Concern about question deletion: Science can look after itself and repudiate "offensive" questions by rational repudiation and evidence

Question

I refer to this deleted question and my question is this:

Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?

To summarize the deleted question: cites this book "How Einstein Ruined Physics" by Roger Schlafly, one of whose main premises seems to be the notion that Einstein was a fraud because Poincaré, Lorentz (not to mention, unwittingly, Maxwell himself) and others made important contributions to STR that were unacknowledged by Einstein at the time. The OP asked for an opinion as to how valid this viewpoint is.

Now the question was probably against the rules of this site owing to its opinion-dependent nature, but I was rather concerned that it was deleted as "Offensive" instead of being migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.

Maybe this question was trolling. Maybe it was genuine. Either way, the notion of Einstein's fraud can be soundly repudiated by discussion, not censorship. I wrote an answer that was upvoted thrice very swiftly: I emphasize that I really don't give the nether end of a rat about the reputation, but I do care that the arguments against a fairly fashionable idea in some circles couldn't be put, either by me or by someone else - I really don't care. The upvotes seem to say that people had valid thoughts on this question. Moreover, after I wrote my answer, several people made highly valid comments that I hadn't thought of and should also have been put to repudiate what the OP seemed to be implying (or seeking confirmation of). Like it or not, many lay people read this site and form opinions about science grounded on its practices. Some will take from this question's deletion the impression that bad ideas are censored rather than rationally repudiated and shown, with evidence, to be bad ideas as should, IMO, be the wont of scientists.

In deleting the question, we lost the chance to describe an important aspect of the scientific method. That is, science is a culture and we all benefit from the ideas of our forerunners. Hopefully we cite these other ideas, but sometimes they become deeply enmeshed in the culture and body of knowledge that we forget that there was a time before them. Add to this Einstein's odd, intense, somewhat isolated personality that lead to his being e.g. stuck in his building's elevator many cycles lost in his thoughts before realizing it was time to get off, you have someone who was perhaps a little less adept at citation than he might have been. Einstein - crucially - lived in a world where communication was very different from today and it was not as easy to keep abreast of ideas. I recall a sign in my faculty library in the 1980s advertising a course in Dialog (an ancient forerunner to the WWW) bearing the slogan "Information Revolution Got You Down?" In those days I certainly felt this way, much more so than now where, thanks to the WWW and decent search engines, I do not feel overwhelmed by information.

So science is a culture that shares ideas that everyone benefits from. Einstein was no different from any other scientist in this way. Does that make Einstein a fraud? Absolutely not: without the protagonists, including Einstein, there is NO culture and there is NO science. The author of the book in question as a professional geometer liked Poincaré's insights into special relativity and the geometric / group theoretic description more than Einstein's. If the truth be known, probably I do too. So what. We all think differently. My understanding of the history is that Einstein was first to uniquely take time dilation as just that: a real effect on time itself rather than arising from Lorentz's "local time" which was not taken as being "true" or "real": Poincaré himself described it as having no meaning by itself and resulting only from convention. Moreover, as one commenter pithily put it, Einstein's contribution was hardly only special relativity, or even only GTR and STR put together.

I can understand the viewpoint that the question was not a good fit for this site. I disagree that challenges such as the OP's to mainstream viewpoints can be offensive. He/She attacked no-one personally on this site. I disagree with the question's deletion and believe that it should have been migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE.

I've banged on enough, so could someone please give any further insight into why this question was deleted rather than migrated?

Answer 1

The question was asked before by the same user, in mostly the same form.

It contained references to the "Jewish Media". This is a common phrase slung about in anti-semitic contexts, and is a marker for bigotry and other such things.

So, the post is:

• About a likely anti-semitic book
• Completely off topic
• Open ended anyway ("What do you think of this book")

Totally inappropriate for any Stack Exchange site. Perhaps okay for HSM, but the first and third points still sort of apply. And we are under no obligation to migrate; the user can repost to that site if they want. Migrations should not be used as a way to shovel garbage (or non-garbage mediocre stuff) off the site; only use it if the other site really wants the question. We don't think they will, so we won't migrate. The OP can repost if they want.

Answer 2

Physics Stack Exchange isn't the place to ask questions about the history or sociology of physics. A question about a priority dispute in special relativity is definitely off-topic, even if we could, as you suggest, demonstrate "the scientific method" by rebutting claims in the question. Science can indeed (usually) look after itself, but this just isn't a question about science.

Having said that, it doesn't sound offensive, though I haven't read the original question, only your description. I think that the question was rightly deleted but for the wrong reason. The OP is free to ask his question elsewhere, including on other SE sites (let's hope that the history of science is equally adept at looking after itself ;)).

I just don't see much here to be particularly concerned about - we recorded the wrong reason for closing a question, and that's it.

Answer 3

I might as well follow up on the possibility of a migration to HSM.

Looking at the version provided by John Rennie, and considering Manishearth's three points, I'll say . . . it would be okay for HSM. Posting it, even just to see what the reaction would be, probably wouldn't harm anyone.

Applying Manishearth's ideas to HSM

1. The book may be anti-Semitic. That is not okay, as has been established. Not. At. All. However, the question doesn't seem to be based off of anti-Semitism. I had to dig a bit deeper to see that Schlafly does seem to be a wee bit biased against Judaism. The fact that I couldn't tell that just by reading the question, though - and was surprised to learn - indicates that the question itself isn't anti-Semitic. Perhaps - and this is speculation - the idea was based firmly on anti-Semitism, courtesy of Schlafly. But a solid answer wouldn't have to venture anywhere near that.

   So point number one isn't a killer here.

2. I won't go into whether or not that's on-topic for Physics, but I'll talk about HSM.

   If we boil it down to "Could Schlafly's point about Einstein not responsible for the majority of relativity theory accurate?", then I think it's okay. Is there some opinion in there? Perhaps. But a good answer would analyze the historical background behind the theory - talking about Poincare and any others. That works. We have answers that have gone into depths like that.

3. I don't think it's too open-ended, but I am concerned by

   If you read the book what do you think of Schlafly's claims, and was Einstein a fraud?

   Please also comment if you haven't read the book.

   This indicates that the question is purely about the book. That is not good. The best answers on HSM use many sources; it's our unofficial policy to back things up as much as possible. Have I seen good ones that use only a few, or even one? Yes. But more sources generally indicates reliability. Schlafly is probably biased, meaning that he could be a terrible source to use.

Why was this question deleted rather than migrated to History of Science and Mathematics SE?

I appreciate that the question was not migrated directly to HSM without any warning. Generally, moderators on STEM sites communicate with us if there is the possibility of a migration, given that there are many sites - the vast majority, in fact, or probably all of them - on which history is not explicitly off topic. So they ask for the opinions of HSM mods. This is very helpful.

Given that the question was a bit iffy for reasons exceeding scope, chucking it to HSM could have violated a soft version of the "Don't Migrate Crap" policy, as Manishearth indicated. Now, could they have talked to us and then possibly migrated? Sure. But it's not their obligation, as has been said.

If the user wants it on HSM, s/he can re-post it there, and the community there will take a look at it. No harm done, I would think. It's fine for one community to deal with an issue without bringing another community in. It can be helpful to notify the other community, but it's not mandatory.

---

After some more thinking, I'm seriously reconsidering my original position. I've done some reading, and Schlafly is not someone I would want to cite in, say, anything. The guy's biased, to say the least. In order to have a good question, one would have to assume that the information it is based off is accurate and neutral. I wouldn't feel safe making that assumption.