Science Forum Rule Change Proposal

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by marki

Goodo

Is that some sort of code for ..

"Craig, please accept my apologies for not referring to you by your name ?"

This is a classic example of what this thread is all about !

Respect is missing !

And it seems to come from the accusers !

[marki]

It simply means I have said all I am going to say and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours. No sinister underlying meaning what so ever.

Cheers

Mark

[CraigS]

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. Respect others. No spamming.

[rally]

I see this is still being argued to the death !
I am sure that is one reason why some people will not post on the science forum - every point will be picked to the bone.

Steve,

Spectacular failure ? or a normal sort of forum activity ?

The hijacking of threads on any topic in any forum is the same old problem - every forum has them and everyone will come across them, it happens intentionally and it also happens unintentionally.
I could just as easily substititue the words "Science" for any forum heading and "Black Holes . . . . Dark Energy" with your choice of common forum topic, and your statement could still be just as true whether its a model aircraft, photographic or a sports forum !
Human nature is like that and different people learn in different ways.

You guys are logical - surely you can see the folly in making the perfect set of rules and expecting them to be adhered to ?
You can make as many rules as you like, it isnt going to matter - those who want to troll will troll and those who misunderstand, speak in ignorance or post controversially will still do so deliberately or accidentally.
Look at any area of law or society.

People who rely on forum posts as an ultimate source of truth, fact and unbiased opinion are going to be dissappointed and confused no matter where they go - surely there is some responsibility for the reader to attempt to source their information and to just use forums as a starting point or a primer.
If people do not develop the skills in life to deal with www heresay and learn to differentiate between that and fact or at least be cautious in accepting anything as read, they are are going to suffer immensely.

Surely the real hope is that people can post in a civilised manner without fear of emotive outbursts, character attacks and ridicule. That applies to both sides.
If they dont conduct themselves we have a moderated forum that can deal with that.

Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science

So how is it that you propose to have a science forum here that is devoid of these very same elements ?!

I could add murder, hangings, imprisonment, theft, fraud . . . .
I think all these elements can be found just in the field of Astronomy over the ages ! . . but it would take me a while to find them all.

Originally Posted by 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

Cheers

Rally

[mill (Martin)]

Respect has to be earned.
I stopped even looking at threads in that science part of the forum because the so called main stream science starts to think that they are the only true science (like some religions).
Please do not reply to this post because i only wanted to vent my anger and won't visit this thread anymore also.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

I have just read through all 6 miilion words in this thread in the hope that this 'Science' section was to become interesting again.

But alas, it seems that is not to happen.

I used to really enjoy coming into the 'Science' section and read lots and learn lots. But over the last 2 or 3 months it has become dry, boring, over-intellectualised, argumentative and dominated.

I avoid it nowdays. It's just not an interesting section any more.
These days I google if I want to know something.

Just my 2c

[shelltree (Shelley)]

I think we should just leave well enough alone and move on.

[sjastro]

Spectacular failure ? or a normal sort of forum activity ?

The hijacking of threads on any topic in any forum is the same old problem - every forum has them and everyone will come across them, it happens intentionally and it also happens unintentionally.
I could just as easily substititue the words "Science" for any forum heading and "Black Holes . . . . Dark Energy" with your choice of common forum topic, and your statement could still be just as true whether its a model aircraft, photographic or a sports forum !
Human nature is like that and different people learn in different ways.

Human nature also involves the propogation of misinformation. Do we accept this behaviour as acceptable? Yet there a few individuals in the Science forum, pushing their own agendas, who engage in this type of action, either by design or ignorance. I'm sure even in a model aircraft forum similar type of behaviour would be frowned upon!

You guys are logical - surely you can see the folly in making the perfect set of rules and expecting them to be adhered to ?
You can make as many rules as you like, it isnt going to matter - those who want to troll will troll and those who misunderstand, speak in ignorance or post controversially will still do so deliberately or accidentally.

