On the nature of this sub's discussions. (Diverted from another thread.)

[Vanamonde]

Quote

Though, let us be honest, this is something that could easily have been answered by a simple Google search 

Quoth @Camacha, which began the following discussion. 

 

Quote

That is true of most of this subforum, and the forum in general. Shall we shut it down?

 

[HoloYolo]

12 hours ago, Camacha said:

Though, let us be honest, this is something that could easily have been answered by a simple Google search

But it's more fun to have a 10 page discussion on the forums, though.

[Camacha]

40 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

That is true of most of this subforum, and the forum in general. Shall we shut it down?

That would be a gross misrepresentation of the value of the forums. Simple facts can be and should be looked up. The forums are not Google for lazy people. More importantly, part of developing a critical and curious mind is finding things out for yourself. Poke around and see what you come up with. Having an interest in science is almost diametrically opposed to having answers handed to you.

The facts, arguments of viewpoints you gather can, however, be the starting point of a very valuable discussion. Nothing is more fun and rewarding than learning about something amazing and sharing it with people with similar interests. You might also find yourself in a position where you need some input from others to further your understanding of the matter, which is where the forums shine.

[Vanamonde]

Quote

That would be a gross misrepresentation of the value of the forums. Simple facts can be and should be looked up. The forums are not Google for lazy people. 

Sure they are. 

Quote

 More importantly, part of developing a critical and curious mind is finding things out for yourself. Poke around and see what you come up with. Having an interest in science is almost diametrically opposed to having answers handed to you.

We are not in a rigorous science classroom. We are on a chatty game forum. 

And since we have gotten off-topic, let me close by saying that people are free to ask whatever science questions they want here, without being scolded and directed to a search engine (which is not itself a tool of rigorous inquiry, if we're talking in strict terms.) 

[More Boosters]

This isn't all that obvious of a question to just be Googled tbh.

[K^2]

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

We are not in a rigorous science classroom. We are on a chatty game forum.

That is an irresponsible attitude. KSP brings up a lot of scientific curiosity in younger minds. And I'm really glad that this forum has a science section for these who seek knowledge to be able to find it. But that only really works if this place has some structure to it. Otherwise, it's going to get flooded with pseudo-scientific nonsense that will only make understanding things difficult.

It's absolutely true that this isn't the purpose behind KSP forums, and perhaps not even that behind the game, but it's a great opportunity to make the world a little bit better, and it'd be irresponsible to treat it as just part of a "chatty game forum."

[Kertech]

5 minutes ago, K^2 said:

That is an irresponsible attitude. KSP brings up a lot of scientific curiosity in younger minds. And I'm really glad that this forum has a science section for these who seek knowledge to be able to find it. But that only really works if this place has some structure to it. Otherwise, it's going to get flooded with pseudo-scientific nonsense that will only make understanding things difficult.

It's absolutely true that this isn't the purpose behind KSP forums, and perhaps not even that behind the game, but it's a great opportunity to make the world a little bit better, and it'd be irresponsible to treat it as just part of a "chatty game forum."

I agree with the idea, however this is not a rigorous peer reviewed journal, or even a school textbook publisher so knowledge found here should be considered. It is nice though when you run into an expert in the field accidentally!

[Vanamonde]

Quote

That is an irresponsible attitude. 

I was speaking specifically about the kinds of questions we allow to be asked here. The answers, of course, should be more rigorous. 

[PB666]

8 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

I was speaking specifically about the kinds of questions we allow to be asked here. The answers, of course, should be more rigorous. 

I dont think any questions are stupid per say its the repetition of some questions that get rehashed over and over again.

There are the ....What's the best weapons in space (and why aren't we ignoring the outerspace treaty), caveots included best weapons systems for the moon, and best stealth design for space war? I get the feeling that some folks keep bringing this up again and again just to be annoying.

