I feel that sciforums has been mired in religious arguments. therefore, I propose that we close threads as soon as the discussion leaves the realm of science.

by "leave the realm of science" I mean they spiral into a general philosophical argument, and scientific evidence is no longer referenced. moreover, threads that start without referencing some issue of science that pertains to religion should also be closed. furthermore, I believe that threads should be closed if the aspect of science in question is too broad.

examples of threads that would be closed, and the poster asked to be more specific are as follows:

--"Accepting the reality of God is painful to many"
the thread is highly provocative, and has no scientific basis. it is merely a platform for a flame war.

--"How we know God exists"
(sorry to pick on lawdog) this thread is also a platform for a flame war. with no scientific basis.

--"prove to me that god is real"
there is no such proof, the thread starter should know that it will spiral into an argument.

--" Questions about sin and good deeds?"
no scientific topic

--" Christ the only Son of God walked among us"
no scientific, or even philosophical, points to discuss.

I know there may not be many moderators willing to take on the task of enforcing these rules in the religious forum. if that is the case, I volunteer.

is there some official channel by which one becomes a mod?

I cannot even find myself to really read anything in the religion forum. It hurts my brain.

You need a poll, though.

is there some official channel by which one becomes a mod?

Dave must see that a mod is needed for a forum, then he holds elections.

There are no more elections.
And anyway, it's no easy task to get through to Porfiry these days, even James has had bad luck.
If you ask me, I think it's an abnormal situation.

I think someone should buy SF before anything might happen. As far as I can tell, Dave is willing to sell it. If I had money, I wouldn't mind doing it. However, I do not think I would get a lot of respect.

But why aren't elections held anymore?

Someone who's name I don't recall already made that proposition, but Dave said that there was no such offer on the table.


But why aren't elections held anymore?
To get the next answer from the oracle, insert coin. /sneers

As for the religion, I fully support the idea that Sciforums should become more scientific.
More scientific method, less fantasy.

Of course there are cases where it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction, but neither is our world black or white, and for that purpose there are human moderators to make the, hopefully, right choice.

Someone who's name I don't recall already made that proposition, but Dave said that there was no such offer on the table.

It was invert_nexus http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1028451#post1028451 (last 3 posts).



To get the next answer from the oracle, insert coin. /sneers

Out of money :(

perhaps I should just be an ass hole, and chase them out of the religion section with insults. =]

That would not be a scientific method :p

It was invert_nexus http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1028451#post1028451 (last 3 posts).
(
i thought it was emptyforceofchi that insinuated that he would by sciforums.

I feel that sciforums has been mired in religious arguments. therefore, I propose that we close threads as soon as the discussion leaves the realm of science.

perhaps exercising some restraint in your reading habits would be in order
stay the fuck out of topics/threads/sub-forums that displease and insult your scientific sensibilities

all will will be well as a result
i promise

praise the lord

perhaps exercising some restraint in your reading habits would be in order
stay the fuck out of topics/threads/sub-forums that displease and insult your scientific sensibilities
I sense hostilities. why? I only want to keep sciforums a science forum. is that so bad?

it is not my reading habits that are the problem. I see many sciforums members who used to contribute much more to the intelligent discussions on the forum being mired in pointless religious arguments.

the intelligent do not get mired in "pointless" arguments
only retards

besides, it appears the name "sciforums" has fooled you
it is an artifact. the forum has evolved to what you see today

most stake out their little corner - bliss
some try to own it - frustration

besides, it appears the name "sciforums" has fooled you
it is an artifact. the forum has evolved to what you see today
exhibit A for why we need to crack down.

exhibit A for why we need to crack down.

I have noticed a trend similar to this. If I ruled this board, I'd ban the racists and crackpots :cool:

i wouldnt ban the racists, actually. only the extreme ones.

yes, there is a such thing as a moderate racist. my family is full of them.

although, it doesnt make them any more correct in their views.

I would not do a lot of banning. I would mostly just close threads that are flame wars, or have no chance of producing a rational, scientific, discussion.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56147
another to add to the list to be closed. clearly propaganda by AANEWS. people are hated every day. the truly virtuous don't hate back. no scientific discussion.

frankly, I expect more from Cris. however, I can see why he posted it, with the current religious tension on this site.

Since this is the "what I would do as moderator" thread (;)) I would move this to the cesspool or perhaps "about members."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53846

examples of threads that would be closed, and the poster asked to be more specific are as follows:

All of your examples pertain to religion. Yet, you mention philosophy.

