Hypocrisy

[MigL]

Come to think of it, reading the rules is one of those things I've always meant to get to, but never have.

I'll admit I've hijacked a couple of threads, and subsequently apologized.

But I've always thought having a civil, informed discussion went a long way towards meeting any and all regulations this forum may have.

 

I haven't been wrong, have I ?

( just below Clint, it says 0 warnings )

Edited January 4, 2017 by MigL

[imatfaal]

Come to think of it, reading the rules is one of those things I've always meant to get to, but never have.

I'll admit I've hijacked a couple of threads, and subsequently apologized.

But I've always thought having a civil, informed discussion went a long way towards meeting any and all regulations this forum may have.

 

 

 

It does indeed - and like so many rule systems it is only a codification of what a community would, on the whole, do anyway.

 

 

I haven't been wrong, have I ?

( just below Clint, it says 0 warnings )

 

It's like a red-rag to a bull - so so tempted to give you a warning point (for continued interesting posts and unrepentant good humour) just to add fuel to the flames of the "all moderators are power-crazed loons" argument.

[Strange]

I see little or no serious danger to real science or professional scientists from lay people's "wild-ass guess-work" even in sites such as this one.

 

 

I do.

 

A lot of people with limited knowledge of science search for answers to their questions and may find explanations on forums such as this one. I don't want them mislead into thinking that numerology makes sense, that Einstein was wrong, or creationism is a reasonable idea.

 

As such, a part of the moderators role is to ensure that the answers provide in the main parts of the forum are consistent with current scientific knowledge. Part of the role of the wider membership is to highlight and challenge statements which are unsupported, erroneous or just plain nonsense.

 

People mustn't be allowed to get away with posting pseudoscientific drivel because "its just the Lounge".

[swansont]

Come to think of it, reading the rules is one of those things I've always meant to get to, but never have.

I'll admit I've hijacked a couple of threads, and subsequently apologized.

But I've always thought having a civil, informed discussion went a long way towards meeting any and all regulations this forum may have.

 

I haven't been wrong, have I ?

( just below Clint, it says 0 warnings )

Yes, most of them are directed at that, so they would likely make a lot of sense to you. Your history also represents our general approach - if anyone on staff pointed out your transgressions, you learned from them. You aren't a chronic offender, so there would be no reason for us to issue a warning point.

[proximity1]

@ 103

 

" A lot of people with limited knowledge of science search for answers to their questions and may find explanations on forums such as this one. (*) I don't want them mislead into thinking that numerology makes sense, that Einstein was wrong, or creationism is a reasonable idea."

 

First, I agree that no such type of post--that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter--ought to be allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected.

 

And, according to PhiForAll, this pass/fail permanent review committee does and must apply in all threads-- whatever their topics-- scientific or not. So your objection, which I share, apparently isn't really the point of locking down O'Neil's treatment of the VM. No one was going to draw some pernicious idea about a genuine science issue merely because O'Neil's theory on the VM was poorly conceived.

 

I've already been told that "protecting science" isn't the main or the only motivation here.

 

The point, it's claimed, is to check and counter shoddy reasoning without exception--which in practice can easily turn into simply shutting down any views which the defenders of sound reason here find beyond the pale whether they concern good science or something else.

 

Given that, then all that's left is deliberating a bit over the best way to do that.

 

Again, condescending lecturing which conjures images of a finger-wagging school-marm does not do credit to the image of scientists or their methods and important work. It actually harms, I think--to whatever the extent this site's actual influence may be--that image.

 

That, I think, is what moved O'Neil to say that the place is managed in a closed-minded manner.

 

These often used retorts don't enhance the image of science or even this site and I think you--I.e. mainly the site's management-- would do yourselves a big favor if you dropped all use of them--that is, especially on a moderator's part:

 

"You were warned..."

 

"If you don't like it / our rules etc. ... go somewhere else / start your own site."

 

"Science doesn't care what you happen to like or dislike."

 

"We don't have to provide a space for your crackpot theories."

 

and, in general, when debating, it's very weak to say, in any of dozens of ways, "Why don't you just go away and leave us alone? "

 

That's a very popular tactic when one is simply being argued right up against reason's hard wall.

