Increasing the science

[Klaynos]

I've seen a few posts recently about the fraction of science threads relative to politics and religion threads. 

I would agree with those posts but...

Does anyone have any ideas to how we can shift the balance? 

Over the years we've tried closing those areas and tribe a hard line. It results in those threads filling up the other fora. 

Currently I believe you need a certain number of posts to post in those areas which certainly has reduced the rubbish. 

I really want to know your ideas and thoughts. 

[Lord Antares]

I don't think the balance can be shifted. People post in those sections because they want to, not because something is influencing them to do so. It doesn't just come from new members. Rubbish comes in the form of science as well, with people posting drivel in the speculation section, so new members will make bad posts regardless of the limitations.

Senior members like to discuss politics, ethics etc. as well. I cannot blame them as those sections exist and they are free to do so. I personally never click on those threads and that's fine. I think it's because those topics are easier to talk about. They don't require as much knowledge, brainpower and, most importantly, there are no prerequisites which would stop them from posting, unlike the science sections where people refrain from posting because of their lack of knowledge in the department. I generally either post questions or read threads. I rarely answer other people's question simply because I don't have the knowledge that the well respected members here do.

So, to sum it up, the majority of the forum population is not ''eligible'' to talk science as well as the best members, whereas everyone is equal and eligible to talk about politics, religion, ethics, lounge stuff etc. That's why I think we see a lot of non-science and I doubt you could circumvent that artifically.

[Area54]

I followed quite a few threads before joining and read some older ones that seemed interesting. I noticed one thing that may be discouraging some members or potential members from participation.

There are several threads where posters clearly lack a good foundation in the scientific method. Unfortunately some of the corrections to their thinking by established and knowledegable members may come across as aggressive and even elitist. Now the correction is very necessary and it is often offered in positive manner, but not always. If that positive and encouraging approach could be used consistently in addressing what may rightly be seen a "silly" posts we might see individaul improvement and a growth in active members and quality posts.

[StringJunky]

The problem now is that, with the new software, the default is to show activity as individual posts as they happen which may be a stream of comments in religion or politics etc. This gives skewed view and can be tiresome if one is not interested. It's not a good promotion for SFN necomers seeing such a heavy apparent bias towards religion. As I posted earlier in Studot's thread you can create a new stream minus religion and whatever else you don't like, name it, save it, click on the new stream, then make a link to that in your bookmarks bar.

Edited August 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

56 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

I've seen a few posts recently about the fraction of science threads relative to politics and religion threads. 

I would agree with those posts but...

Does anyone have any ideas to how we can shift the balance? 

Over the years we've tried closing those areas and tribe a hard line. It results in those threads filling up the other fora. 

Currently I believe you need a certain number of posts to post in those areas which certainly has reduced the rubbish. 

I really want to know your ideas and thoughts. 

Would it be possible to create an embedded, bespoke activity button that only has the technical subjects linked to that are the mainstay of the forum or the default activity page? People could still access the religious forums etc in the standard browsing page that's always been there.

Edited August 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[Lord Antares]

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The problem now is that, with the new software, the default is to show activity as individual posts as they happen which may be a stream of comments in religion or politics etc. This gives skewed view and can be tiresome if one is not interested.

I just found out that if you click ''unread content'' in the activity tab, it displays it like on the old forum software. But not many will care enough to figure this out.

EDIT: You don't even have to enter the activity tab. There is ''unread content'' button on the main page''.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Lord Antares

[zapatos]

In some cases the number of posts in politics vs science is not a good indicator of what is happening on this site.

I joined because of the science, but my knowledge of science pales to that of other members, hence I frequently read but infrequently post on science threads.

I do however love debating people, and the only place I can do that here is on the non-science threads.

[beecee]

As per a couple of other replies, my knowledge of science pales into insignificance to the obvious professionals on this site. In answering questions, I will make known my lay person's knowledge, and give those answers I believe in simple layman's terminology. I then welcome any clarification by these experts on my answers, and try and add to my knowledge base for the future in those clarifications. In the main I will avoid religious or political debate, unless in my opinion, I see a "cloaked" question or claim that specifically sets out to denigrate science and the scientific method. Others of course as most will have noticed, are those that ask a question, with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer. Mostly they seem to have a religious agenda, closeted maybe, but in the end quite obvious. Discuss religion sure, that is anyone's right and privilege, but it needs to be remembered that this is first and foremost a science forum.  On more blunt language, I believe many people come to a science forum with an agenda. That annoys me no end. After all, I don't burst into a church on a Sunday, informing the congregation of their mythical beliefs and promoting cosmology!

Others of course believe that they are a reincarnation of Einstein, and purport to have over thrown 21st century cosmology, with their obvious delusions of grandeur. Those will always   counter any objection/s to their generally unsupported and unevidenced ideas, with the claim that they are not sheep and are thinking outside the box, while the rest of us are blindly following mainstream.This is my third science forum I have participated in, the first was one run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission]  which is now defunct, the second a forum where content was more important then science answers, and pseudoscience, religion, and those claiming to have rewritten 21st century cosmology were given "pride of place", and as a consequence, I left.

Sadly, it seems to me that those with the anti mainstream science agendas, and those with delusions of grandeur, are always going to be prominent and the best the moderators can do is to make sure their claims and nonsense are confined to the proper sections. That is OK and certainly leads to interesting back and forth debate, but again, first and foremost, this is a science forum, and those pushing non scientific scenarios and beliefs, must accept that fact.

So far I can say this forum is maintaining a happy medium, and the number of obvious experts in the field of astronomy/cosmology, [my main interests] are a great source of knowledge, and the admins and mods seem pretty consistent in their rulings and the application thereof. You're doing OK!

 

I am an avid reader of science sites and articles I find interesting, I will always add those articles to this site for interest and comment.

Edited August 7, 2017 by beecee

[Mordred]

That is a a valid point, many read the science but hesitate to post there due to lack of knowledge or being worried that they will look foolish. As their comfort zone improves they become more active in the more scientific forums.  There is no reeal way I know of in addressing this, as it breaks down to personal comfort zones.  The best we as senior members can do is be as understanding and polite as possible. While providing a means to improve the understanding of a topic. Such as well written and informative articles etc.

 

x posted with Beecee

Edited August 7, 2017 by Mordred

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

In some cases the number of posts in politics vs science is not a good indicator of what is happening on this site.

I joined because of the science, but my knowledge of science pales to that of other members, hence I frequently read but infrequently post on science threads.

I do however love debating people, and the only place I can do that here is on the non-science threads.

was replying to this response

[bimbo36]

The other sections are a little bit more fun .

[koti]

4 hours ago, Klaynos said:

I've seen a few posts recently about the fraction of science threads relative to politics and religion threads. 

I would agree with those posts but...

Does anyone have any ideas to how we can shift the balance? 

Over the years we've tried closing those areas and tribe a hard line. It results in those threads filling up the other fora. 

Currently I believe you need a certain number of posts to post in those areas which certainly has reduced the rubbish. 

I really want to know your ideas and thoughts. 

I got an idea... 200.000 (two hundred thousand) up vote points minimum to be able to post in the religion section. That goes for everybody including the moderators, admins and resident experts.
 

[Klaynos]

8 hours ago, koti said:

I got an idea... 200.000 (two hundred thousand) up vote points minimum to be able to post in the religion section. That goes for everybody including the moderators, admins and resident experts.
 

Our experience is that if it's not achievable people just post in the other sections. 

I'm not sure if we've talked about (or if it's possible) to relate it to reputation though. That's an interesting idea. 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Klaynos said:

I've seen a few posts recently about the fraction of science threads relative to politics and religion threads. 

I would agree with those posts but...

Does anyone have any ideas to how we can shift the balance? 

Over the years we've tried closing those areas and tribe a hard line. It results in those threads filling up the other fora. 

Currently I believe you need a certain number of posts to post in those areas which certainly has reduced the rubbish. 

I really want to know your ideas and thoughts. 

We used to have a rule in place that you couldn't post in politics until you had 30 posts (and the lounge doesn't count against post count) to weed out people who showed up to rouse the rabble in politics. I think this was before we added the religion section. (and part of that decision was it kept coming up in politics, IIRC)

We dropped it because it didn't seem to be having much of an effect. Most of the participants in those discussions are not new members. We could try it with religion, if the software permits it, but I don't think it will have much of an effect. As others have noted in various ways, the bar to entering a discussion in religion (or politics) is much lower than for science. You don't need technical expertise to offer opinion or to identify logical flaws in arguments

[koti]

Is getting rid of the religion section an option? I myself wouldn't shed a tear.

