Why the hostility against the Science forum?.

[sjastro]

When you get comments like this.

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).

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 (Marc)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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 (Brendan)]

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

[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 (Dave)]

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 (Mike)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

(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 (Martin)]

And all this only because i posted about a tv program that might have been of interest to people
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
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 (Jeanette)]

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 (Carl)]

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 (Brendan)]

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

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 (Martin)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.