Proposal to exclude pseudoscientists from posting in Science subforums

[Photizo]

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't care; if it is something that the members think will improve the level of discussion, go for it. Two questions: 1) Will someone who is found to have posted pseudoscience in a science forum have a chance to appeal? 2) Will members who continually make claims of pseudoscience against other members, and whose claims are denied, lose the privilege to make pseudoscience accusations; how many false claims am I allowed to make before I lose the privilege, or can I just report every post by someone I don't like and never lose the privilege?

 

[paddoboy]

Certainly not - alternative views and speculation are most certainly welcome... the problem is when it becomes a "I BELIEVE X SO ITS TRUE" no matter what the data/scientific process says. That's when it's just woo woo

Exactly, and what I was referring to when some pose questions, behind a hidden agenda.
Two current posters are very fond of this methodology around rules and regulations.

 

[exchemist]

Members of sciforums are asked to comment and vote on the following proposal.

Background:

We often get complaints that the Fringe/Pseudoscience areas bleed over into the Science areas of the forums. That is, some members post nonsense, pseudoscience or other fringe ideas in the Science categories. Up to now, we have tried to deal with this by moving inappropriate threads from the Science sections to the Fringe sections (or in extreme cases to the Cesspool). However, this leaves the problem of pseudoscientific posts being posted in threads that are legitimately in the Science sections. Often, members complain that scientific discussions are disrupted and derailed by other members who have a poor or non-existent understanding of what is being discussed, or who simply want to talk about their own pseudoscientific ideas instead.

Proposal:

We propose system in which members may report other members who post pseudoscience or non-science in the Science subforums. The moderators would investigate such reports to see if they are justified. If they are found to be correct, then the member posting the pseudoscience or nonsense would receive a warning to post in more appropriate subforums.

If a member received, say, 5 such warnings (for 5 posts or threads), then under this proposal that member would then be forbidden from posting to the Science sections of sciforums for a period of time (e.g. 1 month). If, on being reinstated with full posting privileges, the member continued to post inappropriately, the Science subforum ban would be reinstated for a longer period of time.

Aim:

If this proposal is implemented, the aim would be to keep the Science sections for discussions and questions about actual science. This would leave untouched the Fringe and other sections of sciforums. Any members who were excluded from the Science subforums could still view those forums but they would not be able to post in them. Their posting privileges would remain intact for all other subforums. The aim is not to permanently exclude anybody from posting in the science sections. With 5 warnings prior to any exclusion, members would have the opportunity to educate themselves as to what kind of content is acceptable in the Science sections. Moreover, members who were excluded from those forums would have a 1 month opportunity to further observe them to see what is and isn't appropriate there, then to rejoin as members with full privileges.

Assurances:

This proposal does not aim to stifle discussion of "Alternative theories" or any of the other content that can be found in the Fringe subforums. Nor do we aim to set up a system where moderators arbitrate what is correct science and what is incorrect. We do, however, want to keep material that has no respect for the methods and findings of science out of the Science sections.

Comments?

I would appreciate any comments or alternative suggestions regarding this proposal. I ask you to vote on the general concept here. If members vote to go ahead with this plan, then we will sort out the details, taking into account the various suggestions in this thread.

The poll will be open for 10 days. You may change your vote until the poll closes.

James a lot of what I want to say has already been said but here goes anyway. I think the Physics & Maths section has become dominated by one or two eccentrics (one especially) and the responses of people with science training attempting to straighten him/them out. It has now become practically impossible for anyone to post a question without said eccentric(s) immediately jumping in, with unhelpful or wrong answers and drowning out the mainstream responses. The thread then become derailed into slanging matches in which the subject of the opening post is lost. This is, in my view, wrecking this part of the forum.

I think though that there is a distinction to be made between pseudoscience and alternative theories. It might be unfair to send all eccentrics to Pseudo, if their ideas are vaguely coherent and appear to be the product of a more-or-less scientific process of thought. Pseudo is really woo, e.g. crystals-and-shit stuff with a distinct element of the irrational, or notions indicating a failure to understand how science operates, e.g. creationism.

So I support the idea, so long as mods are not too quick to pronounce on what is to be deemed alternative or pseudo, when newcomers arrive. But we have two prolific posters now whose track record is clear, either from their posting style or the breadth and unanimity of the criticism their ideas have attracted. I think such individuals now have to be treated on the basis of their established reputation as individuals, i.e. we should no longer have to wait for them to transgress in some way on each individual post they make.

 

[rpenner]

All in all, I agree with what James has proposed, but would like to see the following added.

I think you third set of numbers envisions a software other than what this discussion forum is and a much higher staffing level.