[Mordred]

As difficult as it is to control the Religous forum, it does provide an outlet for those with religous agendas instead of contaminating the mainstream sections. Sides even if the OP doesn't post there the Mod staff can move the thread there.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As difficult as it is to control the Religous forum, it does provide an outlet for those with religous agendas instead of contaminating the mainstream sections. Sides even if the OP doesn't post there the Mod staff can move the thread there.

It does provide a place for science to rebut religious notions. People should just censor it out of their viewing choices by choosing the options they want to see.

[Lord Antares]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It does provide a place for science to rebut religious notions.

How often does it result in a person acknowledging the rebuttal?

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

How often does it result in a person acknowledging the rebuttal?

I imagine quite often. Maybe not by the person making the original argument, but certainly by many who follow the discussion.

[zapatos]

19 hours ago, Klaynos said:

I've seen a few posts recently about the fraction of science threads relative to politics and religion threads. 

I would agree with those posts but...

Does anyone have any ideas to how we can shift the balance? 

Over the years we've tried closing those areas and tribe a hard line. It results in those threads filling up the other fora. 

Currently I believe you need a certain number of posts to post in those areas which certainly has reduced the rubbish. 

I really want to know your ideas and thoughts. 

What goal are you trying to achieve? Is it to have more science discussion and less non-science discussion? Are you trying to reduce the trolling/soapboxing? Or is it something else?

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What goal are you trying to achieve? Is it to have more science discussion and less non-science discussion? Are you trying to reduce the trolling/soapboxing? Or is it something else?

Personally, I've always thought the format was more important than the topic. The idea is to discuss a subject always with an eye towards critical, reasoned thinking. Don't assert without evidence, and even when it's just your opinion, supportive evidence can strengthen that as well. Use scientific methodology wherever possible, check your sources, communicate your ideas so they're most easily understood. Pass along your knowledge about mainstream explanations supported by the most evidence, and make sure when you speculate that it's not just a wild-ass guess. If it's a subject like religion or politics, more evidence and less assertion about your stance will help keep the discussion from burning up uselessly. 

I'd like to find a way to encourage members to spend more time making posts meaningful. If you find each time you post that the next several responses are asking you what the hell you're talking about, then you aren't being clear. If your posts are just sniping at someone you disagree with a lot, ask yourself if your attitude is possibly affecting their behavior which is responsible for your attitude? And it would be nice if members who get their ideas refuted would at least acknowledge that we're just doing what science does, instead of claiming we're not giving their idea a fair chance, or that we're too hidebound to see how their genius works.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

How often does it result in a person acknowledging the rebuttal?

No idea, they may do it privately and away from the forum. It is not very common in any subject matter for people to openly concede and adopt the opposing argument. They may usually either sulk and insult or not post any more. It is a learned skill to not argue just to win an argument.by any means, especially stuff that is not empirically and evidentially based, like philosophy, ethics, politics and religion.

Edited August 8, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I imagine quite often. Maybe not by the person making the original argument, but certainly by many who follow the discussion.

This, to me, is a key point.

Yes, we sometimes convince the person engaged that they are wrong, but admittedly it can be rare.

What we must recall, however, is that there are countless others watching from the sidelines... People who never post to the discussion, but who follow it. I suggest quite a large number of them are convinced all the time by one side or the other.

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

This, to me, is a key point.

Yes, we sometimes convince the person engaged that they are wrong, but admittedly it can be rare.

What we must recall, however, is that there are countless others watching from the sidelines... People who never post to the discussion, but who follow it. I suggest quite a large number of them are convinced all the time by one side or the other.

Are the countless others watching from the sidelines or are they just passing through?

They can't be members since the membership is finite

Are they actually following a thread or just visiting the once?

If they choose to remain non members do they merit  consideration?

Since you have been here much longer than I, can you offer evidence for these assertions?

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

They can't be members since the membership is finite

Even non-members are a finite number. I don't think iNow meant to imply the number was literally countless.

However, I for one follow dozens of threads that I don't participate in, and I learn from nearly every one.