Hypocrisy

[proximity1]

"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?

Edited January 3, 2017 by proximity1

[Strange]

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?

 

 

In his original thread where it became quite clear that he was immune to rational discussion.

 

 

 

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"?

 

You would guess wrong. (That is the trouble with guessing.)

 

There were multiple moderator instructions / warnings in the original thread. Each time a new thread was opened he was told not to do that.

 

I know he thinks his idea is Very Important and so It Must Be Seen. But it seems the moderators don't agree. Perhaps because it is incoherent drivel. And that can be shown to be objectively true (as was attempted in his thread) so I am not just being "closed minded".

[Ten oz]

That's not an apt analogy. Store owners can tell you they don't stock the product you want. You can shop elsewhere for it; they aren't obligated to sell you hiking boots when they're a bakery. And they are within their rights to ask you to leave if you are disruptive.

 

This is a science site (and we aim for civil discourse). That means some discussion is off the table.

What honest discussion is off the table? Via philosophy and psychology nearly anything fits into a science discussion. It is a matter of context. Whether the poster is attempting to have a discussion and draw out information or just preaching. This isn't a bakery rather than a sport goods store. It is a market for knowledge and thought. That is where science comes from. How we got from Socrates to Lawrence Krauss. Nothing should be "off the table" in my opinion.

 

I agree "civil discourse" is the aim and that is where the insults failed. Which is why I disagree with proximity1's complaint. I feel the moderators here do a good job. However I don't think "start your own site" is appropriate. All types of discussion fit it is the manner in which ones posts that is the issue.

[swansont]

What honest discussion is off the table? Via philosophy and psychology nearly anything fits into a science discussion. It is a matter of context. Whether the poster is attempting to have a discussion and draw out information or just preaching. This isn't a bakery rather than a sport goods store. It is a market for knowledge and thought. That is where science comes from. How we got from Socrates to Lawrence Krauss. Nothing should be "off the table" in my opinion.

 

I agree "civil discourse" is the aim and that is where the insults failed. Which is why I disagree with proximity1's complaint. I feel the moderators here do a good job. However I don't think "start your own site" is appropriate. All types of discussion fit it is the manner in which ones posts that is the issue.

 

 

First you say honest discussion and then say no discussion should be off the table. Dishonest discussion shouldn't be off the table? And doesn't a complaint about free speech and close-mindedness as a response to a fifth thread closed on the same topic (which was duly articulated) count as dishonest discussion?

[Ten oz]

 

 

First you say honest discussion and then say no discussion should be off the table. Dishonest discussion shouldn't be off the table?

I also explained the difference is a few different posts.

 

And doesn't a complaint about free speech and close-mindedness as a response to a fifth thread closed on the same topic (which was duly articulated) count as dishonest discussion?

Yes, which is why I said I disagree with the OP and think the mods here do a good job. My comments in no way support the OP. I have already responded to proximity 1 directly in this thread saying that I disagreed with the OP.

 

Our discussion is separate from that. I am objecting to the notion that those who wish to discuss things most of us find objectionable should leave and start their own thread. Obviously insults don't belong here but we all have done it. I have called posters ignorant in posts. The issue really isn't about insults much as it is context. This thread despite being started on a notion I disagree with may still be useful to proximity1 provided (s)he learns something from it.

[swansont]

Our discussion is separate from that. I am objecting to the notion that those who wish to discuss things most of us find objectionable should leave and start their own thread. Obviously insults don't belong here but we all have done it. I have called posters ignorant in posts. The issue really isn't about insults much as it is context. This thread despite being started on a notion I disagree with may still be useful to proximity1 provided (s)he learns something from it.

 

 

If you agree that some discussion has no place here, and seeing as we're talking about this under the rubric of free speech, where is that discussion to take place?

"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?

 

 

Yes, I am talking about the Voynich manuscript threads. 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 and further note that the public discussion for closure was precipitated by participants in that thread, koti and Ophiolite (and maybe others whom I have missed); the latter listed several reasons for why it should be locked.

