Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Translation: don't stir the pot by asking a moderator questions about how increasing site traffic might be accomplished here or you will be personally attacked.
Why is sciforums traffic so low now?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
Translation: don't stir the pot by asking a moderator questions about how increasing site traffic might be accomplished here or you will be personally attacked.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do you believe it a fact that Goliath existed? That Jesus rose from the dead? That Moses parted the Red Sea? That Noah built an ark? If you believe in those things, you believe them to be facts. There's no way around that.
Last edited:
Yes i took one for the team... but i learned that what i suspected in an earlier post is perty much corect... yeah
Now that we know this is true/the way its gonna be... people are more likely to accept it an enjoy the forum even more.!!!
I like the new atitude about evidence in the ufo/ghost/monster forum... an i agree wit administration that this newer atitude is a good thang.!!!
But sure... its a bit weird the way Kitta seems obcessed wit tryin to make you change you'r mind about what you thank good evidence for ufo's/ghosts/monsters is... ie... the scientific method does not necessarly apply to evidence in the ufo/ghost/monster forum... but mayb he will eventualy get on bord an join the fun.!!!
Personaly... id like to hear more of Kitts ghost stories... like when the ghost lady took his hand an led him out of the woods when he was lost... or how God saved him by not allowin the 357 (ponted at his head) to fire when the trigger was pulled.!!!
Interesting - now you are professing an ability to read my mind or otherwise know what I think and feel; how quaint. It is remarkable how, despite your apparent ability to divine unknowable things, you can manage to so readily miss what is presented to you on a silver platter.
Once again, I will ask you a simple question - why are you seemingly incapable of admitting when you don't know something? Do you actually understand the difference between a belief and a fact?
As I've said several times - my issue is not with what people wish to discuss or believe - however, if they want to pass something off as "fact", they better have some evidence to back it up. Ergo, if someone wants to claim that something is a metal craft piloted by intelligent beings, then they best have something to substantiate that. A metallurgical analysis would be grand; hell, hitting the thing with a hammer and recording the sound it makes would do! An interview with these "intelligent beings" would be absolutely incredible; a cell phone recording of a conversation would be interesting (albeit readily falsifiable). Without some sort of compelling evidence, all we have are suppositions and theories - and that's fine. Theories are great, and theoretical conversation is engaging and fun. The problem is, those are not facts, and passing them off as such is rather dishonest and in poor taste.
With regards to those recollections, I've given as much as I can - I cannot think of anything additional to add, and I readily admit - I do not have a good explanation for them. I have my own thoughts and feelings on them, but no way to substantiate them; in effect, they are the best conclusion I could reach with the limited evidence at hand, but they are by no means ironclad. I have no qualms admitting that - the pursuit of truth, essentially, requires it. Otherwise, you are presupposing a conclusion and risk subtly (and subconsciously) influencing any attempt at proving it.
Bells
Staff member
And I have provided you with the answer in regards to why traffic is low here.
Here is what the rules specifically state about what this site aspires to:
Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Contributions to sciforums inevitably reflect the personal views of the members. As a result, from time to time, one side of any given debate may be over-represented. Readers should not conclude that we therefore endorse one side over the other. While we welcome contributions that reflect the diverse range of perspectives and experiences of our members, we do not believe in an unlimited right to free speech. Rather, we seek to provide a welcoming environment conducive to the critical examination of topics of discussion.
Contributions to sciforums inevitably reflect the personal views of the members. As a result, from time to time, one side of any given debate may be over-represented. Readers should not conclude that we therefore endorse one side over the other. While we welcome contributions that reflect the diverse range of perspectives and experiences of our members, we do not believe in an unlimited right to free speech. Rather, we seek to provide a welcoming environment conducive to the critical examination of topics of discussion.
In short, more science and less woo.
The reason we have lost so many scientifically minded people is because of the amount of woo that often gets posted in the science forum. Not to mention the often galling anti-science stance some individuals take to posting in the science forum. As a result, we have had to literally ban some individuals from posting in the science forums and at times, for months at a time. When that fails, they then face permanent bans. But the process of going through this ban process turns a lot of the scientifically minded posters off, because a) they believe we are tolerating woo and b) they feel that we are not doing enough to combat it.
But the answer to the question you seek is simple.
Post less woo.
Post to a scientific standard that would behoove you to use the scientific method to support your claims (remember the "evidence based" sentence in what is quoted above), regardless of what they may be. To wit, you, for example, have yet to do this.
