared to Physics Forums. Indeed,
Quoting Question
is insulting to be posted on Physics Forums. In an academic conference, you might get yourself shunned, in the worst, banned. On philosophy forum, you would've definitely got away with it.
Personally, the content of the posts were not up to the standards of Physics Forums. Although you have provided some articles, you'll have to do extensive research to make sure that the article is not biased or does not leave out any important information. People of the Physics Forums knows much more than you think. Have you ever read an academic paper? Do you realize that they cite a lot of references (typically more than 30, and sometimes can reach up to 200!) to make their point valid?
The question of the OP was actually already answered within the first page of the thread (as realistically impossible), but you kept going on with it. This is the reason why the thread was closed.
Your other threads also seem to deal with philosophical aspect of science than science itself. Typically, Physics Forums do not appreciate questions regarding philosophical interpretations or hypothetical ideas based on non-scientific derivations. Unless you have really good reasons to start one, they are going to be closed one way or another.
They have gone too far in banning you, though.
Did you see my post on the LCOE of geothermal energy? I think I disproved the claims made by the professionals on geothermal being inefficient in that thread.
[URL="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/whatever-happened-to-geothermal-energy-production.900141/page-2#post-5675839"]Comparative analysis of lifetime costs of Geothermal vs other sources of energy.[/URL]
*edit: LCOE includes capital costs also.
Yes, I agree. The details of that study as to what sources were exactly utilized are unclear and ambiguous. However, the ambiguity should not be a reason to discredit and wave away the findings of that study, which are supported elsewhere. This seems to be the case as to what happened in that thread.
Furthermore, no answer was provided as to why given the much higher LCOE of wind and solar, and being so heavily funded and subsidized, which are by themselves inferior to geothermal due to being non dispatch-able sources of energy...
I guess, I posted an economic question to the wrong forum.
Danke!
If you really want them to listen to you, you'll have to write a post worth a full article to convince people. Even if you do, there is no guarantee that people will be convinced. Like I said in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/54161), these people on the Physics Forums know much much more than you think. Those who reply to those thread reply for a reason. They know what they are talking about.
Although most of the articles out there write about science with simple English understandable for general public, the actual science itself is very sophisticated and technical. These articles for general public (or wikipedia) leaves out a lot of important information for readability. Sometimes they don't even know the specific details of what they are talking about.
Science is much more sophisticated than you think. It's not something people casually interested in science can handle with few weeks or months of research. These people spend years working in these area after specialized education in college (that typically takes around 9 years to complete to get Ph.D.). Have you ever seen a scientific paper? They cite at least more than 20-30 other specialized papers. Review papers generally cite more than 150 - 200 papers. That is only small part of what they've actually read and know.
I'm not in the field of Earth science, so I cannot judge who was wrong in that thread. However, as a physical chemist, I've seen people who are not expert in chemistry and physics but casually interested make hilariously bad mistakes. When I read science magazine for general public about chemistry and physics, I saw several articles making terribly inaccurate presentation of the idea. I don't blame them. It's what happens when you don't know the specific details and is only provided with general idea and otherwise poorly informed. Politics also play a huge role in making decisions.
In summary, it's a great thing you are interested and it is okay if you want to talk about it. However, try refraining from doing that with specialized people. They get frustrated, you get frustrated, no one becomes happy.
I'm sorry; but, your whole post is an appeal to authority. If the economics say that 1 MW of power from geothermal is cheaper than 1 MW from either (solar, gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, and the rest) then 1 MW of power from geothermal is cheaper than the rest of the alternatives provided.
I've read a lot of scientific papers, and also written a few, but they're not as "difficult" as you make it seem. Most people are just lazy. Also scientific papers are written in bundles - there's always a group of researchers pushing one view, and another group(s) pushing other views. Once you understand what view they're pushing you pretty much understand what the paper contains. Now scientific people are stubborn and want to feel superior for having spent 9 years or whatever educating themselves - something that they didn't even like to begin with, but they wanted the prestige associated with it. Now after all that time, there is no real prestige for most of them, so they're depressed - hence their domineering and snappy attitude.
Also, there's a lot of unpublished research - a lot of the stuff I worked on for example is unpublished and remains unpublished - I have the data but never published it, simply because the publishing process itself, and putting it in the right format is not worth the bother. Other researchers in the field have not yet discovered what I have discovered, but I have no doubt at one point they will. But it can take many months to get an article published, it's not worth the bother - the bureaucratic process of most journals is a living hell.
More significant than what they know is what they don't know. Indeed, it is what they don't know that is limiting them. What we know is always of relatively small significance once we know it. It's what remains to be known that is of importance.
Yes, I was too passionate about the issue. Happens.
Appeals to authority are reasonable and sensible in the hard sciences, unlike in branches of metaphysics, particularly when the participants in the discussion in which the appeal is made have no significant expertise themselves. There is such a thing as an authority on thermodynamics and energy production. There is, I suggest, no such thing as an authority on most philosophical disciplines - logic excepted. What would an authority on ontology look like?
Here is one of the 3 global ontology authorities:
Of course a scientist can be wrong. No way I am doubting that. But if you compare general public and a scientist, there is a pretty big difference. We don't easily realize that because we pretty much have already gone to the other side. We have scientific intuition inside us because we've been educated. Unless you are an genius we usually have to understand things by experience.
Since I don't know about Earth science, all I can give is what I can remember when I didn't know anything. For example, when you look up lanthanides and their properties on wikipedia including related articles, I can tell you that they tell only a tiny bit of what is actually known. Even if you look up homepages and science related sites made by scientists, they still only show bit of what is known. In order to actually know them, you'll have to do extensive research by reading tons of academic papers (usually needing subscription). You'll also have to do some experiments to understand the scale in which the paper is talking about. For instance, an article might say "weak absorption of light". However, unless we work on it and get a pretty good idea, we don't exactly intuitively know what "weak absorption" looks like. If I remember that, then I can easily say that there is a huge gap between science-loving non-scientist and a scientist. I would generally not recommend non-scientist trying outsmart a scientist. They know much more than you do, and they also, most of the time, capable of dismissing without discussing too much because they already know.
If you work at a research institute, or know someone who does, you can pretty much get free access to any of them :P
I agree with the rest of your points.
I think unenlightened secretly rules here. His disapproval is heart numbing.
Though, refecting on that now, as I stoicly await my train back home 'midst the likewise somewhat solipsistic and individually self-consumed rush-hour crowd - kinda like life in general really! Like some guy said, we are each ultimately obliged to be the lone self-consumer of our woes! :)
(...The English poet, John Clare, who sadly ended his days - understandably perhaps when confronted by such apparantly irreconcilable mutual incomprehension - in an asylum!)