Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Bowser, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    No..not when he quotes other people's posts from other threads. He is not using the system at all. He's either cut and pasting posts like he did with me in another thread or cut and pasting links to their posts. But nice try trying to defend this trolling behavior..Truly an exemplary model of what a moderator should be!
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    That makes two of us.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,608
    Yes.

    You seem to be insisting that in the majority of cases ("more often than not") eye-witness testimony is not informative at all ("wholly unreliable").

    I've been quoting you word for word: "more often than not, wholly unreliable". Your words. Where did "often" appear?

    In a majority of cases? Entirely unreliable?

    You and Kittamaru haven't provided anything that backs up your claim that the majority of eye-witness courtroom testimony is wholly unreliable. I don't believe that any competent legal scholar would write such a thing.

    The claim that eyewitness testimony can sometimes be unreliable is a very different and far less contentious claim. The idea that witnesses shouldn't be coached, led or "tainted" isn't controversial either (it has a long history in common law), and certainly doesn't imply that the majority of people reporting their personal experiences in court, in everyday life and in scientific laboratories are wholly unreliable.

    I'm not festering about anything. I have professional paralegal experience interviewing witnesses and I have some graduate level training in philosophy that qualifies me to be a community college critical-thinking instructor. My interest in this thread arises from that perspective.

    I don't like seeing bad philosophical principles enshrined as Sciforums orthodoxy just because they are useful in attacking MR's paranormal credulity. It's simply not true that any argument becomes a good argument if its employed in what is perceived as a good cause. There's way too much of that kind of foolishness on this board already, and it's one reason why the board seems so militantly stupid sometimes.

    In my last post I wrote:

    If eyewitness testimony is in most instances, entirely unreliable, then eyewitness testimony would seem to generally speaking be bullshit by its nature.

    I think that attack on the epistemic value of personal experience is hugely overstated. If it was true it would contradict not only the evidence of everyday life, but also totally subvert scientific empiricism rendering science impossible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

    If your point is merely that eyewitness testimony needn't always be accepted with total credulity and isn't always 100% true, then you need to walk your remarks back by qualifying them. (I fully agree with that more reasonable qualified version and have argued for it repeatedly in many threads.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

    Why? I do think that the idea that eye-witness testimony is "more often than not, wholly unreliable" does create serious problems for empiricism, for the idea that "knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience". "Empirical evidence is information that justifies the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence." (both quotes from wikipedia.) By implication, dismissing the empirical basis of knowledge of matters of fact creates serious problems for empirical science which is based on observation and experiment.

    And rather than backing you into a corner, I gave you a nice easy out. I even pointed out how to do it, simply by qualifying the initial idea that reports from personal experience are "more often than not, wholly unreliable" to the far more defensible claim that reports from personal experience "may in some cases be unreliable".
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    7,780
    Bells @ Yazata:::
    "trolling" in the extreme deserves extreme moderation... which shoud amount to lots an lots of ponts at the very least.!!!

    PS:::
    If you realy sock-it-to such extremists others will get the message an behave... an that will go a long way to:::

    .....................................MAKE SCIFORUMS GRATE AGAIN.!!!


    ---
     
    Gremmie and Magical Realist like this.
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    When will we be sent our free ballcaps?
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    Sorry... ther only free to But-kissin control-freek whiners.!!!
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    ... I have updated the post in question to clarify the meaning for our neighbor who, apparently, did not understand the message. Truly, communication in the modern age would be utterly impossible if such level of pedantry was necessary to get even the simplest of points across...
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    You mean like the 3 or 4 bitching trolls that follow Bells and Kittamaru around like flies on a pig's ass and talk about "we" and "us" alot?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    I submit that this thread has diverged from its original topic and has simply become flame-bait.

    It can serve no further constructive purpose, and is now simply a lightning rod for trolling and flaming. Nobody is showing their best side here.*


    Well, I suppose it can serve one other purpose. It can serve as a living exemplar of why the site might be losing members, as long as these kinds of threads remain open, rather than being cesspooled in a timely fashion.

    * except me. All my sides are good ones.
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    You'd thank that a competent mod woud have figered that out by now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    I think this thread has well answered its OP question. Flaming bullying by the moderators clubbing valued members with vague catch-all rules violations in order to win their arguments is THE reason people don't post here anymore nor are lining up to join the forum. Perhaps it IS time to put this godawful thread, if not the entire forum, out of its misery. May she rest in peace. Much thanks to Yazata for being the calm voice of sanity and reason once again.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  15. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    Wit some changes to the rules Sciforums coud become a fun place for All to post.!!!
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    You're sortta throwing stones from a glass house.
    1] Whether or not you feel your complaints are warranted, you are still communicating them in the form of trolling.
    2] It was not so long ago that you were using the report button like a hamster with a pellet dispenser - every second post you would report some perceived insult or other rules violation.

    And yet, you're still here.

    It is disingenuous to cast shade on something you continually voluntarily use, especially when you have options to put that money where your mouth is.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, MR, it is not only the moderators who are driving good people from the site. Perhaps some of that shade could be spread around - or, say, owned.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,321
    Says one of the 4 bitching trolls that follow Kittamaru and Bells around like...well you get the picture.
     
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    I say change for the beter needs to begin at the top for the best chance of success... ie... do as i say not as i do... dont cut it.!!!
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Kittamaru,

    Few things...

    1. You know, rather we all know including MR, that no so called rational or science oriented person will publicly admit supporting ghosts etc

    2. MR is passionate about it, he is honest in his belief unlike many here who fear ghosts but take a stand degrading ghost believers.

    3. There is a sub forum on the topic, so any discussion on this forum is not unwelcome on the subject. What is happening is not the problem with MR alone, many posters deride MR for his belief in ghosts etc, this causes retaliation from him, these provoking posters likes of sweetpeas and kristophers go Scot free because they are on so called reasonable ground side, but MR gets the stick.

    Why you should not continue is that let the rules take its course, you and other mods have shown the rules to MR many a times, work as per system. With you he has odds against him and you have shown him that twice. You are free to continue as an ordinary poster, but I have seen that even while posting as ordinary poster you keep your executive moderating powers intact.

    As far as reference to you with 'her', I apologise, actually your kittens Avatar gave me an impression about you being an adorable lady, the avatar name also appeared feminine to me. I will take care.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  20. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    Change the rules to allow gosts an ufos to be discussed in what ever way people want to discuss it... but not allow flammin/name-callin just like in any other forum.!!!

    That woud grately simplify mod work an make everbody happy an more traffic for Sciforums... its a win Win WIN.!!!
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    This is trolling behavior. Nobody is forcing you to behave this way. This is your choice.

    And more to the point, it doesn't address anything about you being a wholly willing participant in trolling behavior. Thus you are guilty of the very thing you complain about.

    Why not just give it up? You'd be a better person for it. And the forum would be better for it too.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    That is already the way it is run.

    But remember, this is a science forum first and foremost. People can make assertions any way they wish to, but that does not mean they are exempt from being challenged and being required to sufficiently back up their claims.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    The thing is, as a discussion forum, and a science forum, "beliefs" are insufficient. Especially when asserted as fact.

    Keep in mind what the goal here is. As has been pointed out, this is not a personal blog, where one can post whatever one wishes without challenge.
     

Share This Page