|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is the topic in questions some sort of "creation with apparent age" sort of thing? If so, perhaps the topic belongs in one of the "Social and Religious Issues" forums. That would work. It appears to be the direction 'relative' is going. This could also serve to open up the debate for others that don't like to 'play' on the science forums. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I've just rebumped the YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?) topic. That topic would seem to fit the needs.
I'll also quote something from my message 195 of this topic:
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. You are trying to debate something with one of 's problem members. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
AdminMoose closed the ID at Cornell thread due to it having "wandered terminally off topic". In a pre-warning issued a half an hour or so before actual closure (and after which warning - but before closure, there was but 1 post) AdminMoose advised that the thread (which had racked up 160-odd messages at that stage) get back on topic.
The trouble was that no actual discussion direction (other than a bare cut n' paste about an ID course at Cornell) had actually been posted in the OP. One might imagine that going off a non-defined topic direction would be impossible here. And its not that something wasn't attempted to be made of it. I joined the discussion at msg 13 and started out on one potential tack mentioned in the OP cut n' paste.
the cut n' paste writes: "We'd just like a place at the table in the scientific give-and-take," she said. What area could ID possibly tackle so as to begin to generate evidence (assuming there was some) of a scientific nature and so take a place at the table oft denied it? "Maybe a comparison between markers of human ID vs any found in nature" I thought to myself. It wasn't long before the usual "its Religion not science" side-issue started creeping in, championed mainly (but not solely) by RickJB. Not exactly off OP topic it must be said given that this too is contained within the cut n paste.
cut n paste writes: condemned the teaching of intelligent design as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea." and...
cut n paste writes: Intelligent design is a theory that argues that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. It has been harshly criticized by The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which have called it repackaged creationism. Thus the original main thrust of the thread ( ID markers: started around msg 13) took off in the direction of "ID = Religion". Me attempting to show it is not necessarily and Rick (and others) trying to show it is. After some contribution as Percy, AdminPercy steps in at msg 130 with the view that my attempt to show God is irrelevant to the discussion is off (non-defined)topic and tacitly supports the notion that God is inexplicably linked to ID. If there is any doubt about that then Percys statement below should make it plain...
Percy at msg 163 writes: If life is too complex to have arisen on its own and required a designer, then the alien race that designed us must itself have had a designer, which in turn must have had a designer, and which in turn must have had a designer, and so forth ad infinitum. It's an infinite regress unless you say that at some point the designer was God, and that's why, ultimately, ID is religion and doesn't belong in science. How one could expect this ship to sail if the holes in the logic weren't completely patched up with bias, I fail to comprehend. The thread was closed before Percy got a chance to explain why the intelligence which designed us (were that ever to be established) could not be completely naturalistically arising intelligence - and thus not necessarily regress to God Notwithstanding the illogic of the reasoning here we have Percy posting in direct contravention of a ruling he made as Admin a short while before, in asserting off (non)topic
AdminPercy at msg 138 in a "too general - don't go there" type ruling writes: The "naturalism as religion" argument fits in this category because you could take it into virtually any science thread at this site. The same is true of the "ID as religion" argument. I kind of expected some trouble after a post to Percy at msg 106, when it never got a response. But that could be simply persecution complex: http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University What were the reasons for closure at such a late stage? Why did the warning refer back to a vague discussion direction supposedly established within 11 posts of an OP devoid of suggested discussion direction? Why such quick closure after a topic drift alert? Why can Percy contribute posts which contain such blatant fallacies as outlined above which, when responded to, result in topic drift alerts, then closure? edit typo This message has been edited by iano, 03-May-2006 01:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
About Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University, I actually thought the thread had a firm topic, whether ID was sufficiently qualified as science to be included in a college course, and I thought ID's qualifications as science was what we were discussing. I actually had a 300,000 word comprehensive reply ready, too bad the thread is closed.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The first notion was never really established and the thread moved quickly onto your second idea "Generally: Is ID science?"
If A = B and C = B then A = C (with A=ID B=Science and C= SETI) seemed to me to be a way of dispensing with at least one objection to ID not= science viewpoint. The need to deal with this arose due to the repeated insertion into the works of the the "ID=Religion" spanner (from about msg 60). Incidently you appear to be the first to make this assertion early on.
