|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Brian writes: Since she has been tolerated here for so long, and not only has her bad behaviour been largely ignored, you have rewarded her with an adminship! Adminship isn't a privilege but a curse. Faith got what she deserved when I made her an admin. Seriously, she seems to be doing a very good job as admin, though I wish she were more active. Which reminds me, our next moderator meeting will take up the issue of relatively inactive admins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
AdminModulous writes: This simply should not have been allowed. The rules state that you need to support your argument with evidence.
Faith may be in breach of the rule, but not in the way you might be thinking,
This rule from the Forum Guidelines has proved confusing on a couple of occasions. The reason for the "and/or" between "evidence" and "reasoned argumentation" is because no one is expected to recapitulate the evidence relevant to his point in every post. During the course of a discussion some posts will contain evidence, some posts will contain reasoned argumentation, and some will contain both. But both evidence and reasoned argumentation are required in order to make a valid point, though in the case of obvious evidence one can forgo the reasoned argumentation. Your reasoning about pink dragons might be perfect, but without evidence of pink dragons it holds no significance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The fundamental question is what to do about a very articulate and very high-volume participant who has a great deal of difficulty following the forum guidelines, specifically the rules concerning staying on topic and moving discussion forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith provided an example of the very behavior I'm most concerned about after I had already raised the issue in the admin forum concerning her recent contributions. I'm sure the Faith Science - Logically Indefensible thread has already been referenced in this discussion, but breaking down the issue into a little more detail might help people understand why I'm concerned. Here I summarize Faith's messages in this thread:
Despite repeated attempts, Faith never addressed herself to the topic or the key issues, and she ignored detailed responses that took people considerable effort, myself included. She simply repeated her declarations of what she believes over and over and over again. Now, this behavior in and of itself is not sufficient to get one suspended. But this was the pattern of participation that I had had the opportunity to observe over the past four or five weeks. My own position was that action must be taken, but I didn't realize when I initially proposed a permanent suspension that it would be so widely opposed. While it seems that existing members have largely become philosophical about Faith's behavior and say that this is just Faith being Faith (we have a remarkable number of long-timers), new members are going to react with, "I thought you promised a venue where debate could be focused and constructive and where members couldn't get away with evasion and insults and obfuscation. What's going on here?" This is why we have the Forum Guidelines and why they must do our best to apply them fairly and evenly. But we shouldn't just ignore them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Constructive discussion requires that the participants have to genuinely want to be constructive. It only takes a single participant in a message board discussion to sabotage discussion, and it can be accomplished through a variety of techniques, including but not limited to accusations false or not, flamboyant comments, outrageous comments, going off-topic and stonewalling.
I've suspended Randman, hover over the suspension icon to see the reason. He has some unfinished business he would like to discuss, and he is free to discuss it to his heart's content in the showcase forum when his suspension expires. Or, if he'd like to be constructive and respectful and on-topic, he can discuss them in the threads here. I'm tentatively reopening this topic, but if the off-topic digression resumes then I will close it again. The topic of this thread is to *constructively* discuss whether Faith's participation here represents a significant obstacle to productive debate to the point where administrative action is warranted. To briefly summarize, I sense a sort of split consensus where on the one hand Faith is considered a staunch advocate of the creationist viewpoint who stimulates many excellent evolutionary explanations, while on the other hand presenting a significant challenge to evolutionary arguments primarily through her inability or unwillingness to comprehend or address them. Those who take the former viewpoint seem to outnumber the latter by quite a bit, though I haven't made anything like an exact count.