Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:21 AM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,910 Year: 8,946/19,786 Month: 1,368/2,119 Week: 128/576 Day: 29/99 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 226 of 300 (251620)
10-13-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Admin
10-11-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
You can't get blood from a stone,

no, but water's just fine:

quote:
Exd 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

and we know god can turn water into blood:

quote:
Exd 7:20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that [were] in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that [were] in the river were turned to blood.

so the logical conclusion is that you CAN get blood from a stone, if only indirectly.

and apparently you can't get scientific discussion from Creationists.

well, you have to remember that we're dealing with people who totally accept the miraculous. heck, maybe even i do too. science is meaningless; they know the truth.

It is very difficult for me to see any point in a scientific debate where one side is unable to keep up even a pretense of being scientific, but the alternative appears to be very little or no debate at all.

i think that where you're mistaken actually. because fundamentally, that *IS* the debate. it's not "science v. science" and "religion v. religion." it's "science v. religion." one side is evidently NOT science and doesn't intend to be. like i said, there's no big debate about in the scientific community.

now, the debate won't be productive, will it? we all know that. but that's the debate nonetheless. this site is "evolution v. creation" and we have to remember that we really ARE pitting the two sides against one another -- not separating them.

My stomach churns at the thought of allowing reentry of Creationists like John Paul and John Davison, or of complete loons like WillowTree, or of allowing anyone to simply ignore all central issues as is the style of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base.

that's the problem. i'm really sad to say to this, but you do have to realize that the fundamentalist side does tend to include some wackos -- maybe even a lot. if you're not willing to duke it out with them, don't -- but i don't think banning people simple because they refuse to understand science is acceptable at all. it's rigging the game.

But holding Creationists to some minimal standards of scientific debate seems equivalent to greatly reduced dialog with them.

i take it you've noticed that there are alot less of them now?

My thoughts on this conundrum swing like a pendulum. At present I seem to have swung to the opinion that we should, at least at present, reduce the burden on Creationists by not requiring them to discuss scientifically, even in the science forums.

i might agree. sadly.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 9:09 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 10-16-2005 10:18 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 227 of 300 (251621)
10-13-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
10-13-2005 10:55 PM


Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.
well, i think you misunderstood what i meant.

I wasn't sure. I know you usually have very fair viewpoints, so behind my words I assumed you had some pretty reasonable and thoughtful position. I couldn't figure out how to read your words though. I thought it would be useful to elaborate.

So, I'm glad to hear we're in agreement.

i think they have to compromise more. i've noticed a lack of fundamentalists and evangelicals on the board lately. haven't you?

I can't address this concisely. All I can say is, I think there are ways to better interactions, and none of them involve such a compromise. My job right now is to commit my thoughts to writing, so that I can get feedback on them.

Sorry that I don't have a better answer.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2005 10:55 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 10-14-2005 12:07 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 228 of 300 (251628)
10-14-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Ben!
10-13-2005 11:14 PM


Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.
Sorry that I don't have a better answer.

it's ok, i don't suspect there is one.

either way is a compromise.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Ben!, posted 10-13-2005 11:14 PM Ben! has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 229 of 300 (251824)
10-14-2005 4:36 PM


Comment on simple's suspension from cosmology
At least part of the problem in simple's discussions, has been that his question appears to have been misunderstood. I have commented (briefly) on that in Message 99.

Yes, simple seems to be annoying in his persistence with his questioning. But at least part of that persistence is because his real question was not being addressed in the responses.


Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AdminNosy, posted 10-14-2005 5:03 PM nwr has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 230 of 300 (251834)
10-14-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by nwr
10-14-2005 4:36 PM


Re: Comment on simple's suspension from cosmology
It isn't so much his questioning; it is the childish comments that he makes while standing on a base of utter ignorance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 4:36 PM nwr has not yet responded

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 300 (251865)
10-14-2005 8:03 PM


Reply to robinrohan
robinrohan writes:

AdminBen writes:

You're really far away from establishing the conclusion you're trying to. There's lots more to be said. And this is a nice, clean topic that easily spins off into another thread. It's already been suggested that you do so. Now let's make it really clear.

Why are you picking on me, Ben?

