Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Restrictions in the Science Forums.
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (209880)
05-20-2005 12:47 AM


There has been a significant amount of concern and discussion about restrictions applied with respect to the science forums. I would welcome further input on this matter here, so that we can focus on the matter.
I request that everyone leaves the general moderation feedback thread for other general concerns that may arise, and that the specific matter of special expectations in the science forums be discussed here.
I'll be making some more input here in response to other posts shortly.
Thank you. -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-20-2005 12:48 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 1:14 AM AdminSylas has not replied
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 1:14 AM AdminSylas has replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2005 1:18 AM AdminSylas has not replied
 Message 6 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 1:25 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 44 (209882)
05-20-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 12:47 AM


In case what I was saying on the earlier moderation thread was misunderstood, I'd just like to make it clear that I wasn't talking about the Science forums at all. I was proposing possible new forums in the Religion section that would focus on theology but not disallow scientific issues where relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:47 AM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 1:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 3 of 44 (209883)
05-20-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 12:47 AM


So are you basically asking whether we should redefine how science is approached, conducted, and presented in the science forums so we can accommodate the Creationists?
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 01:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:47 AM AdminSylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 1:35 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2005 9:53 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 44 (209884)
05-20-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 12:47 AM


Science Threads
Most of the more scientifically inclined only have a complaint with the religiously inclined when they attempt to mess with the teaching of science.
It is that issue that Percy has given as the reason for the existance of this site. A large portion of it is devoted to a lot of faith based discussion and we now have a specific major grouping for this kind of discussion. I think that is already giving lots of room for the "other" side.
The main reason for the site existance then is to discuss this idea that there is some sort of scientific support for a literal reading of selected parts of the Bible. That is, that there is such a thing as scientific-creationism. For that reason I think the clear separation of those areas which are to be held to the standards of scientific inquiry is very reasonable. In fact, allowing any other discussion in a specific area is way more than fair enough.
The next area of controversy is about who is allowed and not allowed to post in the science area. I think that there is a lot of leniance there already. For example, in the flood thread PH is showing that he is unwilling to follow the evidence. So far, he is still being allowed to post as he is carrying on a scientific appearing discussion. This should not be allowed indefinitly.
Other individuals have in the past clearly shown a total lack of understanding of the concepts involved in an appropriate discussion. They have also had many months to try. It is then time to keep them out of the way of others. The site allows them plenty of space to bring up any topic they would like. Just not where there are defined standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:47 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 5 of 44 (209887)
05-20-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
05-20-2005 1:14 AM


Another messageboard uses forums entitled "Applied Protology" and "Cosmogony." Only YECs, OECs, theists are allowed to post in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (209892)
05-20-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 12:47 AM


What prompted me to make this thread was to give an answer to the following comments.
In Message 291, jar said, in response to Faith:
AdminJar writes:
Faith writes:
We start from the inviolable Biblical premise, we start from the position that Biblical revelation is a KNOWN, and that everything we observe must be explained within its terms.
That is the failing. When you have already determined the conclusion you have moved from the realm of science into something else.
In Message 2, Buzsaw responded as follows:
Buzsaw writes:
This's what frustrates me. BBists already determine conclusions which we deem impossible like the whole universe, including all space once supposedly occupying a submicroscopic area billions of times smaller than a pin point or even the proton of an atom. We believe that's a lot more preposterous than it all being designed by an intelligent creator. One "already determined conclusion" which millions deem impossible (including some scientists) is called science and ours which is deemed impossible by secularists is disallowed in the science debate as science.
Buz is flat out wrong about conventional cosmology just being assumed.
He asserts this over and over, and gets more and more frustrated, but that can't be helped. The claim is false. Big Bang cosmology is based on a number of independent lines of empirical evidence, which have been discussed at length in the many threads. This is the only reason it has become dominant.
In order to become so dominant, Big Bang cosmology actually had to overcome the philsophical objections of many scientists. The major problem it had with acceptance early in this century was because of the troubling philsophical implications of an origin in time. Many called it a form of creationism, and rejected it on that basis. You still get this objection raised, but it carries no weight in science. The evidence is what counts, and has carried the day.
Buz's own objections to Big Bang cosmology are that is it "preposterous", or "illogical".
But that is not a valid argument in the science forums. It's not a valid argument anywhere, in fact. Logic is just a way of working out the implications of starting assumptions, and the assumptions used to reject Big Bang cosmology are not well founded empirically, and they are not a generally accepted basis for drawing conclusions. That is; the Big Bang is not illogical at all. It simply violates a few common assumptions often made about such things as space and time. Preposterous is simply an expression of basic assumptions, which need to be put on the table and examined in the light of the observations and evidence.
The general feeling of the board administration seems to be that the science forums are specifically intended discussion which is founded on examining and explaining the emirical physical evidence, and developing or refuting models on the basis of their capacity to deal with that evidence. That is my view, certainly.
Objections to conventional cosmology based on philosophical concerns (such as the objection by some atheists to an origin in time) are not what science is about. Neither are objections based on logical inference from undebateable starting assumptions, or personal incredudilty on what makes sense to you or not. These objections can be discussed by all means; but the science forum is intended for those who engage by using or explaining or dealing with physical empirical evidence.
There is some contention about whether it is appropriate to apply restrictions to people who cannot engage in this manner. Should we allow people to simply apply biblical or theological or revelatory or philosophical arguments to these questions? I say yes, but only in the other forums. Leave the science forums to those who want to engage by leveraging empirical physical evidence. As far as I am concerned, this allows for invocation of gods or magic or designers or anything else; as long as it is based on explaining and addressing the empirical evidence.
Faith's suggestion of threads is an interesting one. Basically, I take her as suggesting that there should be scope for a discussion of such things as proper biblical interpretation which is not distracted by a lot of scientists bringing up empirical objections. That seems like a sensible idea to me. There are people who consider that inference from emphemeral physical observations is inherently unreliable, and I see no reason why a thread proposal could not request a corresponding focus on exegesis in the subsequent discussion. I don't think it needs a whole new forum, however, given the makeup of our contributors. I suspect there may be other boards that would be good for that kind of focus as well.
Cheers — AdminSylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 12:47 AM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 1:53 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (209895)
05-20-2005 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by roxrkool
05-20-2005 1:14 AM