There is already an existing rule in the Science forum for keeping threads on topic. Is that an act of folly?
If I ask a question on the mainstream perspective of black holes, I don't expect a commercial on EU, creationism or any other form of "noise".

People who rely on forum posts as an ultimate source of truth, fact and unbiased opinion are going to be dissappointed and confused no matter where they go - surely there is some responsibility for the reader to attempt to source their information and to just use forums as a starting point or a primer.

If people want the truth or the facts they can go to the myriad of pseudoscience sites which claim ownership of these properties. Mainstream science deals with theories not theorems.

Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science.

The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong. As I have mentioned on previous occasions if you want a clear perspective on bad behaviour go to the pseudoscience Thunderbolts site. The behaviour here is positively angelic compared to the attacks on the few mainstreamers courageous enough to post at that site. Even the moderators over there are not immune to making personal attacks.

So how is it that you propose to have a science forum here that is devoid of these very same elements ?!

Craig's previous post answers the question very well.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

I contend that without a clear set of guidelines defining appropriate behaviours in the Science Forum, there will be no science and there will be no clarity of understanding, learning or interchange of meaningful knowledge.

The closest analogy I can think of, is like the optics of a telescope. If the optical elements don’t start out with precision, or are misaligned through careless usage, the end result will be some kind of blurry image, from which no-one derives any satisfaction.

Signposting of these guidelines isn’t critical. Remaining vigilant about practising these behaviours and enforcing them with ruthless compassion, is crucial.

Otherwise, we collectively stand for nothing more than yet another site propagating nonsense.

The first step is to define those behaviours amongst the broader community. I have done my best to do this in this thread and on the whole, I feel it has been met with consensus and broad agreement.

Others are more than welcome to have a go at it.

These are the first small steps.
The ultimate decision about it all lies with those whose focus is to improve the quality of the site.

Cheers & Rgds

PS: Paul [1ponders] (our active mod in the science forum), does a top notch excellent job, and I have total confidence in his judgement. I am trying to help him out, by producing some easy to understand, collectively agreed guidelines. Cheers.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The problem, Craig, with a set of guidelines as to the behaviour of those wishing to post in the science forum is unless you set those guidelines out verbatim....point after point....you will not get compliance towards them unless you rigorously enforce them. In any case, you'll find that whilst most people will follow the guidelines (written or otherwise) pretty much all of the time, there will always be some who either through sheer stupidity or intentional consequence will not follow those guidelines. In fact they'll go out of their way not to. That's why forums such as these rely on the good will of those participating in them to do what is right by everyone else and be courteous and respectful of those others wishing to post there as well. Where you get people who are deliberately looking for trouble or have, after rather long debate, still look to push their own agendas, the best way to deal with them is to just totally ignore them. Let them post whatever they like....you can't stop them really and if the moderators/admins of a site want to let them continue to post then that is that. All we need to do is make our own intentions clear, say what we have to and let the mods deal with spamming and hijacking of posts. If someone is hijacking a post, then let the mods know, but don't rise to the hijacker's efforts to derail the topic at hand.

I have gotten to the point where I won't even respond to people who hijack threads or intentionally go out of their way to be disruptive and unnecessarily controversial in their demeanour, anymore. Everyone at this site knows where I stand on this and knows of the people I am talking about. I've tried to be fair with these people in the past, but the continuing sheer bloody-mindedness of some of them really beggars belief. They're not worth arguing with. The maxim that is most appropriate to these people is this one...."Never argue with a fool. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Meaning, you just can't win with them in any way shape or form.

[rally]

Steven,

I guess your perverted response is why some people dont bother participating in the Science forum - nor shall I bother in future.

I/We do not accept this behaviour as acceptable, I dont suggest that we do, but we should accept that this is the sort of behaviour we are likely to receive intentionally or unintentionally.

The act of folly is not in setting the rules - its believing that by setting a rule it will be followed !!
But seemingly you dont get this.

Setting an even better set of rules, when as you have acknowledged there are already rules to cover the issues is what I am addressing.

