Science Forum Rule Change Proposal

[CraigS]

Hi Mods and All;

My question for the Mods is:

“Can we change the Science Forum Rules and wording under the Header/Link on the Main Page ?”

Having accumulated the bulk of my 2,000 odd posts, primarily in the Science Forum, and having experienced many unpleasant, but highly educative and rewarding encounters in the Forum, I would very much like for us all to collectively help in clarifying its purpose.

I have my views, and I’d love to hear others’ views. I’m happy to stand corrected in any of what I propose, but what I feel we may all share, and have all experienced there, is a strong sense of confusion about its purpose.

I request other’s views and comments on the following proposed simple wording changes, relating to the Rules and Conditions of Entry to the Science Forum, to appear under the Science Forum header/link:



I’m aware of the need for as few words as is possible, so some reduction in length may be possible (eg: delete ‘Space Exploration’, maybe ‘Bio-sciences’ ?).

I’m only seeking to break the ice, and have a shot at proposing some constructive changes, aimed purely at:

i) improving the quality of discussions (for all participants);
ii) clarifying what is reasonably expected in Science Forum discussions.
iii) increasing the participation of new-comers to the forum.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

Cheers & Rgds

[bojan]

I am not sure.... the current wording of the rules are:
"Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Amateur Contributions to Astronomy Science, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please."
This is OK to me and it implies everything you tried to explicitly underline in your proposal (for example, "beliefs" and "science" - those two terms exclude each other)
The problem is, some people never had a look at it... and I don't think they will if we change it.
We can add physics, math... to the list.. or just leave only science (then we will also have to accept discussions on economy, psychology, history... which is fine with me).

[CraigS]

Hmm …

The 'change' implied in what I'm suggesting is that we explicitly state, clearly, that the Forum IS about supporting mainstream science views (this has never been clear to me .. and others), and by making a statement about beliefs, we are at least, acknowledging that everyone has them. The corollary being: just be aware of what your particular beliefs are, before entering. (Because someone is bound to point them out … arguing about detaching them from the discussion, is where the hard bit is. The rules could be made to make this a lot easier for all participants).

To me, the wording is like the only signpost we can point to. The words on a signpost carry some authority. At least in this way, we can quickly minimise the verbage required to point out that someone's point may be purely belief driven, and hence is not part of mainstream science.

Cheers

[bartman]

Craig , I think that as a 'minor' in the league of extra ordinary gentlemen,
The current Heading of the Science forum has not deterred me from posting any ideas/comments. To be honest I dont look at the heading...... I just post what I feel like ...whether it says;

"Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Amateur Contributions to Astronomy Science, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please"

.....I'll respect that, but I think Members will reply to a post without looking at the Forum Header, ( just by clicking ' reply') .....including me......:sadeyes:

However I do like the wording and if push comes to shove, it would be a better forum Heading im my opinion......cheers Craig.

Bartman

[sally1jack]

pushing the boundaries i thought was sciences purpose in its endevor for answers, restricting topics to mainstream views becomes quite limiting , ultimately new theories & ideas get debated & either accepted or rejected by mainstream science, so i think some of the fringe topics are more interesting to debate.
i aslo agree with bartman it doesn't matter really what heading it's under , it's the topic thats interesting
phil

[CraigS]

Phil;
Thanks for the feedback. I feel a need to run my own thoughts out there, and see what comes back.

If: "it doesn't matter really what heading it's under", then why have a separate forum ?

My view is that it does matter what heading its under, and the rules under which discussions about mainstream Science proceed, must be different and rigourously enforced. Someone else (before my joining) must also have had these thoughts as well, as these words appear under the Science Forum header at present:



I'm suggesting that we more clearly delineate the intent behind these words. We all have to mature. The Science Forum is undergoing growing pains, and it has 'needs'. The trick is to capture the essence of the intent.

I am clear on what mine are .. but I'm only one ... amongst many, and I'm curious about others' views on the matter.

Cheers & Rgds

[mjc]

I tend to enter this forum through the "forum jump" mechanism - and while I must have read the forum description at some point - I by pass it through the way I interact with the site.

In all forums that I participate in (and the number of forums that I participate in are quite small) I take a measure of what the "community rules" are through context of material posted and how responses to posts that push some boundary are handled.

When it comes to discussions about science what I value are several:-
* the alerting of others of topical news items
* the value placed by fellow amateurs on some science news item
* the posting of a question where someone would like some support in understanding something - and the community is responsive and helpful in their response - I have learned on the back other's questions and I hope others have learned on responses to the few questions I have posted.
* the debate that can arise through some topic introduction - it's educational to see the standpoint of others' positions and why they look at it from that perspective.

I would side with Craig in that I wish that we could maintain quality of content - but would distance myself from the proposed wording change in that mainstream isn't always right and that good science should question mainstream - if there is evidence for an alternative or sufficient qualified doubt that mainstream is correct. I believe what we seek is evidence based reasoning - something we can chew on.

Mark C.

[ZeroID]

Sees rather verbose and over bearing IMHO. Most posters seem to respect and follow the guidelines as they are and the few that step marginally over the edge are soon gently nudged back into line without chagrin or prejudice. Current heading says it all for me.

Starting to sound like a legal document, not good !!
This is a forum, discussion is to be encouraged even if it does ripple the water now and then.

[avandonk]

I would tolerate outlandish assertions if some testable mechanism was proposed with the assertion.