Percy at msg 15 writes: ID will never be true science because the IDist pursuit isn't one of science, but of religion I actually had a 300,000 word comprehensive reply ready, too bad the thread is closed It would have only taken one word from you to deal with the response to the problem posed in your own ID=Religion-therefore-it-cannot-be-science case (the "IF Alien Intelligence THEN God" leap of logic )
*blush* It was the dodgy nature of thread closure I was enquiring about but no matter. I get the jist: one plays the cards one is dealt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Don't get yourself in trouble - I've heard some of the moderators here can get maniacal about continuing the discussion of outside topics in this forum. Maybe it's just a rumor, but you never know!
If Adminnemooseus won't have mercy on us poor innocent victims of a misconstrual and reopen the thread you can always propose a new one. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, Wed, 05-03-2006 11:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Don't get yourself in trouble - I've heard some of the moderators here can get maniacal about continuing the discussion of outside topics in this forum. Maybe it's just a rumor, but you never know! Given the trouble encountered continuing them inside topics I can't but agree with you. On reflection I can understand why Moose shut it down, he is, after all the one who opened it and is presumably the beneficiary of inside knowledge as to the precise way in which he would have liked the thread to progress. Not having any further part to play in it against which one could gauge his intent means that any explanation from him would be automatically sufficient. Intelligent design? Blind Chance? It depends on which way one views the evidence I suppose...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
This is NOT a debating thread. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bump
Re: ID at Cornell thread
addressed at AdminMoose a while back writes:
What were the reasons for closure at such a late stage? Why did the warning refer back to a vague discussion direction supposedly established within 11 posts of an OP devoid of suggested discussion direction? Why such quick closure after a topic drift alert? Why can Percy contribute posts which contain such blatant fallacies as outlined above which, when responded to, result in topic drift alerts, then closure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. Do you want to do a "Great Debate" with "simple"? Is there any doubt anymore? We have the same simple theory of light etc changing at some unexplained date in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
RAZD writes: adminnemooseus writes: First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. Do you want to do a "Great Debate" with "simple"? Is there any doubt anymore? Meaning, what? That you really want a Great Debate with Simple? His threads become moderator headaches. Adminnemooseus will decide whether debate with Simple should be encouraged in this way, but I share his skepticism that you know what you're doing.
We have the same simple theory of light etc changing at some unexplained date in the past. The subject matter isn't the point. It's who you want to debate with that is the point. If you're into this kind of thing, perhaps we can set you up in a debate with John Hinckley about whether Jody Foster really loves him or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there any doubt that it is 'simple'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
RAZD writes: Is there any doubt that it is 'simple'? We're pretty sure it's Simple. Keep in mind that I'm an FL according to the Ohnhai discussion style index (The Problem of Restricted Binary Logic.). If I an RBL I'd say, "We're damn sure!" If you're going into this with eyes open, and in particular if you have some discussion style/approach ideas you'd like to try out for bringing a problem poster closer to constructive discussion, then I lean toward being encouraging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
My impression is that the topic is a disaster area. Certainly, the quality or lack there of, of my message 1 may be a primary cause of such.
The topic could have gone into the "In The News" forum, but I deliberately avoided such because I really don't like the existance of that forum. I was about to change my topic destination suggestion from "Intelligent Design" to "Education and Creation/Evolution", but the topic was already promoted. As I envisioned the topic, it was one of a class happening at a (Ivy league no less) college. I guess I also envisioned it as being a topic of very limited discussion potential, but I did think the situation did meret a mention. What I didn't want, was for it to turn into a general purpose ID debate topic, which is what (IMO) happened. Via the lack of participation in the topic by either the non-admin or admin modes, the topic got way out of hand. Thus I ended up killing it at a later than desirable stage. Possible solutions: 1) One of the other admins can reopen the topic, if they think it is justified. 2) An importent theme can be pulled from the topic, to be used as a message 1 of a new Proposed New Topic. 3) We can just let the whole thing stop where it currently is. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Fair enough Moose...
I was a little pissed at the abrupt halt given that loads of threads here veer away from the original idea but latch onto something along the way and develop along a new line. 160 posts in was a little late in the day I thought.. Option 3 is fine by me... Thanks
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024