Why the hostility against the Science forum?.

[sjastro]

When you get comments like this.



Or the words to the effect implied on numerous occasions "I don't post in the science forum due to the behaviour of people."

I find this a trifle strange given the General Chat forum is much more about expressing beliefs and is clearly more volatile than the Science forum , yet I don't recall people expressing such negativity about the General Chat forum.

So what gives.....

Regards

Steven

[multiweb]

I think the science forum's great. Always interesting stuff in there. I don't think people hate it. I don't participate in it but I read a lot of it and that's an important part of this forum I reckon.

[CraigS]

What I cannot fathom myself, is the source of the vitriolic personal attacks directed at those attempting to scramble their way into the rigid perspectives demanded by scientific rigor.

I mean for instance, I have never jumped into the middle of a technical conversation about the nitty-gritty of image processing techniques and attacked someone trying to learn that craft.

Science is no different to this. Philosophy is a basic requisite for practising science. If science drums up philosophical issues for some folk, then why attack those deliberately attempting to strengthen their understandings of it, and accuse them of being brutish animals ?

When Science Forum participants are accused of the attack, its usually been on the Science Forum's home ground ... Science Forum participants are bound to defend, if they care about their learning and strengthening the essential (& often complex) perspectives .. of course you'll get defence if you disrupt someone's often critically balanced learning … ?!!?? …

Cheers

[Ric]

The science forum is a great place, lots of interesting threads and comments. It sometimes gets a bit heated but that is the nature of scientific discussion.

Most of time it's a bit high powered for me to jump in with an opinion but if I ever have a question be assured I'll ask it.

[Barrykgerdes]

I too have found the science threads to appear hostile to ideas etc that don't appear to fit into the science conscept of the regular contributors.

In my youth I loved science and excelled in physics and chemistry because it was easy to understand.

They were the days when the Moon was made of green cheese and we were in constant fear of being invaded by Martians etc.

However joking aside I do like to read some of the contributions and try to research all that is known on the topic. I do find that most of the advanced subjects depend on theories developed to explain things are not understood by people in general. These subjects will always be controversial else we will not find the truth.

Barry

[bmitchell82]

Ah i always love a good debate! :) Strong personalities will alway clash but the difference between a idiot and a learned person is when they are provided irrifutable information to be able to say yep I was wrong and move on!

:) Keep it up fellas:thumbsup:

[casstony]

Considering that we're an eccentric bunch probably with higher than average autistic tendencies we seem to get along fairly well. If you want to experience true hostility try suggesting Televue is anything but soft and cuddly on cloudynights, even if you own TV eyepieces :)

[DavidU]

I enjoy reading the science forum. Great info etc.

[CraigS]

It gets even worse! ...

I've even had a moderator disrespect a Science Forum thread (the contents of the discussion that is, and not just the delivery method in that particular thread) ... as a final parting gesture before locking it!

The term 'rabbiting on' I believe, was used.

I mean, if an empowered official representing the site disrespects the content, then why have a Science Forum in the first place ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

I was even chastised by a moderator for attempting to lighten up a thread when all involved knew it was virtually at a logical conclusion!

I was then accused of deliberately spamming it!

It seems that thread participants aren't even allowed humour at a logical pause points in the discussion!

How does that compare with Genreal Chat conditions?

And how does that compare with permitted vitriolic personal attacks in the Science Forum and elsewhere.. as demonstrated in Steven's OP quote ?

Cheers

[iceman]

From the private comments I've had made to me, it's because a few very opinionated people, such as Craig, post in such a way and comment in such a way that it makes it very intimidating for people to contribute - so they don't.

I've seen it time and time again.

It's like if people don't have a certain level of 'research' or 'knowledge' in what they post or what their opinions are, then you get Craig or sometimes 1 or 2 others, jump down their throat with big words that make the OP feel very small, or berated and it does not foster an environment where people would want to post.

For the majority of people on IceInSpace, they don't fall into the 'scientist' category and they sometimes have questions or opinions that they want to state or ask, but don't.

It's only a very few that want to have the 'rigorous debate'.

Sometimes it's not even the content itself, it's just the way it's delivered.

That's my opinion from what I've seen and from comments made to me by people who refuse to post in the science forum.

[CraigS]

(I'll take this comment as a non-moderator adminstrator comment .. as it is publically directed at me)..