What of a thread that explores the nature of free will?
The nature of self?
The nature of cognition?
Existence?
Epistemology?

All of these subjects are insanely abstract as there is no real science that can be used as a basis for discussion.
And yet, are they to be summarily dismissed?

What of talk of cognition? There is a neuroscience. And yet, it is in its infancy and thus has little to discuss unless one delves into philosophical realms of thought.

Psychology? Psychology is notoriously unscientific. It's basically folk medicine and philosophy.
Is it off limits?


Or do you really mean to limit your definition of 'unscience' to religious topics?




Someone who's name I don't recall already made that proposition, but Dave said that there was no such offer on the table.

It was invert_nexus

It seems that Dave is NOT willing to sell the forums at this time.
My offer was soundly ignored on all fronts. Not even a hint of haggling. If my offer was too low, I was prepared to raise it.

I still am, as a matter of fact.
I only hope that he remembers me should he ever reach the point where he really considers closing the forums altogether.


As to the talk of "What would I do if Owned the forums..."
I'd do very little to change them.
Perhaps a face lift here and there.
Fix problems with the script such as the eternal log off error.
Maybe make it possible for users to select different skins.
I'd definitely get on the ball about getting rid of spammers. But that usually happens now, even if only slowly.

The discussion, on the whole, is ok. Sure. It's not very... exciting or interesting of late. But you can't force creativity with a ban stick.
I feel that the wide variety of posters is what makes this place great.
The general freedom to be able to post practically anything you want is wonderful. There's plenty of science forums out there that are strict and no-nonsense...
They suck ass.

Why would you want to hamstring Sciforums that way?
This is more of a debate forum than a science forum, you know.
At times it's a kiddie forum. But that's the way things go. Up and down.
The pendulum swings.

Continued life is what it needs. Not a stick to steer with.



As to the lyrical battle thread. At the very least it should be moved to the Arts section. I personally view the contents as cesspool material, but I can see an association with the poem and art threads.

invert, intelligent conversation is what I am after. philosophy and cognition can be very interesting, enlightening, and intelligent. religion, on the other hand, ends up being something to the effect of:
atheist: "you are not making sense"
theist: "god does not need to make sense"

I would dance a jig if someone mentioned dennett's views on cognition, because there is original thought to be had, new perspectives explored, and a potential conclusion to be reached. those things don't happen in the religion forum. not that such things can't happen in the religion section, but it is so polarized that it quickly degenerates into pointlessness.

As to the lyrical battle thread. At the very least it should be moved to the Arts section. I personally view the contents as cesspool material, but I can see an association with the poem and art threads.

As much as I read, it is all about the samre thing and usually follows the same structure... it's really all about dishing out the next "snappy comeback." It's garbage, in my opinion. I really just want it moved somewhere.

I agree with your views on the religious forum.
I find the threads to be boring and stupid.

So. I practically never go in.
Simple, yes?

Religion is one of the busiest forums we have. Has always been and probably always will be.
The good thing about this is that the vast majority of religious posters stay in religion and rarely venture forth.
Thank god...


Another thing to consider is that there are several people on this board who practically only post in religion and pseudoscience as debunkers. They'd be most upset to lose their stomping grounds.

I always found that funny, by the way. These atheists who are so obsessed with god.


As to cognition, I've never read Dennett. I'll keep the name in mind for future reading.
However, practically every thing that one could say about cognition in this day and age is unscientific. It can be creative, but there is not enough of a scientific framework to make much sense of it.

Science is not creative. Science is limiting.
Creativity comes first and science comes after.
Science is a winnowing process. A going through of the creative output.
A testing of hypotheses. Said hypotheses created in a creative outflow.

There's a reason why computers aren't scientists.


I believe it was Quine who made the point that empirical statements do not have empirical consequences of their own outside of some overarching theoretical framework.

That is, that when a particular experiment fails to confirm a hypotheses, there is no deductive method for determining what is wrong with the framework. There is no mechanical means of deducing which of the preconceptions that led to the experiment are in error.

Much scientific debate is able to occur because of this. There are many possible solutions to any particular failed prediction.

One solution might be to invalidate an entire theoretical framework.
Another might be to shift about some few principles within said framework.
Another might be to introduce some arbitrary element to balance out the 'equation'. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant.)

The point is that it is not science which is, in the end, the arbiter.
It is the human's creative mind.
The interpreter.