So are you basically asking whether we should redefine how science is approached, conducted, and presented in the science forums so we can accommodate the Creationists?
Not quite. I believe the current focus on empirical data already accomodates most creationist debate. Creationists for the most part understand the force of empirically based arguments, and modern "scientific creationism" is basically a response to that, attempting to use or refute empirically based arguments in support of biblical literalism.
Whether they are winning or losing in the debate is another matter... but the science forums are a very good place for that debate to take place. Creationist models for empirical evidence; arguments for a young earth revealed in geology, or a designer revealed in DNA, or a flood revealed in the grand canyon, are all arguments that deal with empirical evidence, and belong in the science forums.
What I don't want to see is a change to the science forums to accomodate those who don't care about empirical data at all, or those who just don't understand what it means to engage empirical data.
Cheers -- AdminSylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 1:14 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 1:57 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 44 (209899)
05-20-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 1:25 AM


Faith's suggestion of threads is an interesting one. Basically, I take her as suggesting that there should be scope for a discussion of such things as proper biblical interpretation which is not distracted by a lot of scientists bringing up empirical objections. That seems like a sensible idea to me. ...I don't think it needs a whole new forum, however, given the makeup of our contributors. I suspect there may be other boards that would be good for that kind of focus as well.
Such as?
I would just like to remind everyone of the sequence of this discussion, or at least my part in it. Adminnemooseus proposed to Buz that he open a thread in Faith and Belief on the theological considerations involved in ID where he'd be free to express many points not allowed in the science forums.
I followed that by saying that I'd like to see a forum dedicated to that kind of focus in the Religion section, except that I'm not into ID, so I'd like something that includes YEC thinking.
Percy responded that he basically liked the idea because he's not happy with the present arrangement of the Religion section and would like more input.
I later gave more detailed input, explaining the creationist presuppositions that the forums would be geared to, and insisting that scientific ideas be included in these forums rather than strictly excluded on the contrary presupposition of the evo side that Faith and Science are mutually exclusive.
That of course prompted argument from the evos with the creationist point of view instead of a congenial attempt to assist in the effort to accommodate us, and we're back at square one.
I don't see any other solution to the problem of creationist frustration that was being addressed both by Adminnemooseus and Percy than to have threads dedicated to creationist assumptions, or forums.
Of course no solution is mandated. We can continue as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 1:25 AM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-20-2005 2:00 AM Faith has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 9 of 44 (209900)
05-20-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminSylas
05-20-2005 1:35 AM


AS writes:
What I don't want to see is a change to the science forums to accomodate those who don't care about empirical data at all, or those who just don't understand what it means to engage empirical data.
Okay. I'm glad to hear it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminSylas, posted 05-20-2005 1:35 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 10 of 44 (209902)
05-20-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-20-2005 1:53 AM