Mike;
The issue is clearly then the attempt to mix these different levels of discourse into the same forum. I can see three solutions only ..

i) either it is expected that us 'problem people' will just nicely 'fade' away or
ii) the conversations need to be split into categories where clearer, different rules apply
or;
iii) you bulldoze the Forum altogether.

In my view, a participant's contributions towards achieving a wider and deeper understanding of Science across this community results in a site viewed more widely by the broader science-astrophysics community across the web. You should also be aware that various participants here (including myself), have initiated threads in the Science Forum at IIS, which have directly resulted in duplicate discussions being propagated across many other Science sites on the web. The people who complain the loudest here, do not make such contributions.

What is the cost, what is the benefit and what is IIS trying to achieve with its Science Forum ?

I attempted to make suggestions which might have led to a more harmonious forum months ago and you decided to make no changes. If nothing happens, you can simply expect more of the same.

What's ever going to give ?

Cheers

[mill]

And all this only because i posted about a tv program that might have been of interest to people :question:
If i get a line like this, "If you want to get the most out of a show, then it won't hurt to do some homework and learn a little about the background behind it before you watch it.",it does mean to me that the poster assumes i don't know anything about it.
It also implies that i, before watching any show (be it medical or technical etc), should do some research or else we can get false information.
I personally just want to watch a documentary and at least get the basic information from that and then make up my own mind without being told by someone who has learned astrophysics out of the same books that everyone else learns astrophysics from and mostly only get their information from other astrophysicists without doing any experimentation of their own (Astrophysics taken just as an example).
And who has access to a nice Hadron Collider these day's :P
That's all i have to say and i will think twice from now on before posting a post about a tv show about anything astro or technical.

[Ric]

I for one would like to see what peoples skills/qualifications are as well.

This would probably go a long way to understanding where people are coming from and how extensive their understanding is. I understand that Carl (renormalised) has completed a degree in Astronomy and I think is a geologist as well, therefore I tend to view his comments as coming from someone who has put in the hard yards and has extensive knowledge of what he is talking about.

I am not degrading anyones elses skills or knowledge, I would just like to know their level of understanding be it a degree etc or is it 20 or 30 years extensively reading about a subject.

That way I can then understand where other people are coming from as well. It would probably help to reduce arguments/heated debates as well as locked thread.

As for me, a Batchelor in Geology is my skill set but I haven't been in the field for over 20 years so I would say I'm very rusty. I would say I have an average understanding of Physics and Chemistry as well.

Cheers :)

[jjjnettie]

Speaking for myself.
I find the "vigorous debates" to be intimidating.
And quite frankly I am too scared to contribute to any of the science threads, knowing the sorts of comments that may be directed at me if I do.
I don't like feeling this way, it's horrible.
I find no joy or enlightenment in the Science forum.

I'm pretty sure the other women on the forum feel much the same way.

[renormalised]

How do you know I haven't done any experimentation for myself, Martin?? In anything I have done at uni??? Or anywhere else for that matter.

[bmitchell82]

Ric I think your trying to weed out the ACE's :D These people are my pet hates! Experts with no knowledge!

[renormalised]

OK here it goes....I have a BSc in Geology, a PGDipSc in Ec/Mining Geology and a MSc in Astronomy/Astrophysics. I was a geologist for 15 years before I had to give it up because of my own illness and having to also look after a terminally ill father. I have been published in both industry and academic journals, twice altogether, as a geologist. I've also been an amateur astronomer for 40 years. I think there's some mileage in that :)

[mill]

I did not say anywhere that you didn't do any experimentation's Carl, it was just a generalized comment, that is why i ended with (not everyone has access to a nice Hadron Collider).
Some Astrophysicists are teachers or work in a lab without doing any experiments.

PS: Congrats on your 9000th post :)

[PeterM]

In the science forum under the recent mag 12 SN that Stu recently discovered, Craig made the following comment

"I think its important for amateur observers to keep up with current competing theories, as there are additional observations which can be made beyond the initial discovery"

And he is absolutely correct.

No doubt this comment was as a result of my presenting Type 1a supernova based only on the standard text book model, red giant matter transfer to white dwarf etc.

He was absolutely correct to present in the science forum other current models and research into type1a SN. I was not presenting all the information. I guess I could have taken Craigs comment as some sort of negative but that would have been unfair and incorrect because when you read his full post post it made absolutely perfect sense.

There are many long discussion / debates in the science section usually between only a hand full of people. They make interesting reading and all contributors have, when asked to, simplified concepts, I think this needs to be applauded.

The comment that Steven presents us in his opening post is far more dividing than anything I can remember reading in the science forum.