I don't mean to be picking on you RR. I have no interest in giving you trouble; I really appreciate the contributions you make here.

That said, you have two traits that don't work well for me:

1. You post off-topic
2. When I suggest you to open a new topic, you never do.

Certainly you're not alone in going off-topic. Certainly we don't keep all thread on topic. I tend to ask people to CREATE a new topic for off-topic discussion if:
1. The original topic seems "important" to me.
2. There's a lot of topical discussion, and the OT stuff is noise.
3. The new topic is something I think that's important, and I want to see it as a PNT so more people can get involved in it.
4. The OT stuff is not going to be resolved easily.
4. The OT posts are pointless chatter.

In this case, I saw this OT stuff as #3--important and #4--not resolved easily. I did my best to convey that. In fact, I've been biting my tongue not to comment to you or schraf about the subject, for those very reasons. I do cognitive research, RR--I know about those things.

Unfortunately, I feel that you see admin action as "against you", and I find you are usually unwilling to take the suggestions. It's hard work for admins to comment--every comment takes a commitment to see it to the end. I don't want to deal with off-topic stuff; I only do it if I think it's important or useful. I have no interest in "picking on you." Really.

If this explanation is not good enough for you, I would really appreciate to know why. I would really like for there to be a better interaction between us. You feel that I pick on you; I feel that you aren't cooperative.

I'm happy to discuss it here. I hope you will post your honest thought here, so we can make an understanding.

Thanks.

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/10/14 05:07 PM


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • Replies to this message:
     Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 10:58 PM AdminBen has responded
     Message 242 by nator, posted 10-15-2005 2:08 AM AdminBen has not yet responded

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 232 of 300 (251875)
    10-14-2005 10:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 231 by AdminBen
    10-14-2005 8:03 PM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    In this case, I saw this OT stuff as #3--important and #4--not resolved easily. I did my best to convey that. In fact, I've been biting my tongue not to comment to you or schraf about the subject, for those very reasons. I do cognitive research, RR--I know about those things.

    If you know all about it, I don't understand why you didn't say what was on your mind. If it's hard science, then fine.

    Let's just go through my horrible habit of being "off-topic."

    1. My original question had to do with the nature of the forum we were speaking on. It is called a "science forum." Not what does this mean? I suppose it means that the subject matter, rather than the method of argument, is a subject of science. I say that because the OP was far from being scientific. It was just some speculations--rather intelligent speculations--about why people reject evolution.
    2. Did the OP "provide evidence"? Or did the poster of the OP provide evidence later? Not really. She just made plausible remarks.
    3. And then we had all these moderators coming down like a house of fire on Faith for not "providing evidence." It seemed a little unfair to me.
    4. So I wondered about the rules and regulations of a "science forum" and what it really meant, and what science was. I wondered if it was possible to be scientific about why people rejected evolution.
    5. That led into a discussion of surveys and whether surveys could be scientific. I don't see anything scientific about surveys. Too many uncontrollable variables.
    6. My view is that "science" should be defined as "hard science" only. I myself don't find Freudian psychology to be "science." What's wrong with saying that?
    7. Now if "cognitive research" is hard science, then fine. Obviously I have offended you, for which I apologize. But I didn't offend you on purpose.

    What's wrong with all that?

    As regards starting new topics, I don't want to start just any new topic. I want it to be something I've been thinking about for a while.

    I don't know that I'm "off-topic" all the time, although I admit my mind tends to jump around some. So maybe you are right about that.

    Also I tend to joke, which might not be such a good thing for this forum. I'm thinking maybe that this is the wrong place for me.

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 10:02 PM

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 10:16 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by AdminBen, posted 10-14-2005 8:03 PM AdminBen has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 233 by AdminBen, posted 10-14-2005 11:32 PM robinrohan has responded

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 233 of 300 (251885)
    10-14-2005 11:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 232 by robinrohan
    10-14-2005 10:58 PM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    robinrohan,

    For some reason I think you're reading me as both heavy-handed and arrogant. Maybe it's my bad-ass avatar. Go see my "regular" avatar; maybe that will help. Seriously, though, I don't mean to be either one of those things. Like I said, I do appreciate your contributions here, whether they be jokes, insightful questions, or poignant remarks. I'm not out to "get you". In fact, I went out of my way to tell you I thought you brought up an important issue, so much so that it belongs in it's own thread.