Understand now? You could be posting about anything at all, when you fail to apply those standards, ie the scientific method which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence based argument, your claims, whichever they may be, will be torn to shreds. The bad evidence you do provide will be discounted for being bad evidence. When you post photoshopped images, dodgy youtube videos, misrepresentations of facts or studies, when you quote mine from sites that deliberately set out to misrepresent science and all the rest of it, it will be discounted because it fails to comply with even the most basic interpretation of the scientific method.. In other words, when you post something that is not real and try and claim it as fact, it will be discounted.
You might view my opinions on photoshopped images, fake images, misrepresented images and youtube videos, fake videos, fake accounts, etc as being "ignorant", I can say the same about what you post and try to pass off as evidence on this site as being ignorant and somewhat gullible. I shall post it again:
At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.
That is the aim.. To wit, I was on topic, MR. I was addressing your comments and argument and I was answering your question as to how we should all be posting. And I was providing an answer in regards to why some scientifically minded people have left this site.
Just because you don't like the answer is not really my problem..
Analogy.
Example..
Which you clearly either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge or understand, which isn't really that surprising.
Sinse "woo" is why so many scientificaly minded people have left Sciforums... is administration doin enuff to combat woo.???
Well good... i like the direction ive seen lately... an i suport administrations actions which are for the betterment of Sciforums.!!!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I see. So you are retracting that assinine spammer theory and finally admitting decent posters have left. I'm not sure it has much to do with ufos, ghosts, and monsters being talked about in the specific forum set aside for it. Unless some posters are so fragile in their beliefs that they can't handle differing beliefs here. Maybe those posters should leave. This is after all a discussion board for posters of all sorts of differing beliefs and not a mutual dick-sucking club for science nerds.
I post appropriate threads and evidence in the fringe forum set aside for that topic. If posters are too weakminded to handle that and have to resign their membership, oh fuckn well. You can't really complain about woo topics when there is a whole section here devoted to that.
Bullshit I haven't. Anyone interested in the status of evidence posted here has simply to consult any of my threads in the appropriate section. But see...as per you we aren't supposed to be talking about that here are we? It's offtopic, remember? So shut up about it already.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Where did I say I was retracting the reality of the spammer issue we had? Were you not here back then? It was literally at the point where it was impossible to post and it went on for weeks and weeks. We lost members and staff during that. We also lost several scientifically minded members because of the woo.
It's not a matter of different beliefs. It is a matter of absolute and pure unscientific woo. Not to mention people who post this woo often posting it in the science forums themselves.
I get that this annoys you, so much so that you are defending the posting of woo, but it is what it is.
So, if you don't want membership to go down, don't post woo (and for spammers, don't spam this site). And that pretty much goes for everyone who posts woo.
I'll repeat it one more time:
At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.
I'd suggest you apply that to how you post in the Fringe forums. Go on, give it a whirl. Critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence based arguments and have it be able to stand up to scrutiny and which you can prove is not fake or a misrepresentation.. Scientific analysis.. It's not that hard.
It isn't a matter of people being thin skinned (which is ironic, considering), it is a matter of simply not posting woo. Can you do that? A simple yes or no will suffice.
So you admit that your belief in ghosts, bigfoot, and flying saucers is a belief?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! So you actually expect us to believe you don't believe the Bible contains facts? Is that what you're resorting to now? That you believe the entire Bible but don't believe anything it says is an actual fact. You're insane. I'm done with your incoherent blather.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nothing you or anyone else has said has even come close to refuting the evidence I've posted in the fringe section. Nothing whatsoever. Like all the other trolls here you're just too weak to handle solid evidence for things you don't wanna believe in. I realize that frustrates you that my evidence is so compelling. But hey, I'm not the one who invented the Fringe section. Maybe you should leave the forum with all the others who can't handle differing beliefs. Wouldn't wanna traumatize all those mighty science minds with scary wooish possibilities now would we? lol! Oh..and if you haven't heard, the scientific method is a big fat myth. And it has been for some time now. Get with the times.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Tell me someone who has left because of threads about ufos, ghosts, and monsters in the ufos, ghosts, and monsters forum. Did they pm you personally that was why? Do you really think actual scientists are worried at all about what goes on in the fringe section? I don't think I've talked to an actual scientist here ever. Even if I did I'm pretty sure they have their own beliefs about different things. Many scientists even believe in ufos. Amazing huh?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You did not address this directly to me, but I strongly suspect you would include me in your list of "other trolls". Consider this......
When I was growing up I was fascinated by tales of UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, The Bermuda Triangle, von Daniken's aliens, ghosts, ESP, timeslips, mysterious disappearances, Velikovsky's theories, Atlantis, the Yeti..... Anything and everything that was off the radar of consensus science. I recall reading a book in my last year of Primary School that contained chapters devoted to specific topics. Although it is more than half a century since I read them, those on the mysterious footprints that appeared in the snows of Devon (or was it Cornwall) and the story of Benjamin Bathusrt's disappearance stick in my mind.
