RG as a discussion platform is home to many fascinating questions and a whole range of opinions. There seems to be a tendency to couch questions in three forms, the hypothetical, the rhetorical or the most common the polar opposite.
An example is the climate change conundrum, "is it caused by humans or some other phenomena?"
I all research on whatever topic the project starts with a question so here is one for this topic.
What is the best form of question in terms of eliciting quality replies and coherent data?
1. The format of RG Q&A is not well adapted for scientific arguments; it is extremely cumbersome to enter even very simple mathematical expressions.
2. Many questions, in particular those that attract a lot of followers and generate very lengthy threads, are of a nature that inspires more to arguments than analysis (even in cases where they should not, like relativity theories and quantum mechanics).
3. The RG questions which generate a lot of debate (more than 1-10 answers) have almost never any active participation from active scientists in the relevant fields, because they have long ago realised that this is not a worthwhile way to spend their scarce time.
I am not sure that your classification of questions is accurate: Some questions I have noted classify as help for solving homework type problems (often badly formulated); some questions are not questions at all, but just disguises for promoting private theories/articles (often badly formulated).
Barry ≪What is the best form of question in terms of eliciting quality replies and coherent data?≫
Most likely through private or restricted access exchanges.
@ Edward:
When I Google specific research topics, articles on RG very often show up very early on the list. I am very far from certain that is is a general trend; it is very likely that the Google "spyware" and algorithms have taken note that I am rather active on RG, and actively strengthens my prejudices.
My personal experience is that having articles (or other "preprints") uploaded to RG can generate a lot of "reads" (which signifies absolutely nothing), but I am not aware of a single case where this has resulted in a citation (which signifies a couple of bits more than nothing).
The problem is the enormous amount of information available to scientists. They cannot possible read everything. They have to rely on the competence of quality journal editors and referees to filter away wrong or irrelevant material (these can err in both directions, much more likely in the direction of publishing too much).
Having your research made available on ResearchGate does not harm you, as far as I know. But, by itself it does not help you either, due to the large amount of junk uploaded to RG. For physics and some other sciences, it would be slightly more effective to make it available to arXiv (which now has a tiny amount of quality control). Uploading to viXra may have a negative effect (although I have seen some interesting and correct papers uploaded there).
Having your research published in some "predatory open access journal" (as I think you have) is very likely to have a negative effect: Not only do you have to shell out a lot of money for publication, but this very act also clearly suggests that your work has been considered by a sequence of referees and editors in regular journals of some reputation, and consistently being rejected.
I don't remember a single one.
What questions are good? Honest ones. I mean, the inquirer does not know the answer but has a reason to believe that there are people who have that knowledge.
I believe that formulating a question is halfway to a solution.
The best question word is "how".
I asked very few questions. Sometimes successfully.
RE: "is it caused by humans or some other phenomena?"
Actually, I don't understand why this constitutes a "polar opposite". Anyway "phenomena" is plural, so this question allows for a plurality of possible causes to choose from. I suppose any question that has a "yes" or "no" answer, could be construed as inviting answers that are polar opposites in that yes/no sense, though the reasons for one of the "poles" might allow for more possibilities than the reasons for the other.
If I simply were to ask, "what is the cause of X?", I'm likely to get answers that some will agree with and others will disagree with, so again a polarity, viz. agree/disagree. I don't think such polarities are problematic. The really problematic questions are those which present us with a false dichotomy, asking us to choose between alternatives which might both be wrong.
BTW, Barry Turner, how would you characterize a nonpolar opposite?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation