Does the moderator list need updating?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Aug 23, 2014.

  1. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    What id like is... for those "applying science to their claims" to be civil about it (Sarkus for example).!!!
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,264
    Who are the moderators in here?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,264
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    And what I'd like is for those promoting the woo to not display their contempt - by ignoring, or trying circumvent, the conventions of science - in the first place.
    But I doubt that'll happen.
    When someone talks b*llocks there should not only be no surprise when the response is open sarcasm or whatever but also no condemnation of those doing so.

    Or perhaps you'd manage to be politely credulous if someone walked up to you in real life and claimed that they actually had 3 hands and were 27 feet tall.
    Assertions with no evidence that contradict known facts (or invent their own "facts") deserve zero respect and those promoting them deserve none either.

    Unless you're positing that such posters are mentally ill and should be treated as if they weren't rational socially-adjusted adults (i.e. they don't fall under any "normal" rules of personal interaction).
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,077
    What would the eternally vigilant guardians of science do all day if they weren't defending it from the threat of moving chairs and tiny orbs floating around in graveyards? Such an impregnable fortress! Why this fanatical overdefensiveness I wonder?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2014
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Oh look!
    Yet another comment based on a twisted perspective.
     
  11. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    The civil discussions in the fringe areas are interestin an informational... the rip-em to shreds/grind-em to dust approach gets old quick an is not a benifit to anyone includin Sciforums.!!!

    As it stands... the best recourse is to completely ignore those unwillin to be civil.!!!
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Ah.
    We should put all the cranks on ignore?
    Okey doke.

    What happens when they don't learn but hang around promoting more crap?
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,077
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,264
    You may not be a crank friend duck(fun to read you again), but you sure are cranky.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    It's the effect of a lifetime of dealing with f*cking idiots.
     
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    I thank any learnin is more likely to occur from civil discussion.!!!
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,077
    I agree! I think a lot of science cheerleaders treat the paranormal so harshly because they don't want it to gain any respectability as an explorable field. Besides, it's so much easier to disparage something in a sarcastic curmudgeonly manner rather than critique it from an objective standpoint.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    Exactly!

    How is that club where you denigrated, abused, insulted others and then went on to lie and slander others going? Still going strong, I see? And from what I can see, some of you still haven't learned from the moderator who prevented you all from being reported to the owners of this site.

    When members deliberately ignore science, fabricate and post things that are clearly unreal in the process, then a certain level of derision will usually ensue when they repeatedly fail to support their argument with any evidence and ignore scientific evidence that clearly disproves them and their extraordinary claims. Certainly, a lot of leeway is given in the 'Fringe' forums, however only up to a point. Posters who make claims have to be able to back them up. This would be the same in any debate or discussion format. Relying or using the 'it's the woo forum, so it shouldn't matter' argument is not the best way to go about it.

    Civility dictates that one supports one's claims.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Apart from carefully sidestepping my actual point i.e. that the cranks, when ignored, tend to carry on anyway. you're also not addressing my previous point: that by posting crankery on a science forum, essentially asking to be taken seriously scientifically but continually ignoring (or, see MR's posts above, denigrating the scientific view [sup]1[/sup]) the cranks are the ones that are being uncivil.
    In a similar argument, on a different forum I used this analogy: what they're doing is turning up at a performance of Othello and demanding "respect" while skateboarding round the auditorium. (Or vice versa, it still holds).

    Please explain why someone should be treated to a "civil discussion" when they can't be bothered to extend that courtesy [sup]2[/sup] in the first place?
    Regardless of the language/ terminology used the ATTITUDE is uncivil.

    1 Which is ridiculous since they're basically looking for scientific acceptance.
    2 Or consider that they personally are excluded from any convention to be civil.
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Yeah, the point you're missing here - which is the one you miss every time - is that the "paranormal" will gain scientific respectability ONLY by agreeing to, and working by, the rules of science.
    If you're not looking for scientific respectability then bugger off to the type of forum that will accord you the respectability you're looking for.
    Everything in science that has become "respectable" has done so by subjecting itself - time and time again - to the rules, and accompanying harsh citicisms, that pertain to science.

    Yup, when zero evidence is provided for the claims [sup]1[/sup] then we can't address that evidence. Thus: curmudgeonly sarcasm helps pass the time while we wait (usually in vain) for some clue or other to strike the crank.

    1 Cranks also have a habit of ignoring what actually constitutes evidence from a scientific perspective.
     
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Asking posters on the fringe sections to back up their claims scientifically is ridiculous.
    You know why they can't. It's because it's all nonsense.
    How are you supposed to prove nonsense?
    Either have a fringe section, or don't, but please don't be hypocrites.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    So essentially the fringe forums are there purely for people to troll?
    Since they can't provide evidence, and we're not expected to ask for it, there's no genuine reason for those forums.

    Any "hypocrisy" appears on both sides: their claims to have it and ours in asking for it [sup]1[/sup].
    I wonder which is greater?

    Your view is noted however: I shall refrain as much as possible from bothering to look at those sections [sup]2[/sup] given that it's now established that they don't expect to be taken seriously and aren't (despite MR's comments above) asking to be respected (and are therefore being duplicitous in posting on a science forum in the first place).

    And I agree: remove the woo sections. Let the cranks go elsewhere for "validation".

    1 Or did you mean the mods/ admins for allowing such sub-sections in the first place?
    2 Presumably you're of the opinion that there's no value whatsoever in pointing that bullsh*t actually IS bullsh*t for the benefit of any lurkers/ casual readers/ the uninformed?
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738


    We want them to prove that their beliefs have some scientific merit.
    They can't do that because they don't require scientific proof for their beliefs.

    For example. Evidence that ghosts exist.
    1. People have talked to ghosts.
    2. People have felt the presence of ghosts.
    3. Sounds recorded on tape sound like voices.

    That is the evidence they are willing to accept,
    because it is belief not science.
     

Share This Page