I can see differences of opinion regarding what might or might not work regarding programs or technical problems but isn't there eventually evidence to resolve the issue? Are these folks denying the evidence in the same way that creationists do? Do they have vested interests in the outcome of the discussions?
What I see at EvC is that it is reason, logic and evidence that lead the way. If someone says something that is wrong they will be called on it regardless of which side of the debate they are on. Science has a self-correcting mechanism that works by praising those who find mistakes instead of castigating them for their descent. I don't think there is anyone here who would not welcome another dissenting opinion. The whole point here is to see how your opinions hold up.
I suspect that this site is predominately populated by rationalists because of the uncomfortable feeling caused in the creationist's mind when they are confronted with endless streams of undeniable facts and not because creationists are banned from expressing themselves.
His last post before I got banned said that even if I proved him wrong he would still not change his mind.
Sounds like a creationist tactic for ensuring victory no matter what.
I haven't decided yet if this forum is slipping into this abyss I've been talking about. Since there are so few creationists on here... what do you think?
Moderation is always a challenge and I think they do a good job here at being fair. There is a list somewhere of all the people who have been banned and why. I don't think that there are any on that list that shouldn't be. There just aren't that many people up to the challenge of defending creationism against the evidence of evolution.
There is the problem of dogpiling in some cases. Comes with a public forum I guess. They have a good feature here for one on one debate although it doesn't get used much. I am not sure what else could be done to make this site any more accessible and open and even handed.
I would challenge you to go to Evolutionfairytale and try to engage in a debate. I give frako about 3 posts to banishment.
You are holding up well. 12 posts in and you have only been warned twice to read the rules and only accused once of 'equivocating'. I think that, over there, 'equivocating' means when you correct their misunderstanding of the meaning of a word.
I see that they have already separated you off into another thread in preparation for complete removal. I could be wrong though.
It's hard for participants in group thinking to see it, so if it is going, it would be hard to detect.
I am not sure that I agree with that. Group thinking is when an individual goes along with the opinion of the group in order to avoid sticking out from the crowd or to avoid disruption. It is basically succumbing to peer pressure and I think that people know when they are doing it. If you honestly agree with the group position then it is not the same thing as suppressing any dissent that you might have in order to remain part of the group.
As you say, the structure of the group is the best indication of whether or not group thinking is prevalent. It is up to the individual to speak their mind but if there are systemic restrictions in place then the group is more likely to suffer from it and those restrictions are usually very visible.
So, the question is, does the evo side adequately critique the evo side (oslt)?
I certainly try when I am able but usually someone much more capable than me rises to the occasion. See Message 83
I think that any imbalance in the levelling of criticism is due mostly to the fact that one side is wrong far more often than the other. I would point out that if you look at the responses to your examples it is clear that the critical thinkers among us, be they theists or not, accept the criticism when it is valid and stand corrected as opposed to refusing it and requiring more criticism.
So the fact is that critical thinkers do most of the required critiquing before they open their mouths.