Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dog piling
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 61 of 89 (621147)
06-24-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chuck77
06-24-2011 5:12 AM


Not much of a dog pile.
what you guys are doing to Buz, is a good example of what "Dog piling" really is.
No it isn't, the most replies Buz has had to any post in this thread is 2, and that was only for 2 of his posts. In contrast in your "Peer Review or BUST??" thread you have few posts with less than 2 replies and as many as 8 replies to your OP.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chuck77, posted 06-24-2011 5:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chuck77, posted 06-24-2011 7:00 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 62 of 89 (621148)
06-24-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-22-2011 10:44 PM


Re: perhaps some clarification needed . . .
RAZD writes:
Perhaps there are times when snarky is appropriate, but there should also be some content with the snarkyness, such as a recommendation to learn the substance one is trying to discuss?
Agreed. It seems to me that behavior is far more of an issue here than dog-piling and it also seems to me that perceived treatment increases the perception of dog-piling.
RAZD writes:
That would be a problem. The way I envisage a mechanism to reduce (but not eliminate) dogpiling would be to restrict the number of replies to follow-up messages, rather than to specific people.
I’d like to see some specifics on how much dog-piling which is detrimental actually occurs, arguably not all dog-piling is detrimental. What is being proposed appears unwieldly.
If the concern is new members then I say sandbox them, give privs to reply to them only to certain members and graduate them when they know what is expected of them. The forum software could be coded in such a way that new members could even reply in a thread and only certain individuals could reply to them.
RAZD writes:
IIRC, the sandbox idea failed by discouraging the sandboxed people from posting. If we had a "Tag-team" forum, where number of replies is restricted, then admin could decide if a proposed new thread would be better served in general forum or as a tag-team thread, based on content of the proposed post.
Your suggestion is also a sandbox idea, just wanted to point out that not all sandboxes are equal and one failing doesn’t mean others won’t succeed. I am uncertain as to why something along the lines of New Member Threads couldn’t work.
I haven’t seen it raised let alone addressed that much of the ‘dog-piling’ is due to behavior by the new member. If the new member can come in and Gish-gallop the last thing they should be protected from is the mess they created themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2011 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 63 of 89 (621149)
06-24-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chuck77
06-24-2011 3:59 AM


Re: Pack's Perspective Prevails, Period
Chuck77 writes:
Both Creation and "real" Scientists each have a set of opinions and facts to backup what they say, what makes the Scientists YOU believe anymore qualified than the one's WE believe. Don't tell me they have facts to back it up either, so do we, which you just discount as pseudo Science. So what seperates good evidence from bad? What makes Dr. Steve Austin, for example( who's a Geologist and provides evidence of a world wide Flood) personal work on six continents unreliable? Saying he's a Creationist doesn't count. He has done hands on research AND is educated:
Creation Scientists may have opinions and facts, what they don’t have which is required for science are properly tested theories, which have been correctly peer-reviewed. If you think what Christian Creation Scientists have done is sufficient, then why don’t you think what Muslim religious scientists have done to be sufficient?
You still have this fundamental misunderstanding that science is some individual pursuit where as long as you find an opinion you like somewhere you can claim that opinion is scientific, it doesn’t work that way.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chuck77, posted 06-24-2011 3:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2011 8:00 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 64 of 89 (621152)
06-24-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wounded King
06-24-2011 6:02 AM