 

As you yourselves know only too well and as you never tire of reminding those whom you lecture for their shoddy theorizing, you hold virtually all the cards here. You don't even have to be polite or restrained. You can smack down those posts the reasoning of which you don't approve with condescending lectures. Or you could briefly explain the flaws and leave it at that.

 

________________

 

(*) All the more reason to consider the possibility that the tone in moderating posts here may be leaving a rather unflattering impression of science and scientists.

Edited January 5, 2017 by proximity1

[StringJunky]

Science doesn't care what you happen to like or dislike

A small but important alteration that is actually most often said: "Nature doesn't care what you happen to like or dislike" - and that includes the thoughts and whims of scientists as well; they know only too well themselves.

 

 

and, in general, when debating, it's very weak to say, in any of dozens of ways, "Why don't you just go away and leave us alone? "

 

That's a very popular tactic when one is simply being argued right up against reason's hard wall.

I've yet to see someone with a personally conceived idea push the scientists here against "reasons hard wall". When they say that - or words to that effect - they are only human and will eventually get pissed off in the face of blind intransigence .

Edited January 5, 2017 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

 

The former are not very good at reading intention then, or have been battered into hypersensitivity elsewhere.

Bollocks! In the world at large the majority of people when they call someone ignorant intend it as an insult. If there is any failure to read intention, then it is on your part for being (apparently) unaware of this.

 

 

 

The latter don't get away with it very long without some substance to their observations.

Since I have got away with it for years, on this and other forums, we may deduce that forum mod/admin teams believe it is acceptable to insult those people who deserve it. That seems nicely on topic with the thread's title.

[Ten oz]

 

 

I do.

 

A lot of people with limited knowledge of science search for answers to their questions and may find explanations on forums such as this one. I don't want them mislead into thinking that numerology makes sense, that Einstein was wrong, or creationism is a reasonable idea.

 

As such, a part of the moderators role is to ensure that the answers provide in the main parts of the forum are consistent with current scientific knowledge. Part of the role of the wider membership is to highlight and challenge statements which are unsupported, erroneous or just plain nonsense.

 

People mustn't be allowed to get away with posting pseudoscientific drivel because "its just the Lounge".

I agree fully with your post. The challange I see is that pseudoscientific drivel does have a platform whether it is allowed in this thread or not. Here in the United States we just elected a man to lead the country (largest military in the world) who regularly promotes pseudoscientific drivel and wild conspiracies. The Brexit vote has similar leaders. It isn't practical to not allow that which is the majority belief and shapes policy. Terrifying to consider but climate deniers, creationists, bigots, and etc appear to be in the majority; at least far as power and influence are concerned.

 

How can we (not this forum specifically) ignore climate change denial if it is the law of the land? How can we blame a young student for starting a thread in the lounge claiming Barrack Obama isn't a citizen when it is a notion popularised by a President-elect? These are very difficult times. I certianly do not have the answers. I think all media is attempting to figure this out currently. Trying to understand what the truth looks like in 2017 when pseudoscientific drivel goes viral daily.

 

To be clear I am not advocating for any specific rules to be changed here. I agree the mods here do a good job. I just see many challanges ahead, Not merely for this forum but for every type of resource humans have for information.

[Ophiolite]

@ 64

 

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

You are going on a bit.

[Strange]

First, I agree that no such type of post--that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter--ought to be allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected.

 

 

It is regularly suggested by people presenting their pet "theories". When questioned, or their errors pointed out, they say things like, "if you only have negative comments please go away."

 

In fact, I am fairly sure that the crackpot you are defending so vociferously said exactly that.

[StringJunky]

 

 

It is regularly suggested by people presenting their pet "theories". When questioned, or their errors pointed out, they say things like, "if you only have negative comments please go away."

 

In fact, I am fairly sure that the crackpot you are defending so vociferously said exactly that.

It seems absurd to present a hypothesis and not expect critical comments.

 

I hope, one day, that I can come up with an idea that I think is feasible and try to defend it; without spitting my dummy out

Edited January 16, 2017 by StringJunky

[proximity1]

@ 110 : "!t is regularly suggested by people presenting their pet "theories". When questioned, or their errors pointed out, they say things like, "if you only have negative comments please go away." In fact, I am fairly sure that the crackpot you are defending* so vociferously said exactly that."

 

 

No doubt. But in the specific case* you cited, you're ignoring three key qualifiers in my obeservation:

 

"... I agree that no such type of post-- (1)that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter-- ought to be (2) allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected (3) as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected.

 

As for other cases, I have never seen an example of one here--that is, never in the case of an undisputed science-topic have I ever seen it urged that,

 

a statement asserted as true about science, either as a reply to a reader's query or as a posting of some amateur's theory, should be granted immunity from critique or correction from other readers here, laymen or experts.

 

_______________________

 

@ 111 : RE:

 

 

"It seems absurd to present a hypothesis and not expect critical comments."

 

See my comment just above.

 

 

RE:

..."I hope, one day, that I can come up with an idea that I think is feasible and try to defend it; without spitting my dummy out."

 

For American readers unfamiliar with British English:

 

(Wikipedia) : "Pacifier, called a "dummy" or soother in some countries."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy

____________

 

* Tom O'Neil's postings RE the Voynich Manuscript

Some further related reading on bias in science practice or among scientists :

 

New York Times (Sunday) magazine:

Neanderthals Were People, Too

New research shows they shared many
behaviors that we long believed to be uniquely
human. Why did science get them so wrong?

 

JAN. 11, 2017

By JON MOOALLEM

 

... "It’s easy to get snooty about all this unenlightened paleoanthropology of the past. But all sciences operate by trying to fit new data into existing theories. And this particular science, for which the “data” has always consisted of scant and somewhat inscrutable bits of rock and fossil, often has to lean on those meta-narratives even more heavily. “Assumptions, theories, expectations,” the University of Barcelona archaeologist João Zilhão says, “all must come into play a lot, because you are interpreting data that do not speak for themselves.” ...

... Then, in the middle of that war, geneticists shook up the paradigm completely.

A group at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, led by Svante Paabo, had been assembling a draft sequence of a Neanderthal genome, using DNA recovered from bones. Their findings were published in 2010. It had already become clear by then that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals appeared in Eurasia separately — “Out of Africa was essentially right” — but Paabo’s work revealed that before the Neanderthals disappeared, the two groups mated. Even today, 40,000 years after our gene pools stopped mixing, most living humans still carry Neanderthal DNA, making up roughly 1 to 2 percent of our total genomes. The data shows that we also apparently bred with other hominids, like the Denisovans, about which very little is known."

Edited January 16, 2017 by proximity1

[Strange]

@ 110 : "!t is regularly suggested by people presenting their pet "theories". When questioned, or their errors pointed out, they say things like, "if you only have negative comments please go away." In fact, I am fairly sure that the crackpot you are defending* so vociferously said exactly that."

 

 

No doubt. But in the specific case* you cited, you're ignoring three key qualifiers in my obeservation:

 

"... I agree that no such type of post-- (1)that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter-- ought to be (2) allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected (3) as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected.

 

As for other cases, I have never seen an example of one here--that is, never in the case of an undisputed science-topic have I ever seen it urged that,

 

a statement asserted as true about science, either as a reply to a reader's query or as a posting of some amateur's theory, should be granted immunity from critique or correction from other readers here, laymen or experts.

 

 

I can't really follow what you are saying here. I can't really see a distinction. If someone comes with their "pet theory" or if they give what they think is a correct scientific answer to a question (which seems to be the distinction you are drawing) then in neither case should the erroneous statement go unchallenged. And, if the person repeatedly posts the same thing, then it is quite reasonable to close their threads, hide their posts, suspend them, or ban them as the moderators deem appropriate.

 

You opened this thread to defend the right of a deluded crackpot to keep posting the same unscientific nonsense with no action to prevent it. Now you are (hypocritically?) trying to move the goalposts.

 

 

 

Some further related reading on bias in science practice or among scientists :

 

Which is totally irrelevant to the topic. Start a new thread on why some individuals hang on to old ideas, or why the conservatism of science and scientists is one of its great strengths, if you want to.

[swansont]

 

Some further related reading on bias in science practice or among scientists :

 

 

Nobody is arguing that bias doesn't exist in science. But to be germane here, you have to show where the bias is in this example. I pointed this out two weeks ago; you're just repeating the same empty argument. If you have nothing new to present, why should the thread remain open?