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: But the hostility faction, and the aggressive reiteration as if they were established facts of some of the arguments I feel I've answered time and time again, take the wind out of me. How can I continue to post freely with that much against me? This is a good example of what I find so objectionable. Though I've laid out my criticisms in detail and with evidence, instead of offering counterarguments with counter-evidence you make general declarations about how this is just so untrue and so unfair and so overwhelming that how can you be expected to counter it. You're received a lot of support in these discussions, and I think you deserve it because there is a lot to your credit, but if you refuse to accept criticism and refuse to perform any self-examination of your approach to discussion and refuse to accept much if any responsibility for your behavior here, and if because of this you continue to contribute in the same manner, then I will probably continue to object to your presence here. I should mention something else unrelated. Schraf said you only begin regular participation in 2005. I'm sure that's wrong, though your message database records no messages in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. But my vague recollection is that you began contributing in earnest in 2003. Does that sound right to you? Anyway, your message history will be fixed when the threads move into the database, though I don't know when that will happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: Schraf is correct. I signed on in 2001 but only posted a few messages then, and did not post again for about three years. I started posting regularly in February of 2005. In less than 2 years you have nearly 10,000 posts? No wonder it feels like you're omnipresent! Jesus Christ himself couldn't keep up such a pace! No wonder it feels like you've been here for years. Faith, I've been here since the beginning, and except for vacations I'm here every single day, and as Percy I have only half as many posts as you. Only Jar and Crash have more, but not by much and they've been here much longer. Could I suggest emphasizing quality over quantity? It isn't necessary that you take on all of evolution-dom by yourself. A few effective arguments are going to go a lot further than many insubstantial ones. Research your topics, conscientiously address rebuttals, support your arguments with evidence. Strong arguments will defeat hundreds of weak ones. Go for quality and stop the frenetic posting behavior. I notice Randman has been here only a little over a year but has over 5000 posts despite being often suspended - that's far too many. I wasn't aware there were such high posting rates going on. We need posting limits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: I don't know why you can't follow this. I am explaining MY reference points, NOT trying to persuade YOU to them. I am explaining that Biblical creationists will always take the Flood as a FACT, whether you do or not, and your definitions simply make no difference because we believe the God who made all things said it. You were correct when you noted this is off-topic, but it is possible to cast this into the context of this discussion. The thread where this came up was in the science forums. You have to be willing to discuss the observational and/or experimental foundation of your facts to see if they qualify as scientific facts. You can't just declare that your facts are facts that can't be disputed or discussed, not if you're doing science, and not in a forum whose reason for being is discussion. Your persistent refusal to discuss this combined with persistent repetition of it is a good example of what causes me to attempt to limit your participation here. Too many discussions where you participate eventually boil down to dancing around the same mulberry bush, and I would like this pattern to end. It is within your power to leave this merry-go-round behind. All you have to do is address the substance contained in replies to you, such as Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible that spent quite a bit of time explaining why scientific facts do not originate in books. Responding to well argued rebuttals with declarations of belief is what is getting you into trouble in the science forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
troxelso writes: That is a lie.... Probably a little too emphatic, mistaken might have been a better choice of words. Take a short break.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: That is a ridiculous and obvious point, Percy, to which the obvious answer is that the Bible is not regarded by Biblical creationists as just a book, which I believe is how I answered, and if you will not accept Biblical creationist premises -- not for yourself or for EvC but as a simple statement of our position -- there is nothing more that can be said. This is another good example of why you experience so many problems here. Too many times the discussion comes down to your assertion that nothing more can be said. You can't repeatedly draw people into the middle of detailed discussions and then suddenly throw up your hands and quit, not without drawing moderator attention. As everyone knows, there is always plenty that can be said. I'm not sure why you think it is reasonable to require that others "accept Biblical creationist premises" without your side having to make any effort at persuasion or argument. This is a debate site. The expectation is that there will be evidence and argumentation from each side for their respective positions. If you're not willing to discuss and defend your position, then you shouldn't be participating in a debate site. This isn't a creationist issue, it's just what a discussion is: give and take, back and forth and all that.
1) I don't regard that as a well-argued rebuttal (Faith is referring to Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible) to say the least, but merely your statement of position which no creationist is allowed to disagree with, or YOUR statement of belief; and... No, Faith, it is not a statement of belief, and of course disagreement is permitted. What isn't permitted is exactly what you're doing here, yet another dismissal from you without addressing anything of substance while once again declaring your point of view.
