More on the closure of Philosophy and Religion

[Dave]

Hello everybody,

 

It's been rather a hectic couple of days here as we've been discussing the state of the forum and doing various upgrades. This thread is intended to give you some idea as to why we decided to close the Philosophy and Religion forum.

 

Foremost, SFN is a science forum. It should be pretty clear by now that in most cases, science and religion just don't mix at all. Myself, the moderators and the other administrators all felt that the presence of a forum about religion in the middle of scientific discussion just wasn't appropriate. On top of this, the debating on religious matters has started to spill over into some of the scientific areas, and this is starting to detract from the quality of posts that we have here. Personally, I don't think that this is good in any shape or form.

 

One of the major issues for me was the number of reported posts coming from the P&R forum. It was clear from talking to the mods and just skimming the threads that there's some pretty nasty debating going on there, and I think the attitude from that sort of debate was also starting to infect other areas of the site. The thing that I've always liked about SFN is the community - we have a good bunch of people here, and it's been friendly and inviting to newcomers.

 

From my perspective, I could potentially see P&R ruining everything that we've built up, from the community to the quality of posts we have here. Now, that may be an overly dramatic statement, but certainly I (and others) believe it to be true.

 

Now, for those of you who are regular contributors to the P&R forum, fear not! In the next few days, we should hopefully move over all of the posts and users from P&R to a new, clean forum.

 

So, keep an eye out for the announcements and thanks for reading! Feel free to leave your comments in this thread; however, they won't appear immediately as we need to moderate them.

[ecoli]

It's been so long since an admin brought this up I thought this idea was dead. Oh well. I will miss thee P&R forum.

 

I have a question, though. Would there be much use of a strictly philosophy board? That seems to be the less controversal aspect of the board. IF we restrict it to say scientific philosophy perhaps it still has a place here? Just a thought.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have a question, though. Would there be much use of a strictly philosophy board? That seems to be the less controversal aspect of the board. IF we restrict it to say scientific philosophy perhaps it still has a place here? Just a thought.

I think that would be rather nice. Philosophy is much harder to get angry over, and it's less likely to touch off some nerves.

[ecoli]

I still feel that a Philosophy board would be useful for things like discussing paradoxes, etc.

 

Btw.. Ph.D stands for Philosophiæ Doctor in latin.

[Jim]

Now, for those of you who are regular contributors to the P&R forum, fear not! In the next few days, we should hopefully move over all of the posts and users from P&R to a new, clean forum.

 

You are closing P&R but then opening a new, clean forum for P&R?

 

*cheers*, now for the politics board ...

 

Is there a possibility the politics board will be closed?

[Severian]

Is there a possibility the politics board will be closed?

 

I don't think so. There was some discussion about making it only for politics topics related to science though (which I would welcome), but your guess is as good as mine whether or not this will happen.

[Jim]

I have to say that the closure of P&R has materially decreased the value of SFN for me and I am uncertain as to whether I will stay. Bewtween IMM's posts on Veganism and the rough and tumble exchange on Islamic radicalism, Sisyphus invariably disspassionate and informative posts on philosophy, I learned from P&R. For the first time in my life, I do not think that Veganism is per se ridiculous (and even feel a bit guilty when I tuck into a steak). I appreciate the depth of prior thought in Philosophy which, frankly, I have never spent adequate time in study. Yes, there were dust ups on occassion but I live my life in conflict and the chance to learn something is far more important than having to read few a few petty squabbles.

 

I do not deny the right of the leadership to close the P&R. I'm not the one who spends money and time to make SFN happen. I appreciate their efforts and if P&R detracted to the value they received from the endeavor then it is game over for P&R with no hard feelings. Twas fun while it lasted.

 

The fact that there was concern about the Politics board also gives me concern even though, for now, they have decided not to terminate. Had I earlier realized that there was a real possibility of closing P&R or Politics, I probably would not have invested nearly as much interest in SFN. Personally, had I been in a leadership position, I would have let it be known long ago that Politics and P&R were potentally on the chopping block. Maybe that was posted but I sure missed it.

 

It may also be that, even more frankly, I am not the demographic they are looking for at SFN. I do not have a science background which is something I regret in my life. I can rarely, if ever, contribute more than an uninformed question to the core science topics and, therefore, have simply lurked in Politics and P&R. If this is not the kind of poster you are seeking to attract, I think you should be clear when people register.

[Sayonara]

You are closing P&R but then opening a new, clean forum for P&R?

