Change in Moderation?

Hi Percy, Debate with the likes of PB and Salty isn't idiocy. Whereas it is understood that it's utterly impossible to change the minds of cranks, who will cling to their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overhwelming evidence, IMO that isn't the principle reason to debate them. Anyone who has waded through (or followed) any of PB's massive threads, for instance, has been exposed to an incredible amount of damn good science, because that's what's necessary to refute the spurious assertions he made. The references and explanations Mammuthus and Taz have given alone are the equivalent of a graduate course in molecular biology. As a participant in a couple of those exchanges, I also find them extraordinarily useful - I've been forced to research and read dozens of articles in topics on which I either had only a passing knowledge or shallow familiarity. Odd as it may sound, arguing with Peter Borger has been an education for me in a number of areas. Even KSC - with his Iridium Nightmare garbage - was useful in that sense. So I don't consider them a waste of time; far from it. If I did, I wouldn't bother arguing with them.As to all parties "being sincerely interested in exploring the issues", I'm not sure that this is a realistic expectation. The fundamental "evolution vs creation" debate is based on science and evidence vs superstition and faith. I have seen little reason to expect any creationist to change their position - or even be willing to entertain the possibility that they might be mistaken - TC's partial "shift to the dark side" notwithstanding. However, countering the various creationist claims and exposing their pseudoscience to the light is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. And this board in particular has done an excellent job of attracting and keeping some pretty high-caliber scientific talent. I'd rate evcforum as right up there with TO and IIDB on that score (albeit smaller).One possible solution to the dilemna would be to adopt a slightly more stringent version of the Moose strategy. If a moderator notices significant topic drift (a judgement call), then a "Topic Drift" warning by post number should be issued. If the drift continues, a second warning, and a notice that the thread will be closed in an arbitrary time period (24 hours?), advising all participants to either open a new thread or sum up their points. Then close the thread. Of course, ad homs, flames etc will be immediately deleted by a mod - with explanation (again, judgement). This avoids heavy-handed moderation with long explanations and/or suspensions (which probably do more to disrupt a topic than help it, honestly) for other than egregious flaming or insults. Topics are going to drift. It's inevitable by the nature of the medium. However, a policy of warnings followed by thread closings will probably be sufficient. Naturally, inappropriate threads (a discussion of logical positivism in the evolution forum, for instance) should be moved as soon as they are spotted.My 12 kopeks (2 cents at current exchange rates). I like the board. It's been extraordinarily interesting and educational. Thank you for hosting it. But to be honest, I'm becoming concerned over the increasingly disruptive nature of the moderator interventions.Anyway, whatever you decide we'll live with. It's your board.

I just want to object here to the closure of my new thread about cutting variation from the definition of natural selection.Yes much of what I wrote there has been written before by me, but now the emphasis is on the importance of the subject, rather then on technical details about if or not selection without variation is valid science.I also think it is inappropiately sarcastic to say of the admin to be glad I won the debate.There really are no technical arguments anymore which I already haven't refuted numerous times. The last time the reason for including variation in the definition was because there most always is variation in a population. My counterargument, among others, to that was that this variation is most times irrellevant, and that actually stasis is most times observed in populations. There was no response to this counterargument of mine. Maybe the subject should be entered into the great debate forum, with close moderation control to the point where arguments are structured, so that it is more clear that I have really nullified all counterarguments. But really Quetzal, Peter and John have already agreed that selection without variation is valid, so there is really no need to discuss technical details anymore unless someone brings up a new reason why in all cases variation is required for Natural Selection to apply.So I think the sarcasm is misplaced, prejudicial, and the emphasis on the importance of the subject makes it new enough to be talked about from that angle. It's really quite difficult to have to argue the importance of something. After it is agreed that selection without variation is valid, then variation should simply be cut from the definition, case closed. That is how it should work, but in stead I'm confronted with indifference to the rules of organizing knowledge, which are applicable in all science except Darwinism. How to deal with indifference is by posting on the importance of the subject, which was what I was doing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Admin may or may not be getting a little too gung-ho, but I must (in admin mode) defer to his expertise on the forums guidelines.I do see a little to much non-admin mode (Percy) creeping into things from Admin, at least on occassion.My prime example, quoting Admin, from http://EvC Forum: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution -->EvC Forum: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution, is:

quote:

