|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What does "bump" mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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 must say that a comment like this indicates that you are assuming what you are arguing about. Are we supposed to have certain "givens" about what it means to be "scientific"? ABE: I think one would need to make a distinction between scientific results and scientific method. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-11-2005 08:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded. No such animal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I have been following it, and there was some unnecessary bickering about it being in a science forum. But here's the point, and this is what occasioned the whole discussion about a "science forum": Did the OP "provide evidence"? The OP was just a bunch of psychological speculation and never pretended to be anything other than that. So what's the difference, in terms of evidence, between that and what Faith said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Percy's vision was to build a board that encouraged academic discussion, but we are now trawling for people who can barely string a coherent sentence together, plus we want to make one of the nastiest people I have ever met into a an admin! In other words, if they don't agree with your basic beliefs, or your temperament, they should not be allowed to post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
people who show themselves to be incapable of following the Forum guidelines should not be afforded Moderator privilages and responsibilities What guidelines would that be? Like if you are in a science forum, you must provide evidence? That sort of thing? Taking a look at that "ambiguity" thread, I don't see any "evidence" for the OP. Do you? I see plausible remarks, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why on earth would one suspend RAZD? What did he do?
"Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
every time he Haeckels "Haeckel" has become a verb!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024