 

[OnlyMe]

I think though that there is a distinction to be made between pseudoscience and alternative theories. It might be unfair to send all eccentrics to Pseudo, if their ideas are vaguely coherent and appear to be the product of a more-or-less scientific process of thought. Pseudo is really woo, e.g. crystals-and-shit stuff with a distinct element of the irrational, or notions indicating a failure to understand how science operates, e.g. creationism.

When Alternative Theroies was being initiated I thought it would be better to keep it in the science section, but that would require a little more agressive moderation. Still it would have created a place for Alternate concepts and speculation.., still with a basis in science.., that did not carry the stigma of being associated with Pseudoscience.

So I support the idea, so long as mods are not too quick to pronounce on what is to be deemed alternative or pseudo, when newcomers arrive. But we have two prolific posters now whose track record is clear, either from their posting style or the breadth and unanimity of the criticism their ideas have attracted. I think such individuals now have to be treated on the basis of their established reputation as individuals, i.e. we should no longer have to wait for them to transgress in some way on each individual post they make.

I think Kittamarru addressed the first part above, when responding to my earlier comments. The second part I think is exactly what James was attempting to create a mechanism or rule to deal with. Instead of a ban for posting altogether a ban for posting in specific forums. Whether it would work or not depends on finding the right time frame for that kind of posting limitation.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I voted yeah, but the ability to repeal in case it gets sucky should go along with it.

It might get too boring!

 

[Jason.Marshall]

Lets us not forget when evidence is provided but it is not mainstream opinion at the current time like a scientific or mathematical discovery that goes against conventional thinking doesn't make it wrong as long as it can be proven. "extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence" but it seems many here would rather to follow the unwashed and bask in the ignorance of their own egos than except the truth just because of their "BELIEFS" in what they were though even if it was wrong. Great people you look up to have been wrong in the past, and they laughed at people such as Galileo but lo and behold the worshippers of ego was not correct.

LOL this is a great example of the blind leading the blind running full speed of the cliff of destiny

 

[Jason.Marshall]

lol

 

[billvon]

Lets us not forget when evidence is provided but it is not mainstream opinion at the current time like a scientific or mathematical discovery that goes against conventional thinking doesn't make it wrong as long as it can be proven.

Of course. A new concept that is testable and returns consistent proof in experiments is accepted by the scientific community.

"extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence" but it seems many here would rather to follow the unwashed and bask in the ignorance of their own egos than except the truth just because of their "BELIEFS" in what they were though even if it was wrong.

Agreed. This is the basic difference between religion and science. Science relies on experimentation and proof; religion relies on faith and blindly following a leader/dogma.

 

[James R]

It looks like there's quite a lot of support for the proposal so far, with 29 times more people approving than disapproving of it.

My comments on various responses and questions:

No, too many rules. If someone is spouting pseudoscience, is it that hard to simply ignore them?

It can be hard to ignore them, especially if they are disrupting a science thread by posting irrelevant nonsense or answers based on their own imaginings about what science should say. As exchemist said above, from time to time we get pseudoscientists here who insist on injecting their opinions into many science threads, often pushing a particular barrow that is theirs alone (e.g. a pet "alternative" theory of interpretation of the science that is unsupported by evidence or argument).

The problem I see though is the above statement and questions about actual science, because in defining a question about actual science, wording can be used to make a speculation that is a question, so how will you be able to distinguish this?

Questions posed about science in good faith are perfectly legitimate topics for discussion in the Science sections.

If somebody clearly wants to learn something about science or has a question that has a scientific answer, then one of the purposes of the Science forums is to allow knowledgable members to assist those with less knowledge.

If there's doubt as to whether a person is asking an honest question as opposed to pushing a personal pet theory, then we'd give them the benefit of the doubt until more information is in.

Example - Why is gravity not presumed to be the electromagnetism of atoms?

In this example I am defining a speculation and also asking a question of present knowledge.

In my opinion, that question is a legitimate one for the science forums. However, if it was answered and the original poster then continued to insist that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing (probably in more than just the one thread), then we might be looking at a situation where the policy would need to be implemented.

in my irrelevant opinion, i don't think the
On the Fringe,Alternative Theories,Parapsychology,UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters,Conspiracies,Pseudoscience
should be removed.

This proposal does not advocate the removal of any of those subforums. They will be left as-is.

My own observation is that threads aren't disrupted so much by heresy, as by the board's righteous 'defenders of the catechism' who rush in to insult and flame perceived heretics. Then everyone gets defensive and threads turn into emotion-driven back-and-forth ego-contests where everyone is trying to have the last word.