There is this nebulous boundary between the understood or barely understood and the unknown. It is just not good enough to invoke any sort of higher intelligence or being as this is an easy cop out.

By all means people should be allowed to say what they believe but do not be surprised if you are challenged for your beliefs whether founded in any sort of theory or mere superstition.

It is ridiculous that people with 'beliefs' no matter how irrational can cry foul when challenged while denigrating well understood science. Just because they have no understanding of even well understood science does not make them immune from fair criticism.

I reserve the right to call out deluded people any time they make ridiculous claims. Just as you can do it to me if you so wish.

I am sure there are other places to talk about the metaphysical and fairy tales.

Bert

[CraigS]

This view is what I'm trying to capture in the words:



As the end of the day .. as the Sun slowly sinks in the west, we have to make a statement about what the true intent of the forum is.

I think its about time we confess as a community, exactly what it is we stand for.

I say we tolerate everyone's beliefs, but the Forum is ultimately about promoting mainstream science.

To even think otherwise, makes the whole site about something else.

Cheers & thanks for the views .. they're all terrific, and much appreciated.

[DJDD]

does this mean that out-of-favour theories or theories that have been found to be wanting (i.e. no longer mainstream) should not be discussed at all.

I have found some discussion on these topics, whether as a start of a thread or as a response, to be very illuminating, both for historical reasons and as a confirmation of the practice of scientific method.

[CraigS]

Not at all !!

I find I've actually learned heaps by reading (and listening carefully to) some of the mainstream responses to non-mainstream posters.

The thing I'm trying to do, is to get the non-mainstreamers to accept that at the end of the day, when all their issues have been discussed, the forum's intent is to promote mainstream science and rational thought. Either we take this view collectively, or we don't. Its no use pretending we back both horses.

The problem is that mainstream (& rational thinking), handles non-mainstream ideas very effectively. But when these points have been made multiple times over in a thread, someone has to yield for the sake of the whole thing degenerating into a personal mud-slinging match. Some non-participants may find this entertaining, but I assure you from first-hand experience, those who get involved in these melees are locked in a survival battle, and more often than not, it is almost impossible to get out of them. We lose science experts, because of this aspect.

My assertion is that the views which represent the broader IIS community must take precedence after a fair debate, and these must be mainstream (& rational thinking) science views. We have children involved in these forums. Do we support them taking away a perspective not supported in mainstream science or rational thinking ?

What is it that we stand for as a community ?

Cheers

[sally1jack]

Hi Craig,

i was thinking more about your original suggestion to make this forum to promote mainstream science. is this to only discuss topics that mainstream science accept as current scientific fact ?


i agree with bert in the sence of if someone want to lay claim to a "different hypotheses "they should show some theory on backing this statement up with science as this is a science forum. i disagree with his right to call them deluded as this degrades the debate
phil

[Brian W]

If this is about having the science forum mature into a place where multiple views and understandings are permitted then restricting this forum to what a small group have decided is mainstream science would be a mistake.

I was lately involved in a discussion that eventually had to be locked down. Personally I think the moderator made a fine choice. I also note that there were those who said they had not entered the thread for reasons of their own. This is how, IMHO, it should work.

Surely the present heading and indeed the present moderator(s) are just fine. If a topic is of little or no interest it will die a natural death... if it is too far off topic the moderator locks it. All fine and to the good.

Much finer and better than making rules that are restrictive enough to satisfy the least tolerant.

Brian

[rally]

Craig,

You say you want to make a change to the wording of the description of Science forum for the reasons

"i) improving the quality of discussions (for all participants);
ii) clarifying what is reasonably expected in Science Forum discussions.
iii) increasing the participation of new-comers to the forum."

"Mainstream sicence" - what is that exactly ? - accepted classical physics or simply something that is peer reviewed or comes from an "accepted" source ? - even though it contains a controversial subject, assumption or claim ?

Science owes much discovery to non mainstream thinking and ideas - without which 'mainstream science' would still be flat earth and and an earthcentric universe !
A non mainstream idea that is incorrect might serve as a catalyst to a new hypothesis that might prove to become new science.

I use "New Posts" for looking at this forum as do others - as such we never click on the Science forum link anyway

Changing the description is not going to prevent people from posting about whatever those things are that you personally do not like and are attempting to provide grounds for censorship in the future.

Making it more 'scientific' is likely to reduce the number of posters because people without adequate qualification and knowledge will feel less inclined to post for fear of breaking the rules or embarrassing themselves on subject matter they may know little about - that would be exclusionary and probably not so beneficial to the large number of amateur IISers.

Why try to impose your personal preferences on us all when there does not seem to be any significant problem with the forums ?
Is there a problem ? if so then why not address that instead ?

How about some tolerance.
Your posts do not always tolerate others views, but neither I nor IIS have felt the need to censor you !

The Science forum is a catchall for threads that are more science related than would otherwise fit within the descriptions for the other named forums.
I think its design is specifically loose.
Goodness - its just a logical place to put things.

Why should it be specifically narrowed to some arbitrary level - that would therefore necessitate some new forums to be created to catch what you want to exclude.

I think you will find that IIS is pretty diverse bunch of people who are generally very well self moderated and can express themselves and enjoy reading across a wide gamut of subject matter some of which is fact, some is fiction and some is educational either by statement or by the question.

When they are not, or the threads are in poor form, or put forward nonsense - they soon get sorted out - One way or another !

There are plenty of forums that are specifically dedicated to science, physics and cosmology that might better serve your specific 'scientific' needs if you feel the diversity here untolerable.

We are an Amateur Astronomy forum not a post grad physics portal.

ISS Home page
"IceInSpace is a community website dedicated to promoting amateur astronomy in the southern hemisphere - including Australia, New Zealand, South America, Southern Africa and parts of Asia. We aim to help stargazers from around the world discover, discuss and enjoy the beauty of our night sky."

All views are tolerable provided they fall within the few basic IIS posting conduct rules.

My vote - its unnecessary, doubtful it will change anything and wont serve the purposes you have defined.

Cheers

Rally

[CraigS]

Hmm Rally;

I'm not out to censor anyone or anything.

That's the moderators' job ! :)

If we are truly out to "promote amateur astronomy" and "we aim to help stargazers from around the world discover, discuss and enjoy the beauty of our night sky", then I assert that we cannot achieve this aim, without the clarity of rational thought, which comes directly from the mainstream science toolkit.

Perhaps the main bone of contention here, is in the use of the term 'mainstream science'. I'll have to have more of a think about other terms, if necessary. ('Mainstream Science' is fairly universal term amongst web sites these days).

I also enjoy discussing 'alternative perspectives', but these discussions are rarely productive, (for either side involved in them), unless there is agreement on making use of rational thought, and some kind of logic, supporting the description of the ideas.

These discussions can't go on forever. The definition of 'game over' needs to be clearer. When the moderators make this call, I am really questioning the basis on which these calls are made, particularly when it comes on the basis of content. Please also note I'm not trying to pick on the mods. I am also trying to make a contribution to IIS, which I hope, is seen as constructive.

Brian W's post here, refers to a thread lock being applied. What he doesn't mention is that I directly requested the lock. There were good reasons for making the request, and the lock was applied. This would suggest there are rational decisions being made by the moderators on the basis of content and perhaps the emotions stirred up by circular arguments (?).
This would then support the contention that rational thought is expected. Rational thinking comes from the discipline of mainstream science.

Alternative ideas are fine by me, but these must be supported by some form of rationality and logic otherwise conversations go round, and round, and round, and round, and round in circles.

Where is the timeout ? What is the criteria ? This is the issue.
I feel we should all know what the criteria are. And what is the reason underpinning it ? What principles underpin it ?

Without the benefit of direct knowledge, I'll boldly assert that it is 'mainstream science' in action!

I appreciate all the comments. I hope this thread will help us to 'get it all out' on the table, as I sense there is a lot for us 'to get out'.

Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised]

There's no need to try and censor people from discussing topics of interest in science that they feel something about and have an interest in, but both they and the people discussing those topics need to be mindful of the positions from which they're coming from. The problem is that some people don't clearly state this in their intentions to debate subjects and then we get "factions" occurring and all hell breaks loose.

Also, you will get people who have a belief in something and despite all the available data to the contrary, just will not give up their cherished ideas and positions. Then you also get those that just troll and desire to cause trouble with their discussions or are on a quest to somehow "convert and convince" others of the veracity of their positions. Whilst we don't really need either of those situations to occur, they have so in the past and will do so in the future. In those situations, it's best not to encourage them with debate and it's best to ignore them.

If you're going to debate a science topic, whether it's "mainstream" or "alternative", you have to be able to cite or provide evidence, whether that's through your own knowledge of the subject or through reading and appropriate citation. Just quoting great reams of journal articles in order to prove your point or appear to be doing so is not the way to go about arguing your point. It's nothing more than cherry picking articles with no real understanding of what's being said in them or by yourself, for that matter. If you want to debate a scientific topic, you really need to have some understanding of what it's about. If you don't, then what you want is to be asking questions of those that do know...you're not there to debate them. You're there to learn and then to continue learning through your own independent study/reading.

The main problem as I have seen it in the science forum has been some have turned up there wanting to push certain agendas, knowing that they will get a bite off some of us here at IIS. The problem for them is there are people here who have the qualifications and backgrounds in science who will take them to task over their assertions and will ask of them as much as has been asked of them as scientists themselves. None of us are closed to new ideas or alternatives in science, however, we duly ask of those that do present these ideas to have sufficiently good evidence and data to back their claims up, otherwise what they have is nothing more than speculation at best. In some cases, it's just pure fantasy. It doesn't mean the ridiculous maxim of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...that's a convenient cop out for people to brush things aside without being willing to look at any evidence presented to them (no matter how "anecdotal"). What it means is that they have a reasonably well constructed idea of what they're on about and have some evidence to back their case...and is self consistent, i.e. makes sense in the context in which it's presented.

[CraigS]

In short then Carl .. you say participants should be requested to follow, (even roughly), some kind of rational line of thought and … attempt some form of logical process ..?.

This is what I call mainstream scientific process.

Ok .. I'll modify my words from Post #1. How's this ? …



Cheers
PS: I'm not sure others realise how difficult it is to withdraw from debates which have gone 'over-the-top'. I keep coming back to exit criteria, as where I see the main problem. No-one should have the right to vent on someone who has courteously withdrawn (for whatever reason). I have been caught up myself in this many, many times andI can state with 100% assurance, this requires attention.

[renormalised]

Instead of inserting that in the header for the sub-forum, it would be better to outline specific rules/guidelines for forums like "Science" in a sticky at the top of the forum. Have it written up by the admin/mods of the forum. That way, it gets the airing it needs and is unambiguous in its nature and meaning.

[CraigS]

No worries. Good idea.