As the scientist you profess to be, you should not dare to deliberately twist someone's statements - to suggest I implied "that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science" and then on such a false attribution to then conclude "is clearly wrong" is offensive to any ones sensibilities - this is the clear domain trait of the pseudoscientists and you surprise me at your proficient use of such logic.

I made no such implication, the fact remains that it has happened in science over history.

This sort of reply and others who reply in a similar fashion is the reason people are offended on a regular basis on this forum and are afraid to post.
I should have seen it coming but I was trying to keep the argument logical and away from science.

Your statement ". . . The behaviour here is positively angelic . . ." is quite true and again is the reason why I question the need for an increased level beauracracy to cater for such a non problem.

Seems to me the so called "scientists" are repeatedly some of the worst culprits of poor form on this forum, especially when one takes a counter view irrespective of whether its science or general argument such as mine.

Good bye


I see Carl posted in the mean time - Well said Carl - self regulation works.

Originally Posted by sjastro

Human nature also involves the propogation of misinformation. Do we accept this behaviour as acceptable? Yet there a few individuals in the Science forum, pushing their own agendas, who engage in this type of action, either by design or ignorance. I'm sure even in a model aircraft forum similar type of behaviour would be frowned upon!



There is already an existing rule in the Science forum for keeping threads on topic. Is that an act of folly?
If I ask a question on the mainstream perspective of black holes, I don't expect a commercial on EU, creationism or any other form of "noise".



If people want the truth or the facts they can go to the myriad of pseudoscience sites which claim ownership of these properties. Mainstream science deals with theories not theorems.



The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong. As I have mentioned on previous occasions if you want a clear perspective on bad behaviour go to the pseudoscience Thunderbolts site. The behaviour here is positively angelic compared to the attacks on the few mainstreamers courageous enough to post at that site. Even the moderators over there are not immune to making personal attacks.



Craig's previous post answers the question very well.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

With any debate in the Science Forum, where you have a hijacker deliberately stirring up trouble, you have two choices of attack....ignore them or berate their approach and the content of their posts. As I said in my previous post, I'm choosing to ignore them...even though it can be tempting to call them to question. In reality, it's hard to win either way in so far as how you come across to others posting and/or reading the debate in the forum. But I've never been big on what people think of me anyway. Doesn't worry me at all. Emotionally and healthwise, it's not worth it to get worked up over some fool's fantasies, especially when you have a lot of important stuff to do that should be your main concern. People who deliberately hijack a post because they want to push a certain agenda they hold are a waste of time and effort trying to debate with simply because they will not come to the party with any reasonable request of them to explain themselves.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by rally

Steven,

I guess your perverted response is why some people dont bother participating in the Science forum - nor shall I bother in future.

I/We do not accept this behaviour as acceptable, I dont suggest that we do, but we should accept that this is the sort of behaviour we are likely to receive intentionally or unintentionally.

The act of folly is not in setting the rules - its believing that by setting a rule it will be followed !!
But seemingly you dont get this.

Setting an even better set of rules, when as you have acknowledged there are already rules to cover the issues is what I am addressing.

As the scientist you profess to be, you should not dare to deliberately twist someone's statements - to suggest I implied "that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science" and then on such a false attribution to then conclude "is clearly wrong" is offensive to any ones sensibilities - this is the clear domain trait of the pseudoscientists and you surprise me at your proficient use of such logic.

I made no such implication, the fact remains that it has happened in science over history.

This sort of reply and others who reply in a similar fashion is the reason people are offended on a regular basis on this forum and are afraid to post.
I should have seen it coming but I was trying to keep the argument logical and away from science.

Your statement ". . . The behaviour here is positively angelic . . ." is quite true and again is the reason why I question the need for an increased level beauracracy to cater for such a non problem.

Seems to me the so called "scientists" are repeatedly some of the worst culprits of poor form on this forum, especially when one takes a counter view irrespective of whether its science or general argument such as mine.