I think that some of the insults and flames result from frustration that no amount of careful scientific explanation seems to sway some psuedoscientists, who continue to inject their wrong ideas into the science sections.

[quite]I expect that if if this process is triggered by participant complaints, it's going to be a small group of combative individuals making most of the complaints.[/quote]
Very probably that is true. As things stand, many moves of material from the Science section to Fringe sections follow from complaints by members. And certain members make quite a lot of complaints. That's not necessary a bad thing, though. They draw moderators' attention to issues. Ultimately, the moderators decide whether complaints are justified or not, on a case-by-case basis.

A few things to note however.. And these are things that do concern me with this proposal....

This is particularly aimed at individuals who report dozens of posts for no real reason than they either disagree with the assessment of the other poster, or because they view small portions of friendly banter between two individuals as not belonging in a science forum, if such individuals see this as an opportunity to spam more reports, you will probably be considered a drain on the the moderator's time.

Nor should individuals see this as an opportunity to report posts they disagree with or are in an argument with and one side believes if they report the posts of the other, that individual will be barred from the discussion.

This is solely to deal with pseudoscience in the science forums. Nothing more. If someone sees what is clearly pseudoscience, then yes, report it and it will be reviewed by the staff.

Yes. This should not be thought of as a punishment that can be meted out to people on the basis that certain members posting to the Science sections disagree with them about things. We'd want the criteria to be based on whether the person in question has demonstrated a willingness to alter his opinions in the light of evidence or explanation, a willingness to listen to mainstream explanations, and a willingness to have a dialogue about his own ideas (which may be incorrect). In short, what we would want to see is respect for the scientific method and honest debate.

One other thing and I think this is something that everyone should keep in mind. If it is clear that someone is simply asking a question or wishes to understand a certain scientific concept, it does not mean that they should be withheld from the science section because of their lack of knowledge. This is particularly the case with new members who may have specific questions or queries. If they are posting absolute 'woo', then yes, it does not belong there. But if the questions are valid, then I do believe they do belong there, even if the questions are basic or the knowledge they seek is what can be considered "basic". That does not mean that people can keep posting the same question over and over again, even though it has been answered, because they do not believe the answer because they are really trolling for "woo woo" reasons.

I agree.

I don't care; if it is something that the members think will improve the level of discussion, go for it. Two questions: 1) Will someone who is found to have posted pseudoscience in a science forum have a chance to appeal?

Members can always appeal to moderators via private messaging. With this proposal the moderator group will necessarily have to maintain a central record of the members who are subject to the exclusion from the Science sections at any given time. Discussion among the moderator group will, I imagine, be common. It is unlikely that somebody would ever be excluded based on the opinion of a single moderator, for example.

2) Will members who continually make claims of pseudoscience against other members, and whose claims are denied, lose the privilege to make pseudoscience accusations; how many false claims am I allowed to make before I lose the privilege, or can I just report every post by someone I don't like and never lose the privilege?

Serial complainers who post many reports that are found to be groundless fall into the category of "members who demand too much moderator time and effort". Such members can be and are currently sanctioned on that basis, if necessary.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

In simple terms the rules are saying that the main section is for asking questions, and the fringe sections are for debating about the answers received about those questions?

 

[James R]

In simple terms the rules are saying that the main section is for asking questions, and the fringe sections are for debating about the answers received about those questions?

No. Legitimate questions about science, posted in good faith and in a quest for knowledge, are just fine in the Science subforums. On the other hand, posting about how physicists don't know anything and how gravity is really electromagnetism but only a few backyard cranks are smart enough to have worked that out - that would be suitable for the Fringe sections.

 

[leopold]

before you go around making any law about pseudoscience, you need to define what it is.
foremost on my list would be astrology.
are there really any others?
telepathy perhaps?
is it really pseudoscience?
does "mysterious" enter into the definition?

i think a lot of the problem may be related to "us versus them" instead of the actual point in question.

but yeah, the science section of the forum should be ruled pretty heavily.
a person must know what they are talking about when posting there.
"must know" as in following sound logic or presenting suitable cites.

 

[leopold]

Proposal:

We propose system in which members may report other members who post pseudoscience or non-science in the Science subforums.

again, what is non science?
instincts are non science, but yet its knowledge.
forming and expressing opinions is non science.

The moderators would investigate such reports to see if they are justified.
If they are found to be correct, then the member posting the pseudoscience or nonsense would receive a warning to post in more appropriate subforums.

sounds fair.
a relatively detailed PM should be sent to first time offenders to try to explain why.