The thing I'm trying to do, is to come up with the intent first, then some words (and thereby, have some semblance of agreement about it all).

We can't just dump it all in the hands of the 'poor old' mods, and expect them to come up with the right words.

This is tricky.
Its easy to knock it all down, but very difficult to build it all up and make some progress on a difficult problem !

Cheers

[marki]

I am all for the banning of any disscussion on subjects starting with DARK (insert your suffix here):P. Seriously Craig if you want to disscuss physics at the high end of town join a forum dedicated to such things. The science board has become the stomping ground of an elite few who jump down the throats of anyone who does not follow the "norm" and that is trully not in the spirit of IIS and has not been pleasant to wittness at times. Few people even bother with it around here as they have seen others get smashed and just stay away....this is not a good way to promote science by any means and does a lot to discourage people instead. Rather than changing the title how about we change our attitudes towards those who don't quite meet the criteria. By this I mean debate the science, point out errors but don't personally attack the poster. It would go a long way towards increasing the number of people who participate in disscussion.

Mark

[rally]

Craig,


I think Carl's argument sums it up quite well.
There are people on this forum who can sort out the wheat from the chaff and do so.

But what you are really saying is you want people to behave in a considerate, considered, intelligent manner having good regard to scientific principle, fact and logic !
To be ale to fully self regulate about things they may not understand - eg Scientific principle, what is and is not mainstream science, recognise their own biases and differentiate between a belief and science !

I do not think that this is necessarily an unreasonable request in a perfect world - just an impossible one in this world.

I think its also reasonable to expect that there are those who dont have detailed knowledge in a given field to differentiate between 'mainstream' science facts and false claims etc to post on this forum.
So these people will make a statement or ask a question and the thread will deal with that ! per Carl's observations and experience.

You cannot prevent by way of a "Science Forum header" the following -:
- those who seek to use the forum to push an agenda that is not scientific - they will come and they will go.
- people asking legitimate questions about things they may have read or heard about (most likely via mainstream press !!!) which are not true science or not fact or maybe just an untested hypothesis or an early finding
- people making incorrect statements of fact or out of ignorance of complex science
- people misinterpreting facts and theories and others posts
- people jumping to conclusions
- people who will want to argue about different competing theories all of which may have been peer reviewed !
- people who dont accept a particular theory
- people believing in things that some of us may not
- people posting links and excerpts about things they think might be interesting to other members, fact or otherwise and create controversy

So how does a new descriptor change all of the above ?

Your starting premise is that all people who will post on IIS understand scientific principle, that people can at all times delineate beween belief and fact and recognise their own biases !
Surely you jest ?

What proportion of members can do this at all times ?
However the science forum in this regard (ie with the good the bad and the ugly being thrashed out) will actually enlighten people about the process.

I will continue to read and enjoy the Science Forum's new posts irrespective of any changes to its descriptor and I will continue to enjoy the many and varied points of view and expessions of interest by the members - be that science or non science. Thats half the fun of it - isnt that why we are here ?

I will also continue to exercise my own discretion about what I read - and if its nonsense, overly argumentative, rude, or otherwise not of interest to me - I will not read it and of course I will not post either.
I am certainly not going to get wound up over or or take it too seriously either !

BTW I have seen an equal amount of slanging from those who do preach scientific method against those who have not - I dont think that is good practice either - the end doesn't justify the means.
Good behaviour is what is required and it would seem to me that this has not been franchised by the 'scientists' !

Cheers

Rally

[joe_smith]

I come to IIS mainly for entertainment and and to learn about stuff that is interesting to me. Most here are normal people with normal lives and wonder about how the universe works, how do we fit into it, and what is the purpose of life. I know for me its the only question I want answered so naturally I will look at all paths I find interesting. Sure people with a long background in science can see the world the way they study it. But for me its not enough and mainstream science doesn't answer them for me. What happens when you have scientists like Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presenting a radical new view of the universe called The Biocentric Universe Theory or Amit Goswami, Ph.D a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences saying Quantum consciousness needs looking into more. These are science people and pretty high end at that saying there is more to life. Its not just the under educated saying it. Its your people, your fellow scientists are saying it. So why cant it be discussed in a science forum? Why lock people into your view only. Science fiction and wild claims of old are now true and part of our every day life, just as the Science fiction and wild claims of today will be the science of the future. Why suppress that view. We went to the moon on President Kennedy's dream to send a man to the moon then science took over and pulled it off made the dream a reality.

My 2c most arguments in threads start over misinterpreting the way the type response comes over when the other party's read it. Its hard to raise points and try to debate your point when you don't fully understand them your self and you cant get it out in words. You are not face to face you have no body language to go by so people just form a image of that person and not the real person in real life. Also if you want to educate the people with different views you don't start by calling them stupid and ignorant, as science has already proven it doesn't work and has a negative result. We are all different and that is the problem in a strict hard line science view, well any world view for that matter. Let people have their say, after all that is the whole point of forums. If a thread topic or reply physicality upsets you, its easy don't reply to it, and move on to a thread that doesn't. We are all here to make friends, learn new ideas and see the world through other peoples view points.

[CraigS]

Joe and Rally;

I read your latest posts carefully, and I'd have to say that I agree whole-heartedly with everything you guys said. … A first ! :eyepop: :)

Both of your posts were inspiring and are expressing my feelings on the matter, to a tee.

Joe: By the way, and for the record, I have never called anyone 'stupid' or 'ignorant'. You must be referring to someone else. As a matter of fact, I have gone down in the public record as having explained why I find such accusations distasteful myself, also.

