proximity1

Editing query: Would someone please explain what the following means?: "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." what's an "image extension" --- I think I figured it out. An image had been included in a cut-and-paste. Removing the image cleared up the issue.

This superscript added subsequent to the following below the line : At first, I hadn't read the original post from Tom O'Neil on the Voynich Manuscript so I wasn't at first aware that it had been proposed that he discuss it differently, refraining from certain unallowed aspects--off-site linked references which the reader needs to study in order to have the needed background, etc. So, an early impression of mine was that it was the topic itself, the Voynich Manuscript, which had been deemed unfit for any discussion anywhere on the site, and not simply O'Neil's way of going about discussing it. Then, later, it became unclear to me whether what is primarily objected to is that his "theory" doesn't sound plausible or, again, whether the problem was its having been placed in the "puzzles and games" thread. And I'm still in doubt on this point. I gather it was mainly how he went about trying to discuss this topic rather than the VM itself. But since at least one member referred to O'Neil's effort amounting to "crackpottery", it leaves open the suggestion that whatever any moderator regards as that can be struck off at the first objection to it. This aspect remains completely unclear to me. ______________________ For starters, I'd recognize that as the site sets out specific science fields for topical discussion, this is clearly an indication that discussions “belong” in certain areas and not in other inappropriate areas. Fair enough. Then, you also more than strongly imply that there are still other areas where “non-science” matters are and may properly be discussed: Religion; philosophy; “Ethics”—which many philosphers consider a branch of philosophy—even gets its own discussion heading; politics; and, then, again, by implication, there's what's called “The Lounge” and seems to have been created for what could be called “everything else” since it is expressly described as being for “anything.” You should expect that this term is interpreted liberally by many people to include all their favorite topics beyond the realm of science since that is a completely normal way to interpret “anything.” So, I think you are inviting confusion by leaving that term unqualified. You could, for example, put a prominent hyper-link asterisk on it “everything*” which directs readers to a clear list of topics which are proscribed from any, even what you call “civil” discussion. If you don't want pseudo-science discussed anywhere on the site under any circumstances, I can well understand that—and you could begin your list with all the currently popular pseudo-sciences and then append everything else, topic by topic which concern issues which are categorically not welcome to be opened for discussion here, even non-scientific discussion in non-scientific threads. Writing up and posting such a list wouldn't take very long. And then all you'd have to do is keep it current by adding those topics which weren't already on the list as they appear from members who have mistakenly supposed them acceptable for discussion. There'd always be that eventuality, of course. That done, in the management's and a moderator's place, I'd take a very much greater attitude of leniency than is now done toward all non-science discussions which otherwise follow the guidelines by keeping away from science threads. True, this would allow a member to expose his or her favorite non-science theories about many things, including, for example, the Voynich Manuscript, if so inclined. He or she needn't be held to the rigors of a science thread's discussion standards when engaging in a non-science topic. The majesty of Science and the dignity of thois site could, I believe, easily bear these burdens without any serious or lasting harm done. It would reflect well on the site's management for its indication of a robust confidence in the stability of Science and the site to allow these sometimes silly discussions to take place without having a panic attack over it. Failing such an asterisk-referenced list of what's set out clearly as not allowed, you could a) just drop the otherwise misleading mention of “anything” in the description of what is welcome for discussion in The Lounge and, instead, b) you could notify members that they must first request approval for their topics before posting them in the lounge—and any other threads where you find you routinely have to police conduct in order to keep out discussions the management deems unacceptable. ------------------ Allow me to append some specific examples of my objections to what appears above-- Here, for example : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100414-100-proof-that-the-vms-is-in-a-number-system-f49v/#entry953830 John Cuthbert writes, (as a reply to O'Neil's "First off, I believe that the Voynich Manuscript is a cipher, but not in natural language form (meaning the glyph’s are not arranged as so). I truly believe there is text, a book or books that were used to produce the manuscript, but in the art of numbers.") "Science doesn't care what you believe, it cares what you can provide evidence for." This was posted in The Lounge. Who has even maintained that what's under discussion here is a topic of science in the first place? I have not read that O'Neil maintains that this is a matter of science. The post was in the Lounge, for crying out loud. So what relevance does this hostile reply, "Science doesn't care what you believe, it cares what you can provide evidence for" have in this instance? Let me suggest one: it's the relevance of an in-group member lording it over someone clearly not regarded as one of the group. The comment was gratuitously petty and hostile, directed at a comment in The Lounge, a thread reasonable to be thought of as "safe" for such a topic as this. ---------------- Another example from the same thread in the Lounge, we have Klynos responding with this: Klaynos Moderators 8,222 posts Posted 5 November 2016 - 04:25 PM ! Moderator Note What part of do not reintroduce this topic did you not understand. Don't do it again. So, allow me to suggest one: The part where a topic is thought to have been rejected as a consequence of its having been first sited in an inappropriate thread and where a placement in a different and appropriate thread might have been quite acceptable-- especially since PhiForAll had already, if I recall correctly, suggested that the thread better belonged in The Lounge. Well, that's where this was. So perhaps it had not been understood that moving to The Lounge does not and would not rectify the problem here. O'Neil's own reply suggests that as a likely explanation since he presents his exposition of his theory as though the problem is merely that it had not been received and considered. That's in November. Still, nothing is clearly stated as to the nature of the fault. This IS NOT a science topic. It's the Voynich Manuscript. Yet, in the Lounge, O'Neil is being subjected to what I call hostile harrassment simply because he isn't meeting some other members' ideas of scientific rigor in his theory. Instead of expressly explaining that, he's simply rebuked again for having reintroduced the topic. But as he may have seen it, he corrected his mistake by re-posting in a non-science thread. ---------------------- Next, in December, we find he makes an attempt in the brain-teasers and puzzles thread and if the VM is anything, it's a puzzle and a hell of a brain teaser. He gets the following from Swansont : swansont ! Moderator Note You were told not to re-introduce this. Peddle your wares elsewhere. -------- Even if we discount as impossible the idea that O'Neil had not understood that his topic was unacceptable because his theory was regarded as hopelessly implausible and not clearly explained, I really see no reason to address him in such condescending terms "You were told...! Peddle your wares...!" Seriously?! I cringe when I see this sort of thing. I don't see why that petty lecturing tone is really necessary. Instead, without the overwrought melodrama, a simple statement, "Per a previous instruction:..." with a hyper-link to the first discussion--where are found (one can hope) a clear discussion and reasoned explanation for what was wrong and why. Judge-like lectures from the bench are unbecoming a science site. It makes this place look hysterical and intolerant when very simple and undramatic terms are all that are needed.

