Discussable Topics

[MigL]

I find it interesting that on a science site, we are allowed to discuss alternate/parallel universes which are not in causal contact, and as such unfalsifiable. Or whether reality is a simulation ( the N DG Tyson thread that was recently closed ) which is also unfalsifiable.
Yet if someone mentions the concept of a God, everyone loses their mind.

I'm not religious, but I'm not that insecure or thin-skinned about my science either.

[Sensei]

Personally I think the all threads you mentioned are closed too soon..

 

Members out of timezone of participants of the threads were completely unaware of the threads you mentioned, and could not participate in them in any senseful ways..

Closure of "Neil deGrasse Tyson (...) " thread is premature and senseless..

 

[MigL]

I agree that the topic is often brought up by fanatics.
But the topic itself is no more actual science than the many worlds interpretation of QM, nor that reality is a simulation.
None are provable or disprovable.

What if I said we don't currently have proof of a Deity, but we may in the future, as you stated about multiverses and reality simulation ?

seems to me, if the crazies can be separated out, the concept of a God should be discussable in a science forum.
( not that I'll ever start a thread )

[iNow]

^psychology and sociology both study religion scientifically. Anthropology, too

Edited June 22, 2019 by iNow

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

I agree that the topic is often brought up by fanatics.
But the topic itself is no more actual science than the many worlds interpretation of QM, nor that reality is a simulation.
None are provable or disprovable.

What if I said we don't currently have proof of a Deity, but we may in the future, as you stated about multiverses and reality simulation ?

seems to me, if the crazies can be separated out, the concept of a God should be discussable in a science forum.
( not that I'll ever start a thread )

I did give a link to possible evidences of multi verses and such. OK, you raise some seemingly interesting points. But isn't implementing any ID or deity simply taking a short cut? Isn't it simply on most occasions a "god of the gaps" argument applied to areas of multi verses, the quantum foam etc where science admits to no hard theory level evaluation as yet? as opposed to the soap box preaching of hell and brimstone torment if we don't believe?

Let me say that my Mrs is highly religious, originally from Fiji where religion is a staple part of the culture [and previously they were head hunters!!] Also I have never really started giving any religious person the science club, unless and until they use their religion and/or deity to deride science. Then I get out my club!! The thread re Tyson that has been closed had simply developed into a science derision crusade by our friend.

Edited June 22, 2019 by beecee

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Yet if someone mentions the concept of a God, everyone loses their mind.

 

I've seen a number of good threads where God was part of the discussion. Of course I've also seen people lose their minds. It seems me that people lose their minds when those mentioning God do so with no regard for logic or rationality. 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

I find it interesting that on a science site, we are allowed to discuss alternate/parallel universes which are not in causal contact, and as such unfalsifiable. Or whether reality is a simulation ( the N DG Tyson thread that was recently closed ) which is also unfalsifiable.
Yet if someone mentions the concept of a God, everyone loses their mind.

To the extent that this is true (everyone loses their mind?), the connection between these is tenuous. The unfalsifiability is a commonality, but that does not imply it's the main factor in peoples' behavior.

 

(and may I remind everyone that this is in suggestions, comments and support, so we will not be entertaining details of discussion that should happen in other areas of the board.)

[MigL]

Sure, and I thought it was an interesting comment.
That's why I put it there.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

Personally I think the all threads you mentioned are closed too soon..

We ALWAYS run the risk that some folks may not get to throw in their 2 cents when we close a thread. In the Tyson thread, the OP was over-emphasizing Tyson's stance from a debate where he was asked to pick a side to defend, and when this was pointed out it made no difference to his agenda.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but when I'm moderating, I really could care less about any of you individuals posting to any individual thread. It doesn't even enter into my mind when I see the opening poster unveil a shit-stirring agenda, or post fallacious arguments over and over, or any one of a hundred things people do to get their threads closed. You getting a chance to comment isn't a factor. My job is to enforce the rules. Contact the Admins if you feel I should be replaced.

As far as religion goes, It's against the rules to bring it up in mainstream sections. Should this be changed? Or should we be like other science forums and drop religious discussions altogether?

I don't think discussing religion is analogous with unfalsifiable science subjects. When people start posting 30,000+ versions of the many worlds theory, each insisting they have the only true explanation, I may change my mind. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Sure, and I thought it was an interesting comment.
That's why I put it there.

What makes it interesting, MigL? It seems like an excuse to criticize and accuse others of being thin-skinned, while holding yourself up as scientifically virtuous. And since you also state that you'll never start a religious thread, it also seems like more shit-stirring. It's not even something you're interested in. 

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

Closure of "Neil deGrasse Tyson (...) " thread is premature and senseless..

Senseless?! I'm not paid enough to deal with your condemnations. Just because you didn't get to comment doesn't give you the right to bash my reasoning skills. 

It's great that you can judge us based on partial information. I'm probably too senseless to do that.

[koti]

Oh stop it ya’ll. Its Saturday ffs. 

[MigL]

I realize your job is difficult, Phi, but ( speaking of thin-skin ), you seem a little overly 'sensitive' today.
This was in no way an attack on the moderators, merely an interesting but innocuous observation.

Incidently, I take great pride in 'shit-stirring', but within the rules.
It makes for more passionate and interesting discussion.

[koti]

19 hours ago, Sensei said:

Closure of "Neil deGrasse Tyson (...) " thread is premature and senseless..

 

I quickly browsed through the Neil D T thread and what was sensless in it were Polinski’s posts, certainly not closure of the thread. I mean you can argue in some ways to keep the OP’s line of thinking open in that thread for reasons but it was in no way sensless to close that thread. I suggest you look up what „sensless” means...what is sensless is you using this word in this particular context.

Edited June 22, 2019 by koti

[swansont]

I don’t recall that we’ve closed a thread with an admonition that the topic can’t be discussed, other than discussions specifically called out in the rules. When we do it, the thread starter is forbidden from re-introducing the topic, because they’ve shown they aren’t arguing in good faith. But that doesn’t mean others can’t discuss the topic as long as they remain within the rules.

Often there’s no point, because the only person defending one viewpoint has been banished from the discussion.

But I’m with Phi on this. Whether someone has gotten their chance to make their point isn’t the issue.

[Strange]

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

Members out of timezone of participants of the threads were completely unaware of the threads you mentioned, and could not participate in them in any senseful ways..

If a thread has to be closed for good reasons, it does not make sense to delay the closure for 24 hours to make sure everyone has a chance to stir up more trouble. 

[iNow]

Just had a vision of some of these threads being like dead fish, which left alone too long really start to stink up the place. 

If that dead stinky ass fish is sitting rotting and deteriorating on the middle of the kitchen counter, surely you’re not gonna ask it to be left there until you happen to come in several hours later just so you get to smell it yourself?

Its a rotting fish. Pick it up. Throw it away. Move forward. 

[MigL]

Heyyy…
My cats like rotting fish.
The stinkier the better.

[Curious layman]

But some threads which are frozen have some really good arguments in. Is it not possible to separate the good points and then ban the  pot stirrers from participating?

On 6/22/2019 at 9:25 PM, swansont said:

I don’t recall that we’ve closed a thread with an admonition that the topic can’t be discussed, other than discussions specifically called out in the rules. When we do it, the thread starter is forbidden from re-introducing the topic, because they’ve shown they aren’t arguing in good faith. But that doesn’t mean others can’t discuss the topic as long as they remain within the rules.

Often there’s no point, because the only person defending one viewpoint has been banished from the discussion.

But I’m with Phi on this. Whether someone has gotten their chance to make their point isn’t the issue.

Answers my question.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Curious layman