[proximity1]

@113

"I can't really follow what you are saying here."

 

I think you understand just fine. That's why you distorted my position--twice now--ignoring the qualifying phrases, even after I mentioned them.

 

 

"You opened this thread to defend the right of a deluded crackpot to keep posting the same unscientific nonsense with no action to prevent it. Now you are (hypocritically?) trying to move the goalposts."

 

No. Now I'm addressing answers to your specific posts @ 11O & 113 where you misstate and distort the plain and obvious meaning of my comments.

 

__________

 

 

@ 114

 

"I pointed this out two weeks ago; you're just repeating the same empty argument. If you have nothing new to present, why should the thread remain open?"

 

 

Let's see if I understand what's implied in your comments:

 

I'm to justify to _you_, both moderator & discussion participant and no clear indication of when you're speaking as one but not the other, an allegation of persistent bias in moderators' routine practices here and you, as a prime example--as here in this very case where you're a personally-interested actor in the controversy--shall render a first opinion on whether this thread merits remaining open?

 

 

I'm sorry--would you confirm for me:

 

is 114 a thinly veiled threat or just the question of a peer participant?

 

Because if it's the former, and you're asking me for examples of your own biased practice, then I may offer it as evidence of, at the very least, a person who is not mindful of a glaring conflict of interest-- itself a leading indicator of latent bias.

Edited January 16, 2017 by proximity1

[Strange]

No. Now I'm addressing answers to your specific posts @ 11O & 113 where you misstate and distort the plain and obvious meaning of my comments.

 

 

Does that mean that you admit your original charge of hypocrisy for enforcing the rules was misguided and wrong?

 

would you care to apologise to the moderators now?

 

 

 

Because if it's the former, and you're asking me for examples of your own biased practice, then I may offer it as evidence of, at the very least, a person who is not mindful of a glaring conflict of interest-- itself a leading indicator of latent bias.

 

So if the thread is closed because you are not able to provide any evidence of bias, you will conclude that that is evidence of bias.

 

That is almost as extraordinary/ludicrous as the conspiracy theory argument that "the fact there is no evidence just shows how powerful and far reaching the conspiracy is".

[proximity1]

@ 116

 

 

 

"Does that mean that you admit your original charge of hypocrisy for enforcing the rules was misguided and wrong?"

 

No, it doesn't mean that.

 

Note. ----> ETA : Actually, though this thread is entitled "Hypocrisy" the actual allegation is more correctly stated as "bias." So, again, in typical fashion, you substitute one word for another of mine to try a make a damming case that's not quite accurate.

 

 

Can you explain your point?

 

 

"would you care to apologise to the moderators now?"

 

For what do I owe an apology specifically?

Edited January 16, 2017 by proximity1

[Strange]

So, again, in typical fashion, you substitute one word for another of mine to try a make a damming case that's not quite accurate.

 

 

It was your word. I am not a mind reader.

 

 

 

For what do I owe an apology specifically?

 

Accusing them of hypocrisy when you really meant bias.

 

Unsubstantiated claims of bias.

 

You could apologise to the whole membership for just being an annoying tick, while you are at it.

[proximity1]

I'm leaving it at this for the day :

 

 

Re: "It was your word. I am not a mind reader.

 

False. It wasn't "my" word in the context in which _you_ used it in that instance. Thus, you took a word I used out of its original context and used it disingenuously in a different context. That's an intellectually dishonest tactic. And since you say you're not a mind reader, you ought to refrain from taking my words out of context.

 

 

 

 

RE my: For what do I owe an apology specifically?

 

& your: "Accusing them of hypocrisy when you really meant bias."

 

See above. That's your opinion, not mine.

 

 

 

Re : "Unsubstantiated claims of bias."

 

 

Again, your opinion. I don't regard your opinion on that as having any definitive probative value as you're not a disinterested party to this discussion.

 

 

 

"You could apologise to the whole membership for just being an annoying tick, while you are at it. :)"

 

Implies that what you're finding as _my_ "being an annoying tick" in this case is a widely-held view. And you've taxed _me_ with unsubstantiated allegations! Again, do you speak from the position of one of the approved in-group here and have, by that place, a privileged status?

