Forum Group for "Hypothesis Testing"

This stems from discussion from YEC approaches to empirical investigation .I think EvC could use a place where highly structured investigation into developing hypotheses could be done. A place where the scientific method is not followed per say, but where empirical observations are attempted to be resolved with other ideas or data that is not scientific in any way.By providing a place for YECs to investigate hypotheses, I want to promote the serious use of evidence, and the serious interaction of deducing predictions from premises and comparing those premises to known observations, by people who do not consider themselves scientists.By providing a highly structured environment, I want to eliminate highly randomizing debate that involves:
1. Debating whether YECs are "doing science."
2. Debating whether the claims of the bible are "true" or not.
3. Debating whether or not a particular interpretation of the bible is justified or not.There's places to discuss all those things. I want a special forum just for this, with very specific rules laid out. Here's a proposal on the rules: I also propose that any evidence that cannot be accounted for, and is "passed" on by the person developing a hypothesis, is tracked somehow. I'm not sure how we could do it. Maybe the admin in charge can keep a personal tally, or maybe the admin can keep track of it in their post 2 (traditionally only used for the message "Moved here from the PNT forum")

---

I understand that this may be outside of what Percy's looking for on this board; in fact I've read where he says he specifically isn't interested in such discussion. I think there are reasonable goals from Percy's perspective on why such a structured approach could work. Not the least of which is in trying to get YECs to use better methodology, and to be more aware of what their methodology is. Secondly, to provide a place where progress in a thread is guided by an admin, rather soley by the posters themselves. The posters simply have shown they can't handle keeping things productive on their own.If this idea is accepted, I have an idea how to restructure the forums a bit to accommodate this idea and keep things relatively clean. But first things first. I'm looking for some admin feedback on whether or not this is a fruitful idea, or at least feedback on what I need to show you to convince you it could be fruitful.This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 03:27 PMThis message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 03:31 PM

And as I suggested in that thread - why not re-run an existing thread and see if your methodology would make any difference to the conduct of the people involved and the outcomes?If that's not acceptable run a fresh topic under those rules.

I'm up for that. Seems to me the thread IRH set up is about to run along those lines (it's just getting off the ground). Should we see how that goes? I'd be willing to work as the admin on that thread.By the way, thanks for the reminder Charles. That's a good suggestion you made in the other thread, and I forgot to bring it over.

The fundamental problem is that the typical YEC is caught in an apologetic mindset. They are not disposed to critically examining their views. They often don't even care to read and understand the critiques offered by other preferring to voice the first objection that comes to mind regardless of whether it actually address the point it is supposed to rebut.I suppose it is possible that you might find a YEC who is prepared to discuss things rationally - but I don't think there's one currently on EvC (or many out there - not least because they aren't likely to stay as YECs)..

I recently threw out a "hypothesis" for the EvC forum members to critique. Interestingly, the members granted me many of the things you are asking for in this new proposed debate forum -- I was actually a little surprised by that.I call attention, in particular, to the conversation between me and crashfrog starting in Message 152 and ending in Message 159.--Jason

Actually I did suggest in the other thread where we discussed trying this that your OP would be what I consider a suitable "subject" for a test thread -

Hi Ben,After considering how some evolutionists and creationists can respond to each other, I have a couple of suggestions (no big deal if they are not used).I would think that topics for such a forum should have stricter guidelines for acceptance -- i.e., it should be presented as a "hypothesis" or an idea submitted for analysis by the forum members. In other words, I've got an idea, now I'd like input from others -- even others with an opposing view point.I also think that, perhaps, people wishing to participate in this new forum (should it be established) should be required to ask permission to participate in the forum (or perhaps even on a thread by thread basis).So, one might lose priveleges in this forum, but not the others. It really seems like a forum where the normal tit-for-tat stuff doesn't belong, but that is very hard to prevent (on both sides).Just some thoughts.--JasonAbE:
I see the way you've titled this thread, it could apply even to evolution-believing members who might have an idea about whatever and would like to see it discussed intelligently to see where the idea's strengths/weakenesses might be. But even in evo/evo discussions, there can be a lot of tit-for-tat style of discussion and severe topic-drift.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-15-2005 05:37 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-15-2005 05:41 AM

This seems reasonable to me. Based on experience so far, I suggest that when a thread is opened in the new forum, an accompanying comment thread be opened (perhaps in a different forum). I think that would help reduce the off-topic comments. I would suggest we wait for experience before deciding whether this is needed. I would be interested in first seeing whether a comment thread would be sufficient to allow the discussion to be kept reasonably clean.