Re: Not much of a dog pile.
Wonded King writes:
No it isn't, the most replies Buz has had to any post in this thread is 2, and that was only for 2 of his posts.
Two? Ok wonded King. Let's count together:
Pauk writes:
Of course you are telling untruths here. Moller is NOT renowned as a marine scientist. The existence of the coral forms has generally been accepted. What has NOT been accepted is the assertion that the coral forms were built around ancient Egyptian chariot wheels. And that is because the evidence that would allow us to conclude that has not been presented. Apparently the "renowned marine biologist" can't even give us the growth rates for the coral in question....
Look, there's no point getting frustrated because people prefer facts and sound reasoning to your imaginings. That's the way it has to be on ANY forum which tries to get to the truth. So stop whining and demanding that the forum must be biased in your favour. Accept your (many) defeats and move on.
One
frako writes:
I only wish that the pack would stop imposing their science on the creationist minority.
Hahahah
You made that sound like we are Jehovahs witnesses.
Have you read your encyclopedia Britannica today sir, no what about Charls Darwin's book on the origins of species no well you are in luck sir i came to introduce you to science and tell you there is no god. *door slams in to my face*.
Two
AZPaul3 writes:
I am glad to see that Buzz now agrees that "science" is what real practising scientists say it is and not what some small vocal cult of *** religionists would want it to be.
Three
AZPaul writes:
I have a message responding to points PaulK posted, opining his position which I plan to prepare for posting this evening.
I look forward to reading your message.
What thread will it be in? This one would be inappropriate since your Message 42 as well as PaulK's Message 43 were, for the most part, well off-topic for this thread.
Four
hooah212002 writes:
Science isn't like religion, Buz. Science has standards. I understand that just anyone can say "I'm a christian, yay!" and you can't tell them they are wrong. Sure, they may not be your brand of christian, but they sure as shit are christian.
Science, on the other hand, has procedures. You're either using the scientific method, or you're not. You don't get to define evidence as it suits your worldview. You don't get to just say "I'm doing science, yay!" and qualify it as science.
So no, there is no "hivemind" that you are alluding to. It just so happens that the "pack" knows the scientific method and we all use it properly. Of course we will all agree when you are wrong. maybe because.....you're wrong?
I know this won't sink in, but hey, I try.
Five
jar writes:
Buz writes:
So AZPaul, though I still oppose limiting the dog pilers perhaps moderators would do good to keep a better handle on how dog pilers sometimes abuse their privilege, making unreasonable demands on the lone or minority member/s whom they are piling on.
So asking for actual evidence is an unreasonable demand?
People should accept "acclamation of evidence"?.
Six
Hoorah212002 writes:
. I knew it wouldn't sink in, but I didn't think it would completely go over your head.......No shit. I didn't say that it did....Your ability to mangle even the simplest of phrases is truly amazing.
Seven
Paulk writes:
Of course you are whining. You are attacking your opponents because you were badly defeated in a debate. You are complaining that your assertions are not unquestioningly believed. You are complaining that you are expected to produce real evidence for your claims when they venture into the domain of science. How is any of that anything but whining ?.
Eight
I didn't see Buz insult but defend His position and ALL that ensued was a bunch of Dog Piling from four different members. You make Five.
So Wounded King im not sure if you think Creationists can count. So in the spirit of the Evo way I'll use one of your favorite quotes: STOP LYING
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 06-24-2011 6:02 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 06-24-2011 8:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 65 of 89 (621154)
06-24-2011 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chuck77
06-24-2011 3:59 AM


Buzsaw a leading creation scientist ?
quote:
PaulK, that is a baseless comment right there. It's no better than the one's you're critisizing. What makes you think the "leading" Scientists "opinions" ( a word YOU used) Yes, opinions are any better than the "leading" Creation Scientists'?
Chuck, you are mixing three different things here.
1) My point is that I should prefer the opinions of leading experts to those of Buzsaw, who is NOT a "leading Creation Scientist" at all (and in fact he Is prepared to attack "Creation Scientists" too, for not agreeing with him)
2) Being a "leading Creation Scientist" does not confer any special expertise in any field of science, let alone all of them. It does, however, indicate a strong bias in favour of YEC beliefs.
3) Steve Austin has actual qualifications and publications in geology and these - not his position within "Creation Science" represent his only claim to scientific authority.
I hope that you can see that there is a big difference between dismissing Buzsaw's views on cosmology out of hand and doing the same to Steve Austin's claims about geology.
However, I would put it to you that without an actual discussion of Steve Austin's claims, it would still be rational to prefer the mainstream position. Steve Austin is not especially distinguished within geology. There are strong grounds to think that he is heavily biased in favour of the YEC view. Why then should we prefer his view over that of the many people as well or better qualified, with less bias ?
That said, if you wish to open a topic to discuss Steve Austin's flood evidence, please go ahead. The evidence is always more important than credentials.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chuck77, posted 06-24-2011 3:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 89 (621159)
06-24-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Trae
06-24-2011 6:31 AM