Just keep things civil and agree to disagree if necessary.

[renormalised]

You should contribute, JJJ. I know how you feel, though. I leave the forum for extended periods simply because I get sick and tired of it all and just want a break. It wears you down after awhile.

[renormalised]

9000 posts???!!!!....knew I was getting there but didn't realise I just passed it!!! :):)

[kinetic]

(Carl, this is not directed at you....)

I've been an amateur astronomer for approx 35- ish years if you start counting from the moment of my first enlightening moment as a kid.

Does that make me worthy of having an opinion in a Science forum? Maybe.
Does it make me any more worthy than an amateur with 5 years...
or 1 year?

I don't think it does. The sooner we leave the elitist attitude at the door
and be more accommodating to people the better.
It is never going to be easy. This hobby does attract huge egos. I can't
deny having an ego when it comes to knowing my stuff and the hard yards I have put in.
I like to put a bit back in though. I like to help other budget minded
tinkerers and ATM enthusiasts see a cheaper alternative...or display
something I have found works that maybe I stumbled upon.
A science forum should attempt to be the same.
If you put people off then you will have a very quiet sub forum all to
yourself.
I certainly don't envy the job of a moderator here:D

[casstony]

Quite a few of us guys don't enjoy conflict either. We need you girls to have a go at running the world I think - you couldn't do any worse than the current bunch.

I think the trick with vigorous debates is to say what you've got to say then stop participating, rather than everyone repeating themselves and going around in circles.

[TrevorW]

Scientific debate is healthy and I attack everything from my logical point of view but when I flounder yet find it interesting then I'll do the research.

If after doing the research my opinion differs from someone elses I am still adult enough to understand that people may not always agree and some people have more expertise in a subject than I do so I will try and respect their point of view.

We have a forum TOS in which it states that we should not make a derogatory remark about another forum member in an open forum.

If you don't like what someone has said or find it offensive tell them so via a PM, but try and respect each other.

:hi:

[PCH]

er, - to clarify... Our PM, Governor General, Queen in that order being our three highest officials. The current bunch ARE women !! Well almost anyway in JG's case :P

Sorry, just having a bit of a play with that statement for joke and humour value only. It's not my intention to start WW3 :lol:

[Ric]

You are wrong Brendan, I am not trying to weed anyone out. I wish to know what their particular level of understanding is. In fact I would encourage people to ask questions and express view be they beginners or experts.

If that is the perception then I apologise to those who feel that way. It was not the intention.

[renormalised]

You should have an opinion, Steve. If you feel you know something, then contribute. It doesn't have to be overly theoretical if you're not comfortable about that sort of thing. Anyone, whether they've been in the hobby 1 or 100 years is equally "worthy" of any discussion in any forum. All I had done was stated my qualifications, as Ric had, just to clear the air on where I was coming from. It may mean I know some more than the next person about the subject, but there are plenty out there that would make me look like a dunce. There are plenty of people in this forum who know more than I do. I listen to them, rather than argue, simply because I respect their knowledge and their willingness to share it.

[renormalised]

Actually, Paul, the levels of "officialdom" there are the other way around:):P

[PCH]

Well, they're still women, which was my point. But I take yours too :thumbsup:

[rainwatcher]

I think i may have identified those that voted no sense of humour in my poll :)
Also at the fear of being told to stick to simpler things, i can not even find the science forum in the forum list.

[Kevnool]

Theres some mighty big words used in the science forum.
To many for me to google.
Like most i read only some of the posts but thats me.

Dont worry be happy.

[multiweb]

:lol: Same here. But I like the links posted occasionaly. With big pictures and videos hopefully :)

[Karls48]

Craig you asked why? and I’m answering. I’m not going to go to endless discussion with you about this.
First of all we are talking about Astronomy and Amateur Science forum. You have tried in the past to appoint yourself as moderator and change forum description. That did not happen and as such any one can contribute and express their thoughts about Science and Astronomy, however misinformed – from your point of view.
You have turned Astronomy & Amateur Science forum to virtual monologue and you have to have last word on anything.. No one to my best knowledge called you or Steven “ brute animal”. Any descent to your ideas you see as personal attack on you
I wonder how would you respond if someone ‘s response to post you made would be “ What a load of rubbish” ? You have used different expression but the meaning was same. The fact is that most of the members are avoiding this forum now and I see your attitude as main cause.
If you are seeking “to scramble their way into the rigid perspectives demanded by scientific rigor.” There must be number of forums with strict rules of the content that will suit your scientific pursuit better.
Until the owner of IIS chances rules, there are almost ten thousands of the members and they should be free to post in this forum without being ridiculed by some - I know everything - would be scientist.

