The Politics Board and the Spirit of Congenial Debate

[Pangloss]

I'm in final exams this week so this is going to be very brief, but I want you guys to start thinking about something over the next few days and hopefully start talking about it before we go and start laying down the new rules.

 

Many places on the Internet feature debate. Some of it is pretty good. Most of it is amateur hour. Some of it is downright lame. NONE of those communities, however, is exactly like "Science Forums and Debate". We're unique. And what makes us unique are you guys -- the members.

 

I believe that the underlying premise of political discussion on SFN should be congenial debate of the issues that face our world today. Many of our members are scientists and engineers and other highly skilled professionals working all over the world, trying to make the world a better place. Our Politics board, I believe, should reflect that.

 

Our discussions here should be congenial. Personal opinions should be challenged, but they should be respected -- at ALL times. This is not democraticunderground.com or michaelmoore.com or billoreilly.com. We have a higher standard for scientific and engineering discussion here -- why not a higher standard for debate as well?

 

Your thoughts are welcome. I'd like to listen to what you guys have to say before we make any changes.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What's all this about changes to the rules here?

[phcatlantis]

We have a higher standard for scientific and engineering discussion here -- why not a higher standard for debate as well?

 

Spin off some social sciences forums for more sophisticated, academic discussion; leave Politics for advocacy and potpourri.

[ecoli]

Spin off some social sciences forums for more sophisticated, academic discussion; leave Politics for advocacy and potpourri.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that.

 

I'm in final exams this week so this is going to be very brief

 

don't remind me

 

"Science Forums and Debate". We're unique. And what makes us unique are you guys -- the members.

 

Yes. Everyone Here Is Unique (in a monotonal voice).

 

Our discussions here should be congenial. Personal opinions should be challenged, but they should be respected -- at ALL times. This is not democraticunderground.com or michaelmoore.com or billoreilly.com. We have a higher standard for scientific and engineering discussion here -- why not a higher standard for debate as well?

 

Well said.

[phcatlantis]

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that.

 

Politics is a pretty general forum for pretty much anything that's politically, socially or economically worth talking about. And unlike SFN's other forums, there are no resident 'experts' to assist posters in discovering resources and employing the analytical tools of the various fields explored here. On top of that, Politics doesn't appear to be any different from similar forums on other boards--its a place for advocacy through logic chopping, aphorism and moral posturing. Not that that's a bad thing--SFN's Politics, pseudoscience, and religious forums are fun outlets for the culture wars. But if someone wanted to discuss applying network models to problems of resistance and rebellion in failed states, it would be lost in any number of repetitive Iraq/Israel/Kansas threads.

 

Now imagine an SFN that attracted people study economics, psychology, operations research and managerial science, etc.?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

While I do agree that we don't get all that much good, intellectual debate in this particular forum--many strawmans and debates that go on for pages without accomplishing anything, though--I don't think SFN could attract those you listed. Not without radically changing the politics forums and pruning circular threads.

[ecoli]

While I do agree that we don't get all that much good, intellectual debate in this particular forum--many strawmans and debates that go on for pages without accomplishing anything, though--I don't think SFN could attract those you listed. Not without radically changing the politics forums and pruning circular threads.

 

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be so much a "social science" type of place... not that there's anything wrong with this type of science.

[phcatlantis]

While I do agree that we don't get all that much good, intellectual debate in this particular forum--many strawmans and debates that go on for pages without accomplishing anything, though--I don't think SFN could attract those you listed. Not without radically changing the politics forums and pruning circular threads.

 

How do you figure? And what is the prevailing political point of view here?

[phcatlantis]

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be so much a "social science" type of place... not that there's anything wrong with this type of science.

 

Why not? Your typical social science sandbox includes calculus, probability, linear algebra, abstract algebra and topology, accounting and finance, modeling and analysis, and all sorts of -matics combining these and other tools. Seems like more than enough for everybody here to play with.

[ecoli]

Why not? Your typical social science sandbox includes calculus, probability, linear algebra, abstract algebra and topology, accounting and finance, modeling and analysis, and all sorts of -matics combining these and other tools. Seems like more than enough for everybody here to play with.

 

The application of these things, certainly. That's a bit more then I, personally, have experiance with. And judging purely by the lack of these threads in place, to date, I assume nobody else wants to/knows how to touch them.