Mark: 'Darkness' is here to stay, bro ! Nothing to do with me …:P :)
Its interesting that posters on this thread, are eager to see me move onto other science/'physics forums at the high end of town' and I have never once asked anyone here, to go somewhere else. :question:

The request I have made, when you look at it carefully, isn't asking for anything to change in the slightest. I'll repeat my bold proposal, as my passion for it has increased tremendously because of the overwhelming agreement and support for what it stands for:



What it is doing, is clarifying the behaviours we all seem to expect of eachother. It leads to understanding not only of Science, but of eachother. It would apply to everyone, and doesn't single out any person and exclude them.

I appreciate such support. It seems even the 'non-scientific high enders' are in violent agreement with it !
:)
Cheers

[iceman]

I don't really need to go into much detail with a reply, because rally and others have so eloquently expressed my feelings already.

I don't see any need for a change in the sub-title. I don't think it will have any impact on what gets posted by who.

The sub-title was changed about a year ago in an attempt to be more inclusive of all general science and astronomy topics, including space missions etc.

The forum has seen an increase in activity since then which is good - it's ticking along nicely. Sometimes we get some 'interesting' types with hidden agendas, but all in all, threads come and go.

What's interesting will live a full and happy life, and what's silly will have no interest from anyone. When a topic gets 'spammy' or isn't suitable for that forum, it's moved to general chat, or the spam posts are removed.
And obviously, what turns out to be heated with personal attacks, will be locked.


Sorry Andrew, but things are never as black and white as you want them. The rules will never be able to be defined in such a way that all scenarios are covered by an all-encompassing rule-set (or forum sub-title!).

There are always many shades of grey in the world, and particularly in forum moderation. The T&C's are guidelines, not black and white rules. I'm sure we've had this discussion before.

[CraigS]

Fair enough, Mike.

Twas just a proposal.
:)
Hopefully, some of the many ideas about what the forum represents, have had a chance to 'air' in this thread. I apologise (a little bit) if I've clogged up the 'Faqs' forum, but I couldn't see anywhere else more appropriate.

Changing the words, and making them a sticky or a header, isn't the real issue. A better understanding of the thinking behind what goes on there, is.
I couldn't think of a better way to bring it all out than by creating this thread.

Thanks for your support by allowing it to run.

Cheers

[joe_smith]

sorry if this comment come over as being about you and at no time did I have anyone in mind when I made them. my comment was a general thought and not directed at anyone, just the action in general. :) In a way it highlights my point in what I type and then what is implied from it gets lost in the translation lol.

not directed at you personally Mike (you are only the last to mention it) what is this "hidden agenda" you all think some are trying to bring. Its been mentioned a few times. As I think the people you believe are tying this need to be told. As I believe their agenda is just trying to find answers to the meaning of life and want or need to discuss it. If people think I am one of them I would like to know, as I have no hidden agenda. I just want answers for the questions deep down answered. Naturally I will push my view against other views, Its the only way I can test them, and find alternatives if needed, I have to get them out out there to see how they stand against the other views. Also the "interesting' types" usually make the best reading lol

We are at an exciting time in science. With some theories now being open to life being more then just a material existence, and the birth of the universe being totally wrong the way we currently see it. And that dose go in a way of answering a lot of my questions "I" have with my view of the universe and life.

Did it ever occur to you that some people post there not because of what the title says or what the forum stands for, but because of the people posting and standing guard there. They respect their views and answers to ask in the first place, even if they don't understand them or agree with the answer from them.

[CraigS]

Cool Joe. I appreciate your clarification. We are all individuals and on some points we stand united, and on others we absolutely don't. I do not appreciate, or support the invectives used, even about third parties not present at IIS.

It seems I have to make this known, load and clear, at every opportunity I get.
Cheers.
...

I can assure you Joe, from first-hand experience, it gets very lonely in the Science Forum, because there is rarely any feedback forthcoming in the sense you mention.

And I don't believe I am alone in voicing this view.

Folks there, share their utmost and endure A LOT of emotional stress. They do this purely out of a sense of contribution to the community.

Contributions need to be recognised sometimes. And in the case of the Science Forum, I salute the folk who hang in there, as they all posses very rare, (and usually), very hard to acquire skills.

IIS is extremely fortunate that these folk take the time and effort that they do. A little 'thanks' every now and again, would ensure their continued participation. It is very easy for them to abandon their inhabitance of that realm, and still obtain personal satisfaction elsewhere.

Sometimes, tall poppies do fall due, to relentless chopping.
We all lose out, when this happens.

:)
Cheers & Rgds

[marki]

At no point have I suggested you leave the forum and would never do so. What I have suggested as I perceive from you posts and detailed answers is that you crave disscussion more appropriate on a forum dedicated to such things. I have also suggested that we conduct ourselves in a dignified manner and leave emotion out of it no matter how frustrated we become with others after all that is what scientific debate is all about. If we are to educate and inform we need to make concessions and use our knowledge to put things into a form that the lay person can understand rather then overwhelm with techno-babble and drive them away. After all the mark of someone who really knows their stuff is that they can communicate difficult concepts to people who have little or no understanding in a simple palatable form. As for the "DARK" stuff, that will only be around as long as ignorance prevails and by this I mean we really dont have a clue. Once we have more then simple theories the dark will become light and we will look back at a very embarrasing episode in science history as surely the hardest thing for any scientist to say is "we don't really know". Unfortunately this has been a major feature in physics for more than 100 years.