@ 64 typical of the kind of "in-group's" thin-skinned defensiveness and facile dismissal of criticism that I'm talking about.

@ 60 This _series_ of the O'Neil's five attempts to raise the VM all for a quite specific aim, by the way--soliciting some programmer's help to execute his conception (leaving aside as irrelevant the merits of that conception) -- is neither an ideal example of what strikes me as the worst about the site's moderators' habits nor completely devoid of some of those things. I'm not sure that I'll even have a chance to set out completely what I mean but I can make a start at it here and perhaps continue another time. Though this is a site devoted to science, it's a popular site --or so we're led to believe--where not only scientists but lay people are welcome to read and write opinions and discuss issues of science --and in the extra non-science "areas" discuss things that aren't science at all. I see nothing wrong with any of that so far. Except that there's quite a gap in my opinion and in my experience of this site between the advertized product and what's actually done and allowed here in fact on any typical day. In actual fact, it seems to me, lay opinions aren't really welcome here. Instead there's a subtle but important distinction in operation. This site is really for either working, practicing, scientists or those in training to become that (and those who are doing both at once, of course) and, then, only secondarily, it suffers the participation of those who are not merely interested in science as a cultural asset and a pursuit and intellectual interest but who are also ready to meet the high expectations here for what I'd call obsequious deference to all comment and opinion from the professional scientists here. It would be more honest and it would save a world of trouble if the site were simply much clearer about this rather than constantly doing what looks like a desperate effort to herd cats--the lay members who don't sufficiently get the importance of deference to the ruling science view that prevails here. From scientists to their fellow scientists, there's not the same dismissive style at all. When a credentialed scientist is concerned, I don't see the immediate resort to insult, to sarcasm, to belittling and summary dismissals. I don't think any regular reader here has to strain to grasp the sort of treatment I mean by that. But, of course, those who entirely subscribe to what I see as this site's patently unfriendly attitude toward any but their proven and approved lay membership won't subscibe to this portrayal. They are ready to join in the ridicule and in doing so demonstrate their fidelity to the deferential attitude which wins acceptance here. There is here, in sum, a very entrenched and reinforced attitude and practice of an "in-group" bias which views the non-specialist and the insufficiently deferential lay person as part of a "them" to be treated with suspicion and hostility (unless and until they demonstrate the required deference) and this seeds an atmosphere which is hostile to all or nearly all who the established (by their history of deference to the authorities here) fellow in-group members find lacking in compliance. I posted the Times article so that readers could read from sources they accept and respect the same sort of arguments and reasoning I am making about the implicit bias that is so at home here. Had I simply put those things out on my own account, they'd never have been described as "excellent" by any of the well-received members here. But, from two researchers in psychology at NYU, the same arguments, the same points that apply as criticism, are "receivable" here. Logically, it shouldn't make any difference. But no one wrote in to answer Yudkin and Van Bavel that, if they don't like this site, they needn't bother taking part in it. There's more to say on this topic but I'm not going to have time to develop it all in one session.

