Mea culpa

[DrCloud]

A comment by Atheist (my apologies for taking it slightly out of context) in another thread:

 

"While I dislike ... the "we enlightened scientists step down from our high throne to point out your mistakes"-attitude..."

 

struck a nerve with me, because I'm probably guilty of doing just that. I'm sorry for this, but I'm not quite sure how to do anything else sometimes.

 

You see, I've run across discussions here that are so full of mis-information and confusion about topics that I'm really quite knowledgable about that I feel some responsibility to set the record straight.

 

Perhaps I'm viewing this from an inappropriate perspective. I have this idea that people come here to discuss things with the intent of increasing their levels of understanding about the topic at hand, to learn. Is this somehow not correct? (And if it's incorrect, what's the point?)

 

So...what's an approach that won't piss people off? HPH

[ecoli]

I don't think it's your fault. Often (especially written) people come off as condescending when setting the record straight. There's no easy way around this.

[silkworm]

A comment by Atheist (my apologies for taking it slightly out of context) in another thread:

 

"While I dislike ... the "we enlightened scientists step down from our high throne to point out your mistakes"-attitude..."

 

struck a nerve with me' date=' because I'm probably guilty of doing just that. I'm sorry for this, but I'm not quite sure how to do anything else sometimes.

 

You see, I've run across discussions here that are so full of mis-information and confusion about topics that I'm really quite knowledgable about that I feel some responsibility to set the record straight.

 

Perhaps I'm viewing this from an inappropriate perspective. I have this idea that people come here to discuss things with the intent of increasing their levels of understanding about the topic at hand, to learn. Is this somehow not correct? (And if it's incorrect, what's the point?)

 

So...what's an approach that won't piss people off? HPH[/quote']

 

I can certainly understand and sympathize. It's hard to see what you love butchered. There's a sensitive group here as well, that don't understand that progress is made through criticism. You jumped on my ass a few times, but it's all good - I knew it is not a personal attack. We reached a conclusion each time because I try to conduct myself honestly and I feel that you do as well. That's how things get done. So, if you want to jump on my ass in the future, I invite you to because I understand your intentions, and I feel I can do the same with you because it seems we both understand that's the best way to operate if those involved can handle it.

 

When dealing with others however, you have to bend over backwards to be diplomatic or risk setting off an emotional response and tune out. With many here, that still doesn't matter because correcting them is offensive enough to them, no matter how correct the correction is.

[bascule]

On the contrary, I think the best thing those with scientific expertise can do around here is correct misinformation, particularly when spread by laymen with no real formal education in a particular topic (such as myself)

 

I try my best not to spread misinformation, but when most of your knowledge comes either through conversation or the Internet, it's difficult to avoid. So I appreciate it whenever of the resident experts points out something I'm confused about and corrects me.

 

Also, this place is sorely in need of a Climatology Expert, especially with all the climate change discussion going on. You might just fit the bill, especially after looking at your vitae

[ecoli]

So, if you want to jump on my ass in the future, I invite you to ..

 

uhh... you may want to think about rephrasing this bit.

[DrCloud]

^^ It occurred to me that we haven't even been fully introduced...

HPH

[Mokele]

I'm right there with you, DrCould, as is everyone who's knowledgable in their subject and has invested much of their lives becoming so.

 

The ugly fact is that people don't like being corrected, especially publically. However, that should not deter us; the purpose of this forum is, among many, to educate, and that means esnuring that information posted is accurate. That information here is scrutinized and corrected by many knowledgable eyes is one of this site's greatest strengths.

 

As far as pissing people off, I'm *definitely* the wrong person to ask on that. On basically every board I've been on, I've been known for my willingness to publically show people they're wrong, usually with as much tact as a nuclear strike. On one hand, I've pissed lots of people off, on the other, if they get pissed at being corrected on matters of fact, I don't care what they think anyway.