 

You can also review the modnote posted in the complaint. To wit: this isn't a free speech issue, nor is it about being close-minded. It's about following the rules. There was no question that the rules had been broken (posting on the topic after being told not to). So what, exactly, is there to discuss?

[Phi for All]

Obviously insults don't belong here but we all have done it. I have called posters ignorant in posts.

 

Pointing out a knowledge deficiency is hardly an insult. Ignorant ≠ stupid. By definition, a person can't be simply ignorant, they must be ignorant about something.

 

I think it's different in spirit as well. Most comments that get called "stupid" are just uninformed or misinformed (lot of THAT going around these days). Calling them ignorant is accurate, and more objective.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

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.

[Ophiolite]

 

Pointing out a knowledge deficiency is hardly an insult. Ignorant ≠ stupid. By definition, a person can't be simply ignorant, they must be ignorant about something.

 

I think it's different in spirit as well. Most comments that get called "stupid" are just uninformed or misinformed (lot of THAT going around these days). Calling them ignorant is accurate, and more objective.

However, many people will perceive an accusation of ignorance as an insult. At least some members will use the term to insult, while avoiding moderation by claiming it is simply an objective observation.

[proximity1]

@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.

Edited January 3, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

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.

 

 

But as of now your only example shows the opposite.

[Phi for All]

However, many people will perceive an accusation of ignorance as an insult. At least some members will use the term to insult, while avoiding moderation by claiming it is simply an objective observation.

 

The former are not very good at reading intention then, or have been battered into hypersensitivity elsewhere. The latter don't get away with it very long without some substance to their observations.

 

Honestly, I fight with my own ignorance on a daily basis. One of the reasons I spend time here is the above average occurrence of humans trying to understand things as best they can, using tried and tested methods.

[proximity1]

@ 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.

Edited January 3, 2017 by proximity1

[iNow]

[proximity1]

@ 64

 

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

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Why would lay opinions be relevant to any science discussion that involve facts? I don't want anyone's opinion on conservation of energy, or relativity, or whatever. Opinions don't matter. You need to have evidence.

 

There are areas where opinion matters (priorities for research, for example). But there it needs to be informed opinion. It needs to be backed up by facts.

 

I disagree that the site is for practicing scientists. A lot of our traffic is with people who aren't scientists. Some want to learn some science. Others, however, want to preach, and that's where we run into trouble. Because you can't expect to tell others valid science if you don't know and understand it yourself.

 

The practicing scientists we have are the ones answering the questions and not so much the ones asking them. But we have several interested and informed lay people who weigh in as well.

[Strange]

In actual fact, it seems to me, lay opinions aren't really welcome here.

 

 

This is a science forum. As such, I am not particularly interested in anyone's opinion (in the science sections). And certainly not the uninformed opinions of people who don't actually know much about the relevant science.

 

There seems to be quite a number of people who think that science is just about coming up with an idea that "sounds nice". And then, especially if you are important, other people will believe it.

 

When challenging people who post their "personal theories" I usually try and devote some time to getting them to understand what science is and how it works. This is rarely successful. They are usually convinced that their idea has value because (a) they understand it and (b) it is "logical".

 

 

 

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.

 

I am not a working scientist, not a scientist in trying (nor an ex-scientist). I am just someone interested in science.

 

I feel no need personally, and see no evidence from others, for "obsequious deference".

[swansont]

@ 64

 

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

 

It's also what you'd get from a non-biased person who's witnessing axe-grinding, so that observation is pretty useless. As I think I posted before, you need to actually show the bias.

[Phi for All]

There's a lot of real estate between scientific peer review and Wild West guesswork. We've chosen a nice plot of land between the most popular (and most strict) science discussion forum, and the forums where just about anything goes. Our firm belief has always been that people who want to discuss serious science should be willing to put up with more rigorous requirements, within reason. We prefer our science to be mainstream, and our speculations to be backed up with at least an attempt at evidence.

