Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 285 (354069)
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


Faith's Participation in EvCForum
A few days ago in the private forum Admin (Percy) posted:
Admin writes:
Quality Debate is our Goal
Every so often I have to remind myself of the dictum that bad debate pushes out good debate. I have never been disappointed when I've followed it.
I do not have the time these days to make sure that my observations have a sufficient sample size, but it appears to me that Faith has a very high participation rate and that much of it is unconstructive. Her participation rate is so high and the quality so poor that I fear we're becoming Faith's Nonsense Forum.
It appears to me that Faith is keeping her baser instincts, so often on display in the past, in check, but what has replaced it recently is just as bad. My instincts tell me that I have to suspend or showcase Faith, just as I did Randman a while back. She seems to be doing a good job as an admin, though.
The most recent example of what concerns me about Faith's approach to discussion is the Faith Science - Logically Indefensible thread. See Message 16, Message 19 and Message 23.
What do people, from both sides, think?
--Percy
This post was answered by a number of admins. With some variation all the responses wanted to keep Faith around. These are representative of the posts:
AdminJar writes:
I strongly advocate letting Faith continue as she is.
I say let Faith continue, do not try to stop her from trying to make her very best case for her position. While you and others might find her messages silly, I believe she honestly thinks that they make valid points.
The FACT is that Faith is in an absolutely impossible position. Her point of view on science and theology is simply indefensible in all senses of the word. She needs to be given as much latitude as possible to present her case, even where that might exceed restrictions we might place on others.
I believe that Faith is as strong and capabable representative of a large and actually growing segment of the population world wide as we are likely to find.
AdminModulous writes:
Can our science do without Faith?
Percy writes:
Unless someone can help me see how participation by Faith can be consistent with constructive discussion, by late tonight I will put her under permanent suspension.
I'm not sure what is being constructed in a constructive discussion in the EvC debate. In this debate there is rarely going to be any give.
Faith does us favour here at EvC. She puts forward her position well a good amount of the time. Without Faith at these forums the debate would be limited and the strength of argument that is mustered would slip. When Faith is in a debate some absolutely stellar posts are made, wonderfully presented and filled with material that I find educational and engaging.
It's like a comparison between AiG and drdino.com - with Faith around here we are debating at an AiG type level, without Faith the tone will slip closer to drdino.com level of debate. "Bananas are an athiests worst nightmare! Evolution is just a theory! *gallop gallop*"
Even if the slip is only slight I still think that Faith provides a valid service by being here. If one was to be uncharitable one could say that Faith doesn't present any compelling cases - but what she does do is make sure the scientists (amateur and pro) are on their toes and presenting their best argued case. If there is a hidden assumption being made, or a logical error - and Faith gets a sniff of it, she will pounce.
She might take her 'appointed' task a little too far, and that can make discussion get bogged down in trying to make a tiny point over and over again, but I think that ultimately it is worth it.
While there was also some forms of agreement with Admin, for example:
AdminSchraf writes:
Me too.
And some responses more strongly supported Faith such as:
AdminQuetzal writes:
I have to weigh in on the side of jar, omni, mod, et al. I strongly oppose any restriction on Faith, and stongly disagree with the characterization that she "is in broad manner compromising the quality of the discussion at this board". She is smart, articulate, and presents a superb example of the higher-end of creationist poster. She can at the same time be intensly frustrating -
I still can't wrap my mind around the stance of someone who refuses to read something provided for her and in the same breath insists that the article doesn't say what we claim it says. However, nonetheless, the articles and argument ARE presented. If "constructive debate" means your expectation is that Faith will ever acknowledge anyone's point or admit she was wrong, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I very strongly feel that EvCForum would be the ultimate losers if Faith, or anyone like her, is permanently suspended. At the very least, as omni points out, we have shown our "inability to refute her", and hence were forced to ban her. As a secondary consideration - she is the best of the best of the creationist posters who frequent this burg. Who else are we going to talk to? S1WC, MartinV, Murky Waters? Talk about lowest common denominator...
And on a final note, you haven't banned Brad who is probably highly intelligent and utterly incomprehensible. I certainly can't see where he contributes anything but gibberish to any conversation or thread he participates in. I certainly wouldn't consider Brads participation increasing the quality of discussion. Why would you ban Faith, and retain Brad? At least we can understand what she writes...
An early response of Admin's was:
Admin writes:
Phat writes:
I would not see any cause to suspend her.
Admin Responds:
--Percy
I'll follow this up with a post that attempts to show some examples of what I think Admin (Percy) is talking about.
I think that each person with an opinion can take a post to express their opinion AND support it with specific examples.
Edited by AdminFaith, : to correct some misattributions of quotes

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 2:33 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:43 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 6 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 4:02 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 10 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-04-2006 7:22 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 10-04-2006 11:29 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 22 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:28 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 31 by ReverendDG, posted 10-04-2006 8:29 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-05-2006 1:05 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-05-2006 11:40 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 127 by randman, posted 10-06-2006 2:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 285 (354083)
10-04-2006 4:33 AM