I read extensively on all of these topics. I conducted experiments in clairvoyance, telepathy and telekinesis, with some intriguing results. I regularly visited a spiritualist neighbour who was a self-proclaimed medium (and the best cold reader I have ever personally met). I scanned the skys for evidence of alien craft.My decision to study geology was born, in part, out of a fascination in the prophecies of Edward Cayce and the recognition that, if certain of them came true, there would be a great demand for geologists to explain the sudden emergence of land in the North Atlantic. I was thoroughly immersed in a quest for the intriguing and the inexplicable.
Today, I would burst into song if the Loch Ness monster were discovered; I would weep with joy if UFOs were shown to be alien spacecraft; I would celebrate for a year and a day if ESP were proven to have a factual basis; I would dance in the street and turn cartwheels if ghosts were shown to be physical entities.
So, never, ever have the temerity and the gall to suggest that my rejection of your feeble evidence is allied to a desire not to believe in such things. My passion for them remains as strong to day as it was when triggered a lifetime ago. But I shall not let desire for a truth blind me to the lack of evidence for it. It is a shame you cannot follow the same principle.
I believe there are facts in the bible - however, I also believe it is a book that has been transcribed and translated numerous times by numerous people, written in a far different era than the worldwide socio-economic and political climate we have today. It simply cannot be taken verbatim at face value. None the less, there are good values and teachings in there relevant to today's world. There are also things in there that are outright immoral and wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.
Now, if you are quite done with your feeble attempts to put words in my mouth, answer the question; do you understand the difference between a belief and a fact. Yes or no.
I would ask you to support this mighty claim with some equally mighty evidence... but we all know you won't, because you can't.
The sad thing is, I can probably point out where this thought was planted in your head - the Discover Magazine article titled "The Scientific Method is a Myth". http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/#.V1QZkvkrKUk
Guess what - you got sucked into vapid sensationalism with a clickbait headline; I would wager you didn't read the whole way through:
The scientific method, as taught in primary school, is VASTLY SIMPLIFIED, but no less relevant or true, in much the same way basic math and health is simplified. Recall your math lessons from early gradeschool - no doubt, you were taught such things as "you cannot divide by zero", correct? Only to find out in higher math classes (if you took any) that you can, in fact, divide by zero. You were probably taught that you could never take the square root of a negative number - surprise, you can!
Do you remember Schoolhouse Rock - I'm Just a Bill?
Certainly you don't believe the process is that simple, do you? None the less, that video is a successful and capable teaching tool that gets the basics across in a format that its target audience can understand.
The reason it is simplified is because you can't just throw the entire subject as a ten year old and expect them to understand it. You have to start with a foundation, with the fundamentals, and build up. The scientific method taught in school is the same. Yes, it is true - not everything can be analyzed following the scientific method exactly as taught in school. Guess what - not every case of pneumonia can be treated the exact same way either. Not every person can subsist on the exact same diet. That's a fact of life.
The principles behind the scientific method, however, are no less valid today than they were a hundred years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorz...long-live-the-scientific-method/#5c82e8fd14eb
Now, please, show me how the scientific method is a myth.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Haha. As Richard Dawkins observed, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite.".
Bells
Staff member
You have posted evidence in the Fringe forum?
Really?
Where?
Can you link an example of actual scientific evidence that could pass muster in even grade 6 in primary school?
Because having read through your posts in there, you don't actually post "evidence". Saying you post evidence would be akin to saying that Alex Jones is a real journalist with integrity and that it is Jesus on the tortilla. You don't post "evidence". You post absolute rubbish that is either fake or misrepresented.
Dude, I would weep with joy if UFO's or ghosts or whatever else was real. But there is no evidence to suggest that they are and you have not even come close to providing "evidence" that would even give a hint of authenticity.
You mean like the evidence you posted of a UFO that was so compelling? You literally posted something that was clearly fake and photoshopped and you claimed it was real, pitched a fit when someone pointed out it was in fact fake.. Although, my favourite from that thread was when you argued that a UFO had to be aerodynamic to fly through space..
Ah good times..It is compelling as a work of fiction could be compelling if it was actually good. Your stories aren't even that good.
As I said, you can believe that it is Jesus on a tortilla. But until you can prove it, don't post it.
Until you have actual evidence, we aren't interested and would prefer you didn't post it.
Is that clear enough for you?
It isn't traumatising. It is more disgust.
Is that the best that you can do?
- Status