@56 "Yes, I am talking about the Voynich manuscript threads." Thanks. "The closure of the fifth iteration is what precipitated the close-minded/free speech post that was shut down. You can review for yourself the amount of moderator dialog that went on"... I did--and found that the topic(s) were all related to the Voynich Manuscript (VM). But it wasn't until just now--that I found and reviewed this ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98724-voynich-manuscript-a-cipher-for-the-ages/?hl=%2Bvoynich+%2Bmanuscript),the earliest (?) of the posts. And I do see there's comment--though, not for lack of at least a little trying, little real dialogue, though there is some of that--both sincere and sarcastic. And some clear recommendations that the topic _can_ be treated elsewhere--spefically (PhiforAll) in the Lounge, which is exactly my view. This is science, I accept that readily. It's a fascinating mystery for many--I find the VM interesting and I don't pretend to know what it is or means (but I don't consider this numerology theory a likely one or very interesting in itself). So, yes, there was some dialog. I think if he'd have taken things to the Lounge and followed the guidelines you posted regarding limiting demands on the reader to follow links, promote other sites, etc. things should have worked out. Why that couldn't or didn't happen, I don't know. But it appears from this that I have an answer to my key question: was there something "wrong" with having chosen to open a discussion about the VM itself? And I am relieved to see that it seems that the answer is, "no, nothing wrong with that." And I assume it could still be done (differently) in the Lounge. That's all good. I regarded the Lounge as an "area" where discussion is (rightfuly) free of the rigors of science and people are allowed to discuss what isn't and doesn't pretend to be science at all--e.g. the VM. I see no need to treat the poster of such a thread in the Lounge like he's some Ph.D. candidate presenting his oral defense of his thesis before a board of examiners. His views might not make sense but they're don't constitute an existential threat to science or even to this site. For pity's sake! But that is the way this site often appears to me when moderators _confront_ members and lecture them about what's allowable and not allowable. ____________________________________ ------------------ Read Postscript: @ 58 : "You posted a quote from one incident (and your argument falls short in that example). Calling this "usual habits" is nonspecific and unscientific. You haven't documented anything and haven't established that what you have charged the mods with is typical. You haven't even given any other examples, even though that would be anecdotal." * ----------------- * True, I haven't gotten into those areas here yet except marginally. E.g. : The time between a post appearing and what I'd call hostile rejection of it without preliminary discussion. From this review, there was some prior discussion in the Sep 22, 2016 post of O'Neil. But that doesn't always happen--as I recall things. _______________________________________________ But, yes, there are other things to discuss about the general way that this site's moderators go about censoring and controlling members' posts because I think it is rather obvious that there is a very palpable bias here which is not stated anywhere as a bias but is immediately apparent in the way moderators interpret and apply the rules. * True, I haven't gotten into those areas here yet except marginally. The time between a post appearing and what I'd call hostile rejection of it without preliminary discussion. From this review, there was some prior discussion in the Sep 22, 2016 post of O'Neil. But that doesn't always happen--as I recall things. That's related to O'Neil's post that prompted my opening this one and related to the New York Times article I posted and cited.

"The poster was kvetching about a thread being locked. After the previous thread on that topic was locked, and being told not to re-introduce the topic. Exactly what dialog needs to be invited, or clarification sought?" First, with regard to this specific case: To be clear, are you referring to five threads concerning the Voynich Manuscript? If so, was there any real dialogue of substance at the first instance? Or would I be correct in guessing that the thread moderation consisted of a single and simple declaration which amounted to *you can't oost this*, with no questions asked on the moderator's part and no attempt to leave the Original Poster with some reasonable grounds by which he could understand why the topic isn't within the scope of "life, anything!" in "The Lounge"? Second, my comments aren't confined to this single episode and, as it happens, apparently neither were the comments in the OP which I'd read. It was a comment about the site's usual habits in dealings by moderators while you seem intent on focusing exclusively on this one case. So, again, I wonder: when did some genuine and useful dialogue ever come into this episode before the OP was first told his topic is not allowed?

@43. : "If I started a thread in the lounge and in the OP posted "Anyone who responds to this thread is stupid" I suspect the mods would lock it because such statements do not prompt discussion." If someone actually did post such a thing, yes, I'd regard it as absurd {and funny} but harmless and quite easily ignored. But I don't think your example is even remotely fair or analogous to this case. As for this thread's having survived to see 39+ posts, I assure you I'm at least as surprised as anyone could be. It's drawn the usual hostile comments with sarcasm and of the type " If you don't like it here, feel free to leave"

@ 39 : "Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment." ___________________ When you described his terms {"closed-minded"} as being an "insult" rather than, say, describing something behaviorial as a flaw, a temporary fault, a correctable lapse-- yes, I inferred from your term 'insult'that you clearly had taken offense. Have you never described a friend or family member as "closed-minded" without intending to give serious offense---rather as a descriptive statement as well as a judgment?

@38 "I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded". I didn't read his words that way at all. When someone complains about what can be variously called "closed-mindedness" {his words} or what others might've called "narrow-mindedness" or being "intolerant" or "too thin-skinned" then his comments obviously take the fact that there are rules being applied as a given feature of the situation and he's concerned with what they say and how they're interpreted and, above all, applied. Again, I'm flabbergasted to discover that his post was deemed an infringement of the rules as they are to be understood as operating in The Lounge and, now, apparently, the topic itself is so taboo that, even In addition to moving the thread, it was locked. As for which came first I neither know nor see how it matters very much per se. @ 39 : "Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment." When you described his terms {"closed-minded"} as being an "insult" rather than, say, describing something behaviorial as a flaw, a temporary fault, a correctable lapse-- yes, I inferred from your term 'insult'that you clearly had taken offense. Have you never described a friend or family member as "closed-minded" without intending to give serious offense---rather as a descriptive statement as well as a judgment?

Would you be surprised if other members told you they see no cause to take offense--either personally or on behalf of others? I felt no offense and don't see any really good ground for it. Could you be simply taking offense and assuming that, since you feel offended, lots or most others must, too? Shouldn't there be some dialogue before you conclude that the offense _you_ take was actually intended? In this case, the OP received only two replies--both of which I'd describe as gratuitously hostile and neither of which either invited dialog or sought clarification. The first hostile comment came only 19 minutes after the OP went up.

All right. Take this post, for example. Since posts are time-stamped, we know just by reading the time-stamp that my post (to which you reply with the cited words, above) was posted as shown here: "proximity1, on 02 Jan 2017 - 1:43 PM, said" Your comments followed at : At most, one hour and twenty-nine minutes had elapsed. And I don't suppose that you read every post of mine within seconds of its appearance--but, sheesh, I couldn't swear in court that you don't. However, there are clearly occasions in which mere minutes separate a member's comment and some rebuke from a moderator.

When a member writes a post in which he offers the view, (quote) "I find the people here are very close minded!", does that need a signpost indicating that it's the author's opinion? When writing in "The Lounge", where the site itself invites its members, (quote) "Discuss life, work, school, anything!," are posts supposed to be flagged by their authors, "my opinions on ..."?

Related reading -- on systemic in-group/out-group bias: ( Note: "→" indicates my own added emphasis) ★★★ LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE → http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/sunday/the-roots-of-implicit-bias.html ★★★ ★★★ _____________________ The New York Times Sunday Review Title : The Roots of Implicit Bias Marion Fayolle (illustration not included here) December 9, 2016 Gray Matter By DANIEL A. YUDKIN and JAY VAN BAVEL "During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton argued that “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Her comment moved to the forefront of public conversation an issue that scientists have been studying for decades: namely, that even well-meaning people frequently harbor hidden prejudices against members of other racial groups. Studies have shown that these subtle biases are widespread and associated with discrimination in legal, economic and organizational settings. // Body of Article Snipped out by Moderator // Acknowledging the truth about ourselves — that we see and think about the world through the lens of group affiliations — is the first step to making things better. Daniel A. Yudkin is a graduate student, and Jay Van Bavel is an associate professor, in the psychology department at New York University. ________________ ________________ This post cc to: Daniel Yudkin : dyudkin@gmail.com and Jay Van Bavel : jay.vanbavel@nyu.edu http://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/index.html ! Moderator Note edited by Moderator - potential misuse of Copyrighted Material

