No. Scientists would be out of a job if we already knew everything. Research of all kinds pushes at the borders of what is known, gradually expanding them.
Is SciFo a science forum?
- Thread starter DaveC426913
- Start date
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that where no evidence exists, you can always claim that it has been "suppressed".
No evidence of leprechauns? The Illuminati don't want you to know about them.
No evidence of the Illuminati? The leprechauns don't want you to know about them.
It's called electricity. Look it up, sometime.
Meanwhile, if you meet the Buddha on the road, y'know?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Science isn't a person. It's just a tool or process. It makes no sense to say that "Science" wants you to think something.
That is just your bias. Science is a process to explain what there is evidence for. When something is unknown then that's outside of science until there is some evidence.
You just seem to have a problem with subjects for which there is evidence and with where that evidence leads.
If we are talking about evolution (for instance) all the evidence leads in that direction. You may want it to point to God but it doesn't.
If we are talking about ghosts. That is outside of science until such time that there is some evidence for the existence of ghosts.
There is no "mainstream" science and science outside the mainstream.
Merge SciFo with another board?
Merge SciFo with another board?
Doubt the administration would ever even entertain that notion - all about the greenbacks in the end.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
How much money can this site possibly make? Do you know how they make money?
For example, right now there are 400 people online with only 18 members. I turned my ad blocker off to check, and I see no ads on this site. How do you monetize this?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Of all the things I thought you'd self-identify as, class clown was near the bottom of the list. You're always so ... earnest.
there is more than one type of clown. it depends on the mood.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Pagliacci?
I did learn something, though. Not sure what it means, but, hey: There was a sense of alarm about the idea that Sciforums is not a "science site", but it was a false alarm; certain recent discourse affirms that the participants in those discussions don't actually want that.
I think the idea of a "science site" was an attractive cudgel for some, a self-righteous bludgeon to wield against people they don't like.
There was a time, at least ostensibly, when we could have had a "science site", but I'm not certain we could have pulled it off because that required defying the Administration on a regular basis in order to throw out trolls. We have every appearance of deliberately cultivating a community that disdains rational discourse, and we can in any number of discussions observe people turning away or even outright rejecting rational discourse in favor of empowerment politicking.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Science site or not science site. Either way is fine. But they gotta pick one.
This waffling is hugely destructive.
The fox that chases two rabbits usually catches none.
Myself as a (modest) example: the moment it became possible that science was not the goal of this site, I stopped using 'this is a science site, please use logic and rationality, and defend your assertions' as a rebuttal. Since they don't have to do any of those things (the site is ambiguous about what's tolerated and what's not), I have, for the most part, just stopped participating in about 50% of the threads I used to. So my presence is down about 50%. As more thread go uninhabited by me, my presence will fade by attrition.
On the other side of the coin, since such members as MR, The God and Timojin sensed leniency when it comes to the principles of good-faith debate, they spoke up - as they should have the right to -and got chased off forever, because they too stepped into the great grey No Man's Land.
So, SciFo is bleeding out of both of its two faces.
So, if SciFo chooses to promote nonscience (double-checks spelling on that) - sure, they'll probably lose me - but they will likely win back many more nonscience contributors, such as MR, The God and Tim. And, writ large, that will increase site traffic. That's a win. (Right?)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
If I was to be cynical, I'd say that what they are doing is working to an extent. They get all the fringe posters (most posters) and some of the more rational posters who hang around figuring that something has got to change (but never does).
Sure, this site would probably have more traffic if it was a mainstream discussion board but most of its current posters would (by definition) go way if mainstream posting was enforced.
It is disingenuous in the extreme however to call itself Sciforums.
Sure, this site would probably have more traffic if it was a mainstream discussion board but most of its current posters would (by definition) go way if mainstream posting was enforced.
It is disingenuous in the extreme however to call itself Sciforums.
I don't actually disagree. We might quibble about the term "mainstream", but, sure, I get what you mean.
I can't follow you there. As long as I have title and system permissions, it's my job to work toward a circumstance in which that isn't true.
you were one of the ones attacking the likes of MR and starting threads in this forum to indicate your distaste. the real fault lies with the administration and moderators though.
a forum can have both science and non-science if it didn't take every quibble and complaint seriously, especially those aimed to ban members other members dislike.
i've noticed most of the members on here are curiously kind of dishonest and pretend to be crippled and inflexible (antithesis of intelligent hubris) in the idea that a forum cannot have both science and non-science. i think this is just a preference issue.
MR, GIA, etc were good contributors and made people think, incite curiousity or consider different angles despite the lack of concrete evidence. people of differing opinions and points of view are also what drives a discussion forum. there is also a curious hypocrisy on this forum that touts itself as intellectual but extends the right to think to how to think as if people cannot be trusted to use their own critical thinking skills and form their own conclusions based on differing points of view in a discussion. the administration would rather moderate and even control that as well as some members have the same opinion. to me, that is unnecessary.
i've noticed a lot of good members have been banned or run off so it's stale and rather dead or so the remaining members are very uniform/one way. that seems to be the agenda.
this forums blindspot is a forum is not about everyone agreeing or even thinking alike. it is the disagreements and different points of view that inspire discussion.
there was a time when this forum did not have a fringe subforum and there weren't the type of complaints that it has now as there was no subforum to point to as the problem.
if the fringe subforum would be deleted, it would take care of most of the complaints and many members who were mostly interested in fringe would leave on their own accord or post infrequently anyways.
Last edited:
