Science Forum Rule Change Proposal

[marki]

I am all for the banning of any disscussion on subjects starting with DARK (insert your suffix here). 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 !

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 …
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.

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:

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. No spamming.

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 (Mike)]

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.

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

<snip>

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 ?

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]

Joe: By the way, and for the record, I have never called anyone 'stupid' or 'ignorant'.

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.

Sometimes we get some 'interesting' types with hidden agendas,

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
...

Originally Posted by joe_smith

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Mark: 'Darkness' is here to stay, bro ! Nothing to do with me …
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.

Cheers

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]

Originally Posted by marki

....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....

Mark

I totally agree with the above

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

I totally agree with the above

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:

Originally Posted by marki

Once we have more th(a)n simple theories, the dark will become light.

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]

Originally Posted by 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 !

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by 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 !

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Bart)]

Originally Posted by marki

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.
Mark

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,

Originally Posted by 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 !

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" rather then " goto here " 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.

Originally Posted by multiweb

or the science forums should have a moderator who's a scientist.

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]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Invariably the poster is left more confused than ever.

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

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

iii) increasing the participation of new-comers to the forum

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 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