Actually it's way beyond fair considering it's actually a method that I had posed should be used with all subforums for years.
Why is the religion forum the only one in which this method of archiving is used?
Actually it's way beyond fair considering it's actually a method that I had posed should be used with all subforums for years.
Didn't you know that the subject of God is up there with Viagra, Cialis and Breast implants?
In reply to the OP I’ve found that the Science Forums here tend to extremely set in their established theories (hide bound and reactionary). Now I admit there are many crackpot posts that probably deserve to be dumped into the Cesspool and Pseudo Science Forums.
However, I have actually had a legitimate question regarding the curvature of space-time based an essay I read by Doctors Taylor and Wheeler in their book Space-Time Physics moved to Pseudo Science.
Why? Because it was titled The Conscience-Guided Space Ship. Now this title might sound a bit new age but it was the actual title given to this essay by the authors.
(I guess they were hippies from the 60s, but still hard scientists)
This was dumped into the Pseudoscience forum twice! You get some interesting replies in Pseudoscience but not really the ones you want if it is a hard science question.
Could it be that the moderator didn’t even read the post? For shame!
The last straw that discouraged me from most of the Science Forums except maybe Earth Science and Astronomy on this site was when someone posted that the LHC in Cern had apparently detected neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. This post was unceremoniously dumped into the Pseudoscience.
Frankly that disgusted me, it implies that the minds of some so called scientists is as closed as the Inquisition.
IMO the Science Forums here need to stop behaving like the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Sorry dudes but everything does not revolve around the Earth, and Einstein has been known to be wrong about a few things if not a lot.
Sure Cess the obvious trolls and crackpots, but stop behaving like old women guarding their recipes all the time. And for god sake if you sign up to be a moderator read the damn posts before you do anything else.
I'm thinking of using the Holding Hands Theorem to paint my front porch.
I'm thinking of using the Holding Hands Theorem to paint my front porch.
No, you were banned because you post nonsense and are deliberately dishonest. You misrepresent science, you pretend to have knowledge/abilities you do not have, you offer no informed discussion when it comes to science and thus your posts failed to contribute to the forum. The fact you're misrepresenting the reason you were suspended is yet another demonstration you live in your own little world. The name had nothing to do with it, there's plenty of oddly named things in science. The fact you don't know any maths or physics and yet delude yourself into thinking otherwise is why your posts in the main maths/physics forums don't contribute anything but noise.Yeah I was banned for using the Kissing Problem in the maths forum because it had a strange name...
http://plus.maths.org/content/newton-and-kissing-problem
Speaking as a moderator of the forum in question I think you have it backwards. The scientific method of experiments and model development began with Galileo. As such he was the first to really understand the need to present evidence, while the Church just asserted things with zero evidence (and still does). 400+ years later we have centuries of scientific development under our belts and thus something is only going to rise to the top of scientific models if it has considerable experimental justification. Thus when someone like MotorDaddy or Pincho or any other hack with a pet notion comes along and posts "I've explained [something]!" in the main forum they are asked "Can you justify that?". For example, Farsight claims to have done Nobel Prize winning work but when I ask him to provide a single working model of any physical phenomenon of his choice he can't. Likewise with the other hacks. Hence things get kicked to the pseudo section in short order quite often.IMO the Science Forums here need to stop behaving like the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Sorry dudes but everything does not revolve around the Earth, and Einstein has been known to be wrong about a few things if not a lot.
There seems to be more interest in debating religion than debating science on this site. Religion, philosophy, and politics seem to dominate the "new posts" link when I click on it. Very few science related discussions compared to the amount of discussions of the previously mentioned topics.
Is this a science site or a religious site?
In 2003 I walked away from SF because it was just nuts here. I am thrilled to see things have siginificantly improved...
Dave, they pretty much don't care how wacky it is.
Ahaha. Exactly what I thought when I came back here after a long absence. I was astonished at the preponderance of wacky stuff and religious stuff.
Come to physicsforums.com
![]()
![]()
It was worse??
An attempt was made to keep them to a specific section of the site,
but like that very pretty rhododendron hybrid that spreads over thousands of acres,
they are an invasive species, and are not content to live in their allocated garden.
Re the Bible Thumping.
I don't think that the problem is with religious views.
There is a religion discussion area, where religious discussion is mainly done.
That's not a problem, I think.
I'm a person with religious faith myself, although I don't venture much into that section.
Occasionally, a foolhardy soul will present Creationist Science as a real science, but they don't last.
It doesn't last long when facts are presented.
In fact, we have a vacancy for the position of resident Creation Scientist, if anyone is willing to have a go.
Then I'd replace the 'comparative religion' forum up in the science hierarchy with a 'philosophy of science' forum. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that there are enough participants on the board who know anything about the philosophies of physics, biology or mathematics, about the epistemology of experiment, induction, teleology, functionalism, realism/instrumentalism, the nature of probability and so on, to make it work.
They would need to be pretty hard-line on crank-science too, since Sciforums currently overflows with it, though as some people have noted that's often a judgement call.
At Physicsforum, no crank allowed. And they're pretty good at moderating it.