|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And of course we have to remember our mods have Agreed - if my suggestions would impractically alter things, then I'm happy to be told as much.
* I think we should calling you "little mod" or "moddy". My nickname originally came from the Domestos adverts of the early 90s that were faux-western with the singing over the top "Big Dom (repeats)...Big Bad Dom". A friend of mine was 6'4" (we were like 12 years old) and was dubbed 'Big Dom', I was a little runt (still am really) so was jokingly dubbed 'little mod'. The name has evolved several times, though most people still stick with 'Mod'; 'little mod' and 'moddy' are both accepted variations (though 'moddy' kind of reminds me of cutesy wutsey ickle girly wirlies...'moddy woddy'). I use Modulous on forums because it helps somewhat avoid the Mod/mod confusion. Well, that was a bit of a tangent. Where was that track...oh yeah. Admins and their time. Erm - agreed! My ideas are suggestions only, or perhaps avenues of exploration for the future - I hope the admins will appreciate that as much as I appreciate their tireless efforts (wait - is my nose getting brown up here...?) This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 08-September-2005 04:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1429 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
I'm probably going to start something that's gonna make a mess, but...
Re: AdminNosy's question (should science be allowed in a non-science forum) and roxrkool's reply (NO!), I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums? If anybody's bringing science to the faith forums, seems like it's the scientists who are so intent to rebut Faith's arguments. I'd suggest 2 methods to these scientists:1. Challenge Faith to support DATA (not rebut theory) by providing empirical evidence that seems to work against her "theories." 2. Just let it go! Don't engage her. I find that people usually provide evidence for Faith to explain, and when she explains it, they use scientific theories to "show" her that her explanation is simply not possible. Instead of bringing science into the faith forums, why not extract the data from the scientific theories, and bring these to the faith forums? If Faith's constructions don't hold up, then there will be evidence she can't "explain away." If they do hold up, then I don't see what the problem is. If she chooses to simply ignore evidence, then that's when moderation should step in. Why is this so hard? And for those to whom it's so difficult, why not just exit stage left? What does arguing with Faith buy you anyway? Ben P.S. I was unsure whether to post this in Admin mode or not. Since I'm asking questions rather than making statements outlining moderation policy or my moderation approach, I thought non-admin mode is more appropriate. This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/09/09 12:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?
I agree with you. This sort of thread makes for good reading on how literalists think. It seems reasonable to ask Faith some difficult questions. But it is surely foolish to try to persuade her that literalism is wrong. She clearly isn't going to be persuaded. But it is fascinating to watch how she deals with the questions. I guess I am treating it as a case study in fundy thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If Faith's constructions don't hold up, then there will be evidence she can't "explain away." You can always invent an explanation. There will be no evidence that Faith, or anyone, can't devise a sentence in English that appears to explain it. The crucial point is not that an explanation is made, but that a valid explanation is made. And determining the validity of an explanation is something we do with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: huh? do we all get a free toot on that crackpipe or is it admin-only? How the f**k can you have a faith based empirical investigation? no bullshit - give me a practical example - an experiment I can run. This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 08:06 PM This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 08:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1429 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis.
Step 2: Collect data Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis. Repeat until all data are fit. In this case, no experiment necessary--there's tons of geologic data readily available. But once you have a model (see step 3), you can make predictions for further data. Science isn't the only way to go about creating theories. It's just shown to be a better way to make progress and model the data--it's incremental and falsifiable, both strong points when you don't know what the actual "truth" you're aiming for is. Faith is clearly doing empirical investigation. She's not doing it scientifically. Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data? Nobody cares if the hypothesis is a priori or not; it's whether it's RIGHT OR NOT (i.e. models data) that we care about. And that's simply seeing if the observed data fits within the model, and to see if the predictions the model makes hold in the future as well. No crack necessary pappy. Only crack going on here is the one between my ass cheeks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis. Step 2: Collect data Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis. Not quite Step 1: Choose your conclusion from the dogma you've selectedStep 2: Come up with an explanation that superficially makes sense Step 3: Disregard all data which conflict with your conclusion Step 4: Come up with a "hypothesis" Step 5: File for tax exemption Step 6: Start tricking idiots into giving you money But all this is way OT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data? Something like this gets said here every few weeks. How about opening a PNT in "Is it science?" and suggesting a different way of arriving at something that has a reasonable chance of being correct? No one ever does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1429 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
suggesting a different way of arriving at something that has a reasonable chance of being correct I didn't say anything about having a reasonable chance of being correct. I think the reason people do science is because done what other methodologies have not--it's produced results, time and time again. But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so." In the meantime, stop trying to engage her with science. Faith doesn't do science, and y'all are beating your heads against a wall. It's stupid. Go away and do some real science, like roxrkool is. Get on with it. Get over it. (I'm talking more to CK, roxrkool, Nuggin, deerbah, et al. more than you Ned.) If you still think this would be fruitful being discussed within a "Is it Science" forum topic, then I'll put something up there. But I wanted to make sure I clarified what I'm saying first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What do the recent messages have to do with moderation?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, I personally think I made some very good points on the thread about the Southwest that turned so many on the other side into raving beasts. They all degenerate into lunacy and nosy pulls the thread before I can get back to it, specifically to prevent ME from posting. Aint that sweet. Well, as I said, nobody really wants any input from Bible literalists anyway.
So Ben, one of the posts I was going to get to next, that now I can't, was yours where you said you wanted to discuss this problem about science versus whatever you think I'm doing. Thanks for your considerate and fair attitude. I don't see any problem myself except that my opposition is hidebound and uncivil to say the least, but if you have something to say you think we can discuss to a constructive end, please start a thread I can participate in, since I'm banned from science threads, including "Is it Science."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Well, I personally think I made some very good points on the thread about the Southwest LMAOAROTF!!!! You have got to be kidding Faith. All you did was show that you are willfully ignorant and not capable of logical or rational thought! You need to at least learn a smidgen of geology before you can start to comment on it and be very learned before you start throwing out great chunks of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Does this advance the discussion on moderation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis. Step 2: Collect data Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis. Repeat until all data are fit. I'm not completely sure of this yet though it looks promising. Is this what you think creationists in general are doing?
In this case, no experiment necessary--there's tons of geologic data readily available. But once you have a model (see step 3), you can make predictions for further data. I think that makes sense.
Faith is clearly doing empirical investigation. Thank you, certainly seems so to me.
She's not doing it scientifically. I guess this is the part you're going to have to explain. Not that I'm stuck on the term, as I've explained, but if it's empirical and it's logical, why isn't it science?
Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data? Nobody cares if the hypothesis is a priori or not; it's whether it's RIGHT OR NOT (i.e. models data) that we care about. And that's simply seeing if the observed data fits within the model, and to see if the predictions the model makes hold in the future as well. Makes sense to me. Now apparently you are going to have a problem explaining it to your science-minded friends here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Yes, why?
Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so." Thank you. Funny how the thread has died now. Dear dear, how ARE they going to deal with us literalists. They can't live with us and they can't live without us.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024