 

I think an impartial arbiter is missing here.

Edited January 16, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

@ 114

 

"I pointed this out two weeks ago; you're just repeating the same empty argument. If you have nothing new to present, why should the thread remain open?"

 

 

Let's see if I understand what's implied in your comments:

 

I'm to justify to _you_, both moderator & discussion participant and no clear indication of when you're speaking as one but not the other, an allegation of persistent bias in moderators' routine practices here and you, as a prime example--as here in this very case where you're a personally-interested actor in the controversy--shall render a first opinion on whether this thread merits remaining open?

As this is a discussion of the board's policies and actions of the mods, I don't see how I could participate and not also be a moderator, since only a moderator could explain the things being explained.

 

As far as moderator actions go, I will not be engaging in such in this thread. I would not be the one closing the thread, were it to close. I am simply asking you to make your case. That way I can point to the answer if I report the thread.

 

I'm sorry--would you confirm for me:

 

is 114 a thinly veiled threat or just the question of a peer participant?

 

Because if it's the former, and you're asking me for examples of your own biased practice, then I may offer it as evidence of, at the very least, a person who is not mindful of a glaring conflict of interest-- itself a leading indicator of latent bias.

 

False dichotomy. Neither one of those is true. I can't help it if you interpret a framing of the rules as a threat, and I am not your peer in this thread.

 

Re : "Unsubstantiated claims of bias."

 

 

Again, your opinion. I don't regard your opinion on that as having any definitive probative value as you're not a disinterested party to this discussion.

 

Well, the solution to this is simple. Show where you have substantiated your claims of bias. (remember that you hadn't even read the thread in question — by your own admission — when you made the original claim)

[Ophiolite]

@113

"I can't really follow what you are saying here."

 

I think you understand just fine.

Well, I sure as hell don't follow you and as far as I recall I'm one of very small handful that have partially supported your position. Please, from the beginning, restate your basic position.

 

Edit: And to enhance reading ease, it would be useful if you used the quote function. Is there a reason you are not?

Edited January 17, 2017 by Ophiolite

[proximity1]

@ 121

 

 

 

 

Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases.

 

In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed.

 

This does not mean that in the rules and their application there's a complete and total lack of any clear idea of what is not allowed. It means, rather, that there exists a double-standard of interpretation and application by which those who are seen as friendly and supportive get easier, less strict and more forgiving treatment in the supervision of the content of their comments, the rigor of their arguments and reasoning which others, not viewed as friendly and supportive are denied. It is very hard for me to escape the impression that if they're treated differently it is because they are not regarded as among the “in-group.”

 

Nor am I claiming that it's impossible to find any exceptions at all in a site the homepage of which cites, at this writing :

• 926,277 Total Posts
• 83,845 Total Members

. There are bound to be a relative few cases which serve as tokens to which the staff can point and claim that these (rather rare) examples prove that there isn't any such systematic bias or double-standard at work here. The point is that, even if taken all together, these cases fall very far short of demonstrating the typical practice. They demonstrate the atypical because they are not the same as what is usually done the great majority of the time.

 

I don't mean to suggest that the above completely exhaust all the aspects of my views on the topic but it presents the essentials as I see them.

Edited January 17, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases.

Without actually presenting evidence of that bias.

 

In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Denying the existence of bias is what can happen when there is bias, but also happens when there is no bias. So the denial of bias is not indicative of anything. That's why you have been repeatedly asked for evidence.

 

A reasonable conclusion is that you don't have any.

[StringJunky]

There

 

@ 121

 

 

 

 

Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases.

 

In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed.

 

This does not mean that in the rules and their application there's a complete and total lack of any clear idea of what is not allowed. It means, rather, that there exists a double-standard of interpretation and application by which those who are seen as friendly and supportive get easier, less strict and more forgiving treatment in the supervision of the content of their comments, the rigor of their arguments and reasoning which others, not viewed as friendly and supportive are denied. It is very hard for me to escape the impression that if they're treated differently it is because they are not regarded as among the “in-group.”

