The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Hi, Stephen!First things first: We don't work that way here. However, some people find they are unable to conform to the guidelines. This is a community, with a set of community standards. Surely you recognize the unfairness if everyone but you is held to one standard, the Forum Guidelines, while you follow your own muse. You agreed to abide by the guidelines when you joined, and it is assumed you will live up to your word.An example of your guideline violations is your repeated assertion that Loehr's prayer experiments with plants are scientific. It has been pointed out a number of times that Loehr's experiments were never published in any peer-reviewed science journal. You dispute this, yet are unable to provide any citation (while denigrating peer-reviewed journals in general), and your original mention of Loehr mentioned only his book The Secret Life of Plants. A search of net reveals only this book - had there been an actual scientific research article by Loehr in a peer-reviewed journal that revealed the efficacy of prayer on plants, that fact would be trumpeted at Creationist and Christian sites everywhere. That no site mentions it or knows of it is strong indication that no such paper exists.Until you have support for your belief that Loehr's prayer studies were published in a scientific journal, continued repeating of this assertion violates forum guideline rule 2:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

You must either move the debate forward by finding the missing evidence of this scientific paper by Loehr, or stop making the assertion, else you're in violation of forum guidelines, and I'll be forced to take administrative action.This of course applies to all your other positions. Either move the debate forward by supporting your statements with new information or argument, but do not keep repeating the same assertions or arguments that you've already offeredClear?On to another issue. One problem we have faced a couple times in the past, though not recently, is when someone with a unique and controversial viewpoint begins making it the subject of every thread in which they participate. This is beginning to happen here, and so we're going to do some thread pruning. All discussion on your version of HD science is to be confined here. The other HD thread will be closed. Your version of HD science is not to be mentioned outside this thread. If and when you persuade others here of the validity of your approach, only then can it be used in support of your arguments in other threads.Clear?Please indicate your agreement by a reply to this message. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi, Stephen!I didn't post Message 213 to begin a dialogue with you, but to indicate to you my wish that you follow rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines (and all the other rules, of course):

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

And to indicate my wish that you limit discussion of your subjective Bayesian version of H-D science to the thread reserved for that purpose.You can assent to both, or you can accept a restriction or suspension. I'll wait a couple days for a reply before taking any action. I'm leaning toward a restriction to posting only in the Free For All forum. Other members are free, even encouraged, to provide their opinions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

The Forum Guidelines are there for everyone. The most recent suspension was of an evolutionist.Schraf seems only the latest arrival at a conclusion now generally shared among those familiar with science and its methods. Board administration has a strong interest in maintaining a civil environment in which productive discourse can flourish, and so protecting members from ad hominems has a high priority.But placing the crank label upon you is not an appeal to prejudice, i.e., not an ad hominem, because your record here shows how appropriate and deserved the label is. If you believe the label inaccurate then I suggest you work to correct the strong impressions you've given people here by addressing the criticisms of your ideas forthrightly. To this point you've used a "take it or leave it approach", admonishing people that if they do not accept your ideas that they'll have to deal with God. Science does not take a, "I'm right, God says so," approach.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi, Tamara!Board management shares your concerns. As I said above, the Forum Guidelines are there to encourage productive discourse, and rule 3 is very explicit:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

But this is not the only rule, and the problem for board administrators and moderators is how to apply the various rules with fairness and balance. For example, Stephen has consistently violated this guideline:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

Many have attempted to engage Stephen in rational discussion, but this hasn't proved possible. When reminded of this guideline, Stephen replied that it wasn't his responsibilty to persuade others of his views. He was only responsible for putting the word of the Lord before others, and if they chose to reject it that was their problem. He said he would do no more.I chose not to suspend Stephen, but neither will I protect him as long as he continues to ignore forum guidelines and prove immune to engagement in productive discussion. Members will be permitted to classify Stephen as a crank (but not jerk or idiot) because this is a valid Internet discussion category, just like troll and lurker. For me to forbid use of this accurate label would be not guideline enforcement but censorship. If Stephen wants to escape the label then he knows what he has to do. Most likely Stephen has no idea how to escape the label, because his behavior here is not something he chose, but a reality he cannot escape, just like Alan Cresswell, he of the perpetual motion machine.This is a science site. Stephen, especially as a self-proclaimed scientist, will be held to the normal standards of science. To this point Stephen has offered no evidence for his positions, or indeed any hint that he understands what evidence is.If you think Stephen *is* engaging forthrightly in discussion and has a valid point regarding Bayesianism in this thread, or with his positions in other threads, then perhaps you could help him make his points, because he doesn't seem willing to do that himself.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Check out Cranks, Trolls and Other Blessings of the Online World where I provide an excerpt from the book Emergence. Type "internet crank" (including the quotes) into Google. Ask yourself why it's okay for Stephen to call his fellow members "possessed by demons" but not okay for them to call him a crank.I called crank a "valid Internet discussion category." The particular term used isn't important as long as it is accurately descriptive, so perhaps if you don't like it you can suggest some appropriate synonyms.The important point I was making was that I will permit people to call Stephen a crank because the term accurately describes his behavior. You have chosen to quibble about terminology instead of defending Stephen's behavior, so I assume you agree with the assessment. Since no one else here has been able to influence Stephen, perhaps instead of debating with me you could attempt to convince Stephen to follow the guidelines. Or perhaps you could use your time to complete the discussion you began in Why is uniformitarianim still taught?.This should be the last post about this here. Extended discussion about board administration and moderation normally takes place in Suggestions and Questions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator