Science Forum Rule Change Proposal

[CraigS]

Hi Mods and All;

My question for the Mods is:

“Can we change the Science Forum Rules and wording under the Header/Link on the Main Page ?”

Having accumulated the bulk of my 2,000 odd posts, primarily in the Science Forum, and having experienced many unpleasant, but highly educative and rewarding encounters in the Forum, I would very much like for us all to collectively help in clarifying its purpose.

I have my views, and I’d love to hear others’ views. I’m happy to stand corrected in any of what I propose, but what I feel we may all share, and have all experienced there, is a strong sense of confusion about its purpose.

I request other’s views and comments on the following proposed simple wording changes, relating to the Rules and Conditions of Entry to the Science Forum, to appear under the Science Forum header/link:

Purpose: To promote mainstream science views on 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.

I’m aware of the need for as few words as is possible, so some reduction in length may be possible (eg: delete ‘Space Exploration’, maybe ‘Bio-sciences’ ?).

I’m only seeking to break the ice, and have a shot at proposing some constructive changes, aimed purely at:

i) improving the quality of discussions (for all participants);
ii) clarifying what is reasonably expected in Science Forum discussions.
iii) increasing the participation of new-comers to the forum.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

Cheers & Rgds

[bojan]

I am not sure.... the current wording of the rules are:
"Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Amateur Contributions to Astronomy Science, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please."
This is OK to me and it implies everything you tried to explicitly underline in your proposal (for example, "beliefs" and "science" - those two terms exclude each other)
The problem is, some people never had a look at it... and I don't think they will if we change it.
We can add physics, math... to the list.. or just leave only science (then we will also have to accept discussions on economy, psychology, history... which is fine with me).

[CraigS]

Hmm …

The 'change' implied in what I'm suggesting is that we explicitly state, clearly, that the Forum IS about supporting mainstream science views (this has never been clear to me .. and others), and by making a statement about beliefs, we are at least, acknowledging that everyone has them. The corollary being: just be aware of what your particular beliefs are, before entering. (Because someone is bound to point them out … arguing about detaching them from the discussion, is where the hard bit is. The rules could be made to make this a lot easier for all participants).

To me, the wording is like the only signpost we can point to. The words on a signpost carry some authority. At least in this way, we can quickly minimise the verbage required to point out that someone's point may be purely belief driven, and hence is not part of mainstream science.

Cheers

[bartman (Bart)]

Craig , I think that as a 'minor' in the league of extra ordinary gentlemen,
The current Heading of the Science forum has not deterred me from posting any ideas/comments. To be honest I dont look at the heading...... I just post what I feel like ...whether it says;

"Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Amateur Contributions to Astronomy Science, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please"

.....I'll respect that, but I think Members will reply to a post without looking at the Forum Header, ( just by clicking ' reply') .....including me......

However I do like the wording and if push comes to shove, it would be a better forum Heading im my opinion......cheers Craig.

Bartman

[sally1jack (Phil)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm …

The 'change' implied in what I'm suggesting is that we explicitly state, clearly, that the Forum IS about supporting mainstream science views (Cheers

pushing the boundaries i thought was sciences purpose in its endevor for answers, restricting topics to mainstream views becomes quite limiting , ultimately new theories & ideas get debated & either accepted or rejected by mainstream science, so i think some of the fringe topics are more interesting to debate.
i aslo agree with bartman it doesn't matter really what heading it's under , it's the topic thats interesting
phil

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sally1jack

pushing the boundaries i thought was sciences purpose in its endevor for answers, restricting topics to mainstream views becomes quite limiting , ultimately new theories & ideas get debated & either accepted or rejected by mainstream science, so i think some of the fringe topics are more interesting to debate.
i aslo agree with bartman it doesn't matter really what heading it's under , it's the topic thats interesting
phil

Phil;
Thanks for the feedback. I feel a need to run my own thoughts out there, and see what comes back.

If: "it doesn't matter really what heading it's under", then why have a separate forum ?

My view is that it does matter what heading its under, and the rules under which discussions about mainstream Science proceed, must be different and rigourously enforced. Someone else (before my joining) must also have had these thoughts as well, as these words appear under the Science Forum header at present:

Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please.

I'm suggesting that we more clearly delineate the intent behind these words. We all have to mature. The Science Forum is undergoing growing pains, and it has 'needs'. The trick is to capture the essence of the intent.

I am clear on what mine are .. but I'm only one ... amongst many, and I'm curious about others' views on the matter.

Cheers & Rgds

[mjc (Mark)]

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.

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Sees rather verbose and over bearing IMHO. Most posters seem to respect and follow the guidelines as they are and the few that step marginally over the edge are soon gently nudged back into line without chagrin or prejudice. Current heading says it all for me.

Starting to sound like a legal document, not good !!
This is a forum, discussion is to be encouraged even if it does ripple the water now and then.

[avandonk]

I would tolerate outlandish assertions if some testable mechanism was proposed with the assertion.

There is this nebulous boundary between the understood or barely understood and the unknown. It is just not good enough to invoke any sort of higher intelligence or being as this is an easy cop out.

By all means people should be allowed to say what they believe but do not be surprised if you are challenged for your beliefs whether founded in any sort of theory or mere superstition.

It is ridiculous that people with 'beliefs' no matter how irrational can cry foul when challenged while denigrating well understood science. Just because they have no understanding of even well understood science does not make them immune from fair criticism.

I reserve the right to call out deluded people any time they make ridiculous claims. Just as you can do it to me if you so wish.

I am sure there are other places to talk about the metaphysical and fairy tales.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

It is ridiculous that people with 'beliefs' no matter how irrational can cry foul when challenged while denigrating well understood science. Just because they have no understanding of even well understood science does not make them immune from fair criticism.

I reserve the right to call out deluded people any time they make ridiculous claims. Just as you can do it to me if you so wish.

I am sure there are other places to talk about the metaphysical and fairy tales.

Bert

This view is what I'm trying to capture in the words:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Purpose: To promote mainstream science views

As the end of the day .. as the Sun slowly sinks in the west, we have to make a statement about what the true intent of the forum is.

I think its about time we confess as a community, exactly what it is we stand for.

I say we tolerate everyone's beliefs, but the Forum is ultimately about promoting mainstream science.

To even think otherwise, makes the whole site about something else.

Cheers & thanks for the views .. they're all terrific, and much appreciated.

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I say we tolerate everyone's beliefs, but the Forum is ultimately about promoting mainstream science.

does this mean that out-of-favour theories or theories that have been found to be wanting (i.e. no longer mainstream) should not be discussed at all.

I have found some discussion on these topics, whether as a start of a thread or as a response, to be very illuminating, both for historical reasons and as a confirmation of the practice of scientific method.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by DJDD

does this mean that out-of-favour theories or theories that have been found to be wanting (i.e. no longer mainstream) should not be discussed at all.
I have found some discussion on these topics, whether as a start of a thread or as a response, to be very illuminating, both for historical reasons and as a confirmation of the practice of scientific method.

Not at all !!

I find I've actually learned heaps by reading (and listening carefully to) some of the mainstream responses to non-mainstream posters.

The thing I'm trying to do, is to get the non-mainstreamers to accept that at the end of the day, when all their issues have been discussed, the forum's intent is to promote mainstream science and rational thought. Either we take this view collectively, or we don't. Its no use pretending we back both horses.

The problem is that mainstream (& rational thinking), handles non-mainstream ideas very effectively. But when these points have been made multiple times over in a thread, someone has to yield for the sake of the whole thing degenerating into a personal mud-slinging match. Some non-participants may find this entertaining, but I assure you from first-hand experience, those who get involved in these melees are locked in a survival battle, and more often than not, it is almost impossible to get out of them. We lose science experts, because of this aspect.

My assertion is that the views which represent the broader IIS community must take precedence after a fair debate, and these must be mainstream (& rational thinking) science views. We have children involved in these forums. Do we support them taking away a perspective not supported in mainstream science or rational thinking ?

What is it that we stand for as a community ?

Cheers

[sally1jack (Phil)]

Hi Craig,

i was thinking more about your original suggestion to make this forum to promote mainstream science. is this to only discuss topics that mainstream science accept as current scientific fact ?


i agree with bert in the sence of if someone want to lay claim to a "different hypotheses "they should show some theory on backing this statement up with science as this is a science forum. i disagree with his right to call them deluded as this degrades the debate
phil

[Brian W (Brian)]

If this is about having the science forum mature into a place where multiple views and understandings are permitted then restricting this forum to what a small group have decided is mainstream science would be a mistake.

I was lately involved in a discussion that eventually had to be locked down. Personally I think the moderator made a fine choice. I also note that there were those who said they had not entered the thread for reasons of their own. This is how, IMHO, it should work.

Surely the present heading and indeed the present moderator(s) are just fine. If a topic is of little or no interest it will die a natural death... if it is too far off topic the moderator locks it. All fine and to the good.

Much finer and better than making rules that are restrictive enough to satisfy the least tolerant.

Brian

[rally]

Craig,

You say you want to make a change to the wording of the description of Science forum for the reasons

"i) improving the quality of discussions (for all participants);
ii) clarifying what is reasonably expected in Science Forum discussions.
iii) increasing the participation of new-comers to the forum."

"Mainstream sicence" - what is that exactly ? - accepted classical physics or simply something that is peer reviewed or comes from an "accepted" source ? - even though it contains a controversial subject, assumption or claim ?

Science owes much discovery to non mainstream thinking and ideas - without which 'mainstream science' would still be flat earth and and an earthcentric universe !
A non mainstream idea that is incorrect might serve as a catalyst to a new hypothesis that might prove to become new science.

I use "New Posts" for looking at this forum as do others - as such we never click on the Science forum link anyway

Changing the description is not going to prevent people from posting about whatever those things are that you personally do not like and are attempting to provide grounds for censorship in the future.

Making it more 'scientific' is likely to reduce the number of posters because people without adequate qualification and knowledge will feel less inclined to post for fear of breaking the rules or embarrassing themselves on subject matter they may know little about - that would be exclusionary and probably not so beneficial to the large number of amateur IISers.

Why try to impose your personal preferences on us all when there does not seem to be any significant problem with the forums ?
Is there a problem ? if so then why not address that instead ?

How about some tolerance.
Your posts do not always tolerate others views, but neither I nor IIS have felt the need to censor you !

The Science forum is a catchall for threads that are more science related than would otherwise fit within the descriptions for the other named forums.
I think its design is specifically loose.
Goodness - its just a logical place to put things.

Why should it be specifically narrowed to some arbitrary level - that would therefore necessitate some new forums to be created to catch what you want to exclude.

I think you will find that IIS is pretty diverse bunch of people who are generally very well self moderated and can express themselves and enjoy reading across a wide gamut of subject matter some of which is fact, some is fiction and some is educational either by statement or by the question.

When they are not, or the threads are in poor form, or put forward nonsense - they soon get sorted out - One way or another !

There are plenty of forums that are specifically dedicated to science, physics and cosmology that might better serve your specific 'scientific' needs if you feel the diversity here untolerable.

We are an Amateur Astronomy forum not a post grad physics portal.

ISS Home page
"IceInSpace is a community website dedicated to promoting amateur astronomy in the southern hemisphere - including Australia, New Zealand, South America, Southern Africa and parts of Asia. We aim to help stargazers from around the world discover, discuss and enjoy the beauty of our night sky."

All views are tolerable provided they fall within the few basic IIS posting conduct rules.

My vote - its unnecessary, doubtful it will change anything and wont serve the purposes you have defined.

Cheers

Rally

[CraigS]

Hmm Rally;

I'm not out to censor anyone or anything.

That's the moderators' job !

If we are truly out to "promote amateur astronomy" and "we aim to help stargazers from around the world discover, discuss and enjoy the beauty of our night sky", then I assert that we cannot achieve this aim, without the clarity of rational thought, which comes directly from the mainstream science toolkit.

Perhaps the main bone of contention here, is in the use of the term 'mainstream science'. I'll have to have more of a think about other terms, if necessary. ('Mainstream Science' is fairly universal term amongst web sites these days).

I also enjoy discussing 'alternative perspectives', but these discussions are rarely productive, (for either side involved in them), unless there is agreement on making use of rational thought, and some kind of logic, supporting the description of the ideas.

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.

Brian W's post here, refers to a thread lock being applied. What he doesn't mention is that I directly requested the lock. There were good reasons for making the request, and the lock was applied. This would suggest there are rational decisions being made by the moderators on the basis of content and perhaps the emotions stirred up by circular arguments (?).
This would then support the contention that rational thought is expected. Rational thinking comes from the discipline of mainstream science.

Alternative ideas are fine by me, but these must be supported by some form of rationality and logic otherwise conversations go round, and round, and round, and round, and round in circles.

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 ?

Without the benefit of direct knowledge, I'll boldly assert that it is 'mainstream science' in action!

I appreciate all the comments. I hope this thread will help us to 'get it all out' on the table, as I sense there is a lot for us 'to get out'.

Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.

[CraigS]

In short then Carl .. you say participants should be requested to follow, (even roughly), some kind of rational line of thought and … attempt some form of logical process ..?.

This is what I call mainstream scientific process.

Ok .. I'll modify my words from Post #1. How's this ? …

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.

Cheers
PS: I'm not sure others realise how difficult it is to withdraw from debates which have gone 'over-the-top'. I keep coming back to exit criteria, as where I see the main problem. No-one should have the right to vent on someone who has courteously withdrawn (for whatever reason). I have been caught up myself in this many, many times andI can state with 100% assurance, this requires attention.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Instead of inserting that in the header for the sub-forum, it would be better to outline specific rules/guidelines for forums like "Science" in a sticky at the top of the forum. Have it written up by the admin/mods of the forum. That way, it gets the airing it needs and is unambiguous in its nature and meaning.

[CraigS]

No worries. Good idea.

The thing I'm trying to do, is to come up with the intent first, then some words (and thereby, have some semblance of agreement about it all).

We can't just dump it all in the hands of the 'poor old' mods, and expect them to come up with the right words.

This is tricky.
Its easy to knock it all down, but very difficult to build it all up and make some progress on a difficult problem !

Cheers