|
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.
|