2) I answered it, I did not merely give a statement of belief. It was to make a point. Faith, Faith, please, do not be irrational. I am spending much time with you, and this descent into denial is wasting my time and yours. You did not answer anything in my post, and you did give just a statement of belief. Here's the entirety of your reply:
Faith in Message 71 of Thread Faith Science etc... writes: I believe the flood is evident in the geo column and that will eventually be shown empirically. The Bible is God's word, it is not "some book." Your not believing that makes no difference to whether or not its statements are facts. That was the point of my post. End of discussion. That reply is an almost perfect example of the problem. This is a discussion board, not a "Faith Declares the Truth" board. If you can't discuss constructively then I would prefer that you not participate here. This has nothing to with creationist beliefs, it has to do with uniformly enforcing the Forum Guidelines that require everyone to discuss constructively. If you choose to continue stonewalling and declaring instead of discussing then that is your choice. All I'm doing is pursuing my goal of making EvC Forum a premiere site for discussion of the creation/evolution controversy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Adminnemooseus writes: It seems that Faith does indeed disagree with evolutionary fact and theory on a purely faith basis. But then she also goes on profess that the science is bad, without much if any scientific argument on why and how the science is bad. In the process, she clutters up a lot of science oriented topics with her "eloquent bs". This is well put, and I'd like to elaborate on this to the general community. Faith is well within her rights and the Forum Guidelines to say that, for example, the flood happened because she has faith in God's word, and God's word says it happened. But in the science forums she can't say the science is wrong just because God says so. In the science forums one has to advance a scientific argument for a position, not a faith-based argument. EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that it is as much science as evolution, and that at a minimum it deserves a place alongside evolution in the classroom. This requires making scientific arguments, which is what most of the creationist literature in books and on the web claims to do. Faith is not a traditional creationist in that she isn't pushing for creationism to be taught in public schools, and she sees no need for making a scientific case for creationism. She believes that God's word is sufficient for concluding creationism's stance is correct. Faith is more than welcome to argue this position here at this forum. But EvC Forum does have topics and forums and categories of forums. Faith-based approaches are not permitted in the science forums. Claims that a faith-based approach is valid science can be discussed in the [forum=-11] forum, with the emphasis on "discussed". Declarations that certain premises must be accepted and can't be discussed is not a valid position at a discussion board. If Faith doesn't accept this then she is more than welcome to open a thread to discuss why her underlying premises must be accepted, again with the emphasis on "discuss", but unless her arguments in that thread carry the day she cannot carry this position into other science threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: What thread do you have in mind, Percy? Seems to me that OP about faith based science can ONLY be answered as I answered it. It's not a science thread at all, really, it's a Statement-of-Position thread. Of course the thread begins with a statement of position. In a debate a position is stated, and one side takes the pro, the other the con. Could we take the level of discussion up a notch? It shouldn't have to be explained what a debate is. Is your goal to reach a satisfactory resolution or to be as obtuse as possible? Faith, if you have any beliefs or positions that you don't feel are open for discussion, then don't discuss them. But don't keep bringing them up, either. This is a discussion board. You shouldn't be introducing positions into discussions that in your opinion are off-limits for discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
One other thing we have to keep in mind is the democratization of the Internet with regard to technical and/or scientific savvy. Ten to fifteen years ago, creationists who participated in on-line debate tended to be of a technical bent. That's no longer the case. We're getting increasing numbers of contributors who, if we're honest with ourselves but hopefully don't give voice to this, cause us to think, "Can anyone truly be this stupid or ignorant or blind?"
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. EvC Forum is not going to successfully educate waves of the uneducatable. The best we can do is shield ourselves from those unwilling or unable to intelligently discuss and/or explore a topic by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Sadly this will exclude some truly nice people, but it can't be helped.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024