Is SciFo a science forum?

[birch]

This habit some of our neighbors have of posting whatever crosses their mind as "fact" when they have nothing to back it and plenty of evidence against it, and then repeatedly stating their idea as "fact" in the face of overwhelming evidence, is a key reason why several of our brightest members have left.

not exactly true. the only reason i play devil's advocate for the fringe topics with the likes of MR is because there is no evidence against it. the other reason is because most of the members who post sure that it's nonsense to debunk have no idea or experience of the subject matter in the first place but so eager to debunk just as blindly assuming a certain type of logic applies where it really does not. it is assumed to be 'unreal' or non-existent simply because it is abstract which is a misunderstanding of most paranormal phenomena. this misunderstanding is why it really doesn't have a place in a science forum.

you can't always re-create everything that occurs or occurred for the rigors of science because the variables are circumstantially dependent and complex as it deals with the state of the mind at that particular time. even when i had paranormal experience it was at a certain time, within a certain environment that was extremely volatile/negative and the output was a manifestation of the energies/thoughts/emotions of those in the environment. it is just one of those things that is harder to nail down in a fixed re-creation for concrete proof.

one of the key aspects i'v learned is that the human mind can manifest entities themselves that are a representation/embodiment of their inner state or even motives. for example, the dark figure in the form of jesus christ represented the deceitful use of religion in the case of the mother who prayed with negative intent at 3am and in the morning every night and her extremely dark obsession with religion. i saw the figure one night in the same spot she had prayed before, it was a representation of what she was conjuring and praying to and it wasn't good. the shadow figure with the black stocking on his face was the manifestation of the stepfather and an omen of stealing innocence etc. the last and third one manifesting in human form who broke into the house at exactly 3 am also is a manifestation that it spirit/entities work through people as well. this they knew for sure as the door was swung wide open after i ran to their room to tell them someone was in my room and it was the man who they knew so they didn't report it to the police. he even went into my sister's room and that was disturbing to the mother/woman but she was not upset that it disturbed me because their evil and jealous intent was having a repercussion they were not expecting that they conjured. unbelievable? it happened. do i have proof? no. it's anecdotal but it did occur. this is also a deeper realization of reality and society at large, for me and my worldview, because i know that people are mediums for moving events like chess pieces in the game of life and they aren't done always ethically, nobly, aboveboard etc and the resultant winners/losers are often a product of the manipulations of people's extreme ambitions which the dirty deeds/intent/motives etc occur behind the curtain (yes, even on a paranormal/spiritual/metaphysical level) so the pristine picture on the surface of society is not always hard-won but done so very corruptively.

do you think i'm some fan of paranormal phenomena? hell no, but unfortunately i know it's real and can happen. if i didn't experience it, i probably would think similar to others who think it's impossible.

 

[DaveC426913]

Really? When was that?

Ask birch. They're her words.

 

[Magical Realist]

Ask birch.

I'm asking you. You are making a claim aren't you?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm asking you. You are making a claim aren't you?

SciFo doesn't ban people for being unable to back up their claims; they ban people for being uncivil in doing so. (That's the only claim I am making.)

It's like saying "I got sent to the principal's office because a boy called me a stinky head."
No, you got sent to the principal's office because you proceeded to punch that boy in the head. It's not a question of why you did it.

 

[Magical Realist]

SciFo doesn't ban people for being unable to back up their claims; they ban people for being uncivil in doing so. (That's the only claim I am making.)

It's like saying "I got sent to the principal's office because a boy called me a stinky head."
No, you got sent to the principal's office because you proceeded to punch that boy in the head. It's not a question of why you did it.

Really? The mods flame people more than anyone else. I hardly think uncivility is the new standard for instantaneous banning.

So again..when was I banned for "uncivility." Which post was it? And if I'm banned, how am I posting this?

 

[Tiassa]

The implication here seems pretty clear to me: if it's not "science" then it is, presumably, utterly relative and without foundation. I mean, woo and crank, yeah, sure. But when reading a newspaper, if you come across something which is simply factually incorrect, you don't say, "well, this isn't a science journal."

And everything else sort of comes from there. You know how it goes.

It's like the Corddry joke: "Listen, buddy, it's not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me!" And Jim Lehrer agreeing: "That's not my function to do that."

And then it's like we sometimes discussed about Airplane!↗ and Marnie↗, just one after another after another after another, and there are days when it's really hard to shrug and wonder if there wasn't or isn't some manner of will about it all; but we might also note that one need not be a proverbial Russian troll in order to be part of what these trolls allegedly exploited. And it's true that the longer this goes on, and the more of it we have to review—you know, hindsight, and all—it can seem really, really obvious. Even still, there is a matter of definitions; there is what we might have thought or said we were doing, and what we actually turned out to be doing.

