Questions with an ulterior motive

Question

There are a lot of questions posted which ask about what mainstream physics says about something, but imply that the OP has a completely different opinion. For example:

• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/278393/lets-get-back-to-the-ether-what-is-it. The OP has some theory about the ether, as shown in their answers on other questions, and wants to get opinions "before giving my own."
• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/277873/does-this-observation-in-a-probabilistic-experiment-indicate-presence-of-a-balan. This question (v1) asks if some experimental data is a "coincidence". The OP has already published a paper claiming that it is not a coincidence and is evidence for a non-mainstream modification of quantum mechanics.
• In Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" thought experiment, would not the passenger on the train see a dimmer signal? In this question (v1), OP asked if I "admit" that special relativity says something happens in a thought experiment. 10 comments later, OP triumphantly reveals that an extension to this thought experiment is supposed to disprove special relativity (it does not).
• What exactly is a photon? The OP already has extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is.
• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279189/prove-that-classical-physics-gives-the-wrong-answer The OP is "issuing a challenge" to the community, to basically prove that quantum mechanics works. They've already written an article saying that quantum mechanics doesn't work.

---

I don't like answering any of these questions, because they feel fundamentally unproductive. The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion, or as an opening to argue with people posting answers. They can't learn anything from the answers because they already have their own. And half the time the OP drags answerers in long and unproductive debates in the comments.

However, there's no close reason that directly addresses this kind of question. I believe all of these questions should be closed, but all close reasons above are incorrect. For example, one might try to close as 'non mainstream' or 'opinion based', but neither of those are true. The actual questions have clear, non-opinion-based, mainstream answers.

Sometimes, people try to use the 'unclear what you're asking' close reason, because this is also incorrect, because there is a well-defined question in each of these. I think people use this reason because it looks like OP really has another, completely different question (e.g. "is my theory correct") in mind, but this takes some reading between the lines.

How should these types of questions be handled?

Answer 1

If the question itself is mainstream and merely appears to be asked "in bad faith", this is not a reason for closure. We judge questions, not their askers.

However, many of these questions trot out questions asked before. The usual duplicate policies apply, and should be stringently enforced. Unless a specific question is asked that distinguishes the new question from older ones, these questions should be closed as duplicates.

If the question is otherwise on-topic, that means that the "ulterior motive" itself cannot be a relevant part of it. References to personal theories or "alternative viewpoints" should be removed by editing, especially if they are of a promotional nature. In the cases where the non-standard material cannot be removed without making the question non-sensical, then you've found the close reason:

It's "non-mainstream", because it then is asking about the evaluation of non-mainstream theories instead of asking about accepted physics. It might also be too broad, or off-topic by the part of the "non-mainstream" policy against requests for review, because removing the material the asker wanted to have validated might turn the question into a request for redoing that entire analysis (correctly). Either way, there's your close reason perfectly within the already established close reasons.

Answer 2

One thing that I might suggest we keep in mind is that an answer is in general not intended only for the OP of a question, but anyone else who is interested. The "What is a photon" question is an extreme example of this- whatever you may think of the OP, there were obviously plenty of other readers who were interested in the responses and not satisfied with those given to the previous versions of the question. I think they were generally well served by the answers that it got.

As a lower-profile example, I answered a question some time ago before realizing that the OP was asking a question about his own paper, and certainly wasn't going to accept my answer that critiqued it. But the question itself was of sufficiently broad interest and worded reasonably enough by the OP that I don't feel like it was a waste of time to answer it even though I stood no chance of having the answer accepted.

In some of the cases you give, the questions themselves were not good in addition to promoting an agenda. That's a separate issue. But when the question would be worthwhile in a vacuum, it should be kept and answered for the broader benefit if nothing else.

Answer 3

Aren't these questions easily ignored? Its not like a conversation where some-one interrupting is taking up valuable talking time. If you don't like the headline question then don't click on it; and if you do decide to click on it, and then don't like the body of the question then again ignore it.

However, one problem that can occur is that it encourages more posts of a similar nature - but given that there is a certain level of sobriety in physics; and that there are enough physicists grounded in mainstream physics that are participating this shouldn't be a huge problem as it is for sites struggling to increase participation.

Non-mainstream positions are an index of healthy curiousity - so long as they don't get out of hand; simply by being what they are they're unlikely to attract expert attention - this is why they're non-mainstream.

Answer 4

If you think the person is only pretending to ask to get an audience, then downvote and say so. It may be that you misjudged, but if enough people agree with you, the questioner might get the message.

Answer 5

How should these types of questions be handled?

You should answer them. If you can't answer them, so be it. Don't carp and complain and make up all sort of fatuous reasons why such questions should be closed because you can't answer them.

By the way, I do not have "extremely strong and non-mainstream opinions on what a photon is." I refer to peer-reviewed papers and robust scientific evidence in my questions and answers. However some people reject it all as "non-mainstream" because it doesn't square with some popscience lies-to-children they've accepted unquestioningly. For example they reject aether out of hand despite what Einstein said, despite what Robert Laughlin said, and despite all the papers on the arXiv. Because they think they know better, when they don't.

Questions with an ulterior motive

I detect a certain irony here.

The OP is just using the question as a soapbox for promoting their own opinion