Re: Pack's Perspective Prevails, Period
Trae writes:
Creation Scientists may have opinions and facts, what they don’t have which is required for science are properly tested theories, which have been correctly peer-reviewed.
LoL, Trae. Creation scientists don't have prayer of a chance of satisfying secularist minded conventional science or to be featured in their peer reviews. Nor should ID creationists expect to satisfy the pack here at EvC on matters of science and evidence.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Trae, posted 06-24-2011 6:31 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 67 of 89 (621160)
06-24-2011 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chuck77
06-24-2011 7:00 AM


Re: Not much of a dog pile.
Hi Chuck,
Apparently you either can't count or can't read.
The most replies Buz has had to any post is 2. All together he has had more than 2 replies from a variety of participants, but no single post has had more than 2 replies. In fact only 2 of his 6 posts have received 2 replies.
I think our disagreement here probably stems from different understandings of what constitutes dogpiling. I consider it to be dogpiling when a participant is overwhelmed by a consistent stream of multiple responses to his posts, for almost every post he makes he gets 4 or more responses from different people. This can quickly ramify to the point where a new poster can be debating almost a dozen people after only a handful of posts often about wildly divergent things.
You make Five.
How can I be contributing to a dogpile on someone I'm not debating with? I haven't replied to Buz at all, and I'm not addressing Buz's arguments. You seem to have an idiosyncratic understanding of what the term dogpiling means.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chuck77, posted 06-24-2011 7:00 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 68 of 89 (621164)
06-24-2011 9:01 AM


Topic Please
This is a suggestion and question forum and this thread concerns dogpiling new members and possible solutions to avoid scaring off new members because of dogpiling.
This is not a debate forum or a complaint forum. Please adjust accordingly.
Also a strong reminder of rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Thanks
AdminPD

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 69 of 89 (621197)
06-24-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Panda
06-06-2011 9:54 AM


If you are new to this forum, then it can be quite a shock to the system to see the level of detailed knowledge that is required to debate here.
I fear that 'dog piling' would scare people off before they have a chance to up their game.
It is intimidating, but I don't see less information as the solution. A better solution might be concise replies that do not overlap with previous posts. We should all strive to read all the replies to a given message and try to not repeat what others have said. Of course, an ideal world is always different from the real world.
I think we can forget who our audience is. Creationists have often come from websites that have very concise and easy to understand "refutations" of evolution. Ignoring for the moment that these refutations are often misguided, there is one theme that we should keep in mind. There is a tendency for humans to trust easy to understand explanations more than complex and opaque explanations. Also, when we see someone giving a long and drawn out explanation with many twists and turns we suspect that they are trying to hide something. While this may not be the truth, this is one of the biases we have to deal with.
For example, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes" is a very easy to understand argument. Taxonomy, phylogenetics, and cladistics is not easy to understand, much less how humans fit into these classifications and how evolution produces these relationships. We are asking creationists to move away from something that is easy to understand to something that is, at first glance, impossible to understand. Dog piling only worsens the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Panda, posted 06-06-2011 9:54 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 1:24 AM Taq has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 89 (621322)
06-25-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
06-24-2011 11:59 AM


I would also like to add to what Taq had said concerning Dog Piling. It was a well thought out comment.
I think we can forget who our audience is. Evolutionists have often come from websites that have very concise and easy to understand "refutations" of Creationism. Ignoring for the moment that these refutations are often misguided, there is one theme that we should keep in mind. There is a tendency for humans to trust easy to understand explanations more than complex and opaque explanations. Also, when we see someone giving a long and drawn out explanation with many twists and turns we suspect that they are trying to hide something. While this may not be the truth, this is one of the biases we have to deal with.
For example, " Where did Cain's wife come from if they were all related" is a very easy to understand argument. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity , and The design inference is not easy to understand, much less how humans fit into these classifications and how Creationism produces these relationships. We are asking evolutionsists to move away from something that is easy to understand to something that is, at first glance, impossible to understand. Dog piling only worsens the problem.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 11:59 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2011 8:37 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 5:44 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 71 of 89 (621335)
06-25-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 1:24 AM