I decided to mention the point at all in part because I have been feeling futile about it of late, a particular inquiry arose that actually afforded an opportunity for up and saying it, and, in truth, the staff isn't in hard, or, really, any particular, dispute about anything right now. If we intend to get an objective handle on what's going on, maybe starting without a warpath will help.

 

[DaveC426913]

And if I'm banned, how am I posting this?

Birch said 'ban'; she did not say 'perma-ban'.
You should know how they work by now.

 

[Magical Realist]

Birch said 'ban'; she did not say 'perma-ban'.
You should know how they work by now.

But I'm neither banned nor permabanned. So when was I banned for "uncivility"? Which post was it? Date?

 

[DaveC426913]

But I'm neither banned nor permabanned. So when was I banned for "uncivility"? Which post was it? Date?

Ask birch. It's her claim.

 

[Magical Realist]

Ask birch. It's her claim.

Tip..Don't make claims about people you can't support.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tip..Don't make claims about people you can't support.

I'm not. My claim is about the mods reasoning, based on a history of observation, not you.

So go tell birch she made claim she apparently can't support.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm not. My claim is about the mods reasoning, based on a history of observation.

Support the claim then. When did a mod ban me for "uncivility"?

 

[DaveC426913]

Support the claim then. When did a mod ban me for "uncivility"?

If you feel I have said something in error, you should report it. I will defer to the mods' ruling on it, should there be one.

Notice how I'm not being banned for not backing up (albeit someone else's) claim. Now, if I were to start getting uncivil about it...

 

[Magical Realist]

If you feel I have said something in error, you should report it. I will defer to the mods' ruling on it, should there be one.

Notice how I'm not being banned for not backing up (albeit someone else's) claim. Now, if I were to start getting uncivil about it...

So you can't back up your claim then. That's what I thought. You could've saved yourself alot of trouble just admitting that.'

For the record, I've never been banned by any mod for anything. I've only been banned when I accrue enough infraction points that the system automatically bans me. The only reason for being banned in that case is because of too many infraction points. AFAIK when moderators ban it is always a permaban.

 

[parmalee]

So you can't back up your claim then. That's what I thought. You could've saved yourself alot of trouble just admitting that.'

For the record, I've never been banned by any mod for anything. I've only been banned when I accrue enough infraction points that the system automatically bans me. The only reason for being banned in that case is because of too many infraction points. AFAIK when moderators ban it is always a permaban.

Oh, c'mon. Are you trying to make some kind of point with this performance or something? If so, I am totally not getting it. Dave simply cited Birch, and Birch apparently was mistaken over this alleged "ban"--is this really worth shitting a brick over--or rather, shitting all over this thread?

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh, c'mon. Are you trying to make some kind of point with this performance or something? If so, I am totally not getting it. Dave simply cited Birch, and Birch apparently was mistaken over this alleged "ban"--is this really worth shitting a brick over--or rather, shitting all over this thread?

lol! I have the total right to defend myself when lied about here. I've always done it and always will. Comprende? Don't want to get me involved? Then don't lie about me. It's that simple.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

lol! I have the total right to defend myself when lied about here. I've always done it and always will. Comprende? Don't want to get me involved? Then don't lie about me. It's that simple.

He was not the one who made the claim. Birch did.

no, the crank posters you banned but MR was banned because video evidence was considered not concrete and this resulted in frustration and resentment on his part where he ended up being uncivil being defensive.

I highlighted the part that he quoted of her claim.

So it is really unnecessary to flame him or this thread demanding he support something he never actually said but literally quoted from another poster. Perhaps you should PM Birch and ask her to show you where she believed you "ended up being uncivil being defensive".

 

[Magical Realist]

Mod Note


He was not the one who made the claim. Birch did.


I highlighted the part that he quoted of her claim.

So it is really unnecessary to flame him or this thread demanding he support something he never actually said but literally quoted from another poster. Perhaps you should PM Birch and ask her to show you where she believed you "ended up being uncivil being defensive".

He's responsible for the lie since he edited Birch's statement to say it. It was not what Birch originally said. In any case, he stands corrected, Birch stands corrected, and I now return this thread to it's vital and engrossing topic. Ta ta..

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm just flattered that I'm his favorite. Poor birch.

 

[Tiassa]

Click for a prayer.​

re: Ufology and other ... ah ... yeah, y'know ... right​

The thing about ufology is that this isn't sheerly about political labels; it does have to do with behavior.

The question is not banning "Republicans" or "Christians" or "ufologists" from expressing themselves. To the other, at some point, with, say, American politics, I might reiterate: Look at how much of what passes for conservatism at Sciforums over the years really does have to do with supremacism. It is a particular example.