---

Either I'm completely missing the point, in which case additional explanation is required, or this is incorrect. The duration of an event, ie, of how long it takes for a genetic error to occur during reproduction, serves only as an upper limit on the rate at which such events can occur. Darwinists believe the rate of occurence of such events is the important factor in the rate of genetic change, not the duration of the events themselves. If Salty is arguing that the perspective he characterizes is wrong then I think most evolutionists would agree with him, but it isn't a perspective any of us very likely share.

---

To me, this should have come from Percy, not Admin.I may be wrong.Moose (non-admin mode)

Hi Moose,Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to respond to this point, and a couple of the points from others. That's not the example I would have chosen, though I concede there are probably other excellent recent examples. I was responding to a math error. Salty was confusing units of time to units of 1/time. I suppose I could have left out the tie-in to the actual Darwinist perspective, but having never experienced Salty before I had no way of knowing he was so far out in left field.I was hoping that the addition of a 2nd Creationist moderator would free me up from the contortionist exercise of trying to appear neutral when posting as Admin. However, since both seem to have disappeared maybe I should go back to my more neutral persona. Nobody has to defer to me on anything. I try to run the board for the benefit of all members. I enforce the guidelines as they are, but I'm always open to suggestions for modifications and additions.That being said, I do have a vision for the board. There are already plenty of venues on the Internet for the Creation/evolution debate, so why another? The value-added I was hoping to provide was balanced moderation through a mix of Creationist and evolutionist moderators. This is proving more difficult to achieve then I had thought. Where are TB and TC, anyway? I forget if this is public knowledge, so I'll just say that I once offered a very well known Creationist a moderator role here. I wanted a strong minded Creationist viewpoint to balance off my own evolutionist perspective. I thought that he/she and I could argue in the background through email about how to handle various situations and that we'd balance out. The person turned the offer down due to workload, but I still think it would have been a good idea.The most fascinating thing about what's happening here is that, to overstate this just a bit, I'm beating up on the Creationists and the evolutionists are complaining about it. Someone explain this to me. Does the equivalent happen at Terry's board? Anyway, I'm glad this has come up, because it's stimulating discussion and I'm getting valuable feedback. Past moderator discussion threads have all died with almost no posts at all.By the way, Creationists, this is not an "evolutionist only" thread. Pile on!Moving on to PB, getting PB to clarify his theory is important both for those trying to follow along and especially for new participants. In Message 95 of the John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution thread Grape Ape says, "I'm afraid I don't have time to go hunting for whatever the GUToB is." PB could point to the the post where he describes it, but that definition is just a collection of unsupported claims, and we don't want to reopen the discussion of the GUToB definition every time someone new joins the debate.While those who have been debating Peter for a while may feel they've established a baseline for discussion (I'm not so sure of that myself), every one else, and especially new participants, are going to have the same reaction as Grape Ape: What's GUToB? This is a question Peter has never answered satisfactorily. I agree again with Grape Ape when he says, "It seems to me simply that you could address things in terms of current molecular knowledge."I have to strongly agree with Quetzal that one can learn a lot debating people like PB and Salty. One could also learn a lot reading the posts of some of those who've left or chosen not to join because of presence of people like PB (I get occasional emails to this effect), but since other evolutionists won't normally hold contrarian views the instigation to research would be absent. So Quetzal's point is that people like PB and Salty provide the motivation for deeper study. Pretty strong argument.But why debate someone who can't understand a simple math error, or much of anything else, for that matter? The result seems a pretty dumb level of dialogue. Irrational discussion is what a moderated site is supposed to avoid.I'm a strong believer in accepting the world as it is. You can't get blood out of a stone. PB and Salty are what they are, and they're not going to change. LRP (asteroid collision) and w_fortenberry (geocentrism) were the same way, and to be frank I'm growing weary of hosting debates on obvious pseudoscience and nonsense. Are we so desperate for debate that we'll grasp at any manner of opponent? Why not just let PB and Salty go their way and wait for someone rational?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Salty was confusing units of time to units of 1/time.