Such as?
I recommend TheologyWeb as an excellent discussion board that would meet this need. I am a member there in good standing myself, though I have not written much in the last month. They have a very active moderation team and professional appearance with many excellent features. They also have forums specifically limited to Christians, and others limited to non-believers, and one limited to young earth creationists. For those who prefer a limit of this kind, this works very well.
The limit I am supporting here is not quite of this kind. In this board, anyone is welcome in any forum; as long as they work within the intended parameters of the forum. Restrictions are applied on an individual basis, predicated not on the viewpoint or conclusion, but on whether the poster is able to remain within the parameters of debate. The method used in TheologyWeb has a place as well; though I don't think it would works as well here.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 1:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2005 2:05 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 2:09 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 2:14 AM Sylas has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 44 (209904)
05-20-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Sylas
05-20-2005 2:00 AM


Science excluded from faith threads?
It appears that Faith thinks the evidence based arguments are excluded from the (edited to fix) Faith and Belief (not science) threads. I don't think that is the intention at all; just that they are not required there.
Do you agree?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-20-2005 08:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-20-2005 2:00 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 2:23 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-20-2005 4:54 AM NosyNed has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 12 of 44 (209906)
05-20-2005 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Sylas
05-20-2005 2:00 AM


I agree, Sylas, because you can bet that if any YEC attempts to use the "Mount St. HelensEvidence for Genesis!" route to support their stance of a young earth, there is NO WAY people are going to let that garbage slide without a refutation.
YECism is 'supported' through the use of earth science and therefore will be refuted through the use of earth science.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 02:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-20-2005 2:00 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 44 (209908)
05-20-2005 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Sylas
05-20-2005 2:00 AM


I will look at TheologyWeb but I appreciate debate rather than discussion exclusively with likeminded people.
Having a theology-focused forum on creationist and ID issues in the Religion section here would ideally still permit debate on scientific issues, only with more leeway for creationist methods and assumptions than allowed in the Science forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Sylas, posted 05-20-2005 2:00 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Sylas, posted 05-20-2005 4:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 44 (209910)
05-20-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
05-20-2005 2:05 AM


Re: Science excluded from faith threads?
From the moderation thread, two examples of strict division between science and faith:
Adminnemooseus post #287 If you wish to debate the theological merits of ID, independent of scientific consideration, then the topic (as previously suggested) belongs in the "Faith and Belief" forum.
AdminSylas, post # 298 We have some "faith and belief" forums, where you can discuss the proper foundations for your faith and the theological basis for strict historical literalism [but apparently not science], and so on. We also have some "science" forums, where you can consider what physical evidence there is for or against a particular view point.
My original post was #280 in response to Adminnemooseus' suggestion to Buz to start a thread on Theology of ID.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-20-2005 02:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2005 2:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 15 of 44 (209922)
05-20-2005 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-20-2005 2:14 AM


My comments in this post are not a formal statement from any authority. They are my personal impression and understanding of how matters stand, but I'm open to correction, particularly from board owners.
Having a theology-focused forum on creationist and ID issues in the Religion section here would ideally still permit debate on scientific issues, only with more leeway for creationist methods and assumptions than allowed in the Science forums.
My understanding of the matter is that Faith and Belief forums are still fine for discussing matters relating to empirical evidence.
That is, there is not a strict division into two styles of argument, with one for one forum and the other for a different forum. It is instead a case of choosing to remain focused on the one style of argument, or choosing to have a wider range of styles.
The science forums are more restrictive. Some describe this as science forums holding people to a "higher" standard. It can just as easily be seen as holding people to a restriction without presuming anything about "higher" or "better".
If people want to pursue a line of argument which does not fit within the narrow scope of scientific argument, then I am inclined to direct them towards those forums where the limitations do not apply.
I don't consider myself to be as rigid on this as some members appear to perceive. I'm cool with someone speaking of the bible and of supernatural interventions in the science forums, and forming a model based on a certain understanding of the bible. My expectation is simply that there will be a substantial consideration of how well that model fits with empirical observations. It will always be acceptable to criticise a position (any position) on the basis of how well it fits physical evidence. But it is not reasonable in a science forum to dismiss physical evidence as unimportant because the bible carries more authority, or conversely to dismiss it as unacceptable to scientific orthodoxy. To refute a model, it is good scientific argument to point out where the model fails to fit with observation, or where it requires ad hoc additions that have no good basis in observation, or to address substantively the validity of the data being applied.
In a science forum, it should not be considered a valid argument to reject a model because simply because it seems counter intuitive. Conversely, it will not be useful in the science forums to simply invoke sequences of ad hoc manipulations that deny the capacity of empirical observation to test a model at all.
It seems to me, looking at the guidelines and their history, that EvCforum itself may have been originally set up by Percy with the basic expectation that positions would be argued and responding to substantively by consideration of external empirical data of some kind; and that what I am suggesting for the science forums is pretty much the original intent of the whole board. But of course Percy is the authority on his own original objectives.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-20-2005 2:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024