[UniPol]

Very clever Ric, I almost passed over your (deliberate?) misspelling of "Bachelor" ;).

[AG Hybrid]

I used to frequent the Astronomy and Amateur Science section. I came to realise relatively quickly it was mostly filled with posts by the same handful of people, with the same cut-throat unrelenting mentality of "I am right" or "I must have the last word" or "Does not match current scientific theory" approach. Its also disgraceful how someone with ignorance in a topic area is treated. Often they are attacked and belittled. I even read one regular responding to someones question with "I am astounded, no, flabbergasted by your level of ignorance".
I don't know but that sounds like a complete lack of respect to another human being to me.


That being said I have always enjoyed Carl's(Renormalised) posts(I've mentioned Carl because someone mentioned him in an earlier post). They are always interesting and factual. They always lack the seemingly malicious rigid responses and arguments you come across in those forums. What a nice fellow he is.

I can't help but feel the Astronomy and Amateur Science forums has become a sort of "poisoned ground", kind of like Chernobyl. You can go there if you want, but if you wish to escape unscathed wear an environmental suit and a bullet proof vest.

If I had it my way I'd burn it to the ground and start over. Create a separate forum for Astronomy related items only where people can discuss supernova discoveries, other interesting discoveries, developments in Astronomy, astronomy related questions and what not.
The other forum is for Amateur Science where all the and quantum and theoretical physicists with the same handful of arm chair experts can argue the rigors of science and semantics together in their own padded cell.

If you read this and possibly feel offended by my comments about the Astronomy and Amateur Science forums perhaps you should ask yourself why that is?

[supernova1965]

The forum in question is called Astronomy and Amateur Science which I took to mean I could make any observations I had on scientific matters. It's not like the title was Astronomy and Professional Science forum. I have been treated badly when I ventured foolhardedly into the forum also.

I believe anyone who thinks is an Amateur Scientist by definition.

[ballaratdragons]

As I have already said in a previous thread similar to this one that "I used to thoroughly enjoy the Science Forum but not any more".
It has become quite elitist and 'IQ testosteronal' in the last 12 months that I find no interest or comfort in reading thread after thread of argument between who can use the biggest most technical words or make the other sound less intelligent.

I can read and enjoy most posts or threads written by Steve, Carl, Bert, Marc, Mark and a few others as I either know what their knowledge base is or I like the manner in which they consider others in their debates.
But unfortunately, due to the discomfort and domination in there, I very rarely ever venture in there.

Yes, IIS is a website with a Forum devoted to 'Amateur Astronomers' and many of those Amateurs like to read, discuss, and learn about the Astrophysical side of things.
It is NOT a lecture hall for the Head Professor to enforce his beliefs and get steamed up if anyone disagrees. That is childish.

But I also have a choice. If I don't like a particular thread I don't have to read it. I choose not to go there often.

[Keltik]

What seems to have been highlighted by this thread is that some people have considerable experience and qualification in high-level science.
Unfortunately,(and I single out no-one in particular) this can occasionally translate into a certain degree of what I call "ego-maintenance": my qualifications are ME.
Defence of the Almighty Me is what is the problem here. The negativity and aggression displayed in some of the posts I have read in my short time in this forum have been most unedifying. It is an appalling trait to sneer at the interests of some contributors, and it would do the people involved a world of good to realise their own particular field of interest can have the same criticisms validly levelled back at it.

[spacezebra]

I agree with Ric - I enjoy the Science Forum.

If there are topics that are a bit heavy - I get into some reading about the topic so I do understand it, ask questions, get info from other sources to compare. I enjoy Physics and Maths so - to me I pick and choose what I want to get out of it - like most of the forums.



Cheers Petra d.

[mishku]

I almost didn't post because I am one of the "too uncomfortable to posts", but realised we're all grown ups here, and we won't get to the bottom of the issue unless we're open, and honest.

I have a BSc(Hons), and am not a silly kid, but gosh, it can get intimidating in here. I havent been at a lab bench for years, and have instead been working in an entirely different field (where I like to imagine I'm a bit of a legend in my own lunchbox :) ) As others have mentioned, there seem to be only a handful of voices which crop up. I have a few suggestions, make of them what you will - and let's be honest, I'm just echoing those who have gone before me.

