Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:12 PM
812 online now:
edge, funny, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli, ramoss, Sarah Bellum (7 members, 805 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 300 (241308)
09-08-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by CK
09-08-2005 11:19 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
And of course we have to remember our mods have real-lifes job,families, hobbies,horses and things to do!

Agreed - if my suggestions would impractically alter things, then I'm happy to be told as much.

* I think we should calling you "little mod" or "moddy".

My nickname originally came from the Domestos adverts of the early 90s that were faux-western with the singing over the top "Big Dom (repeats)...Big Bad Dom". A friend of mine was 6'4" (we were like 12 years old) and was dubbed 'Big Dom', I was a little runt (still am really) so was jokingly dubbed 'little mod'. The name has evolved several times, though most people still stick with 'Mod'; 'little mod' and 'moddy' are both accepted variations (though 'moddy' kind of reminds me of cutesy wutsey ickle girly wirlies...'moddy woddy'). I use Modulous on forums because it helps somewhat avoid the Mod/mod confusion.

Well, that was a bit of a tangent.

Where was that track...oh yeah. Admins and their time. Erm - agreed! My ideas are suggestions only, or perhaps avenues of exploration for the future - I hope the admins will appreciate that as much as I appreciate their tireless efforts (wait - is my nose getting brown up here...?)

This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 08-September-2005 04:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CK, posted 09-08-2005 11:19 AM CK has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 107 of 300 (241864)
09-09-2005 3:23 PM


Science in non-science forums.
I'm probably going to start something that's gonna make a mess, but...

Re: AdminNosy's question (should science be allowed in a non-science forum) and roxrkool's reply (NO!),

I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?

If anybody's bringing science to the faith forums, seems like it's the scientists who are so intent to rebut Faith's arguments. I'd suggest 2 methods to these scientists:
1. Challenge Faith to support DATA (not rebut theory) by providing empirical evidence that seems to work against her "theories."
2. Just let it go! Don't engage her.

I find that people usually provide evidence for Faith to explain, and when she explains it, they use scientific theories to "show" her that her explanation is simply not possible. Instead of bringing science into the faith forums, why not extract the data from the scientific theories, and bring these to the faith forums? If Faith's constructions don't hold up, then there will be evidence she can't "explain away." If they do hold up, then I don't see what the problem is. If she chooses to simply ignore evidence, then that's when moderation should step in.

Why is this so hard? And for those to whom it's so difficult, why not just exit stage left? What does arguing with Faith buy you anyway?

Ben

P.S. I was unsure whether to post this in Admin mode or not. Since I'm asking questions rather than making statements outlining moderation policy or my moderation approach, I thought non-admin mode is more appropriate.

This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/09/09 12:26 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 09-09-2005 3:36 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2005 6:03 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 110 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 8:05 PM Ben! has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 108 of 300 (241872)
09-09-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ben!
09-09-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Science in non-science forums.
I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?

I agree with you.

This sort of thread makes for good reading on how literalists think.

It seems reasonable to ask Faith some difficult questions. But it is surely foolish to try to persuade her that literalism is wrong. She clearly isn't going to be persuaded. But it is fascinating to watch how she deals with the questions.

I guess I am treating it as a case study in fundy thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 3:23 PM Ben! has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 300 (241954)
09-09-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ben!
09-09-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Science in non-science forums.
If Faith's constructions don't hold up, then there will be evidence she can't "explain away."

You can always invent an explanation. There will be no evidence that Faith, or anyone, can't devise a sentence in English that appears to explain it.

The crucial point is not that an explanation is made, but that a valid explanation is made. And determining the validity of an explanation is something we do with science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 3:23 PM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 110 of 300 (241970)
09-09-2005 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ben!
09-09-2005 3:23 PM


Stop smoking when it burns your lips
quote:
faith-based empirical investigation,

huh? do we all get a free toot on that crackpipe or is it admin-only? :)

How the f**k can you have a faith based empirical investigation?

no bullshit - give me a practical example - an experiment I can run.

This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 08:06 PM

This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 08:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 3:23 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 PM CK has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 111 of 300 (241975)
09-09-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by CK
09-09-2005 8:05 PM


Re: Stop smoking when it burns your lips
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis.
Step 2: Collect data
Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis.

Repeat until all data are fit.

In this case, no experiment necessary--there's tons of geologic data readily available. But once you have a model (see step 3), you can make predictions for further data.

Science isn't the only way to go about creating theories. It's just shown to be a better way to make progress and model the data--it's incremental and falsifiable, both strong points when you don't know what the actual "truth" you're aiming for is.

Faith is clearly doing empirical investigation. She's not doing it scientifically. Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data?