Cheers

Mark

[bojan]

I totally agree with the above :thumbsup:

[CraigS]

It works both ways, too.

One has to do some work on one's own, in order to comprehend the advancements being made, and in order to even understand the questions, let alone the answers !

Even the following statement predicts it:



More than simple theories, require more than simple thinking. This can only come with thinking and learning which is not frozen in the past. Science practitioners all have to move forward, and that includes progressing in learning how to think about what we see around us.

This is the individual component of it all, and not to be underestimated in terms of the effort it takes, as well. Effort is a deterrent. And this is also a personal decision for which the individual is also ultimately responsible for.

Cheers

[bojan]

Absolutely correct.
The most frustrating thing is to see that other party doesn't even try to understand the answers... so the whole exercise becomes meaningless.

[multiweb]

I think that's the problem. Maybe you should be moderating the science forums or the science forums should have a moderator who's a scientist. I don't understand half of the stuff you guys are going on about so I can't ask questions. But I enjoy the reading like a lot of others I suspect and occasionally learn something from it. But if in the event I did come forward saying something stupid I wouldn't take it personaly if someone sent me to a link saying something along the lines 'do your homework then come back have a chat'. That would stop a lot of the non sense that sometimes goes on and on and that's what needs to be done. For some of the topics anyway.

[CraigS]

Good point, Marc !

Sometimes, I don't fully understand half of the stuff I'm on about, and I'm happy to admit that .. but this makes another great point … the Forum isn't just about answering questions. Some people are exploring their own boundaries. They may not be seeking instructional informational knowledge as such, because they are actively engaged in a scientific process involving their own exploration.

Letting others know that's what you're up to, would go a long way towards helping a lot !

Thanks for a terrific observation.

So further to marki's comments … the Forum is not necessarily used by some purely as an educational place. Sharing the experiences of exploration, (of whatever), is as close as what I think defines a 'Forum', fundamentally.

Thanks for your input on all this.
:)

Cheers

[bartman]

I agree. If somebody puts up a post with " So and so theory has been changed because of x and y. Interesting reading.", then expect questions from people who have been attracted to it in some form or kind because they want to learn more about it or discuss ..........and its interesting...of course.

Sure,

and I think if it is interesting enough, one will do so.

Ive seen plenty of posts where a question has been put forward ( ie 'what telescope should I buy') and gleefully many a forum member would answer with their own personal experiences and helpful links. This is the question maker's form of 'research' as they are asking people in the know.
Upping the ante to more involved questions, for instance when a topic is talking about particle accelerators and the word 'muon' pops up, who better to ask than the poster them self?
A simple " a muon is blah blah and a helpfull link can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon)" rather then " goto here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon)" or worse no response........
Will this clog the thread? It might to some degree, but think of the benifit would be that 'we' might have not scared somebody off. Me personally....I love it when somebody replies to a question I make......and get an answer....I understand. I can then maybe contribute a bit more to any type of discussion or understand a bit more when another discussion involving the same topic is raised.


Depending on which scientist..... for instance, if there was a discussion about black holes , who would you want as the scientist to moderate....Hawking or Susskind?

Cheers
Bartman

[sjastro]

I agree with Craig's proposals.

Where the Science Forum spectacularly fails is the constant hijacking of threads, particularly of subjects relating to Black Holes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Pity anyone who wants to learn by posting a question as this seems to attract the ideological oppostion to mainstream science or the anti-rationalist approach of dismissing concepts because they are too hard to comprehend.

Invariably the poster is left more confused than ever.

Neither approach is scientific and is best left to other forums.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I agree. .. And this is what I was trying to cover .. from my original post:



The 'darkness topics' are a super-hot discussions in all the other Science Forums.

It is one of the highest priorities for funding research worldwide, over the next five years. So we're going to hear lots more about it.

Ruling it out as a discussion topic here, purely because of ideological objections, is only going to deter minds who might provide us with deeper insight (and thus understanding).

Cheers

[marki]

Seems I need to spell this out. Andrew my reference to "Dark" (add your suffix here) ended with a :P which means "Tongue in Cheek" and no doubt I will have to do my pennence to please the the high priests of cosmology when they finally get some sort relevent answer and I fully accept that. My beef is simply the treatment of other IIS users I have wittnessed on the science board. It is totally unacceptable, unwarranted and has driven many people away from wanting to participate in discussion (I am not pulling this out of my RS, I have many friends on this forum who have vocalised that very point). If you desire to make it even more cold and prickly there will be even less participation and that is how I see the impact of suggestions made to change the title. This is an amature forum with a very large membership from all walks of life and if it is to stay true to its goals we need to be more tolerent towards others and treat them with respect at all times. If you want to add to the title " replies to posts that are aggressive, degrading, demeaning, derogatory or simply belittling will end in the offending poster being banned" then I am all for it. This idea that serious scientific debate has to be carried out in such a way that your adversary if left to crawl away licking their bloody wounds does not encourage people, it makes them run away and that is a huge loss if science is to achieve its real purpose.

Mark

[CraigS]

My name is Craig.

Sjastro's name is Steven.

Bartman's name is Bart.

Multiweb's name is Marc.

Bojan's name is Bojan.

I have no idea who Andrew is.

Cheers

[marki]

Goodo :thumbsup:

[CraigS]

Is that some sort of code for ..

"Craig, please accept my apologies for not referring to you by your name ?"