[ku]

Many people have a very juvenile idea about what political debate is. They form an emotional connection to a team or a group then then argue for that group without regard to truth or whether they are being more critical of out-group beliefs versus in-group beliefs. In other words, behavior in political debate resembles behavior among crazy football fans. So perhaps instead of taking the model of the crazy football fan take the model of science and apply it to political debate, if that's possible.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How do you figure? And what is the prevailing political point of view here?

I don't know. I tend to avoid the politics section most of the time. When I do read it, it's all circular arguments.

[phcatlantis]

Many people have a very juvenile idea about what political debate is.

 

How is yours different? How is this disdainful view you have of people with uncompromising political points of view and a willingness to "play to win" any less of an emotional connection to your group's principles? More importantly, what's your track record of political maturation after a debate online? I sincerely doubt many here of any stripe (maybe other than that former Baptist turned atheist) can point to this forum as primary cause for their views transforming over time.

[phcatlantis]

I don't know. I tend to avoid the politics section most of the time. When I do read it, it's all circular arguments.

 

My point is that it might be possible to attract people with social science backgrounds simply by creating an outlet for them. I can definitely bring over some law students (I don't know many OR types that are into this whole internet community thing anyway).

[Mokele]

Well, this is all a moot point, since new forums are created in accordance with need, no want. For instance, we don't have a geology forum either, not because we look down on it in any way, or for lack of geologists, but because there simply aren't enough threads to warrant a separate forum.

 

Now, if you've got lots of great thread ideas, please do post them, and if there's enough sustained interest in the general subject, a forum split could happen, but until then, splitting things wouldn't really serve any useful purpose.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Just to keep this rolling, I wanted to mention that I've read the comments here and I think they're excellent. Please keep them coming. I'm going to let this run a few more days before I post my thoughts and tell you where I'd like to go with the discussion next.

 

I actually misspoke in the first post. I meant to say ANY new rules in the first paragraph, but I actually said THE new rules. Sorry for any confusion about that. Any new rules are discussed amongst leadership first, and that process actually started before my post, but I don't actually have any specific rules to pass along for you at the moment. I could get into the kinds of rules I'm considering recommending but I want to give you guys a couple more days to mull it over and discuss.

 

Thanks.

[Dak]

Many people have a very juvenile idea about what political debate is. They form an emotional connection to a team or a group then then argue for that group without regard to truth or whether they are being more critical of out-group beliefs versus in-group beliefs. In other words, behavior in political debate resembles behavior among crazy football fans. So perhaps instead of taking the model of the crazy football fan take the model of science and apply it to political debate, if that's possible.

 

All i want to say is that ku's pretty-much hit the nail on the head, imo.

[cosine]

<op>

 

While it is hard to unbiasedly say something is a good arguement or a bad arguement, there are some statements that can be agreed upon as general rules or guidelines, the most objectively obvious of which I can see is:

 

Cite sources. This includes providing links to any external sources, links to posts in external threads, and at least post reference numbers to posts in the same thread. The last point is important in order to keep posts connected, and should be used when only a fragment from the middle of a post is quoted. (I would like to ask if it is possible to have QUOTE tags that provide slots for thread title and post number, and to have these filled in when someone pushes the "Quote" button.)

 

Sources serve multiple purposes, such as to provide context, additional information, and provide examples or literal support for a certain point.

 

Also I would like to suggest a credibility rating system, which could be kept as a sticky on the forum. I will start a rough draft to which people can comment, and after it has been hammered out, we can make lay it out in a Second Draft thread and sticky it.

[ecoli]

Also I would like to suggest a credibility rating system' date=' which could be kept as a sticky on the forum. I will start a rough draft to which people can comment, and after it has been hammered out, we can make lay it out in a Second Draft thread and sticky it.[/quote']

 

What do you mean by rating system? Rating the thread or rating the people in the threads... because, if I'm not mistaken, that there is already a "rate thread" option on this SFN, though I don't think too many people use it.

[cosine]

What do you mean by rating system? Rating the thread or rating the people in the threads... because, if I'm not mistaken, that there is already a "rate thread" option on this SFN, though I don't think too many people use it.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant a credibility rating for sources used. Sources here referring to anything used to support an arguement. The thread exists here.