Then there are the repetitous SSTO threads that pop up every couple of months and folks have to explain over and over again basic problems like ISP, dV to orbit and that wings and landing gear are premium features in space. Many go along the line my SSTO in KSP broke after the last patch, is there not a great SSTO design to show i deserve SSTO in the game? The simple answer is mod your parts with high ISP and you can SSto agian, cause there is not a realistic SSTO spaceplane that can travel to another planet and land. The there are the dicussion like sure jet power equivilent of ISP is very high, but you only get a few 1000 m/s max and 20,000 meters up but you need 7800 and 150,000 meters, and wings and jet engines are just weight you have to carry to orbit.

Then  there are the space shuttle was most evil program ever, lets spend 6 weeks describing all the ways the SLS ruined NASA. Not really questions, or science but grudges. This falls along the line of this agency did this new thing, why aren't they ruined yet, or Poll : SpaceX is going to wipe the floor with ULA, etc. These are more or less measuring contests. Threads like what do you think of SpaceX sort of fall into this category. 

I think questions about gravity, dark matter and dark energy are perfectly valid, the problem is that there are no great answers other than specifying a confidence range. It is useful to remind people to search, and see that the tags have a function other than politicing, and search because, in the case of dark energy, the answer this month is going to be the same as last year. For dark gravity there is a slow trickle of science, if i see new data i will link it to a recent thread. I placed a omnibus dark energy and dark gravity thread which from time to time i add new science to. But not every dark topic belongs in these threads. 

I think folks should strive for correct answers wherever possible, sometimes there are no unique answers to questions. And in the literature there are often contradictory answers, science is often not black and white, so it is good to have different perspectives. 

[Streetwind]

No person coming to this community with an honest science question should ever be turned around and given the boot to the rear and told to go find the answer themselves. Period. That is my opinion.

To do so is elitist and rude, and serves no purpose apart from building one's own self-image at the cost of potentially turning another person away from the community and potentially science in general. i mean, when someone comes to a forum to ask a question as opposed to looking it up in a search engine or dictionary, they often do not want just a one-sentence answer or a wikipedia link, no matter how correct that would be. No, they want to dive into the topic and explore what people have to say about it - including differing opinions and grey areas. And most of all, they want to meet and mingle with like-minded people. They want a social connection.

Compare a common KSP gameplay question: why does my rocket keep flipping?, accompanied with a screenshot of a rocket without fins. Would you answer this by telling the person to mount control surfaces at the bottom of the rocket, then ask a moderator to lock the topic since it's ostensibly answered? Would you supply a single-line link to one of the various rocket building tutorials along with a request to the person to stop being lazy and look it up themselves? No, of course not. Because neither of those answers is as good and as complete as multiple people chiming into explain about fins, about gimbaling engines, about following the markers on the navball and the importance of a proper gravity turn, about aerodynamic shaping, about center of pressure and center of mass, about how fuel flows in KSP and how you can temporarily lock tanks during launch to keep some mass further forward, about wobbly joints and ease or difficulty of piloting induced by attaching parts in various symmetry configurations, about manual throttle control and the concept of the sound barrier and the transsonic regime, and so on and so forth.

Immediately the poster is exposed to a wealth of information that he never even knew was related to their problem, and would never have thought to look up on his own, because he simply didn't know it existed. Even if he only needs fins to fix his problem, he now also understands why the fins fix his problem, and is armed with extra knowledge for when the day comes when fins don't happen to fix his problem for once. And immediately, the poster is made to feel welcome, because multiple people came to his thread for the express purpose of helping them out, sharing stories of how they had the same problem in the past, and hey, everyone goes through that phase! Welcome to KSP!

That's how things work in Gameplay Discussion. Why can't they work that way here in the Science forums? Is there something about this place that somehow makes it more useful and less rude to tell someone to go find their own answers, when those people specifically elected to come here to join the community instead? I'm curious why some people seem to think that that's the case. I certainly don't.