 

I'm probably mangling the quote, but Confucius once said that the sign of true virtue is not pleasing everyone, but being hated by the bad and revered by the good.

 

Mokele

[DrCloud]

...And I didn't even go near the messy topic of careful typing, spelling, and grammar. HPH

[bascule]

As far as pissing people off, I'm *definitely* the wrong person to ask on that. On basically every board I've been on, I've been known for my willingness to publically show people they're wrong, usually with as much tact as a nuclear strike. On one hand, I've pissed lots of people off, on the other, if they get pissed at being corrected on matters of fact, I don't care what they think anyway.

 

That's also what makes you one of the coolest mods here

[YT2095]

speaking as a moderator here, I see nothing in any of your posts that I would take exception to.

 

they all look just fine to me

[insane_alien]

If they don't want to admit that they got something a bit fumbled and made a mistake and then try to disprove centuries of science because of that, they shouldn't be trying to argue the point anyway.

[the tree]

Perhaps I'm viewing this from an inappropriate perspective. I have this idea that people come here to discuss things with the intent of increasing their levels of understanding about the topic at hand, to learn. Is this somehow not correct? (And if it's incorrect, what's the point?)

You are, a little bit, incorrect. The point of these forums is just that. But that doesn't mean that everyone who comes here supports this idea, some just come here feel good about themselves because they know there wont be any real life consequences for talking complete rubbish. Those are the people that wont apreciate or even accept correction.

[Phi for All]

Sometimes it's worth taking a thread a bit off-topic to correct mis-information. You can't just leave it there for others to pick up as legitimate at a later date. As long as you are "opening the drapes to let the sun shine in" as opposed to "focussing the third-degree lamp on the suspect" I think your intentions will speak for themselves.

There's a sensitive group here as well, that don't understand that progress is made through criticism. - snip - With many here, that still doesn't matter because correcting them is offensive enough to them, no matter how correct the correction is.

This is a good example of someone who should "open the drapes" more often, imo. Silkworm, I love ya buddy, but you sometimes let your witchhunting get the better of you. You are smart and knowledgeable enough to enlighten your audience without resorting to roughing up the suspect. It's all a matter of perspective. You are working much better in the forums to enlighten the membership but some of the IRC logs I've seen are just shameful. I don't participate there because of this lack of respect.

 

For what it's worth.

[silkworm]

Sometimes it's worth taking a thread a bit off-topic to correct mis-information. You can't just leave it there for others to pick up as legitimate at a later date. As long as you are "opening the drapes to let the sun shine in" as opposed to "focussing the third-degree lamp on the suspect" I think your intentions will speak for themselves. This is a good example of someone who should "open the drapes" more often' date=' imo. Silkworm, I love ya buddy, but you sometimes let your witchhunting get the better of you. You are smart and knowledgeable enough to enlighten your audience without resorting to roughing up the suspect. It's all a matter of perspective. You are working much better in the forums to enlighten the membership but some of the IRC logs I've seen are just shameful. I don't participate there because of this lack of respect.

 

For what it's worth. [/quote']

 

Read very carefully.

 

I'd first like to say, this is a very odd post coming from you. Especially, when you paint with a very vague brush. I'd request that you get the IRC logs from Dave, because others have showed they're willing to edit logs in order to make me look bad. I'd also like you to be more specific, and I'll show you why you need to be.

 

For example PfA, many of the posts I see from you imply either a person bent towards beastiality or pedofilia - shameful. You see? I don't believe you're a child molester or into beastiality, but I can get imaginations running wild.

 

Dr. Cloud's thread, and to which I addressed, are about different things than what you are talking about. Him and I are talking about actual scientific discussions. Many times, one will be attempted on this board only to be hijacked by people who fight for their equivocation - with no basis, no support, nothing. The best way to handle these people is harshly, even though those who equivocate most are generally also sensitive.

