And that in and of itself is perfectly fine - the problem I have with it is when said people demand an untenable level of evidence from those attempting to provide more mundane explanations whilst providing virtually no evidence for a paranormal explanation beyond "Because I said so". That's just not how rational discourse works.
Aye... or, rather, the owners/admins need to do so - we mods don't seem to get much say in that (at least from my perspective)
Which is certainly fine - again, my biggest complaint (and what I made an earnest attempt to enforce, until I was told not to any longer) was to enforce reasonable requirements for evidence and/or fact checking. If we are going to hold certain members to a standard, and then give other members a pass on said standard... well, what good does that do?
I agree with that idea.
Even a layperson can form competent and well formulated arguments, and one does not have to be an expert on a subject to discuss it; I, for example, am no expert in quantum mechanics, yet the subject fascinates me. The thing is, I know well enough to know when to sit quietly and learn from those more well versed in a subject and how to interject questions to further my understanding.
Again, my big issue is when people try to pass off flights of fancy as fact and make extraordinary claims with nearly zero supporting evidence, and then get bent out of shape when they are challenged on it. "Scientific discussion", simply put, would entail good fact checking and at least a casual attempt at supporting evidence.