 

Unfortunately, there are a great many folks out there who's assessment of their own knowledge and abilities is overblown. They're like people who suddenly think they're great skiers, so instead of taking lessons or starting on the bunny slopes, they show up on the black runs, ready to take on people who've been skiing practically since birth.

[Mordred]

To add to Phi's comment. I myself am a member of numerous forums. I can tell you that scienceforums is extremely flexible compared to others.

 

Many of the more strict forums instantly lock any threads that are not mainstream. I've even seen threads locked on other sites for a non mainstream reply that had no fault of the OP.

 

One reason I prefer this site is that it is in fact more flexible than others I regularly visit. Over my stay here, I found this flexibility actually encourages posters to learn the mainstream sciences.

 

Though it often doesn't seem to be the case. I've seen numerous posters here realize that their personal ideas require a better understanding of the sciences they are disputing. Those posters will ask questions on how to improve their ideas or ask where their understanding was in error.

 

Unfortunately we also get members that have no interest in learning. Instead they deny any evidence their ideas are wrong. These are typically the threads that end up being locked.

 

I can easily point to several threads in Speculations that although their ideas are not mainstream. Those threads have not been locked. Those posters are following the rules, they are attempting to properly model their ideas. At the same time they are learning how to do so.

[MigL]

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the OP, having been away for a while, however I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

Is there no scope or room for improvements to Science Forums ?

And does wanting to improve it deserve banishment from this forum ?

( not that I'm implying the OP is trying to improve the forum ( having only skimmed through the previous 3 pages), but improvement by constructive criticism )

 

This forum is not great in and of itself, it is made great by the membership AND moderation.

The fact that this thread has gone on this long seems to prove we're not close-minded, and will entertain constructive criticism.

[iNow]

I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

I disagree. This is different.

 

The comments from the OP here were specific to the staff who moderate the site. The suggestions were that they are close-minded and harsh. When asked to provide specific examples, they couldn't. It was all just trollish.

 

If this were about making the site better, the OP would have made recommendations. "Hey, I've noticed a tendency to do X when Y occurs. It comes across as Z, so maybe you could try A next time instead?"

 

That's not what we're seeing. What is this person advocating, then? Do they want the staff replaced? Do they just want to bitch and moan? (it sure looks like this, btw).

 

No, that's not what happened. He's just trying to stir the pot. The staff defended their actions, did so calmly and objectively, yet the axe grinding continued.

 

In short, I find the OP disingenuous and annoying, hence my comment... "Why... if you hate it here as much as you proclaim... do you keep posting?"

 

I suspect my answer is that it's a scream for attention similar to a troll. The fact that this thread is now 4 pages long seems to support this notion.

[Bignose]

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the OP, having been away for a while, however I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

MigL, as soon as you pay taxes to this forum, then maybe you have a point here.

 

On the other hand, this server and its services are provided for free. It's hosting is paid for by someone else. The least we all can do is follow the rules that someone else asks us to.

 

That is why you see "if you don't like it, start your own site". Because it is the Internet, it is actually incredibly easy to start your own site. Hundred of how-to guides out there.

 

This is also where your analogy breaks down because starting your own Internet site is obviously far, far easier than starting your own country.

 

The real problem is how often people post on here claiming some umbrage to their freedoms of speech when -- unlike a country -- this server never has and almost surely never will be covered by that. This site's owners get to decide what is posted. Period. Just like the New York Times gets to decide what to put in their paper, and Houghton Mifflin gets to decide what books they want to publish. We all have no rights here. None. We are here are guests of the site's owner. The sooner we all realize that, the better.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bignose

[MigL]

I'd have no problem paying a reasonable 'tax' to be a member.

Its certainly been worth it.

 

Just don't go electing D. Trump as a moderator !

[Klaynos]

I would hope that we as a moderator team would be open to changes to rules and we do change our interpretation of them based on what the rest of the membership tell us.