Are narration and subjective opinions acceptable on Physics SE?

Question

Recently posted a question about dangers of operating a thermonuclear reactor and in the opening paragraph used a little bit of narration about importance of obtaining a sustainable source of energy such as nuclear fusion because of the climate change and the human suffering caused by fossil fuel wars:

Abandoning fossil fuels and obtaining a sustainable, practically unlimited, source of energy should be a prime goal of scientific research in physics because the climate change related to use of fossil fuels threatens the very existence of this civilization, and the endless wars over oil cause immeasurable human suffering.

This was blasted and down-voted by a single user as

dominated by meaningless, tendentious, and absurd ideology (about "climate change")

and this paragraph was afterwards edited out by another user.

While it is my understanding that there is a broad consensus about the reality of climate change in the scientific community and therefore the comment was inappropriate and over the top on that level too, my basic question is if narration and subjective opinions should be allowed or even encouraged here @ Physics SE?

The way I see it, the purpose of that first paragraph of my question was to put the question in a perspective that a lot of people can relate to and that is why it made sense to have it there in the first place.

Personally, I see no harm in this approach, after all, the scientist who did most to popularize the science, like Carl Sagan, were heavy on narration and opinions and had the great ability to explain scientific concepts in terms understandable to a much wider audience than the scientific community alone. While I'm sure some purists would love that all communication here was within strict language of physics and dominated by equations and I see nothing wrong in majority of the questions being asked and answered in that manner, at the same time why would it be wrong to use some narration and subjective opinions to make the communication more interesting and approachable to people who are not physicists and cannot communicate at that level?

Answer 1

I think you should strive to avoid polemics and unrelated commentary, and stick to the science whenever possible.

Telling a story is great, but try to avoid proselytizing along the way.

Answer 2

The question in the title is:

Are narration and subjective opinions acceptable on Physics SE?

The answers are that any narration needs to add to the clarity of the question. So yes narration only so far as it:

1. adds to the clarity of the physics
   scenario to be answered;
2. clarifies the level of physics understanding of the OP;
3. identifies the type of answer
   expected (for certain questions where this needs explaining).

Several Questions (and sometime repeated added comments) add narration that does not meet these conditions (except suggesting that the OP knowledge of physics or scientific procedure is low) and so is unhelpful and perhaps misleading to audiences who are expecting facts only.

Subject opinions should not be presented on Physics SE. This is not to be confused with the point that we all currently have subjective opinions about the value of given theories or data or the prospects of where research should go next etc. These opinions based often on our level of understanding of the inter-relationships between complex phenomena; how much physics we have actually studied etc.

For me I dont care who believes in String Theory versus LQG: or who believes in fission power, fusion power or wave energy. I just want facts from those theories in answers to questions about those theories; etc.

What causes problems also is that some questions (and the behaviour of the OP afterwards) suggest that this site is being used to promote specific idiosyncratic theories; as a general education mechanism; or as a physics and philosophy discussion group.

There may or may not be other sites for these latter topics.

Answer 3

Narration is fine as long as it adds some important background. But we obviously don't want off topic ramblings, not to mention ones soaked in propaganda.

It's a bit subjective decision but I hope you can distinguish between useful information -- such as why is the question interesting, either to you or to a wider audience -- and between ramblings that have only marginal association with the real question. Asking about a box sliding with friction down the hill is a fine basic question. Adding that there will be some heat generation is kind of fine if that's what you are aiming for. But starting to talk about temperature increase of the planet and then AGW and that we should ban boxes, hills and friction is not fine. I hope you get the point.

Answer 4

Well... no. Kind of.

There are a couple of reasons that I would say extended narration and subjective assertions are discouraged. Physics is a quantitative, logical subject: in the course of developing the science, we go to a great deal of trouble to pose questions in an objective manner and also to answer them in an objective manner. This is why we use math, so that we can reach conclusions that aren't dependent on the biases or preconceptions of the person doing the thinking. Besides, most subjective, opinion-based questions don't work very well within the SE model. As the FAQ says, "we prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed."

Now, you might point out that the subjectivity of your first paragraph had little to do with the question you were asking - in other words, you weren't asking a subjective question, just offering up some opinions to motivate it. Yes, but an extended introduction in which you assert your opinion doesn't really contribute anything to the question. It's a question about hydrogen fusion, and there's no need to reference climate change to justify asking about fusion reactors. Plenty of people here, including especially the kinds of people who would take an interest in your question, find fusion power interesting on its own merits.

Basically, I fully agree that the edit that removed your introduction helped make the question more focused, and I would think so even if it hadn't generated any controversy. (That doesn't mean you did anything wrong, by the way. Most people have a tendency to write more than they need to. It's difficult to tell that you're doing so when you're looking at your own writing; I'm sure the majority of questions on the site could benefit from being "trimmed" by someone other than the original poster.)

why would it be wrong to use some narration and subjective opinions to make the communication more interesting and approachable to people who are not physicists and cannot communicate at that level?

While there is certainly something to be said for not getting bogged down in math, keep in mind that this is a site mainly targeted at people who are interested in physics, enough to put in a bit of work to communicate using the language of the field. Besides, it's not necessary to be subjective to capture people's interest.

Answer 5

Dear Kzen,

I am not prone to blast people but at the same time I do also hold strong opinions about the specific "the climate change related to use of fossil fuels threatens the very existence of this civilization," statement . I had appended a comment in my answer, and then deleted it when this paragraph was deleted.

I am not the only physicist who has delved into this famous anthropogenic global warming that has morphed into "climate change" ( as if the climate is ever stable) and is going into "climate disruption". The past three years I have read up in depth on the subject, and am convinced that the whole thing is a red herring as far as the "anthropogenic" goes, and a lot is missing from the so called "climate science" . Evidently there was a second physicist with the same opinions and probably many more might have chimed in if it had not been changed. This is not a place for climate wars.

I think it behooves us as scientists on a science site to be as succinct and minimal in the formulation of our problems, to aid in getting an answer. Controversial opinions stated as acceptable premises by all will tend to create reactions. Physicists do not do physics by consensus.

That said, introduction to difficult subjects is always useful, imo.

Answer 6

IMHO an analogy with food would of help here. Every question with its set of answers is like a dish prepared by the contributions of my cooks. Someone baked the crust, someone made the tomato sauce and a third person brought the anchovies (ok, ew :L). But the point in life is not just to eat healthy dishes. They should also have some taste and, if possible, flair. Without spice, without taste, cooking would be as empty and banal as life without music or movies.

Similarly questions and answers without some element of humor, wit, story-telling and other emotional flourishes are akin to boiled potatoes. Healthy and great for breakfast on occasion and when sick but add a little discussion, some context and even some amount of philosophizing and those boiled potatoes become something you ate at Applebee's [context: Applebee's is an American restaurant chain where I had my first black russian.]

So, by all means, discuss and converse and debate. But try to put some effort into your philosophizing and poetics so that this pot-luck we call physics.SE satisfies and nourishes one and all inquiring minds.