Perhaps it would be a little less intimidating if we kept the focus on Amateur Science (rather than PostGrad level dissertations). This is supposed to be fun, right?

Maybe we all need to get to know each other a little better, and once we understand our backgrounds, we can tailor our posts accordingly? There are so many lovely folks that I've had the pleasure to interact with, who, in my estimations, have brains the size of planets. In spite of this, they've taken the time to kindly, and gently, help me break down difficult concepts in order to glean a thorough understanding of the issues at hand. To me, this speaks of an intellect sophisticated enough to convey a complex concept to someone who is essentially a layperson. It's one thing to be able to regurgitate information ad infinitum, but to be able to synthesise and communicate it in a meaningful way - THAT's the true skill.

One of the best qualities of IIS and the amateur astronomy community in general is their friendliness, and openness to share information with newbies. Because of this, I'm not afraid to ask people questions, because I'm not afraid that they're going to judge or think I'm silly. Perhaps we've lost sight of our purpose, a little?

Maybe a bit of the good ol' golden rule - do unto others (with patience, kindness, respect, Lovejoy, etc) might see more people in here having a bash. Gets a bit boring if it's just one or two, no matter how many big words are involved :)

Here's looking forward to a more inclusive General Science forum? :)

[GeoffW1]

Hi,

I agree with Mike on this one. I do have a good education in the sciences, and I think I might contribute quite well in the science forum, but I'm utterly turned off it by the very opinionated, even arrogant, and occasionally quite personal approach of a few.

It has been put forward as a justification that science debates elsewhere are normally robust, even heated. Personally I think that argument isn't convincing for us because we definitely aren't a community of scientists. There are a lot of very active members here who would wish to contribute on their own level, whatever it might be. I'm one of them.

I also find unconvincing the "who ME ??" responses of some who are accused, or acknowledged (rightly or wrongly), as being a bit on the high-handed side. I mean, how many times would you have to be told before you began to see that your style is not universally appreciated.

I even saw one member say something like "I'll post when and where I please". Well, as I understand it, no, you can't. Neither can I.

There was another complaining that Mike had not instantly adopted his suggestions on how to "fix" the Science Forum, and make everything all better. What ?? Why would he ?

I am beginning to rant so....

Cheers

[GeoffW1]

Hi,

Did you see the lineup being sworn in by the G-G? Go girls.

Mike, I'll sneak one in here :D, do please consider a female moderator or 2 for the future.

Cheers

[Octane]

Does my long hair qualify me?

H

[mill]

No mate :lol:
Unless you undergo a certain kind of procedure (can't go into details, this is a family friendly forum) :P

[mishku]

Not quite, H, but that slinky dress might? :D

[TrevorW]

Remember there are no stupid questions only stupid answers ?

also

He who asks many questions might sound like a fool but he who asks none often are !!!

[GeoffW1]

:rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:no, have to be pretty as well :D:D

[renormalised]

That was me Geoff, in response to Martin's post directed at me in the general Forum. It was meant in the context that if I was going to explain something, I don't have to necessarily keep it in one forum exclusively, if I thought that what was said (in this case, a station promo) was in error Which in fact it is. The problem with many science shows is that they tend to push what has been "accepted fact" like the statement "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light", when in fact, they're not facts. They're "throw away" lines that have been used to simplify the teaching of the subjects concerned.

Martin got hot under the collar because I happened to question the statement and he thought it was directed at himself, personally. It wasn't. All I said is that which physical law strictly forbade travelling faster than light. There isn't any. No reflection on his own knowledge, but on the accuracy of what was being broadcast by the show.

[GeoffW1]

:lol: OK a question. So ?? :rofl:

[renormalised]

Some guys like "women" with long hair.......and beards:P:screwy::rofl:

[jenchris]

Yeah, me too JJJ.

Thoroughly put down, intimidated and patronised (and I'm an engineer, so not totally in the sewing/knitting brigade)

Can we leave out the stereotyping as well please Carl.

[renormalised]

Are you referring to my previous post??

[TrevorW]

Ah!! Grasshopper do I need to explain the meaning of life?, again !:P:thumbsup:

[Ric]

:D Sorry Steve, nothing deliberate or witty there mate. :P

Just good ol fashioned bad spelling. :rofl:The brain was in third gear but the fingers were in second. ;)

Cheers

[Paul Haese]

I like a robust debate more than most with my legal background (I love to argue and in fact have on more than one occassion been in trouble here over the years); however I have observed on more than one occassion in the Astronomy and amateur science forum people getting personal with their attacks. Attacks of fact are perfectly fine and pretty well par for the course in academia. Attacks of a personal nature are in fact not very academic. One thing that Tuts teach is to argue well but don't get personal.