A new forum on a new web site.

 

It will be religion-oriented, with a different set of objectives etc. So the discussions won't be in conflict with their "environment", like they were here.

 

We are hoping to import the threads from the P&R forum, and the user database, so it should be a very smooth transition.

 

 

Is there a possibility the politics board will be closed?

 

Will the religion forum come back to SFN? NO

Will SFN get a new philosophy forum? Very likely

Will the politics forum on SFN be closed? NO

[Jim]

I don't think so. There was some discussion about making it only for politics topics related to science though (which I would welcome), but your guess is as good as mine whether or not this will happen.

 

Bottom line, I do not think I'm a candidate for the SFN you envision. Although your view did not entirely carry the day this time, I have no reason to believe my input will be sought on further changes.

 

No hard feelings. If I had started a board for lawyers and non-lawyers were going off on issues I wasn't particularly keen to discuss, I might shut down those areas accepting that I would lose the nonlawyer posters. I do think this should be made clear from the inception.

 

I don't think I would ever go to a point system for warnings. This gives the mere illusion of objectivity and strikes me as something a elementary school teacher might impose on an unruley class. Don't lose all of the marbles from your jars kids, or you won't get recess! How can you have any pudding if you don't have your meat?

 

I'll wait to see what remains of what I value in SFN after the Philosophy section is revived.

[Jim]

A new forum on a new web site.

 

It will be religion-oriented, with a different set of objectives etc. So the discussions won't be in conflict with their "environment", like they were here.

 

We are hoping to import the threads from the P&R forum, and the user database, so it should be a very smooth transition.

 

 

 

 

Will the religion forum come back to SFN? NO

Will SFN get a new philosophy forum? Very likely

Will the politics forum on SFN be closed? NO

 

 

Did you really think I needed the all caps answers to understand?

[Dave]

Did you really think I needed the all caps answers to understand?

 

Maybe not you, but perhaps others

 

I understand where you're coming from, Jim. I know that ultimately, the decision will probably be unpopular. I can only urge you to stick around for a bit and see what happens. Although there were mumblings amongst staff and experts about changing the politics to be science-only, I'm quite against the idea myself as I believe we need somewhere to discuss the current political topics.

 

Again, I'm sorry to all those who are disappointed

[Sayonara]

Did you really think I needed the all caps answers to understand?

No, I think it will help other members to notice that the questions we keep getting have been answered.

[Dak]

It may also be that, even more frankly, I am not the demographic they are looking for at SFN. I do not have a science background which is something I regret in my life. I can rarely, if ever, contribute more than an uninformed question to the core science topics and, therefore, have simply lurked in Politics and P&R. If this is not the kind of poster you are seeking to attract, I think you should be clear when people register.

 

i've only ever got the impression that scientists and non-scientists alike are welcome here.

 

if you need proof, search for some of my posts in the maths and phisics forums

 

im certainly not a mathematitian nor a phisisist, but i've not encountered a problem on the few times i've posted in those places (tho my requests to abstain from squiggly-maths usually meet with disaproval )

 

--------

 

whilst i really, really dont agree with the descision, i'm aware that the mods came under alot of hassle trying to control the p&r forum, probably knew they'd come under alot of hassle closing it, and the admin are currently updating the board software, reapplying the modifications, probably tweaking it in other ways, making loads of other changes, setting up a new site, and exporting part of the database. for free, in their own time.

 

i do something veiguley analogous enough to know that they're probably not currently in the mood to take anything approaching flak over this, so i'd like to make clear that this is all intended as constructive critisism, and that i do appreciate all the unpayed time and effort that the admin spend keeping the board running, and the mods and admin take keeping the discussions inline (and all the money that blike, and possibly some other mods/admins, spend)

 

having said that: i was going to hold off to see what the 'new arrangements' were before posting this, but this seems as good-a-time as any...

 

i've allways looked at 'science forums and debate' as 'science forums. Also, mature, intellectual and (wherever possible) logical debate', and i've allways been grateful of the discuss-any-issue approach that SFN took. we've had nazis debating on this board before, and at least one debate about wether or not the holocaust actually took place, and, of course, there was the infamous paedophile thread, with actual paedophiles. and, of course, we've had loads of other sensitive discussions, from homosexuality to the justification of recent wars.