Sometimes I really wonder what's up with this place and its regulars. There's a certain handful of people here on the Science forums which seem to have little other purpose in their lives than to find opportunities to prove others wrong, often in really dismissive and haughty tones. I've never placed people on my forum ignore list for something I've read anywhere on the entire KSP forums, except for the Science forums - where the urge strikes me regularly, and the general browsing experience is vastly improved by doing so. No, I'm not going to name names, because I am not a jerk, and whose behavior I personally disagree with is certainly not a science-related topic. I just wish that sometimes, people would stop after writing a reply, and read their own posts out loud to themselves before hitting the submit button. And ask themselves: do I really want to be that guy?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

No person coming to this community with an honest science question should ever be turned around and given the boot to the rear and told to go find the answer themselves. Period. That is my opinion.

To do so is elitist and rude, and serves no purpose apart from building one's own self-image at the cost of potentially turning another person away from the community and potentially science in general. i mean, when someone comes to a forum to ask a question as opposed to looking it up in a search engine or dictionary, they often do not want just a one-sentence answer or a wikipedia link, no matter how correct that would be. No, they want to dive into the topic and explore what people have to say about it - including differing opinions and grey areas. And most of all, they want to meet and mingle with like-minded people. They want a social connection.

Compare a common KSP gameplay question: why does my rocket keep flipping?, accompanied with a screenshot of a rocket without fins. Would you answer this by telling the person to mount control surfaces at the bottom of the rocket, then ask a moderator to lock the topic since it's ostensibly answered? Would you supply a single-line link to one of the various rocket building tutorials along with a request to the person to stop being lazy and look it up themselves? No, of course not. Because neither of those answers is as good and as complete as multiple people chiming into explain about fins, about gimbaling engines, about following the markers on the navball and the importance of a proper gravity turn, about aerodynamic shaping, about center of pressure and center of mass, about how fuel flows in KSP and how you can temporarily lock tanks during launch to keep some mass further forward, about wobbly joints and ease or difficulty of piloting induced by attaching parts in various symmetry configurations, about manual throttle control and the concept of the sound barrier and the transsonic regime, and so on and so forth.

Immediately the poster is exposed to a wealth of information that he never even knew was related to their problem, and would never have thought to look up on his own, because he simply didn't know it existed. Even if he only needs fins to fix his problem, he now also understands why the fins fix his problem, and is armed with extra knowledge for when the day comes when fins don't happen to fix his problem for once. And immediately, the poster is made to feel welcome, because multiple people came to his thread for the express purpose of helping them out, sharing stories of how they had the same problem in the past, and hey, everyone goes through that phase! Welcome to KSP!

That's how things work in Gameplay Discussion. Why can't they work that way here in the Science forums? Is there something about this place that somehow makes it more useful and less rude to tell someone to go find their own answers, when those people specifically elected to come here to join the community instead? I'm curious why some people seem to think that that's the case. I certainly don't.

Sometimes I really wonder what's up with this place and its regulars. There's a certain handful of people here on the Science forums which seem to have little other purpose in their lives than to find opportunities to prove others wrong, often in really dismissive and haughty tones. I've never placed people on my forum ignore list for something I've read anywhere on the entire KSP forums, except for the Science forums - where the urge strikes me regularly, and the general browsing experience is vastly improved by doing so. No, I'm not going to name names, because I am not a jerk, and whose behavior I personally disagree with is certainly not a science-related topic. I just wish that sometimes, people would stop after writing a reply, and read their own posts out loud to themselves before hitting the submit button. And ask themselves: do I really want to be that guy?

I don't have an ignore list either, unfortunately though over time I just avoid threads that certain folks make a topics that go on. The alien megastructure thread is an example, and now we have two. The lead scientist basically said she does not thinks its aliens, and yet both titles create the alien perjorative. 