 

What you're talking about is the way I'm being treated by a powerful group of subversive creationists who have put a bullseye on me, a rift that started when I explained that calling Pogo's explanation that Judaism does not have a Messiah "racist" is "racist" itself for implying that Judaism is inferior to christianity by its nature. I suppose what you want me to do is become evangelical and kiss their asses at every opporutinity, but my atheist morals are too strong for that.

 

A note also should be made that I haven't been in IRC for about a week, and this site is getting pretty boring to me because I have to deal with scheming creationists so often at home.

[Phi for All]

Dr. Cloud's thread, and to which I addressed, are about different things than what you are talking about.

No, I'm taking exactly what he mentioned:

You see' date=' I've run across discussions here that are so full of mis-information and confusion about topics that I'm really quite knowledgable about that I feel some responsibility to set the record straight.[/quote']And applying it to your comment in this same thread:

There's a sensitive group here as well' date=' that don't understand that progress is made through criticism.[/quote']... and trying to show that there is a difference in how you approach setting the record straight.

I'd first like to say, this is a very odd post coming from you.

It's odd because I ususally like to "open the drapes" but have chosen to use the third degree lamp on you to show how it tends to be received in a very defensive manner. It causes reactions like:

What you're talking about is the way I'm being treated by a powerful group of subversive creationists who have put a bullseye on me' date=' a rift that started when I explained that calling Pogo's explanation that Judaism does not have a Messiah "racist" is "racist" itself for implying that Judaism is inferior to christianity by its nature. I suppose what you want me to do is become evangelical and kiss their asses at every opporutinity, but my atheist morals are too strong for that.[/quote']In the third post of a thread about misinformation you mention a "sensitive group" here at SFN who can't handle your brand of criticism. You seem to want to keep bringing this subject up so I just wanted to, in DrCloud's words, "set the record straight".

 

To all, I guess my point is that you can't stand by when you see misinformation being thrown around. Letting it stand unchallenged gives it a tacit validity. You can choose to bring the correct information out into the light for all to see, or you can attack those who seem to be misinforming others and turn it into an "us vs them" argument. Personally I dislike splitting a community of people seeking knowledge into seemingly opposed groups. Erecting fences of this type increases fundamental attribution errors that are difficult to deconstruct.

 

Perhaps it is part of debate to attack your opponents and perhaps some people have had that tactic drilled into them. Personally I prefer to open the drapes and let people judge for themselves.

[timo]

You all are aware that my comment quoted in the initial post was incomplete and not about sfn, are you? I mean, this place is called "science forums and debate". People come here to talk about science (well, some come to discuss politics ...) and actually expect that people tell them when/where/why they are wrong or correct. So:

I have this idea that people come here to discuss things with the intent of increasing their levels of understanding about the topic at hand, to learn. Is this somehow not correct?

I suspect/hope that´s an appropriate description for most members in here.

[silkworm]

No' date=' I'm taking exactly what he mentioned:And applying it to your comment in this same thread:... and trying to show that there is a difference in how you approach setting the record straight. It's odd because I ususally like to "open the drapes" but have chosen to use the third degree lamp on you to show how it tends to be received in a very defensive manner. It causes reactions like:In the third post of a thread about misinformation you mention a "sensitive group" here at SFN who can't handle your brand of criticism. You seem to want to keep bringing this subject up so I just wanted to, in DrCloud's words, "set the record straight".

 

To all, I guess my point is that you can't stand by when you see misinformation being thrown around. Letting it stand unchallenged gives it a tacit validity. You can choose to bring the correct information out into the light for all to see, or you can attack those who seem to be misinforming others and turn it into an "us vs them" argument. Personally I dislike splitting a community of people seeking knowledge into seemingly opposed groups. Erecting fences of this type increases fundamental attribution errors that are difficult to deconstruct.