    Now if "cognitive research" is hard science, then fine. Obviously I have offended you, for which I apologize. But I didn't offend you on purpose.

    No, you absolutely didn't offend me at all. I'm not sure what I said that led you to think so. I actually DON'T think cognitive research is hard science, and that there are really critical differences in studies of human behavior and the human brain that put really important limitations to how "scientific" cognition can be. It's important to always recognize the limitations of the methodoligies we're doing.

    So for the 3rd time now... I thought you brought up a good question. Good job. Really, honestly.

    My original question had to do with the nature of the forum we were speaking on...

    What's wrong with all that?

    You're asking what's wrong with going off topic. Well,
    1. People who are interested in the discussion topics don't have an easy way to know that the topic is being discussed
    2. It can derail discussion of the original topic.
    3. It makes things really hard for people who come in later to read through the topic.

    As regards starting new topics, I don't want to start just any new topic. I want it to be something I've been thinking about for a while.

    If you're comfortable enough about a topic to ask a quesiton about it, or to respond to a post about it, then you should be comfortable enough to open a PNT. PNTs aren't so sacred. It's just a convenient way for admins to get well-formulated posts up on the board so that the first 10 posts of every thread aren't clarification questions.

    I'd really ask you to open new topics for off-topic discussions that are either important or aren't being resolved easily. When you don't, you just put the burden on somebody else to do it for you. Between posting twice on the other thread, twice here, and once to open the PNT, that's an hour of my time. You could have opened a PNT in 5 minutes.

    I opened up a PNT for the subject under discussion. It didn't even express an opinion. I just formulated a question and (because there was so much OT discussion) copied over some pertinent viewpoints.

    I don't know that I'm "off-topic" all the time, although I admit my mind tends to jump around some.

    I explicitly tried to insinuate that you're not more guilty than others. I really don't pick on you. Many times the admins just let people discuss OT, because the topics weren't well-defined to start with, because the original discussion ceased anyway, or because it's just not worth the trouble. This was a case where it really was worth the trouble.

    I'm sorry I'm having trouble communicating my true thoughts to you. I'll keep trying to be clearer; I would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt. Try to understand my suggestions. If you want to comment or disagree, bring it to an admin thread, and we can talk about it anytime.

    Thanks.


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 10:58 PM robinrohan has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 234 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 11:54 PM AdminBen has responded

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 234 of 300 (251888)
    10-14-2005 11:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by AdminBen
    10-14-2005 11:32 PM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    You're asking what's wrong with going off topic. Well,
    1. People who are interested in the discussion topics don't have an easy way to know that the topic is being discussed
    2. It can derail discussion of the original topic.
    3. It makes things really hard for people who come in later to read through the topic.

    What I am saying is that this progression we went through is natural and that I was not the only one who was discussing these matters. But I was the only one who got called out on it. Why? Because I had offended you, that's why. Not that I blame you for that.

    Obviously I had to have someone to respond to, or the discussion would never have continued.

    Also, this particular bit of "off-topic" discussion was occasioned by my sense of unfairness against Faith--so that was a special case.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by AdminBen, posted 10-14-2005 11:32 PM AdminBen has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 235 by AdminBen, posted 10-15-2005 12:03 AM robinrohan has responded

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 235 of 300 (251890)
    10-15-2005 12:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 234 by robinrohan
    10-14-2005 11:54 PM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    What I am saying is that this progression we went through is natural and that I was not the only one who was discussing these matters. But I was the only one who got called out on it. Why? Because I had offended you, that's why. Not that I blame you for that.

    Let's be adults. When I tell you something, please don't ignore me. I told you I wasn't offended. Period.

    And I'm not "calling you out." It's not my job to "keep people in line." It's my job to keep things in order, and guide people in the right direction, and to make this place as accessible to as many people as possible. We're adults. "Calling out" is for playskool.

