General discussion of moderation procedures

There is some disagreement amongst moderators as to the value of explaining these things ad infinitum.The moderators are also members here. They just have some extra roles for direct action to help manage the board, but apart from that we all discuss these things. Most of the discussion is here; there are also some shorter exchanges just between moderators in the admin forums. Views expressed in public forums do have an impact; but at the same time actions get taken from time to time, in spite of the fact that there can never be total unanimity.I'm not going to debate this at length either. But basically, the forum description given by GAW-Snow is accurate. The forum is intended to discuss the question "Is the evidence of the divine apparent in the design of nature itself".Being in the science forum does not mean that only one view on this question is allowed. It means that the nature of the discussion is about evidence as used in science. Empirical evidence. Observation, models, tests, processes and so on, whether they involve purely unconscious forces, or interactions with a conscious intelligence. Participants are not required to limit themselves to unconscious forces. Evaluation or proposals for empirical evidence of interactions with a conscious designer are very much on topic on the forum.The forum description might be updated sometime to make this more explicit, but nearly everyone can manage to understand what it means, and why this is a feature of a science discussion, whether it be mainstream science, or maverick science, or theistic science or supernatural science or whatever.Buzsaw is restricted because he does not understand what empirical means. He keeps bringing up purely philosophical perspectives and calling them empirical, and nothing has ever managed to penetrate and get him to actually engage in a manner that fits the forum.Buz's religious views are not restricted in toto. He is more than welcome to pursue them in the appropriate forums, since religious and philosophical perspectives and approaches are certainly pertinent as well. Buz won't agree that his manner of pursuing the topic fails to fit the requirements of empirical discussion. He continues to believe that it is his conclusions which are being restricted, rather than his approach. But in fact, it really is his approach. It is not that the approach is bad or unacceptable. It is that it is not empirical, and does not fit the forum for discussion scientific evidence.Buzsaw can dispute this endlessly, and I expect he will. He is a valued member here, and I'm glad to have him back with us again. But he does not understand or comprehend what empirical means or the nature of discussion intended in the science forums. They will remain for discussion of empirical evidence, and people who cannot manage that may be restricted. Disagreement and comment is welcome, but we've gone around the mulberry bush with this endlessly.As a minor spelling point for others (not GAW-Snow), since it is a recurring error: the word is "empirical". Not "imperical".Cheers -- AdminSylasThis message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-18-2005 10:21 PM

Hey Buz. You are likely to continue to feel forsaken. The general feeling is that discussion is completely pointless.The difficulty with pointing out individual posts is that we drop again into the endless cycles of nitpicking over minutiae and interpretation and validity of judgements. I'm not going there again.There are pretty much two views.One view is that we should not apply any restrictions at all, and that you should be free to say anything you please and apply any line of argument you like in the science forums. Most of your support is of this kind.There is another view that the science forums are intended for a particular style of argument and evidence. They are not restricted in the conclusions allowed, but in the argument used. Argument should be focussed on empirical evidence. That is, we look at observed phenomenon and use that as leverage for discussing the processes by which those particular phenomena arose in the particular form that we observe them.I've looked at your recent engagement in the science forums. It does not deal with the subject matter in this way. I am sure you disagree, but I am simply not interested any more in persuading you on this point. The posts are still there and easily found by those interested.The more serious question on moderation procedures is whether or not we really want to limit the science forums to discussion focussed on evidence relating to empirical observation and models specifically focussed on explaining empirical details.I am in favour of continuing to restrict you from biblical accuracy. This is not a reflection on your ability in the subject, but a reflection of the manner in which you engage it. Your style of engagement is well suited to forums for exegesis and interpretation generally; and quite unsuited to the matter of historical accuracy as indicated by empirical evidence.I tend to restrict myself from that forum as well. I think that discussions of biblical accuracy on the basis of empirical lines of evidence are mostly ridiculous and fail to understand the bible at all. I definitely include in this those who argue that the bible is "wrong" on the basis of empirical lines of argument. But that is a meta-discussion which does not belong in the forum. So I just ignore it.On the great debate with jar... I thought it was dreadful, and the main problem was jar, not you. The benefit of a one on one debate is that there is time to look carefully and make considered focussed responses without extraneous detractions from a more free ranging open discussion. Jar piled in like it was a race, and the whole benefit was wasted..Your point number 5 needs a crystal clear response: NO IT IS NOT.This kind of thing is why you are so infuriating, and why discussion is so pointless. I was crystal clear that no there is not a requirement that anyone has to fit any majority view. There never has been. Such a restriction would be totally counter to the whole idea of this web forum.What is required is to engage by consideration of empirically based lines of evidence.You've stripped "fit the forum" away from context and misrepresented it as a requirement that the views have to fit the forum. That's not the case. There is no restriction with respect to views.It's quite clear that you'll never get this, but since I've actually put a comment on the table this needs to be underlined. People are not restricted for having views that fail to fit the majority. This has never been an issue. It is not why Buz is restricted.Buzsaw may think that there is some underlying motive to remove his viewpoint. But that is not the reason given, and if anyone simply refuses to believe that we are being honest about the reason for restriction, so be it. I don't care any more.Cheers -- AdminSylasThis message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-19-2005 12:51 AM

Clarification... and this is my perspective rather than being an official word.In fact, invoking the supernatural in a model is fine in the science forums. Otherwise there'd be nothing to debate.What distiniguishes the science forums (IMO) is pretty much as stated in your second point. Propose the supernatural by all means, but do it in the light of the empirical evidence.If the argument in favour of a certain model (be it supernatural or naturalististic) is based on correct reading of the bible, or abstract logic, or moral worth, or philosophical elegance, then it does not belong in the science forums. If a model does nothing to address the particular forms of physical evidence, then take it elsewhere. If the only objection to a model is that you don't like it, or that it isn't logical, or that it would require you to abandon your faith, or that it would give comfort to the GOP; we don't want to know about it in the science forum.Supernatural is not the same thing as being divorced from physical evidence.Cheers -- Sylas

"Accomodate a view"? You are welcome to your views. If you take it as axiomatic that, for example, the Earth was innundated by a global flood within human history, that is your prerogative by all means.If you want to debate your views with those who have different views, that's fine too; but that will be pointless unless you recpognize that others have different axioms, and that you cannot simply presume your axioms as a foundation for the debate. There needs to be some kind of actual argument or defence which does not merely appeal to your personal axioms.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, 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.Cheers -- Sylas