I mean many of the threads mirror science fantasy, some do so by the very nature of the topic, for example the alcubierre warp drive s ience basically stems from an attempt to mak ST warp Drive workable. But the basic problem is that the tachyonic particles need do not exist,and if we created particles of them, as i learned yesterday, by definition could never exist much outside of quantum space. The science of many of these types  threads follows the humor of the actual fantasy, the infinite improbability drive. If this, that, the other thing could exist then we can do this. Having said that they do encourage further study, its just that some folks idealize function before theory can synthesize an actual credible functional model. I think the threads on fusion are particularly good for showing how difficult physics problems are solved. 

[Spaceception]

12 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Quoth @Camacha, which began the following discussion. 

 

 

No!!

@Streetwind Gave the best explanation!

[Bill Phil]

12 hours ago, Camacha said:

That would be a gross misrepresentation of the value of the forums. Simple facts can be and should be looked up. The forums are not Google for lazy people. More importantly, part of developing a critical and curious mind is finding things out for yourself. Poke around and see what you come up with. Having an interest in science is almost diametrically opposed to having answers handed to you.

The facts, arguments of viewpoints you gather can, however, be the starting point of a very valuable discussion. Nothing is more fun and rewarding than learning about something amazing and sharing it with people with similar interests. You might also find yourself in a position where you need some input from others to further your understanding of the matter, which is where the forums shine.

Except... The Internet can be used to find information you want to hear...

[cubinator]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Except... The Internet can be used to find information you want to hear...

But you can't have a discussion with Google or Wikipedia. That's why we have the forums. Asking a community about a question or an idea might provide the same answer, but repeated in different ways that might be easier to understand for some than what they find from a Google search.

[GeneCash]

Eh, on most forums, I use something like http://lmgtfy.com/ (or if it's really dumb http://justloveinggoogleit.com/ ) as a gentle poke to make them a little more self-sufficient. Those are only for the really obnoxious and simplest of questions.

I'd say the forum could use a FAQ. They're the best solution to that problem since the days of USENET. That needs someone to create & maintain it, though.

You could say the wiki serves as a FAQ, but it's hard to find. I didn't know about the wiki for a while when I started. And it doesn't really answer things like "what to NOT ask the KSP devs" up-front.

Edited May 2, 2016 by GeneCash

[More Boosters]

"he never even knew was related to their problem, and would never have thought to look up on his own"

This is exactly why we shouldn't give people trouble for asking sensible science questions.

[wumpus]

13 hours ago, PB666 said:

I dont think any questions are stupid per say its the repetition of some questions that get rehashed over and over again.

There are the ....What's the best weapons in space (and why aren't we ignoring the outerspace treaty), caveots included best weapons systems for the moon, and best stealth design for space war? I get the feeling that some folks keep bringing this up again and again just to be annoying.

Then there are the repetitous SSTO threads that pop up every couple of months and folks have to explain over and over again basic problems like ISP, dV to orbit and that wings and landing gear are premium features in space. [more deleted].

The new [and much less functional to the end user than the old one] forum software appears to be able to sticky threads (as is done for thread of the month).  Shouldn't we at least sticky "what is delta-v" in the tutorials section along with a few others?  I think the last time somebody asked it was roughly a day after the last one dropped off the front page (ok, I was guilty of posting the SMBC answer for "what is delta-v", but that was after it had been correctly answered).

The often repeated SSTO thread at least has the problem that you can get good at KSP without understanding why SSTOs are unlikely to ever be used on Earth, it is pretty much a matter of downloading RSS and discovering why.

Threads about the Shuttle, SLS, and ULA are pretty much threads about US politics and how Congress spreads around money (even if the user answering the question didn't know that this is essentially the answer).  This is a bit of a problem in that they tend to appear to be burning questions (at least to newbies) that appear to fall specifically in the "real space forum" arena but the answers tend to be in the forbidden "politics arena".  Presumably the same is true for Russian programs, but there don't seem to be enough posters making a fuss over that.

The space-x recovery thread does not appear to need to be stickied, it just keeps managing to stay on the front page and going on well over 100 pages.