    I made the comment to you because it was your topic. Your comments, your questions, your progression. It's a small thing, robin. I wasn't about to ping all the posts to stop things from going off topic. This should be a 2 minute deal. Take the suggestion, go open up the topic. It's up to 70 minutes. Let it be. Admins make suggestions. We try to make resources available to users. That's it.

    Also, this particular bit of "off-topic" discussion was occasioned by my sense of unfairness against Faith--so that was a special case.

    I didn't say a word while things were even tangentially related to the topic or what was going on with Faith. I came around when the discussion turned to a useful, interesting topic that made a lot of sense to be put somewhere else.

    AbE: Changing to admin mode... feeling Clark Kent-ish here; where's my TELEPHONE BOOTH.

    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/10/14 09:04 PM


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 234 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 11:54 PM robinrohan has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:20 AM AdminBen has responded

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 236 of 300 (251894)
    10-15-2005 12:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 235 by AdminBen
    10-15-2005 12:03 AM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    Let's be adults. When I tell you something, please don't ignore me. I told you I wasn't offended. Period.

    And I'm not "calling you out." It's not my job to "keep people in line." It's my job to keep things in order, and guide people in the right direction, and to make this place as accessible to as many people as possible. We're adults. "Calling out" is for playskool.

    Such comments are condescending, but that's ok.

    As far as the problem with Faith not being a "useful topic," it depends on what we mean by useful. Whether one contributes to this forum or not is no great matter, although Faith was a rather serious person, and the things she talked about on this forum were obviously important to her; so perhaps for her it was "useful."

    The way she was run off, by constant hounding, was a travesty. I know her science was execrable, but there was no need for that business at the end. That's probably why they offered her the position of moderator: to make up for that stuff.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by AdminBen, posted 10-15-2005 12:03 AM AdminBen has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 237 by AdminBen, posted 10-15-2005 12:26 AM robinrohan has not yet responded
     Message 238 by nwr, posted 10-15-2005 12:28 AM robinrohan has responded

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 237 of 300 (251895)
    10-15-2005 12:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
    10-15-2005 12:20 AM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    I didn't say a word while things were even tangentially related to the topic or what was going on with Faith. I came around when the discussion turned to a useful, interesting topic that made a lot of sense to be put somewhere else.

    Sorry, I didn't re-read this before I posted. I didn't mean to imply that the discussion before was not useful or interesting. Only that the new material was especially so.

    i certainly wouldn't want to imply that about Faith. I have a lot of respect for the time and effort that she put in, and am very concerned about the way things turned out with her. It is my view that there's something broken in this system, and I'm working on ideas on how to fix it. Well really, I have the ideas... I just have to work on articulating the reasoning behind the ideas. I'm not a good or convincing writer.

    I think you have a pretty good nose for what is fair and for when things are broken. I hope when I make suggestions on how things might change for the better, that you take the time to give feedback. I would greatly appreciate that.

    Not sure when that's going to happen though. Hopefully I'll get something out to the admins in a week or so.

    AbE: Change to admin mode... AGAIN.

    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/10/14 09:27 PM


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:20 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5585
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 238 of 300 (251896)
    10-15-2005 12:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
    10-15-2005 12:20 AM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    The way she was run off, by constant hounding, was a travesty.

    I'm unhappy to see Faith leave, too. But I really don't think she was "run off".
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:20 AM robinrohan has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:30 AM nwr has responded

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 239 of 300 (251897)
    10-15-2005 12:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 238 by nwr
    10-15-2005 12:28 AM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    I'm unhappy to see Faith leave, too. But I really don't think she was "run off".

    Take a look at that "ambiguity" thread.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by nwr, posted 10-15-2005 12:28 AM nwr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 240 by nwr, posted 10-15-2005 12:34 AM robinrohan has responded

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5585
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 240 of 300 (251898)
    10-15-2005 12:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 239 by robinrohan
    10-15-2005 12:30 AM


    Re: Reply to robinrohan
    Take a look at that "ambiguity" thread.

    I have been following it, and there was some unnecessary bickering about it being in a science forum. However, it is my impression that the Mary thread had more to do with her leaving.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 239 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:30 AM robinrohan has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:42 AM nwr has not yet responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    1415
    16
    17181920Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019