---

Ooooooooh, so that's what you were talking about - never mind.Emily LaTella Moose

As far as I can tell, Salty was criticizing Darwinists to describe genetic change as gradual when it is known that a single genetic change only takes a moment. He's in effect saying that rate of beneficial mutations is a wrong/deceptive way to look at genetic change, an arguable point, not an error.For as far as moderation goes, if you only enforce general civil conduct in all forums, and only closely moderate debate in the great debate forum, then that would be more effective IMO. Something like that you can use a discussion in the great debate forum as some kind of faq on the subject afterwards.You have not replied at all to my objection to the closure of the cut variation... thread, why is that?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I first addressed this point by saying, "Either I'm completely missing the point, in which case additional explanation is required..." Salty never clarified, and the lack of response to an administrative request instead became the issue.But if it's the wrong/deceptive way to look at it then it's also the wrong/deceptive way to look at almost anything else where many events over time are characterized as a rate. Salty could have clarified by explaining, for instance, how it is okay to describe many automobile accidents, which also occur in a few seconds, happening over time into a rate, or how it is okay to describe crimes, which also typically happen in a few seconds or at least a few minutes, happening over time as a rate, but wrong for evolution to transform genetic changes over time into a rate. But it isn't the validity of any clarification that is the issue now. It's that the request to clarify was refused. Don't feel singled out. I've been restricting PB's GUToB threads, and I'm strongly leaning toward closing down Salty's thread. As I've already said, any idea or theory is allowed here, but I'm growing weary of sponsoring irrational, sometimes even senseless, debate. If I reopen your thread are you going to be responsive to administrative requests? That was one consideration I made when I closed it.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

In stead of looking at automible crashes, look at the development of automobiles, would that also be good to represent in terms of rate of change/mutations? It's all arguable still IMO.Sure I would be responsive to administrative requests, but before you make a list of administrative requests, I suggest you read the 2nd paragraph in my post nr 25 in the thread:http://EvC Forum: Racism -->EvC Forum: RacismI'm not at all sure you understand what selection without variation is about. It is very basic biology, which would be very very difficult to deny the scientific merit of IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You're just adding another analogy to the list - how does that support your view that "it's all arguable still". Like I said before, unless I'm missing something, this is a ridiculous discussion to be having. So far nobody's told me what I'm missing. But you believe *everyone* misunderstands it but you. I don't think it is within my power to sway your position on this, and it causes your threads to rehash the same arguments over and over. I will not reopen your thread, or allow to stay open any threads which attempt to discuss the Theory of Reproduction.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

I've been restricting PB's GUToB threads, and I'm strongly leaning toward closing down Salty's thread.

---

However flawed it may be, I think the Salty topic is the very model of what we are striving for, for Peter Borger. It is akin to the William Scott style of a topic.

quote:

---

As I've already said, any idea or theory is allowed here, but I'm growing weary of sponsoring irrational, sometimes even senseless, debate.

---

I think (hard-core evo point of view) that if we truly cut out the irrational debate, that would pretty much cut out the creationist side completely.Creationists are criticised for condeming the mainstream ToE, without offering any valid scientific alternative. Salty and Peter Borger (and others?) are attempting to put out an alternative ToE. The mainstream may think it's all hooey, but that type hooey is what drives the existance of this site.Even if Saltys and Borgers concepts are badly flawed, I say, let's explore to see if there may be at least a bit of truth present.Or something like that.Moose"The opinions here expressed may not necessarily be those of a sane mind" - Ian Schoal (Ducks Breath Radio) {I think - Moose}

I have a new idea, I hope everyone's still checking this thread. Please tell me what you think:Those who wish to discuss novel theories must provide evidence of more than just one proponent. Lone theorists would be disallowed. Demonstrating that the theory has more than one proponent could take a variety of routes, such as bringing another proponent into the debate, or providing a reference to at least one published article, paper or book that's not by the original proponent.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