Good bye

Rally,

First of all don't try patronizing me and insulting my intelligence.
My original post was specfically on hijacking of threads, you took it totally out of context as is is your willingness to construct strawman arguments at the drop of a hat.

Let me quote you as an example.

Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science

For my benefit and anyone else who is curious, why shouldn't anyone conclude that this only occurs in mainstream science. They're your words not mine so don't give me a lecture on taking you out of context with the subsequent personal attacks.

Go read up on the meaning of a Mission Statement. They are distinct from rules.

Steven

[DJDD]

should this thread be locked?

now this thread is starting to get a bit nasty, and anyway, Mike has said that the existing rules will be kept and it seems pointless to keep arguing or even keep going with this thread...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by DJDD

should this thread be locked?

now this thread is starting to get a bit nasty, and anyway, Mike has said that the existing rules will be kept and it seems pointless to keep arguing or even keep going with this thread...

I was thinking along the same line....this thread has gone far enough with the discussion and it's starting to become personal. Needs to be nipped in the bud.

[rally]

Steven,

I know nothing of your intelligence, I am commenting on your post and explaining the use of the word folly.

I think if you post on a public forum about something that is wrong then I can correct you, This is especially your argument on the science forum.
But in this case especially when you have attempted to take a statement I have made and contorted its meaning.

What I said was
"Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science"

The statement you made was "The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong." referring to my statement

There is a world of difference in meaning between the following phrases
"is a source" - meaning is 'a' source - ie one of many sources

"is the only source" or more specifically "an exclusively property of mainstream science" - meaning the only one or exclusive to main stream science, which is what I would have used if I intended to mean what you have stated.
You invented that on your own.

If you disagree with my statement that these things have all happened in the field of science (main stream science not pseudoscience) and including astronomy you can argue that with me.
But unfortunately it happens to be true.
Scientists are people with all their normal foibles and personality traits and in many cases the same egos that cause problems also drive the motivation for discovery.

But it is my no means the only source of such problems and it is by no means an exclusive property of science.

But you want to invent that argument and attack on that rather than discuss the specific issues that I have raised that directly and specifically relating to Craig's thread about imposing new rules and the reasons for doing so, the desired outcomes of doing so and how they might work or not work.

My argument was - if the very field of science has had these sorts of problems how are we, as mere mortals, on an amateur astronomy forum expected to be perfect angels ?

Overall we thresh these things out pretty well.

Cheers

Rally

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by rally

Steven,

I know nothing of your intelligence, I am commenting on your post and explaining the use of the word folly.

I think if you post on a public forum about something that is wrong then I can correct you, This is especially your argument on the science forum.
But in this case especially when you have attempted to take a statement I have made and contorted its meaning.

What I said was
"Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science"

The statement you made was "The implication that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science is clearly wrong." referring to my statement

There is a world of difference in meaning between the following phrases
"is a source" - meaning is 'a' source - ie one of many sources

"is the only source" or more specifically "an exclusively property of mainstream science" - meaning the only one or exclusive to main stream science, which is what I would have used if I intended to mean what you have stated.
You invented that on your own.

If you disagree with my statement that these things have all happened in the field of science (main stream science not pseudoscience) and including astronomy you can argue that with me.
But unfortunately it happens to be true.
Scientists are people with all their normal foibles and personality traits and in many cases the same egos that cause problems also drive the motivation for discovery.

But it is my no means the only source of such problems and it is by no means an exclusive property of science.

But you want to invent that argument and attack on that rather than discuss the specific issues that I have raised that directly and specifically relating to Craig's thread about imposing new rules and the reasons for doing so, the desired outcomes of doing so and how they might work or not work.

My argument was - if the very field of science has had these sorts of problems how are we, as mere mortals, on an amateur astronomy forum expected to be perfect angels ?

Overall we thresh these things out pretty well.

Cheers

Rally

You should go into politics.

You made a statement which you then defined as being mainstream science.

End of argument.

Steven

[acropolite (Phil)]

End of argument.

and end of thread.