My.
I'm rambling...

The point being that science is not so cut and dry as some believe.

invert_nexus... I do not follow you around... so I am wondering: what areas of this site do you post?

I agree though... as of late, SF has been boring. I am waiting for something interesting to come up in the physics subforum, or the philosophy subforum.

I don't post much these days.
Used to post quite a bit in human science and philosophy.
Biology too.

Free thoughts and About the Members mostly these days.

I, too, am a symptom of the times, I'm afraid...
A general malaise lingers on and on...
Memories of what was still redolent in the air.
Perhaps some day I shall turn about and meet myself again.
Or perhaps I will merely continue the descent into oblivion's dark embrace...

Hmm.
Nostalgic today.

religion, on the other hand, ends up being something to the effect of:
atheist: "you are not making sense"
theist: "god does not need to make sense"

science still does not know whether life arose naturally or supernaturally
what was you saying about religion?

science still does not know whether life arose naturally or supernaturally
what was you saying about religion?
I don't understand what that has to do with anything. are you trying to say that it would be pointless discuss such a thing? well, from a scientific standpoint there is plenty to talk about. there is one group of scientists trying to make life in a form that does not exist on earth. source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.html)

from a standpoint of religion, there really isn't anything worth discussing. there are many views on how it started according to the many religions out there.

don't get me wrong, i'm not plugging religion.
i am simply stating that it is still open for debate, if there can be such a thing with religion.

there is one group of scientists trying to make life in a form that does not exist on earth. source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.html)

from the link:
Krulwich: A very little, itty-bitty thing gets along because it's just chemicals in the right order.

Collins: Right. Now does that apply to human beings? No, I happen to think human beings fall in a different category. I think we, of all the organisms on the planet, have a spiritual nature which can't be explained by those common elements and "instruction books" and references to machine analogies. We have these remarkable features such as the understanding of what's right and wrong, which I don't think is something that will come out in the study of biology. Nor is it something that I think evolution can explain.

I recomend that you read some of dan dennett's work. I forget where in his work he talks about it. but he makes the point that too many people think that the things humans do are so complex that evolution can't account for it. he uses the example that poety seems like something that does not come from evolution. however, he says, certainly a nighengale is a much harder thing to make then the poem "ode to a nightingale" but evolution did a good job on it =]

he quotes a headline from a french (I think) newspaper that says "yes we have a soul, but its made of lots of tiny robots" =]

I was going to vote aginst the motion.

But then I realised: I don't really care.

urgh. you guys are lame. why don't i post some amazing theory so u guys can salivate over.

urgh. you guys are lame.
At least we'd leave if we ever said we would.

except me.

im an indecisive dick.

Did anyone notice that for two weeks or so, Dave put a freeze on new members joining? My theory is that he is trying to put a stop to spammers.

He did that recently? I know he's done that at least once in the past.

EDIT: Wait a minute. That was an off-topic post, dude. New thread! *shakes fist*

fucking spammers.

i love dolphins.

Do we have problems with discussions of startrek as well?

Sexy news reporters also seems very newsworthy

Invert Nexus is right. By limiting discussions of religion to only those that include science, you might as well just eliminate the Religion section altogether.

Invert Nexus is right. By limiting discussions of religion to only those that include science, you might as well just eliminate the Religion section altogether.

are you oblivious to the fact that the atheist extremeists such as Q and med woman discuss religion in every forum not just religion one? They mention it all the time even when thread question is completely unrelated, so eliminating religion forum would just leave them with no where to hang out so they'd dominate the other forums even more with their 'anti religious' agenda. Better to keep them semi contained and provide a 'home' for them. Like a brothel, its damage limitation.

here is a perfect example of the obsession with religion and how it travels beyond religion forum

the thread is in site feedback and it's about a sci forum meet up:


*************
M*W: I'm all for it! .........................

Then there's always the chance that Woody would show up. If he's banned, does that me he can't come? Well, I suppose we just don't have to invite him, do we?

But what if a few christians come? Will there be a stand-off?

What if we accidentally start WWIII?


I can just imagine that the christians will put on their "full armor of the Lord," and try to convert us.

Imagine the fist fights.

Maybe it's not a good idea after all.

Incase you are about to miss the point of this sarcasm, the point is there are are CLEARLY as many atheists as theists who enjoy that forum. Removing it will achieve nada as the chat will just move elsewhere but still here on sciforums.