 

Perhaps it is part of debate to attack your opponents and perhaps some people have had that tactic drilled into them. Personally I prefer to open the drapes and let people judge for themselves.[/quote']

 

Perhaps I do need to be a bit more clear. By "sensitive group" I mean a much more general part, a majority, of SFN than the undercurrent that I have mentioned to you and I have had to defend myself against and that you have made a part of this thread about. I wasn't talking about that group here, and since we have both graduated High School, let's leave them to themselves.

 

You're probably participating this way in response to outcries by the habitually offended that seem to be obsessed with all of my posts. But I wasn't talking about them here (nor am I interested in talking about them or with them at all - they're worthless and our time on Earth is limited).

 

What I was talking about were the equivocators who come in here and BS and get respect by other equivocators in the face of people who actually know what they're talking about - Aristotles, not Galileos - who are not interested in an honest discussion but instead, as one not in the group of equivocators put it, "intellectual masturbation." It goes along with the saying, "Everyone has a right to an opinion." I don't find that to be true. What is true is "Everyone should earn the right to an opinion before they give it." That's what I was addressing, not the habitually offended (of which 3 (or even 4) does not make a community).

 

If you're out to pick a fight, go ahead and PM me. I don't know where this is coming from, and frankly I'm tired of the drama.

 

A note should be made as well that none of those in the group that target me, the habitually offended, are part of the problem that is addressed here - on the science related boards anyway.

[Phi for All]

Perhaps I do need to be a bit more clear. By "sensitive group" I mean a much more general part, a majority, of SFN than the undercurrent that I have mentioned to you and I have had to defend myself against and that you have made a part of this thread about. I wasn't talking about that group here, and since we have both graduated High School, let's leave them to themselves.

OK.

You're probably participating this way in response to outcries by the habitually offended that seem to be obsessed with all of my posts.

No, I'm not.

But I wasn't talking about them here (nor am I interested in talking about them or with them at all - they're worthless and our time on Earth is limited).

Fair enough.

What I was talking about were the equivocators who come in here and BS and get respect by other equivocators in the face of people who actually know what they're talking about - Aristotles, not Galileos - who are not interested in an honest discussion but instead, as one not in the group of equivocators put it, "intellectual masturbation." It goes along with the saying, "Everyone has a right to an opinion." I don't find that to be true. What is true is "Everyone should earn the right to an opinion before they give it." That's what I was addressing, not the habitually offended (of which 3 (or even 4) does not make a community).

Again, I'm sorry you tend to place members in "groups" from which it will be difficult for them to escape. It makes everyone's job a bit harder. I would hope all here could be simply knowledge seekers instead of in some kind of clique. I could be wrong but you did say we had graduated high school, no?

If you're out to pick a fight, go ahead and PM me. I don't know where this is coming from, and frankly I'm tired of the drama.

Record-straightening, that is where this is coming from. I thought your comments were continuing an imagined feud with the staff. Perhaps I was wrong.

A note should be made as well that none of those in the group that target me, the habitually offended, are part of the problem that is addressed here - on the science related boards anyway.

But perhaps I was not wrong. Either way, the record is... less bent, and I'm content that I've tried to explain how I feel about DrCloud's perspective.

[silkworm]

OK.

No' date=' I'm not. Fair enough.

Again, I'm sorry you tend to place members in "groups" from which it will be difficult for them to escape. It makes everyone's job a bit harder. I would hope all here could be simply knowledge seekers instead of in some kind of clique. I could be wrong but you did say we had graduated high school, no?

Record-straightening, that is where this is coming from. I thought your comments were continuing an imagined feud with the staff. Perhaps I was wrong.

But perhaps I was not wrong. Either way, the record is... less bent, and I'm content that I've tried to explain how I feel about DrCloud's perspective.[/quote']

 

Okay, I suppose. But as I said to a very conflicted friend of mine, I don't treat individuals as groups until they act like a group as individuals.

[Skye]

I think it's time to build a bridge Silkworm.

 

Just make sure it's not irreducibly complex.