Increasing the science

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

 

Does it matter?

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

Why not?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

 

Why not?

Indeed, if we are not concerned about non-members then let's enforce a policy where you have to login in order to see content.

[DrmDoc]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:52 PM, 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 think the saturation of political threads is concurrent with the ebb and flow of politics in American and will naturally decrease as our political landscape evolve.  Religion, on the other hand, is a virus for which there's no cure.  We need that religion forum to draw its viruses away from other, more scientifically healthy threads.  No remedy other than the immediate removal and closure of religious threads and either the suspension or expulsion of violators will deter the religious faithful.  I know this isn't much help but, IMO, trying to make scientific discussion more appealing than politics and, particularly, religion is an unsolvable conundrum. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by DrmDoc
grammer

[iNow]

I have nothing more to add to the great points already made by dimreepr and zapatos. Encourage studiot to focus less on my usage of the word "countless" and more on my actual point... It should be self-evident that we convince people ALL THE TIME of the merit of our position (or, at the very least, introduce them to other perspectives) even if we don't see it and even if it's not the person with whom we're directly engaged.

[MigL]

We seem to be a lot more passionate about subjective beliefs and opinions than we are about objective facts. That's the 'attraction' of politics/religion, and why we get so much participation in those forums. ( have you noticed the number of +/- rep points thrown about in politics/religion ? )

I've noticed this in myself as well as other members. If someone tells me I've got my Physics facts wrong about a subject, its no big deal. I thank them and research the matter
But if someone tells me my political/religious opinions don't matter or are 'wrong', quite a few of us take it badly and get upset.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

We seem to be a lot more passionate about subjective beliefs and opinions than we are about objective facts. That's the 'attraction' of politics/religion, and why we get so much participation in those forums. ( have you noticed the number of +/- rep points thrown about in politics/religion ? )

I've noticed this in myself as well as other members. If someone tells me I've got my Physics facts wrong about a subject, its no big deal. I thank them and research the matter
But if someone tells me my political/religious opinions don't matter or are 'wrong', quite a few of us take it badly and get upset.

In those sections there's more freedom for hand waving. The other thing is those subjects are about who we are and our allegiances, so, we take things more personally.