Request for Input - SubForums and Mission Statement

[Write4U]

By my reckoning, it would be science. The defining feature being a desire for truth above a preselected outcome.

Well, if I visit a friend on a rainy day to talk about QM and he asks me what I find interesting about QM and my answer is , "it's very wet outside" (which is true), are we having a scientific discussion?....

p.s. I understand the gist of your posit...

 

[Kittamaru]

Well, if I visit a friend on a rainy day to talk about QM and he asks me what I find interesting about QM and my answer is , "it's very wet outside" (which is true), are we having a scientific discussion?....

p.s. I understand the gist of your posit...

Lol, okay, fair enough

 

[Dennis Tate]

The site means different things to different people.
I like it the way it is.
I see the folk who most would ban as entertaining and remember I was royalty insulted by the god.
Their nonsence will draw people in.
This site caught my eye because I liked paddoboy getting stuck into someone.
And I could see folk who posted great stuff...for me just so interesting...and the writing skill and discussion ability of various members really impressed me.
I believe the inclusion of fringe stuff beneficial.
I enjoy being able to let off steam in the fringe and get to say things I don't to get to say or express or condemn anywhere else.
I enjoy trying to interact with people who hold different realities.
And then there is the science.
I like the cut and pastes.
I like the few in depth discussions I only partly understand.
If its a science forum let the scientists contribute.
Find something new and post it..the more of that the less of the other in fringe section.
Even cut and paste.
Discussion should flow and scientific folk will get attracted...
But the numbers should guide direction finally....if the site lives because the numbers are in the fringe turnover that must be taken into account.
There are plently of members here who hold the game pretty high and plenty of members who can deal with even enjoy dealing with the likes of the god.
I just don't see them as a threat and encourage members not to let strange folk annoy you.
I find Jan perplexing, a man of considerable intellect in my view apparently living in another universe to me... Live and let live..use the opportunity to get inside that other persons head and try understand what they see when they look out.
No judgement need be made. I like to observe human behaviour, including my own, the current set up here is great from my perspective.
Alex

Although my own personal reasoning is from a very different angle I certainly am hoping that you do decide to leave the forum exactly as it is!

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Fringe science
religion
philosophy
3 very separate subjects

if anything was going to be dumped(policed and moved into a separate area) it would need to be religion

fringe science is not religion
quite the opposite
so the premise of the question seems quite sinister

example
exorcisms
exorcisms are religion not fringe science

"life after death as a religious belief"
is religion

NOT fringe science
fringe science is concerned with scientific method around the cutting edge of scientific understanding and theory

NOT religious belief !

so if anything

more precisely
a "religious fringe" should be added to include religious ghosts & life after death and creationism
it could probably include things like satanism and animism and voodoo

 

[Dennis Tate]

And apart from spammers I see no point in permanently banning someone...give then time to think about their action...repeat nonsence ban them again...and again and again....they are we all are a customer ..a client..of a business and that business would do well to keep all the customers or clients that come thru the door.
Alex

Well said!!!!!

The word "spam" is also subject to definition and.....
if I were to add a link to the discussion that I began this morning over in the "Religion" forum.... some people would tend to consider that "spammy"... .but others would recognize that I am attempt to work fast....... because I actually feel that lives are at stake????!!!!

Hint..... if you are curious... and if you find the following statement.. .you have found the discussion that I am referring to:

I am of the belief that a very high percentage of scientists as well as Theists may be able to come together regarding an alternative theory on stabilization of the climate that would tend to hit Theists with a touch of guilt regarding our having terribly failed at:


"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Genesis 2:15)

The majority of scientists and the majority of Theists do recognize the fact that our children and grandchildren will inherit this earth........ a lot of room for improvement could be made in how we apply the very basic principles of "environmentalism."

 

[Dennis Tate]

Fringe science
religion
philosophy
3 very separate subjects

if anything was going to be dumped(policed and moved into a separate area) it would need to be religion

fringe science is not religion
quite the opposite
so the premise of the question seems quite sinister

example
exorcisms
exorcisms are religion not fringe science

"life after death as a religious belief"
is religion

NOT fringe science
fringe science is concerned with scientific method around the cutting edge of scientific understanding and theory

NOT religious belief !

so if anything

more precisely
a "religious fringe" should be added to include religious ghosts & life after death and creationism
it could probably include things like satanism and animism and voodoo

Your post is interesting for sure... but you have not convinced me to abandon my reply to the topic of:

"No... leave things as they are."

I really don't think that you need any new forums....... and I believe that if we could transport you somehow to debate what you just posted with Helen Wambach Ph. d., or Dr. Chet Snow or any of her most well informed disciples / students....

.... I think that she would differ with your assertions.... .and I think that she would win the debate......
however flawed her research may turn out to be......
I believe that she was sincere....and I believe that she demonstrated great insight under the set of circumstances that she worked under!

 

[James R]

This thread started back in 2018. Its poll, and its content, are no longer directly relevant. We have moved on and it is now 2021.

This thread is closed.