|
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.
|