" The Lounge ---Book Talk Discuss life, work, school, ANYTHING*!" * (emphasis added) "We are not obligated to give you a platform to say whatever you want to." -- a SFN moderator "moderating" a posted thread originally in this "Lounge" forum before moving the post, rebuking its author & locking down the thread. My topic : "Hypocrisy" Discuss* * only If allowed, of course. ;^)

Why is it a "battle" (your term) in the first place? Congratulations : a snide insult, a not-so-veiled threat and a shifting to me of some responsibility to second-guess the vagaries of the house-bullying here--a rolled into one. This thread was open to replies. How was I supposed to know it is or was "tainted"? Am I supposed to check first before every post to make sure that the author to whom I'm replying isn't on suspension? Frankly, that didn't occur to me. And, if this thread is/was tainted, why was/is it left open for comments rather than locked down?--as is so frequently done here. If it better belongs in "Philosophy", then, again, why didn't a member of staff move it there? That's done all the time, too, here. RE: "Swansont offered you a much better deal than trying to squeeze some sense out of this tainted thread. If you don't remember, he asked you to START YOUR OWN THREAD, ..." For one thing, I didn't see anything that clearly indicated that the comment to which you refer ( #9 : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100727-a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time/#entry963916 ) was even addressed to me. For another, he can just as easily go there and intervene to inform me on what the thread is really about or what it ought to be about. Nothing I can do about that. If I objected, I'd get a comment like yours here, it seems to me. RE : "instead of piggybacking on/hijacking a thread from someone who has not returned after being suspended, and as such isn't likely to participate, why don't you just start up a new thread? Eliminate the crackpot basis of the discussion" ... This is "piggybacking"? "Hijacking"? : Start my own thread-- right. I really feel welcome to do that. If there's one thing that people here feel, it's "welcome".

Good work! By throwing your "moderator" weight around, you've succeeded _again_ in spoiling a thread I happened to find interesting and yiu did that by asserting that my "nature of time" just couldn't possibly be effectively the same as "the physics of time," --all without the slightest effort on your part to imagine such a possibility and ask me about it. By intervening in this way, unless I'm mistaken, you maintain a perfect record of never once addressing a positive initial comment in an initial reply to me. So, correction: I _was_ looking forward to thus discussion. Thanks to you, with your first comment, that's no longer true. "_physical_" nature of time--since Swansont dictates for us what every thread is and must be "really" about.

Q. Did you read the article linked in the OP? → https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/

Interesting topic and very nicely presented here. I've so wanted to read this by Smolin and still haven't had a chance to do so. I look forward with pleasure to the discussion here. I think we need answers we still lack in order to make some further important breakthroughs in thinking about the nature of time.

"We have a hotel with an inifinite amount of rooms filled with an infinite amount of guests." I think the problem is in the first use of the term "filled"--note that, grammatically, "filled" refers to the hotel itself, rather than the collection rooms-- which seems does not and could not possibly ever apply at this hotel. _A_ room is "filled" but the hotel, being infinite, by that fact, is not "filled." So there must always be "unfilled" rooms with guests ready to occupy them, right? I like the "problem" because it points up something incongruous about the concept of infinity--a sort of nice abstraction, but one which breaks down in practical examples like this one where one tries to "add" to it. There does not seem to be any meaningful sense in which "infinity" can be "added to" as it's not a finite and, by the way, not a "quantity." The number series, being thought infinite, is an abstraction. We "add to it" <i>only</i> by mental operations. No one actually adds another digit on to the infinite series as a fact. Since the hotel is infinite in capacity, it is never <i>at</i> "capacity." There is always a vacant room, no matter how many people check in. How else could it be the "infinite hotel"?

Of course! F6 --> F2. <strike> Checkmate.</strike> No, that doesn't do it, either, does it? I agree. DrP is right. There's a stalemate from the C7→C8 move but I don't see a single move by White to checkmate. Two moves, yes, but not one. However, I'm definitely not a chess genius. I'll watch the better players explain.

You can explain Black's next legal move then. Please do. As I read the board, C7→C8 is checkmate.

Rook to C8. Checkmate.

Maybe you think the whole puzzle is silly? Are you seriously claiming what the plain meaning of these words say? : "No matter how you place your seeds on the surface of that sphere, the 4 seeds will form the vertices of a regular tetrahedron." ? Suppose they're all planted at the North pole? Or two are planted at each pole? or all are planted along the "equatorial" line-- with one meter between each seed?