Nobody cares if the hypothesis is a priori or not; it's whether it's RIGHT OR NOT (i.e. models data) that we care about. And that's simply seeing if the observed data fits within the model, and to see if the predictions the model makes hold in the future as well.

No crack necessary pappy. Only crack going on here is the one between my ass cheeks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 8:05 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 8:33 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2005 9:04 PM Ben! has responded
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 10:51 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 112 of 300 (241986)
09-09-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Ben!
09-09-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Stop smoking when it burns your lips

Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis.
Step 2: Collect data
Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis.

Not quite

Step 1: Choose your conclusion from the dogma you've selected
Step 2: Come up with an explanation that superficially makes sense
Step 3: Disregard all data which conflict with your conclusion
Step 4: Come up with a "hypothesis"
Step 5: File for tax exemption
Step 6: Start tricking idiots into giving you money

But all this is way OT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 113 of 300 (242000)
09-09-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Ben!
09-09-2005 8:14 PM


Another path to a correct hypothesis?
Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data?

Something like this gets said here every few weeks. How about opening a PNT in "Is it science?" and suggesting a different way of arriving at something that has a reasonable chance of being correct?

No one ever does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 114 of 300 (242007)
09-09-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NosyNed
09-09-2005 9:04 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
suggesting a different way of arriving at something that has a reasonable chance of being correct

I didn't say anything about having a reasonable chance of being correct. I think the reason people do science is because done what other methodologies have not--it's produced results, time and time again.

But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."

In the meantime, stop trying to engage her with science. Faith doesn't do science, and y'all are beating your heads against a wall. It's stupid. Go away and do some real science, like roxrkool is.

Get on with it. Get over it. (I'm talking more to CK, roxrkool, Nuggin, deerbah, et al. more than you Ned.)

If you still think this would be fruitful being discussed within a "Is it Science" forum topic, then I'll put something up there. But I wanted to make sure I clarified what I'm saying first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2005 9:04 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 10:32 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 11:28 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 2:19 AM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2005 4:08 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31071
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 115 of 300 (242008)
09-09-2005 10:15 PM


Topic?
What do the recent messages have to do with moderation?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 300 (242011)
09-09-2005 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ben!
09-09-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
Well, I personally think I made some very good points on the thread about the Southwest that turned so many on the other side into raving beasts. They all degenerate into lunacy and nosy pulls the thread before I can get back to it, specifically to prevent ME from posting. Aint that sweet. Well, as I said, nobody really wants any input from Bible literalists anyway.

So Ben, one of the posts I was going to get to next, that now I can't, was yours where you said you wanted to discuss this problem about science versus whatever you think I'm doing. Thanks for your considerate and fair attitude. I don't see any problem myself except that my opposition is hidebound and uncivil to say the least, but if you have something to say you think we can discuss to a constructive end, please start a thread I can participate in, since I'm banned from science threads, including "Is it Science."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by kjsimons, posted 09-09-2005 10:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 117 of 300 (242012)
09-09-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
09-09-2005 10:32 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
Well, I personally think I made some very good points on the thread about the Southwest

LMAOAROTF!!!!

You have got to be kidding Faith. All you did was show that you are willfully ignorant and not capable of logical or rational thought! You need to at least learn a smidgen of geology before you can start to comment on it and be very learned before you start throwing out great chunks of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 10:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AdminJar, posted 09-09-2005 10:50 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 300 (242015)
09-09-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by kjsimons
09-09-2005 10:40 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
Does this advance the discussion on moderation?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kjsimons, posted 09-09-2005 10:40 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 119 of 300 (242016)
09-09-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Ben!
09-09-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Stop smoking when it burns your lips
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis.
Step 2: Collect data
Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis.
Repeat until all data are fit.

I'm not completely sure of this yet though it looks promising. Is this what you think creationists in general are doing?

In this case, no experiment necessary--there's tons of geologic data readily available. But once you have a model (see step 3), you can make predictions for further data.

I think that makes sense.

Faith is clearly doing empirical investigation.

Thank you, certainly seems so to me.

She's not doing it scientifically.

I guess this is the part you're going to have to explain. Not that I'm stuck on the term, as I've explained, but if it's empirical and it's logical, why isn't it science?

Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data? Nobody cares if the hypothesis is a priori or not; it's whether it's RIGHT OR NOT (i.e. models data) that we care about. And that's simply seeing if the observed data fits within the model, and to see if the predictions the model makes hold in the future as well.

Makes sense to me. Now apparently you are going to have a problem explaining it to your science-minded friends here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 8:14 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 120 of 300 (242020)
09-09-2005 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ben!
09-09-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell?

Yes, why?

Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."

Thank you.

Funny how the thread has died now. Dear dear, how ARE they going to deal with us literalists. They can't live with us and they can't live without us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019