An attempt to show what Percy means: 1
One person's view of the problem with Faith's posts:
Unlike the posts referenced by Percy my example refers to Faith's behavior in science threads.
Message 223
In this thread Ringo makes clear that the sorting of layers as it settle from water can not produce what we see. Faith doesn't answer this at all. Her answer seems to be (from other posts) something like:
We have no way of knowing what a flood will do. The fact that we CAN say what water does is ignored.
Again in
Message 232
In this post the actual FACTS of the geology is described in simple terms. Faith offers an insulting non-response and NEVER has understood that the picture she has of the geology is wrong even though it has
been pointed out over and over. Not that her interpretation is right or wrong but that the actual, factual nature of the geology is NOT what she says it is.
In:
Message 253
Faith offers the best she can manage. An empty non-answer that can NOT possibly explain the actual evidence. Evidence which she chooses to ignore or decide that it is "too technical".
This is a small fraction of what demonstrates the kind of "bad debate" that Admin/Percy is concerned about.
One of the general problems is making statments based on a lack of knowledge of the actual facts. When the incorrect nature of her understanding is pointed out there hasn't been a single case I can remember where she has noted the correction and retracted the statments based on it.
Edited by NosyNed, : Clean up line breaks

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 4:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 285 (354130)
10-04-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
10-04-2006 9:25 AM


Interesting answer
Ugh..which stone did you crawl out from under?
This looks a lot like a response from someone who doesn't like what he's reading but has no answer for it at all.
Faith has behaved exactly as AO as stated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 9:25 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 11:33 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 285 (354147)
10-04-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
10-04-2006 11:33 AM


A ,more enlightening comment
Then it would have furthered the discussion and, perhaps, helped Faith to understand a bit if you commented that you agreed with the points that AO was making but offered a better way of presenting it to help him be less harsh.
All I saw was that he described Faith's behaviours if you find that a personal dig I think that is telling us something about what the behaviours are like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 11:33 AM iano has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 285 (354310)
10-05-2006 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by DorfMan
10-05-2006 1:19 AM


symmetry
and neither are they erudite in theology in the same magnitude as you.
And most of us stay who are not so erudite in theology stay out of the theological threads and don't make what are obviously stupid assertions about it.
There is not such symmetry as you are suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2006 1:19 AM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 2:40 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 65 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2006 11:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 285 (354324)
10-05-2006 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
10-05-2006 2:35 AM


what's fair
hardly fair, or right.
If the creationists want to make accusations about science then they have stepped outside the church. They want to play the game then they have to abide by the rules.
If they don't like being treated soooo unfairly then they should mind their own business and stay out of schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 2:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 10-05-2006 3:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 285 (354636)
10-06-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
10-05-2006 11:40 PM


Who should post.
In a scientific discussion the facts and reasoning stand. They stand independently of who is laying them out.
Obviously someone who knows a particular field very well is much more likely to get his facts straight than an enthusiastic amateur. We've seen reasonably knowledgeable "evos" post mistakes often enough. We've also seen other "evos" correct them. This correction process helps correct for the amateur level of knowledge of most of us. Fortuntately we have some real experts in some of the fields to help catch more errors than we otherwise might.
When the experts aren't here that is what the other side is for. If anyone, on either side, posts something factually wrong or uses faulty reasoning those disagreeing with the conclusions can correct the facts and reasoning. A natural check and balance just like that used in all science.
It doesn't require any scientists at all to carry on a discussion (though I, for one, am very glad to have the scientists here that we have). All we have to do is to be able to marshall facts and show how they support our views.
Of course, most of us laypersons just look stuff up (on the web preferable but maybe books). We use what those knowledgable in the fields have found and explain.
All the "creos" have to do is refer to the facts and reasoning presented in books or websites by the creation "scientists".
It is highly unfortunate that when they try to find rebutals to things like the dating correlations thread all they find is ....
nada!
The creation scientists know enough to know what they shouldn't touch because they have no explanation for what is found.
If any "creos" want to invite creation "scientists" here we'd LOVE to have them drop in. The rest of us are happy to invite ALL scientists here through their work. We simple pick up their work and bring it here. It doesn't matter who types the posts. It is the content of those posts that counts.
IT IS ONLY THE CONTENT THAT COUNTS.
There are lots of websites on both sides of the argument. One would expect that the very best arguments on both sides are available on those sites. All we need to do is expend the effort to understand the arguments and be prepared to express them in our own words.
So we don't need creation scientists we just need creationists who are willing to digest the work of the creation scientists and understand it and present it. Then when others critique that work those who want to support it have to show what is wrong with the critiques.
Sounds like a plan to me. Anything wrong with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-05-2006 11:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iceage, posted 10-06-2006 2:23 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 238 of 285 (354877)
10-06-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
10-06-2006 6:15 PM


geological issues
geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.
Why do you think I brought up the geological issues as an example of the kind of problem that I see you as having?
You were corrected, over and over again, on misstatements of fact. You never, that I noticed even commented on the corrections given to you much less acknowledge that you were wrong. You simply continued restating your conclusions that were arrived at based on the faulty, wrong, in error, not real facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 7:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 267 of 285 (354983)
10-07-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by iano
10-07-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Banzai!!
And what exactly was in error in what CK posted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by iano, posted 10-07-2006 1:02 PM iano has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 280 of 285 (355192)
10-08-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
10-08-2006 12:16 PM


Where can the debate go?
So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere.
Yes.
On occasion someone comes along who doesn't know much; who knows they don't and actually wants to learn something. They actually read what is posted in reply to their questions. They, at least as a start, choose to accept that no one is lying to them.
When they are told they have a fact wrong they listen and don't repeat the error again. They may have more or less of a struggle with dealing with the ramifications of finding out that they had some things wrong but at least they are capable of learning.
Some choose to leave early on when they find out things aren't as they thought. Others hang around to learn more.
What these few do NOT do is repeat the same errors over and over. They do not accuse everyone of lying to them.
It is, I think, NOT a matter of less scientific knowledge on anyones part. The difference is a willingness to not simply say that they don't know very much about the science (though that can be hard to come by in itself) but to actually understand what that means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-08-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by CK, posted 10-08-2006 2:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024