This is a classic example of what this thread is all about !

Respect is missing !

And it seems to come from the accusers !

[marki]

It simply means I have said all I am going to say and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours. No sinister underlying meaning what so ever.

Cheers

Mark

[CraigS]

Purpose: To promote scientific rationale in Astronomy, Space Exploration, Physics, Bio-sciences and related fields. Be aware of your beliefs and biases. Present them as beliefs. Respect others’ beliefs at all times. Respect others. No spamming.

[rally]

I see this is still being argued to the death !
I am sure that is one reason why some people will not post on the science forum - every point will be picked to the bone.

Steve,

Spectacular failure ? or a normal sort of forum activity ?

The hijacking of threads on any topic in any forum is the same old problem - every forum has them and everyone will come across them, it happens intentionally and it also happens unintentionally.
I could just as easily substititue the words "Science" for any forum heading and "Black Holes . . . . Dark Energy" with your choice of common forum topic, and your statement could still be just as true whether its a model aircraft, photographic or a sports forum !
Human nature is like that and different people learn in different ways.

You guys are logical - surely you can see the folly in making the perfect set of rules and expecting them to be adhered to ?
You can make as many rules as you like, it isnt going to matter - those who want to troll will troll and those who misunderstand, speak in ignorance or post controversially will still do so deliberately or accidentally.
Look at any area of law or society.

People who rely on forum posts as an ultimate source of truth, fact and unbiased opinion are going to be dissappointed and confused no matter where they go - surely there is some responsibility for the reader to attempt to source their information and to just use forums as a starting point or a primer.
If people do not develop the skills in life to deal with www heresay and learn to differentiate between that and fact or at least be cautious in accepting anything as read, they are are going to suffer immensely.

Surely the real hope is that people can post in a civilised manner without fear of emotive outbursts, character attacks and ridicule. That applies to both sides.
If they dont conduct themselves we have a moderated forum that can deal with that.

Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science

So how is it that you propose to have a science forum here that is devoid of these very same elements ?!

I could add murder, hangings, imprisonment, theft, fraud . . . .
I think all these elements can be found just in the field of Astronomy over the ages ! . . but it would take me a while to find them all.





Cheers

Rally

[mill]

Respect has to be earned.
I stopped even looking at threads in that science part of the forum because the so called main stream science starts to think that they are the only true science (like some religions).
Please do not reply to this post because i only wanted to vent my anger and won't visit this thread anymore also.

[ballaratdragons]

I have just read through all 6 miilion words in this thread in the hope that this 'Science' section was to become interesting again.

But alas, it seems that is not to happen.

I used to really enjoy coming into the 'Science' section and read lots and learn lots. But over the last 2 or 3 months it has become dry, boring, over-intellectualised, argumentative and dominated.

I avoid it nowdays. It's just not an interesting section any more.
These days I google if I want to know something.

Just my 2c

[shelltree]

I think we should just leave well enough alone and move on.

[sjastro]

Human nature also involves the propogation of misinformation. Do we accept this behaviour as acceptable? Yet there a few individuals in the Science forum, pushing their own agendas, who engage in this type of action, either by design or ignorance. I'm sure even in a model aircraft forum similar type of behaviour would be frowned upon!



There is already an existing rule in the Science forum for keeping threads on topic. Is that an act of folly?
If I ask a question on the mainstream perspective of black holes, I don't expect a commercial on EU, creationism or any other form of "noise".



If people want the truth or the facts they can go to the myriad of pseudoscience sites which claim ownership of these properties. Mainstream science deals with theories not theorems.



The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong. As I have mentioned on previous occasions if you want a clear perspective on bad behaviour go to the pseudoscience Thunderbolts site. The behaviour here is positively angelic compared to the attacks on the few mainstreamers courageous enough to post at that site. Even the moderators over there are not immune to making personal attacks.



Craig's previous post answers the question very well.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I contend that without a clear set of guidelines defining appropriate behaviours in the Science Forum, there will be no science and there will be no clarity of understanding, learning or interchange of meaningful knowledge.

The closest analogy I can think of, is like the optics of a telescope. If the optical elements don’t start out with precision, or are misaligned through careless usage, the end result will be some kind of blurry image, from which no-one derives any satisfaction.

Signposting of these guidelines isn’t critical. Remaining vigilant about practising these behaviours and enforcing them with ruthless compassion, is crucial.

Otherwise, we collectively stand for nothing more than yet another site propagating nonsense.

The first step is to define those behaviours amongst the broader community. I have done my best to do this in this thread and on the whole, I feel it has been met with consensus and broad agreement.

Others are more than welcome to have a go at it.

These are the first small steps.
The ultimate decision about it all lies with those whose focus is to improve the quality of the site.

Cheers & Rgds

PS: Paul [1ponders] (our active mod in the science forum), does a top notch excellent job, and I have total confidence in his judgement. I am trying to help him out, by producing some easy to understand, collectively agreed guidelines. Cheers.

[renormalised]

The problem, Craig, with a set of guidelines as to the behaviour of those wishing to post in the science forum is unless you set those guidelines out verbatim....point after point....you will not get compliance towards them unless you rigorously enforce them. In any case, you'll find that whilst most people will follow the guidelines (written or otherwise) pretty much all of the time, there will always be some who either through sheer stupidity or intentional consequence will not follow those guidelines. In fact they'll go out of their way not to. That's why forums such as these rely on the good will of those participating in them to do what is right by everyone else and be courteous and respectful of those others wishing to post there as well. Where you get people who are deliberately looking for trouble or have, after rather long debate, still look to push their own agendas, the best way to deal with them is to just totally ignore them. Let them post whatever they like....you can't stop them really and if the moderators/admins of a site want to let them continue to post then that is that. All we need to do is make our own intentions clear, say what we have to and let the mods deal with spamming and hijacking of posts. If someone is hijacking a post, then let the mods know, but don't rise to the hijacker's efforts to derail the topic at hand.