Consider Republican economics. They are obscure, complicated, and, well, right now there is a reason Arthur Laffer, for instance, finds validation in Kansas voters, as his famous Laffer Curve and associated theses have always shown dubious results in practice. So, yeah, it's kind of hard, sometimes, to put in the technical labor for a busted cause.

To the other, when we say no more comparing consensual sex to raping animals, someone will complain we're quashing conservatives. We've been through versions of that over the years.

Think of it this way: When Republicans and conservatives complained about Barack Obama's "unprecedented" misbehavior in the Oval Office, they really were lying, unless what they meant is that what was unprecedented was a black president taking off his jacket, or kicking his feet up; you know, because all his predecessors were white. What's that? Waaah, something-something about denouncing all conservatives everywhere something, whatnot, whonow? Yeah, well, okay, what did "unprecedented" mean, because, really, what, then?

This isn't one side of some figurative story with prescribed customary boundaries. This is objective fact. Except, of course, it's not hard science, so ... yeah, the mountains of evidence saying there is nothing unusual about the behavior essentially mean nothing, because even though they are proof, well, it's not a hard science, and you can't tell people they can't say something just because you don't like it.

So, yeah, there is a question, sometimes, about what action would mean. An American irony is that for all conservatives disdain affirmative action, it is their bread and butter at Sciforums. And, yes, this does sound to be about politics, except, no, it's not. Because, oh, I don't know, how about ufology? How about religion? The Sufis often ask, in straightforward manner, if the best we have is the best we can achieve; the answer, of course, is not. The problem isn't that religious discourse is inherently so limited, but, rather, that market dynamics present it as such.

The best religious discussions I ever had were years ago, and about obscure matters theological that could be discerned in the historical record. We're never going to ban atheists from Sciforums, but I also still remember the time the rational thing to do was to alter the definition of religion. (Why? Because unless you do, even atheists can have religion, and as near as anyone can tell that possibility offended this particular atheist.) You don't have to hate Christians to find some of the religious discourse in our history absolutely stupid beyond belief, and you don't have to hate atheists to wonder why the hell nobody seems to have a clue what they're talking about. As I noted previously↑, we have rules against preaching, though it's kind of hard to enforce them if there are no definitions, because then even the observably false is true.

With ufology and other fortean subjects an important question can be put right there with the obvious question about "God": How do we test it? People who rely on notions that there is a dearth of evidence against this or that phenomenon generally aren't offering testable theses. And that's the problem. Someone tells me this or that is a ghost or angel? Okay, can we do better than light? Because once upon a time it took them weeks to figure out a bizarre coincidental reflection pattern through two rooms leading to a Madonna sighting ... in a church. I always liked the one where they said even the people who made it can't explain what happened. Well, right: We might suggest there are multiple known pathways to a particular result, and, hey, while the discoloration on the back of this road sign looks like a silhouette of the Virgin Mary (or, you know, maybe just some random woman in a burqua), the discoloration on that road sign over there looks more like jaguar spots, so what is Tezcatlipoca trying to tell us?

If there is nothing to test, there is nothing to test. Meanwhile, the discoloration on the back of the freeway signs was an occasional deviation in the manufacturing process; they know how it works, but, in truth, it's not worth the investment to fix, as nobody ever sees that part of the sign without going out of their way to look, and the whole thing discolors in the elements over time.

Consider chemtrails. It's true, depending on what analysis firm you take it to, they won't know what it is, but maybe they're not supposed to because they're the wrong lab. Meanwhile, has anybody identified the isotope driving the Lazar sport model?

No, seriously, give us something to test. Don't show us some lights and tell us we can't prove it's not the Reticulan slave vanguard for Xenu's final invasion preceding the battle royale with Jesus, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Elvis, and that queer leprechaun pushing addictive sugar-enriched sugar onto children.

Okay, okay. More realistically: So, there is, say, video evidence, but what does it mean? To wit, there was this ghost hunting show where they would measure for the ghost unsettling an electrical field by putting a meter ... atop an electrical box. Yeah, they're going to need to show scientists the actual data collection, and the effect should either be reproducible or not. Prima facie, setting a sensitive meter atop a box full of conductive material will register a result; we cannot conclude what the video evidence shows us at least until we test for the obvious issues. And there is, of course, a reason why these entertainers don't do those tests.

People's beliefs are as people's beliefs will, just like feelgood chemicals in the brain are feelgood chemicals in the brain. It's one thing to believe what we will, but we need something more if we expect others to abide.

I actually raised ufology to remind that it really isn't about particular politics, like, say, Republicans. Yeah. That went well.