I don't contribute generally in that forum for two reasons. My interest is not high for this sort of critical thinking and I am not educated enough in the field presented to sustain the thorough arse kicking that goes on in there.

That is not fun in any sense of the word. And; as has been pointed out it appears there several people consider that forum as their personal fiefdom.

So that is what turns me off contributing and even reading those forums.

That said, each to their own and I don't have to read garbage it I don't want to; do I?

[sjastro]

Peter how many people try to portray you as a phoney for participating in supernova research simply on the grounds that you have a level of knowledge they do not possess?

As absurd as this appears, this form of hostility happens on a regular basis if you have the knowledge of Science and express it.

If this was happening to you, I'm sure you would want some answers which is the point of the OP.

Regards

Steven

[mill]

The way you explained it here in those simple terms are a lot easier to understand and interpret.
In the other post you wrote:

"Which ones are they???. Even SR doesn't preclude objects travelling faster than light. That's the BIG misinterpretation of what Einstein said and a mistake that has been perpetrated and spread by most physicists since his time. What Einstein said, is that it is impossible for any material object to travel through space at the speed of light. The energy requirements rise asymptotically until they become infinite. However, there are solution to the equations in SR which allow for objects to always be travelling faster than light. However, these objects cannot slow down to light speed because it takes infinite energy to slow them down to this speed. In order to travel faster, you reduce the amount of energy they have. At zero energy, they travel at infinite velocity (theoretically). "

If you read thru that, you have to read it well and slow before you see what you mean and look up what SR is on Google and find Special Relativity.
One note though, i have and will always "belief" that there is a faster than light (nothing here to back it up though).
So we have the same as you can say "thoughts" about the speed of light.
Also there are many immigrants on this forum who don't know every word spoken in English but the way you described it in the quote at the top looks easier to understand.
I have no problems if anyone in the science forum uses technical lingo, I am a electrician and work with people who don't understand a word i say but i explain it to them in an easier way, how hard it can be sometimes.
It should be the same in all the parts of the forums.
You can talk technical in the imaging forum but when someone who doesn't know, asks something, it has to be a simple answer or else She/He will be gone out the door very quick.
That's all folks :P

[mishku]

Steven,

I respectfully wonder if you might have missed the answer somewhere in the posts below... perhaps it's not always the lack of understanding of "the knowledge of Science", but more the way people can sometimes express things?

Without the benefit of context, tone of voice, or ability to clarify points in real time, perhaps it all gets a little murky sometimes?

M

[renormalised]

Martin....you forgot the "bedeeba deeba" before the "That's all folks!!!" :):P

[mill]

I knew i forgot something important :P

[DavidTrap]

We stand on the shoulders of those who have questioned or pushed the boundaries of existing scientific wisdom.

Those whose hypotheses have been proven (at least by current research) are called "geniuses". The others are called "crackpots"!

DT

[GeoffW1]

Yep, c'mon, 42 long hops out of the long grass now, no coyness, out with it :rofl:

Cheers

[renormalised]

There's that damn number again....42!!!!

[Kevnool]

Your all wrong its not 42 its 37 i keep telling ya.
To prove it is right it is written in the stars NGC 2169.

Cheers

[bmitchell82]

i think thats just a silly point of view Tony because thats not a debate thats just weak as somebody coming into the middle of a fight sucker punching then running away.

Like i say to everybody and anybody that i deal with, don't take anything i say personally stand up for what you believe, but if you are going to try and shoot down what i have put forward bring your research, evidence and reasoning, try and change me from my view if you think im wrong.

Im not in a Science profession as such but engineering is grand for sitting down with absolutely massive egos all in the same room duking it out to get the right answer.. and trust me when i say massive egos, engineers don't have the reputation for no reason....

[renormalised]

Nah, it's still 42....I'll prove it :)

3x7=21, right
2x1=2
21x2=42!!!!

See, simple:):P

[Bassnut]

I can't believe the lame complaints about the science forum. I read it all the time. It's the hard nut expert ego maniacs that make it entertaining and interesting. Craig rocks!. Harden up you pansies, life ain't all about groveling to avoid offense !.

[PeterM]

Steven I am totally agreeing with your thread in my post and was referring to the highlighted comment below. If this comment was directed at you or anyone in the science section then I am saying comments like this create more angst than any debate I can recall in the science section.