I have gotten to the point where I won't even respond to people who hijack threads or intentionally go out of their way to be disruptive and unnecessarily controversial in their demeanour, anymore. Everyone at this site knows where I stand on this and knows of the people I am talking about. I've tried to be fair with these people in the past, but the continuing sheer bloody-mindedness of some of them really beggars belief. They're not worth arguing with. The maxim that is most appropriate to these people is this one...."Never argue with a fool. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Meaning, you just can't win with them in any way shape or form.

[rally]

Steven,

I guess your perverted response is why some people dont bother participating in the Science forum - nor shall I bother in future.

I/We do not accept this behaviour as acceptable, I dont suggest that we do, but we should accept that this is the sort of behaviour we are likely to receive intentionally or unintentionally.

The act of folly is not in setting the rules - its believing that by setting a rule it will be followed !!
But seemingly you dont get this.

Setting an even better set of rules, when as you have acknowledged there are already rules to cover the issues is what I am addressing.

As the scientist you profess to be, you should not dare to deliberately twist someone's statements - to suggest I implied "that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science" and then on such a false attribution to then conclude "is clearly wrong" is offensive to any ones sensibilities - this is the clear domain trait of the pseudoscientists and you surprise me at your proficient use of such logic.

I made no such implication, the fact remains that it has happened in science over history.

This sort of reply and others who reply in a similar fashion is the reason people are offended on a regular basis on this forum and are afraid to post.
I should have seen it coming but I was trying to keep the argument logical and away from science.

Your statement ". . . The behaviour here is positively angelic . . ." is quite true and again is the reason why I question the need for an increased level beauracracy to cater for such a non problem.

Seems to me the so called "scientists" are repeatedly some of the worst culprits of poor form on this forum, especially when one takes a counter view irrespective of whether its science or general argument such as mine.

Good bye


I see Carl posted in the mean time - Well said Carl - self regulation works.

[renormalised]

With any debate in the Science Forum, where you have a hijacker deliberately stirring up trouble, you have two choices of attack....ignore them or berate their approach and the content of their posts. As I said in my previous post, I'm choosing to ignore them...even though it can be tempting to call them to question. In reality, it's hard to win either way in so far as how you come across to others posting and/or reading the debate in the forum. But I've never been big on what people think of me anyway. Doesn't worry me at all. Emotionally and healthwise, it's not worth it to get worked up over some fool's fantasies, especially when you have a lot of important stuff to do that should be your main concern. People who deliberately hijack a post because they want to push a certain agenda they hold are a waste of time and effort trying to debate with simply because they will not come to the party with any reasonable request of them to explain themselves.

[sjastro]

First of all don't try patronizing me and insulting my intelligence.
My original post was specfically on hijacking of threads, you took it totally out of context as is is your willingness to construct strawman arguments at the drop of a hat.

Let me quote you as an example.



For my benefit and anyone else who is curious, why shouldn't anyone conclude that this only occurs in mainstream science. They're your words not mine so don't give me a lecture on taking you out of context with the subsequent personal attacks.

Go read up on the meaning of a Mission Statement. They are distinct from rules.

Steven

[DJDD]

should this thread be locked?

now this thread is starting to get a bit nasty, and anyway, Mike has said that the existing rules will be kept and it seems pointless to keep arguing or even keep going with this thread...

:shrug:

[renormalised]

I was thinking along the same line....this thread has gone far enough with the discussion and it's starting to become personal. Needs to be nipped in the bud.

[rally]

Steven,

I know nothing of your intelligence, I am commenting on your post and explaining the use of the word folly.

I think if you post on a public forum about something that is wrong then I can correct you, This is especially your argument on the science forum.
But in this case especially when you have attempted to take a statement I have made and contorted its meaning.

What I said was
"Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science"

The statement you made was "The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong." referring to my statement

There is a world of difference in meaning between the following phrases
"is a source" - meaning is 'a' source - ie one of many sources

"is the only source" or more specifically "an exclusively property of mainstream science" - meaning the only one or exclusive to main stream science, which is what I would have used if I intended to mean what you have stated.
You invented that on your own.

If you disagree with my statement that these things have all happened in the field of science (main stream science not pseudoscience) and including astronomy you can argue that with me.
But unfortunately it happens to be true.
Scientists are people with all their normal foibles and personality traits and in many cases the same egos that cause problems also drive the motivation for discovery.

But it is my no means the only source of such problems and it is by no means an exclusive property of science.

But you want to invent that argument and attack on that rather than discuss the specific issues that I have raised that directly and specifically relating to Craig's thread about imposing new rules and the reasons for doing so, the desired outcomes of doing so and how they might work or not work.

My argument was - if the very field of science has had these sorts of problems how are we, as mere mortals, on an amateur astronomy forum expected to be perfect angels ?

Overall we thresh these things out pretty well.

Cheers

Rally

[sjastro]

You should go into politics.

You made a statement which you then defined as being mainstream science.

End of argument.

Steven

[acropolite]

and end of thread.