This article discusses a basic set of guidelines for acceptable scientific discussion on the canonical science today blog. It was prepared over several years of experience following discussions on USENET, forums, and blogs.
Visit also the canonical code of conduct and behavior.
Do not submit annoying and offensive messages. Keep a cool head. If you want the useful information to be read, just maintain to a minimum the noise.
Re-read what was written to make sure you understand the author's intention. It is quite possible there is more than one way to interpret the writing. Sometimes an apparent insult is actually a poorly expressed thought by someone not familiar with the language [1].
Read your reply at least twice before submitting it. A good rule of thumb is to read the guidelines at least once a month to reset yourself from possible deviations on use.
Any scientific theory or model has weak points. Science is about modeling nature such as we better observe and measure it. Science is not about how we want nature to be. Nature does not care about how beautiful you believe that your favorite theory is.
You may be a recognized expert on some specific topic but you continue being human. The chance for mistake may be small but is not zero. The history of science shows that experts on some old paradigm are likely the first people to be wrong during a scientific revolution. Maintain in mind this important principle of work: It is best to admit one's mistakes as soon as they are noticed
[2].
Informed comments relevant to the posting are very welcome and strongly encouraged. Off-topic comments are disacouraged and only exceptionally posted.
Comments violating the most basic scientific requirements —mathematics, scientific method, dimensional analysis, etc.— are not acceptable.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Do not argue indefinitely over a moot point.
Do not overemphasize a minor point while totally ignoring a major issue; this create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition —the straw man
—, and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Flames and red-herring are intended to confuse the reader or divert attention away from the subject. Flames often are attempts to hide the poster's ignorance on some topic by inciting a series of angry responses. Otherwise the flames indicate some personal animadversion against specific persons, groups, or communities.
It is a pointless waste of time, energy, bandwidth, and disk space to submit these.
Be careful when citing others' messages or ideas. Acknowledgments would include people who tried to help you even if they were not very helpful.
[1] We thanks by this useful suggestion.
[2] This was brilliantly pointed by , who we express gratitude.