"Why don't you just stay in the science part of the forum so you don't force us your beliefs up our (you know where)"

[marki]

Finally a voice of reason.

Mark

[RobF]

As a professional and amateur scientist, I think we all have a responsibility to foster people's interests in science in whatever small ways we can. I've certainly been disappointed by some of the condescending tones in the science forum from time to time, but there's also some great reading in there. I'm optimistic we can all lift our game in the future and keep making science as much fun as it should be.

[sjastro]

Sorry my misunderstanding.

Regards

Steven

[RobF]

Albert Einstein: "If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" :thumbsup:

[mishku]

:thumbsup:

[Kevnool]

Ok i,ll have to watch another episode of hitch-hikers guide but until then.
30 + 7 = 37

Cheers

[Kevnool]

Best comment so far....

[marki]

Interesting comment Fred based on my observation of the one and only post I have seen you make in the science forum. It was late at night, the thread was heated as usual and if my memory serves me correctly you accused said posters of having a chronic masturbation habit but in more colloquial terms :lol:. I believe it was moderated :P:D.

Mark

[casstony]

Yet again we'll have to agree to disagree Brendan. I find people repeating their points of view very annoying so I try to minimise the practice myself. If others aren't going to see your point or be persuaded by your argument after a few/several posts there's no point continuing.

[bmitchell82]

you are right there tony. after a few or several! but after one time.... no dice so on that :) I am agreeable to disagree with your agreement that what i have said is disagreeable.! :D

[renormalised]

We have a budding lawyer/politician in our midst!!!:eyepop::P

Or a senior public servant:P:P

[bmitchell82]

nope sorry to be disagreeable with your comment but I am only but a mear budding engineer. :) not really young but not really old. you know just kinda :) (is that polly enough?)

[renormalised]

Typical pollies reply:):P

[bmitchell82]

My work here is nearly done! :) Everybody you will win the 31 million super lotto draw if you vote for me!:rofl:

[renormalised]

In that case, you've got mine :):P

Voting has closed:P:P:P

[bmitchell82]

Sorry but due to the banana shortage last year i have to change my my policies. I need to tax all that voted for me 31 million to support the wild bilbies in out back northern territory.

[GeoffW1]

Great stuff Fred, you go for it!! All the rest of you lame pansies, eat cement !!

That's the way to run a forum, no prisoners :mad2:

Oops, where did that TOS go? :lol:

[Bassnut]

As I remember (it was in a drunken haze, and may well have been correctly moderated) I may also have pointed out the Masterbation habits of the posters , which BTW I am in awe of, it takes a lot of ego and practice get that good.

Anyway, it's all very good entertainment , let the best ego tripping forum on IIS stay unspoilt by politically correct nancys . Viva la difference !.

[Bassnut]

That's right girlfriend. TOS? what's that ?, Sounds like another form of Masterbation :lol:

[avandonk]

Actually Bassnut is correct. Only over achievers are allowed in the said forum. I was told many years ago that an over achiever was someone who came first, third and seventh in a wa_nk_ing competition. Long may this vigorous activity go on.

The reality folks is that we all try to discuss some rather perplexing scientific problems 'as we see them with our puny limited knowledge'. If it seems elitist then bad luck. I could never understand the 'sport' talk anywhere I met it. Overpaid fully grown men playing with various sized balls was important!?

My contribution has always to give the bits I think I understand or point to where it could be found. We are all different and have different talents. If you feel offended then you should look at yourself. I personally do not care if I offend anyone inadvertently. It would be different if it was premeditated and personally directed. That is just wrong but OK if you really mean it!
Conversely you can say whatever you like to me. I will never take offense but just evaluate what is said and if I am wrong I will say so and change my mind.

I would hate to see that other members of IIS think that one forum of our fora is where all the bad boys play. It is just not like that. We are too busy beating up on each other to notice.

Bert

[Paul Haese]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

God damn that is funny.

[mill]

And now for some light reading from uncyclopedia:

The speed of light in a medium has never been measured because mediums claim this would cause quantum (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Quantum&action=edit&redlink=1) disentanglement and kill their psychic powers, much like Schrodinger's cat (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat). There are, however, secret societies which aim to do just this. They have been foresighted by the Mediums already.
To detect this simply set your microwave to medium and run after the microwaves as they come out.

[marki]

The bad boys do seem a little over sensitive to critisism dont you think :P;):D.