Interestingly I would say that you have the situation pretty much backwards.
(As a personal note, I find IC and CSI/TDI pretty easy to understand. But nobody who truly understood would try to use either as arguments against evolution or for design in biology)
I think dog piling is more due to the relative shortage of creationists here (most prefer sites rigged in their favour - and every so often we see demands to rig this site in their favour, too). And also due to the fact that many creationist arguments are widely known to be erroneous, so many people feel capable of responding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 1:24 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 89 (621348)
06-25-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 1:24 AM


why dogpiling occurs
Hi Chuck77
Please use quote boxes when you quote people (ie Taq in the second paragraph of your post) to prevent confusion.
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
For example, " Where did Cain's wife come from if they were all related" is a very easy to understand argument. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity , and The design inference is not easy to understand, much less how humans fit into these classifications and how Creationism produces these relationships. We are asking evolutionsists to move away from something that is easy to understand to something that is, at first glance, impossible to understand. Dog piling only worsens the problem.
Dog-piling occurs in any forum when you express an opinion that is not held by the majority of the participants - you get more posts attacking your position than defending it.
The uneven mismatch of pro vs con is made worse when others do not defend a position, so it becomes one against many in the debate.
Dog piling occurs when a poster makes a number of false\wrong statements, as responders will pick up on different mixes of the statements to attack.
Dog piling also occurs when PRATTs are posted, as more people are familiar with the answers to PRATTs than with the finer points of the science/s involved.
For a list of PRATTs see An Index to Creationist Claims
and Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
"Irreducible complexity" is a PRATT btw (see acid test) . . .
The real question here is whether there is a need to have 5 or more posters point out that "irreducible complexity" is a failed concept in ID (and would be discarded if ID were science), or whether one or two responders are sufficient.
Instead you could have a specific subthread (with subtitle to identify it) on "Irreducible complexity" and one on "specified complexity" and one on "the design inference"
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 1:24 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chuck77, posted 06-27-2011 1:18 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 77 by Trae, posted 06-28-2011 7:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 89 (621572)
06-27-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-25-2011 8:37 AM


Re: why dogpiling occurs
RAZD writes:
"Irreducible complexity" is a PRATT btw (see acid test) . . .
LOL, Umm ok. Says who? Once it's deemed a PRATT that's it huh? So does Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer now this dissapointing news? Im not sure they recieved the memo, because there still strong advocates of ID.
Dover doesn't mean ID is "false" or "junk Science". A battle was lost not the war
Seriously tho, once a PRATT always a PRATT? Or until someone with a brain can "UN-PRATT" it?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2011 8:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 75 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 1:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2011 10:11 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 74 of 89 (621577)
06-27-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Chuck77
06-27-2011 1:18 AM


Re: why dogpiling occurs
Irreducible complexity is a PRATT because it is a Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
Just because Behe and Meyer might continue repeating a previously refuted point doesn't mean it is or ever was a valid point. Just as repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Chuck77, posted 06-27-2011 1:18 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 75 of 89 (621578)
06-27-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Chuck77
06-27-2011 1:18 AM


Re: why dogpiling occurs
So does Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer now this dissapointing news? Im not sure they recieved the memo, because there still strong advocates of ID.
Behe is still advocating things that he admitted were wrong under oath in Dover.
Dover doesn't mean ID is "false" or "junk Science". A battle was lost not the war
Actually, yes it does. It means exactly that.
When Creationism is held to a standard of evidence above and beyond "I say so", they fail MISERABLY.
You sound like someone from the South still claiming the Civil War is going on just because you don't want to admit defeat.
Dover demonstrated that the Creationist side of the debate lacks facts and relies almost entirely on the fact that the people giving them money are too stupid to realize they are being lied to.
Nowhere in the Dover transcripts do we get the impress than anyone from the Creationist side even comes close to actually believing what they claim.
It's all just a con game and a money printing machine for them. Why else would Behe still be teaching things he already admitted were wrong?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Chuck77, posted 06-27-2011 1:18 AM Chuck77 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