[PB666]

1 minute ago, wumpus said:

The new [and much less functional to the end user than the old one] forum software appears to be able to sticky threads (as is done for thread of the month).  Shouldn't we at least sticky "what is delta-v" in the tutorials section along with a few others?  I think the last time somebody asked it was roughly a day after the last one dropped off the front page (ok, I was guilty of posting the SMBC answer for "what is delta-v", but that was after it had been correctly answered).

The often repeated SSTO thread at least has the problem that you can get good at KSP without understanding why SSTOs are unlikely to ever be used on Earth, it is pretty much a matter of downloading RSS and discovering why.

Threads about the Shuttle, SLS, and ULA are pretty much threads about US politics and how Congress spreads around money (even if the user answering the question didn't know that this is essentially the answer).  This is a bit of a problem in that they tend to appear to be burning questions (at least to newbies) that appear to fall specifically in the "real space forum" arena but the answers tend to be in the forbidden "politics arena".  Presumably the same is true for Russian programs, but there don't seem to be enough posters making a fuss over that.

The space-x recovery thread does not appear to need to be stickied, it just keeps managing to stay on the front page and going on well over 100 pages.

If its political thing bringing it up over and over again sidesteps tge restrictions. The reason russian funding is not discussed is cause they are not the king of the mountain, not an apply suited target to take pot shots at. 

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

Well I prefer you wouldn't as this is the only sub-forum I visit, except that one time @Frybert sucked me into another thread in the games forum. 

It is true that quite a lot of things here could be answered with a google search though there are a number of things that may not be able to be answered easily. Depending on the amount of exposure someone has to a topic will also determine their ability to find and learn things from a google search. If you haven't had enough exposure to a topic and the requisite knowledge to understand that topic and google search is ultimately useless. A lot of time people come in and ask questions or propose ideas that they may have some understanding of the topic but may have large holes in their plans or math or missing bits of knowledge. There are some of us here that have knowledge and experience in certain areas and can help to address those issues or at least point them out or help to send them in the right direction with a quick explanation or links to papers and books. Also while a lot of things regarding rocket science can be answered with a google search everything that goes into rocket engineering and making all your systems work together and how they all work is not something that be regularly be answered especially not when you want to apply it to specific circumstances.

This game has helped get so many young people excited about space or at least more curious and I think that is fantastic. Some of the people here may eventually want to pursue careers involving space be it engineering or physics, sounding vehicle, space launch vehicles, satellites, deep space systems, etc and I think that is fantastic as well. I can sit here and help people better understand how certain systems, namely propulsion, work and function and maybe they learn something valuable from it, and if they do that can only be good. I honestly don't care much for the game itself, I haven't played it much in like 3 or 4 years, except for sitting near @B787_300 and mashing the space key to blow up his rockets, but I think that having this subsection of the forum to talk with these people who are excited about space, real space, and real engineering is a great thing.

[NovaSilisko]

I propose we name it The "Science" Labs and leave it alone.

Edited May 2, 2016 by NovaSilisko

[HebaruSan]

11 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Would you supply a single-line link to one of the various rocket building tutorials

Yes. Well, not a tutorial, but the previous thread on the topic, and not out of annoyance at seeing the same topics over and over, but because when the exact same question is asked again, referring to the sort of valuable in-depth free-for-all discussion that you mention is the best answer I can provide. Anyone posting a fresh question is perfectly free to contribute their own follow-up questions and comments on an existing thread after reading it.

11 hours ago, Streetwind said:

along with a request to the person to stop being lazy and look it up themselves?

No, it's better to be polite, along the lines of, "This was covered in pretty good depth recently on this other thread, you might want to take a look."

11 hours ago, Streetwind said:

No, I'm not going to name names

In my defense, I think that citing sources and reading carefully are important, and that the best way to learn that is to try to respond to thoughtful questions and objections.

As for whether to delete this subforum, please no. I've learned a lot here despite the repetition, and it's a good source for news.

[Robotengineer]

Much of this forum can't be answered by Google searches. Certain answers can, but the subform itself is for discussion, and discussion is not the same as asking questions.