It's Ian Shoales of Duck's Breath Mystery Theatre. Uh, yes. Interesting point to ponder.One of the reasons we're here, a big one for me, is to gain and maintain expertise in opposing non-science viewpoints that are being promoted as science. I've got to be careful not to lose sight of that.On the other hand, I've already sponsored the General Theory of Reproduction debate, and don't feel like doing so again. And PB's GUToB has already been given an enormous amount of attention here, and I don't see why I should make an effort if he's not. The same is true of Salty.Another way to look at Syamsu's and PB's and Salty's theories is that when I go to the school board meeting to oppose the teaching of Creation Science in the classroom I'm not going to be opposing the GToR theory or the GUToB theory or Salty's theory (if it has a name I don't know it yet), and all these theories are so illogical I don't worry that they'll ever come to anywhere near that kind of prominence of YEC or more recently ID, in fact they'll all likely live and die with their originators.A big part of the problem for me is their unwillingness to allow moderators to bring some order to their threads. I could tolerate all manner of lunacy if they'd just listen to administrators. And this issue has nothing to do with their views. Now, it might be said that my recent administrative requests have stepped outside the bounds of the guidelines, but I don't see that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm right and the guidelines are wrong, and I'm certainly open to ammending them.Sorry, everyone, to be taking such a hard line on this. I'm not really as bad as I probably sound right now. Partly it's playing devil's advocate to get people to explore why they're so determined to have these debates, and to ask themselves what kind of structure they'd like around such debates, and I'd really like to know how people feel about this. As I've said before, when I started this site I wanted to provide a venue that added capabilities not already available elsewhere. If all I've done is added yet-another-creation-versus-evolution-site then what's the point? Thousands-not-billions just started a new site, why not go there?I suppose in the end I'll have to come up with my own answers, but I would still appreciate all the feedback I can get.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

...and all these theories are so illogical I don't worry that they'll ever come to anywhere near that kind of prominence of YEC or more recently ID, in fact they'll all likely live and die with their originators.

---

I'm not sure where ID fits in, but in general this is a good summary of the fact the the creation/evolution debate is pretty much a YEC/science debate, with old earth creationism being left "outside looking in".Added by edit - Actually, I suspect that Salty and Borgers ideas are some sort of variation of ID - end edit.By the way, you're saying they are less logical than young-earthism?It also comments on why my various theistic evolution, old earth creationism, and such topics have pretty much gone nowhere.Sidenote: By far, of all the topics that I have started, by far the two that have the most messages, are "Terry at the Talk Origins Board" and the new Salty topic.Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-22-2003]

quote:

---

Those who wish to discuss novel theories must provide evidence of more than just one proponent. Lone theorists would be disallowed. Demonstrating that the theory has more than one proponent could take a variety of routes, such as bringing another proponent into the debate, or providing a reference to at least one published article, paper or book that's not by the original proponent.

​

One of the reasons we're here, a big one for me, is to gain and maintain expertise in opposing non-science viewpoints that are being promoted as science. I've got to be careful not to lose sight of that.

---

(The above, statements from two separate posts of Admin.)The above statements seem to covey the following two implications:1. All viewpoints expressed here concerning science must have at least one other major source of reference and must not be totally unique. My "forever universe" thread comes to mind here, as I've never encountered this view from another source. As a new poster I'm not sure where the parameters are on this and a bit confused as to where they are.2. A major purpose of the board is to oppose non-science theories/viewpoints. Though there are a growing number of scientists and archeologists who interpret what is observed in the light of the Bible and Biblical history, does the second statement quote above really mean what it appears to say? Do you consider viewpoints expressing the possibility of the divine supernatural in history and in the workings of science as to be officially opposed by the forum administration?Frankly, I was taken aback when my Chariot Wheels thread was closed after one apparant minor infraction of the subject rules by me, the initiator of the thread, when one warning was given and my ideological counterpart, at the moment, suggested the closing would work fine with him/her.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-22-2003]

Percy,Would starting "lone" theory topics in the short term forum be of help ? They could always be moved to a more appropriate forum at a later date, or be deleted as needed.Frank