Mark

[Bassnut]

Off course they are, thats half the fun.

[avandonk]

Marki this is not reality! This is folks communicating over a system that our ancestors can only dream of.

They then argue about argument! Such precious little souls.

There are rules of engagement. Some people want to finesse them to the point where everything is unworkable. This is standard practice from the ignorant where some confected offense suddenly materializes as a way to stop others saying what offends them. If they do not like it stay out or leave.

Bert

[marki]

Bert there are rules of engagement, it falls under the TOS otherwise I could just say what I want which suits me fine, I am no wall flower and would love to express myself in my usual manner. My comment was aimed at the OP and his suprise at some of the responses he is getting from others on the forum and peoples perceptions of the science board. Folks do not post there but they do read and form opinions about others. This is the result plain and simple.

Mark

[sjastro]

Well thanks for the feedback guys.

No surprises about the overall outcome. Anti-science is well and truly rampant.
The only surprise is how two faced certain individuals are.

Let me leave you with an observation, for all the failings of the Science forum, it comes nowhere near the level of contempt exhibited in this thread..... and this is the General forum.
So much for throwing stones in glass houses.

My OP has been well and truly vindicated.

On that note, let me conclude I will no longer participate in any forum here.
I don't want to upset people for making them feel unintelligent and uneducated.

Steven

[avandonk]

And they are quite entitled to form opinions of a few words on a forum somewhere as to a persons worth within their own framework or view of the world.

They are just not valid or real as an analysis of anyone.

With limited understanding it is quite possible to form an erronious opinion with very limited information.

Bert

[marki]

Steven I am sorry you feel that way as you have always contributed greatly to the knowledge base of the science forum. But I have always tried to encourage a more open and tolerent approach to discussion on the science board as its purpose should be to educate and liberate people who participate not attack and belittle as often happens. You are not the worst offender in this respect but there is an element of guilt by association and many people have been burnt when posting, just look at the recent locked thread. The reaction you recieved as shown in your original post is just people kicking back because they feel excluded and now want to exclude you.

Mark

[Bassnut]

You are kidding right, are you that precious?. Your posts are much appreciated by all science forum readers including myself. Get off your hi horse and get on with it, punk ;) :thumbsup:.

[marki]

I agree totally Bert but it happens. All we have are keyboards and monitors and much of our evolved senses that let us read between the lines are blocked, we are blinded by science so to speak. It is not possible to see an expression or a wry smile to determine the posters intent and thus it is all open to semantics. I would love to see a science board that was open to all discussion so folks could ask questions or state their ideas no matter how silly they may be (try teaching kids). Those with the knowledge should assemble it in such a way as to steer the person in the right direction and everybody wins even if the original poster was trolling, others would learn. If we trully value science then we must work to encourage understanding and free people from ignorance. This can not be done with a sledge hammer , it needs to be done cleverly. Perhaps another board up under the science banner called "Science Class" or similar where people could just ask their questions and have them answered, we have enough expertise around here to do that. Leave the current board for discussion and argument.


Mark

[avandonk]

I used to work at CSIRO and part of my work was to teach our PhD students everything I knew. I always started off by telling them this and then saying 'what are we going to do after lunch'. This then put them at ease. I further predicted that when you say I am wrong or a DH my work with you is done.
One by one my predictions became true. They all now work in the best labs on our planet.
When my students could validly evaluate my judgement I had done my job!

Bert

[iceman]

I think that all that needs to be said has been said here.

I find it kind of ironic that Stephen "will no longer participate in any forum here" because a few people expressed the way they felt when posting in the science forum.

I think Fred said it best, Stephen. I hope you change your mind :)

When threads like this come up, I always receive a few PM's from people who are too afraid to post but agree with what's been said. And this time is no exception.

So what's the answer?

I'd like an area where people can post without intimidation or fear or being talked down to - just like all the other areas of the forum. It could be for 'simple' questions, or for generally curious people trying to find out more information, or for amateur discoveries or 'laymens' discussion of science topics.

It seems there's also a niche group who want an area for 'robust debate', where they can speak more freely without worry of offending or upsetting people who generally don't participate in such debates.

It seems more and more like the two groups can't belong in the same sub-forum.

I'm not sure what the answer is right now, (feel free to PM me any suggestions) I'll think about it over the xmas break, but as always:

- Use the report bad post button on any post you feel is offensive or personally attacking
- Use the 'ignore' list to hide posts from people you don't want to see
- And as others have already said, you can choose to simply not visit those threads or that forum.