[PB666]

7 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Yes. Well, not a tutorial, but the previous thread on the topic, and not out of annoyance at seeing the same topics over and over, but because when the exact same question is asked again, referring to the sort of valuable in-depth free-for-all discussion that you mention is the best answer I can provide. Anyone posting a fresh question is perfectly free to contribute their own follow-up questions and comments on an existing thread after reading it.

No, it's better to be polite, along the lines of, "This was covered in pretty good depth recently on this other thread, you might want to take a look."

In my defense, I think that citing sources and reading carefully are important, and that the best way to learn that is to try to respond to thoughtful questions and objections.

As for whether to delete this subforum, please no. I've learned a lot here despite the repetition, and it's a good source for news.

I think the waving banana was just joking, as in if you dont want to answer science questions its not such a nice place. But i agree, its not so much about answering questions as arguing out of the ideas.

Most of the answers are not facts, but the contextual implications of fact sets, for example what does it mean when a rocket engine bruefly runs at 110% of its rated power, does rated power have a meaning, what confines perfomance, and are ISP and Max Q hard facts or just working estimates. 

[Camacha]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about that many questions cannot simply be Googled. While that might be true, the original question was one that could easily be Googled and would have yielded pages upon pages of very valuable and interesting information. Of course, that information could have been a wonderful starting point for a discussion, not only for the question asker, but also for the other members of this forum.

On 2-5-2016 at 11:26 AM, Streetwind said:

No person coming to this community with an honest science question should ever be turned around and given the boot to the rear and told to go find the answer themselves. Period. That is my opinion.

To do so is elitist and rude

If the reply would be to go figure it out yourself every time, then yes. That would be unneccesarily terse. However, dutifully responding with a long and detailed answer when the question was asked without any effort put into it at all is at least equally harmful. Like I said, fostering the inquisitive mind is much more valuable than simply providing answers. That has nothing to do with being elitist or rude. In fact, it is almost the exact opposite. As a community we have a responsibility to provide a pleasant environment in which all levels of knowledge are accepted, but where we also strife to educate people how they can help themselves find these answers. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and you will have a valuable and productive member of society. If you keep handing someone fish, however, he will not further himself, nor his environment.

By steering someone towards of doing a bit of research himself, and then presenting the information and any questions that resulted from this search, is beneficial to both the question asker and the community. The skill to find sources and to evaluate the value of these sources is one of the most important and useful tools you can have in life. Being a critical thinker will pay dividends whatever you do. Meanwhile, having a steady stream of facts and information presented along questions also grows the community. Rather than just to provide answers, we also learn from our newest members, who in turn learn from the community. Everybody wins.

And yes, I do notice the tendency that sometimes people simply want to one-up the next guy, without any interest in the actual knowledge. The community has the responsibility to display self restraint. Stroking ones own ego by showing off the knowledge one has is very tempting, but cuts short the process described above. The long story short is that we need to build that growing environment together. Together, we can help new and often young members find the information that interests them. Instead of just one forum providing answers, they could learn discover information on the entire web, unlocking a veritable torrent of new and wonderful facts and information. The beauty of a community is that members help each other and help each other grow in more ways than one. Or we could be Google for lazy people. Ultimately, it is up to us.

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Camacha

[Kerbart]

16 minutes ago, Camacha said:

The beauty of a community is that members help each other and help each other grow in more ways than one. Or we could be Google for lazy people. Ultimately, it is up to us.

The price we pay for civility? In the good ole' days of usenet you’d be shredded to pieces if you asked something that you clearly didn't research yourself first. And that was before Google or even Yahoo.

It's nice that we're not a savage crowd but at the same time... This is what you get. I don't mind seeing LMGTFY more often. There's little gems you can learn about the game, things that aren't documented or obvious. The forum is a great place to learn about them. But they get burried under "why does my rocket flip at 10k when I make my 45° gravity turn, it never did that before" and "what is dv" questions.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Kerbart