Hi Lurkers! (How things work here at evcforum.net)

quote:

---

OTOH, this is the first time I've seen someone's "credentials" being questioned when that individual didn't first try and use them as an argument in favor of their position (a la inkorrekt, etc).

---

To an extent, you are right about this. However the truth of the matter is that while I stick within the forum guidelines, I have no interest or motivation in trying to convince anyone here of the wrongness of their position. It's a complete waste of time and resources.The people who post here are those (on both sides) who are already convinced of their "rightness" and while we sometimes see some minor shifts (generally in scientific terms and away from literal creation science), most of the long-term posters are complete entrenched.The weaker ones on the creationist side will disappear very quickly once it becomes clear that a) "Hey I don't know what I'm talking about!" and b) "Hey if I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe the rest of it is nonsense as well - geez that's scary, better stop going to that site" (information blunting).The important battle is here is for the hearts and minds of the lurkers and those who end up here via google or other mechanisms. I'd like to say that facts and evidence are the important aspects of the battle but for those people, it needs to be simple and it needs to be straight forward - those who want a more complex explanation will generally join in with the debate.We keep talking about how scientists doing their debate via peer review rather than internet forum, it's true and it's also an illustration that science is a complex business and one that the average man in the street will struggle to get a grasp of without a significant investment of time. It's why the creationists are so effective on the internet - they pitch their material at the right level (it's irrelevant to an extent that it's made-up!).Therefore there needs to be a level of discourse on those boards pitched at people with little or no experience or understanding of the sciences or the atheist/theist debate. Iano also digs me for my relatively short posts - but it's entirely intentional, I occassionally write long posts but will delete them and replace them with something much shorter.The truth of the matter is that most of the lurkers will skip straight past the long posts for a varity of reasons (This is not off the top of my head, my real-world "expertise" is around the information-seeking behaviour of individuals and organizations. Therefore I have a fair idea of the process and the best mechanisms to attract attention). It's at this problem perpection level that I am trying to reach the lurkers - when they are still trying to define their source selection criteria.At that level, it's more useful to try and get them to consider the source rather than what the source is saying/providing as evidence. The "education" in the relevence of the evidence is already provided by people like Razd, wounded king and others. People will seek out that information when they feel able to cope with it.That's why as a element of any debate it is useful to question the motivations and backgrounds of the organizations that what they are actually saying.Am I attacking the messenger? No I'm just highlighting aspects of their expertise and their bias that the reader should consider. It's an attempt to act out what in social cognitive theory terms is termed as "behaviour modeling". Many of the lurkers on here would struggle to replicate the questioning techniques of RAZD or Wounded King or many of the others in terms of evidence but attempting to model the lurkers behaviour in terms of source selection is slightly straight forward.Let me give a practical example not associated with WAR to finish.If someone starts discussing a piece from ICR as evidence of a young earth (Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks for example) - there are lots of people to attack such an account at a scientific level. A level that goes straight over the head of many people. However, if you point them to Many of the non-literalists will then read that and dismiss that site as a source.Now I know to an extent that goes again the concept of "debate the evidence not the provider" that many people here to stick by but I can see how the world is going and I'm more interesting in ensuring that the fundmentalist agenda is exposed far and wide. So full-spectrum warfare it is!(I've used Lurkers as a very broad post in there but in reality I'm talking about the people who are only casually considering those issues or just starting to think about them).

Hi CK,I essentially agree with everything you say here.When I first came here it was to try a learn a bit more about my subjects, but it quickly became apparant that most of the biblical/ ancient near eastern history participants didn't really even have the basic research skills.I do initally answer posts for personal interest, but I am very aware that there are a great many lurkers out there who appreciate an informed post. I know this mainly because I have recieved a great many e-mails over the last couple of years that either ask me a question or thank me for clarifying something, I have even had some oddball emails condemning me to Hell But, you are correct, too many lurkers may well mistakenly believe that some poorly or unreferenced information is true, and the members here who have a good background knowledge of a subject should really present real research and question the original provider of the info.WAR (as an example) is obviously a site set up to make money, so we expect it to be a source that leans greatly towards Wyatt's finds being authentic. However, the quality of the presentation of the information is disgraceful, the owners really must assume that their target audience are extremely uneducated because the leaps and errors in logic are too abundant to be oversights.There are lurkers here who on first reading a post believe that it sounds completely plausible, that is until the huge errors are pointed out by someone who knows the subject and then the lurker thinks twice and suddenly realises that very seldom is anything as cut and dry as some people make out it is.Like you I have given up any hope of convincing any opponent that they are wrong about something, they have already made up their mind and nothing I say will convince them of anything. It took me a little while to realise this, but now I have it saves me a lot of time because now I don't even bother to reply to the oddballs such as 'Whisper' AKA 'Simple' who has challenged 'Wise' for the title of most apt membername.Brian.

Lo,
Interesting post.
Would it be possible to create a list of references, which were (more or less) acceptable to both sides of the debate?
For instance, you've mentioned WAR (not one I'm familiar with).
Would there be any way to rate such a site, then name it on a thread?
I'm not talking about anything ttoo exhaustive, just a general idea.
Say site x recievs a ranking for two/three points like
A)is it Evo/creationist, or peripheral to the argument.
B) is it peer reviewed/ accepted as an authority by those outside it's own staff.
C)I can't think of C)
I can see that trying to set up a general list would be difficult, but how about a thread, devoted to information sourcing which could be referenced?
I think most people posting are well able to go find material, but for those "lurkers" maybe a few pointers?
This might work if commenting were left to one or two people who are recognised (by EvC) as knowing what they are talking about, rather than having anyone who wants shouting about it.
But it could be very useful for those who are undecided.
This would be different from "latest news" as it would only be giving a way to introduce the subject to oneself reliably.
Might be a lot of work for admin tho.

Hi,It's an interesting idea, but I think it would be very time consuming.I think a thread dedicated to a site is a good idea, with perhaps one or two members from each side of the fence debating some of the content of a site.For example, I'd be happy to critique anything on a Wyatt site from a theological, historical and archaeological angle, and I am sure that Buzz or maybe even T R may wish to rebutt my critique.If this worked, then perhaps other members could take the same approach with other sites.I think two on two would be best as there is always a chance that someone's spare time may be cut short for whatever reason.AdminAsgara also ran a couple of on-line polls, so perhaps this could be used to give a site an overall ranking from the general membership?Nice to meet you.Brian.