If a member received, say, 5 such warnings (for 5 posts or threads), then under this proposal that member would then be forbidden from posting to the Science sections of sciforums for a period of time (e.g. 1 month). If, on being reinstated with full posting privileges, the member continued to post inappropriately, the Science subforum ban would be reinstated for a longer period of time.

sounds fair.

If this proposal is implemented, the aim would be to keep the Science sections for discussions and questions about actual science

there's that definition again, what is "actual science"?
would you consider "following sound logic" actual science?

The aim is not to permanently exclude anybody from posting in the science sections. With 5 warnings prior to any exclusion, members would have the opportunity to educate themselves as to what kind of content is acceptable in the Science sections.

it all sounds good, the question is, are you and your team up to the task?

Assurances:

Nor do we aim to set up a system where moderators arbitrate what is correct science and what is incorrect.

wait a minute, isn't this what is needed to carry out your proposal, to decide what is and is not "science"?

We do, however, want to keep material that has no respect for the methods and findings of science out of the Science sections.

what if those "findings" happen to be disputed?

Comments?

I would appreciate any comments or alternative suggestions regarding this proposal.

it sounds fair.
as usual, it will all come down to definitions.
once you get the problem defined, it should be a simple matter of "correcting" it.

If members vote to go ahead with this plan, then we will sort out the details, taking into account the various suggestions in this thread.

maybe the members can help with "problem" definitions.
astrology would be the first thing i kicked out

The poll will be open for 10 days. You may change your vote until the poll closes.

i voted with my opinion.

 

[GeoffP]

It's conceivably a good idea, so long as those moderators have the required expertise to differentiate woo-woo from whoa.

 

[James R]

before you go around making any law about pseudoscience, you need to define what it is.

We've had entire threads on that. Here's just one:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/science-and-pseudoscience-a-primer.18984/

foremost on my list would be astrology.
are there really any others?
telepathy perhaps?
is it really pseudoscience?
does "mysterious" enter into the definition?

It is possible to have scientific discussions about astrology and telepathy. Both have been scientifically investigated. It would be fair to say, though, that "believers" in either of those things generally aren't doing science.

i think a lot of the problem may be related to "us versus them" instead of the actual point in question.

I think a lot of the problem is that pseudoscientists don't usually understand what science is or how it is done.

again, what is non science?
instincts are non science, but yet its knowledge.

Once again, the topic of instincts can be discussed in a scientific way. Biologists do it all the time.

forming and expressing opinions is non science.

No. Scientists regularly form and express opinions.

there's that definition again, what is "actual science"?
would you consider "following sound logic" actual science?

No. Science is the study of the natural world. Logic isn't about the natural world.

wait a minute, isn't this what is needed to carry out your proposal, to decide what is and is not "science"?

To some extent. That's a different and usually much easier question than "Is this science right or wrong?". If there's any doubt about whether something is or isn't science, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Mostly, pseudoscience isn't hard to spot if you have a little experience and knowledge.

what if those "findings" happen to be disputed?

It depends on what kind of dispute you're talking about. If the dispute amounts to denial in the face of overwhelming evidence - e.g. your own denial of evolution - then that kind of "dispute" is imaginary and won't save the pseudoscientist. On the other hand, if there's a legitimate scientific debate going on, or an unresolved scientific question to be answered, then the fact that there's a dispute wouldn't turn science into psuedoscience.

Scientists disagree with one another over many things, especially at the frontiers of knowledge (which is where they work).

 

[James R]

It's conceivably a good idea, so long as those moderators have the required expertise to differentiate woo-woo from whoa.

Mostly, it's not rocket science to sort the woo from the science. Borderline cases should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, I know my own field, but I can't speak to mathematics or physics.

 

[rpenner]

The sterility of an argument from authority is probably not obvious to those that have never supported empiricism. You have to have an open mind and an ability to fairly weigh the evidence and arguments for both sides of a proposition before judging it as acceptable, possibly acceptable at some later date, or unacceptable.

A purported quote or other reliance on an authority figure is not the same thing as a well supported argument based on all the evidence. For one, the authority is necessarily rooted in the past and may have not had access to the modern totality of evidence. Secondly, even the best authorities get things wrong in ways small (typos) and large (misguided rejection of well-supported arguments). Thirdly, some authorities speak on a wide range of topics, including those where they have no basis. Fourthly, some authorities write on their subject matter for average audiences in quite a different manner than to their fellow experts, because they know only a dilettante would refuse to look past some popular press explanation or analogy. And finally, distortions intentional and accidental happen when an authority's statement in the past is transcribed, translated, edited, quoted, paraphrased, cited and interpreted.