 

Nor am I claiming that it's impossible to find any exceptions at all in a site the homepage of which cites, at this writing :

• 926,277 Total Posts
• 83,845 Total Members

. There are bound to be a relative few cases which serve as tokens to which the staff can point and claim that these (rather rare) examples prove that there isn't any such systematic bias or double-standard at work here. The point is that, even if taken all together, these cases fall very far short of demonstrating the typical practice. They demonstrate the atypical because they are not the same as what is usually done the great majority of the time.

 

I don't mean to suggest that the above completely exhaust all the aspects of my views on the topic but it presents the essentials as I see them.

There is nothing to beat empirical experience. The long term members here are the most factually honest people I've come across in any forum and will, instantly, or soon after, willingly capitulate on their position if they are shown to be wrong. When people appear to gang up it's because they agree, not because they being nepotistic. If you were here long enough you would see feisty arguments between everybody at sometime or other, regardless of how much they may like the person..... even between mods. Evidence is king and if someone believes the other is wrong then they will say so. There have been more than a few occasions when normally amiable members have had to 'have a shower'. The ones between people where a particular subject may be their day job are quite fun to watch. Peer review is alive and well. here.

Edited January 17, 2017 by StringJunky

[proximity1]

@ 123

 

Let's be clear: I am reporting on my personal anecdotally-based experience here in this site--though that experience goes beyond my own posts and includes what I consider biased treatment of others with whom I have nothing more in common than posting comments here.

 

In thread after thread of a non-science sort, secure in-group members hold forth ad libitem with nothing more beneath their high-wire act than anecdotal experience. And they're typically not called down for failing to present a raft of peer-reviewed data to back up their anecdotes. How about that!?

 

 

True--I have certainly not done what it seems you'd like to require me to produce on demand: an annotated case file of examples which conclusively show to _your_ satisfaction that the bias I see as rife here exists. Tell me straight out if that is the sort of burden you're seeking to place me under. Otherwise, specifically, exactly how many examples do you require I submit?

 

And, please: lay it all out in advance; I am not going to enjoy completing a deliberately tedious and onerous homework assignment only to learn that I must then follow up with a subsequent set of demands.

 

If this were my professional work, I'd subpoena your entire record of moderating interventions and assign a staff of legal assistants to comb through it and compile from one hundred to five hundred of the most glaring examples of your biased judgements. Then, I'd call you to take the stand and testify under oath about that body of evidence.

 

If you were the sort of reasonable person I would so prefer you to show yourself to be, instead of acting like I'm just under nothing short of a prosecutor's burden to build and present a case beyond a reasonable doubt, you'd instead receive my comments alone as sufficient cause for you to undertake some simple and voluntary introspection about your fairness as a moderator.

 

Instead, a fascinating defensiveness is what characterizes your responses. Are you so completely alien to the concept that you might actually be biased in your practice here that the suggestion of it fills you with only resentment and not the slightest idea that there could be something to it and that, to see it, you needn't have a full legal brief prepared?

 

Again: is your post @ 123 in your capacity as a moderator or something else? It's that kind of ambiguity I mean by a convenient double standard.

 

 

ETA : IN this thread alone, for example, I had to restore the hyperlink to the New York Times article when a moderator deleted the link to the full article I'd included. That's an example of a candidate for a "Freudian slip"--even if inadvertently done.

 

Then, in exchanges with Strange, I alone objected when he took my words out of context. Why didn't a moderator see fit to make that objection?

 

@ 124

 

••• The long term members here are the most factually honest people I've come across in any forum ••• •••

 

 

 

I can't join you in that judgement.

 

 

 

As for this :

 

••• "you would see feisty arguments between everybody at sometime or other, regardless of how much they may like the person..... even between mods. Evidence is king and if someone believes the other is wrong then they will say so. There have been more than a few occasions when normally amiable members have had to 'have a shower'. The ones between people where a particular subject may be their day job are quite fun to watch. Peer review is alive and well. here."

 

 

It's rather my point: you and they simply constitute this "in-group" I refer to. There is certainly nothing about such a group which precludes their disagreement among each other. Indeed, as they can nearly always be counted on for loyalty _to each _other_ vis à vis an out-group forum member, this intramural disputation they can show is the more comfortable for the fact that they know they're safely among their mutually protecting peers.

Edited January 17, 2017 by proximity1