 

lesser boards may have shyde away from discussions such as these (and, as most of them aren't 'scientific', we could easily have done so), but we didn't... whilst you may not find this in any dictionary definition of science, we took an approach that i'd consider to be scientific in nature: screw the fact that some people may get offended and just have the discussion in a mature, intelectual manner, whilst trying to limit the potential to offend (but not at the expense of the debate); emotions should be left at the door in an objective, logical debate, and if someone cannot do so and becomes offended, they should just abstain from the debate.

 

there have allways been restrictions on how we can debate here, but never (afaik) on what we can debate... and now, religon seems to be 'off-limits', which is hardly in line with what i considered to be the main attraction of SFN: the ability to maturely and intelectually debate any topic, reguardless of who it may offend (as long as attempts are being made to not be unneccesarily offensive).

 

and now i feel we've lost that.

 

I'm kinda with jim on this one. i've learnt alot about religon, and been made to think alot about my own ethics, from the P&R forum; with it gone, and with the 'no topic off-limits' aspect of SFN now missing, i feel that theres less here for me.

 

i really think the P&R forum should come back. i know it was hard to moderate, but -- again, intended as constructive critisism -- i think half the problem was that the reliance on 'scientific style debate' and 'attempting to limit the offensiveness' were poorly enforsed, and people were granted immunity for their contributions to other areas of the forum. would mokele be allowed to troll the phisics forums because he contributes well to the evolution forums? would swansont be allowed immunity from reprieve if he repeatedly spams the politics forum with inflamatoraly worded, unsupported (and repeatedly rebuked) oppinions just because his contributions are very good in the phisics forum? could pangaloss essentially repeat, ad nausium, that 1+1 = 43 in the maths forums without ever offering any supporting arguments/evidence just because the politics forum benifits from his presence?

 

no. then why were people seemingly allowed relative immunity in the P&R forum due to their good posts in other forums? IMO, i think this is why the conversations went bad so often... people kept deviating from rational discussion, and presenting their oppinion as fact. trolling, flaming, and out-right bigotry was allowed to continue far, far longer than it would in other forums on this board. not saying i posted perfectly in P&R btw.

 

it just seems as if science forums and debate has thrown away a significant section of the 'debate' part rather than continuing trying to fix the problem. there are enough people here that are interested in genuine, objective debates focusing on philosophy/religon/ethics/whatever that the P&R board should be able to work.

 

sorry if that pisses off any of the mods/admin that already have had to put up with lots of flak trying to fix the problem; like i said, i appreciate your voluntary work keeping this board running, and the above is in no way intended as an unnapreciative winge.

 

so... can we not have another bash at fixing the P&R board? maybe leave it closed for a while as a 'cooling off' period, formulate some new rules, and re-open it? maybe even appoint some P&R mods (ecoli gets my vote, as possibly does sysipus) to take the strain off of the other mods?

 

sorry if that was long-winded, but the P&R board was really one of the best parts of this board imo, despite it's flaws.

[gcol]

A tug of the old forelock to you, Jim. I have had the impression for some time that some influential members were more comfortable dishing it out than receiving it. They appear to retreated to a safe haven, the forum has capitulated.

 

Science does not work in a vacuum, nor should its work be conducted in a sociologically sealed environment immune from criticism. Its ethics should be questioned using its own methods, and one thrust of criticism comes from religion. In the broad view, therefore, there ought to be an arena for the debate. I thought it might be here, but science appears to have found the pace of philosophical battle too hot. The scientific method is the loser. A victory, then, for religion and closed minds.

[Sayonara]

Science does not work in a vacuum,

Discussion of science, on the other hand, does.

[Dave]

and now i feel we've lost that.

 

I don't quite know what to say to that, other than "you're probably right". I admit, I really don't like closing the forum. There's a lot of posts there, some very good debates and it wasn't easy for me to just block that many posts off.

 

no. then why were people seemingly allowed relative immunity in the P&R forum due to their good posts in other forums? IMO, i think this is why the conversations went bad so often... people kept deviating from rational discussion, and presenting their oppinion as fact. trolling, flaming, and out-right bigotry was allowed to continue far, far longer than it would in other forums on this board. not saying i posted perfectly in P&R btw.

 

This is a question that I can answer. The reason is simple: a complete lack of willingness to trawl through the same, rehashed arguments time after time on the part of the moderators and administrators. I can't blame the mod team - most of us are from a science background and just simply don't want to deal with the forum. I know I don't. Maybe this is part of the problem. Maybe it's something that needs further discussion.

 

it just seems as if science forums and debate has thrown away a significant section of the 'debate' part rather than continuing trying to fix the problem. there are enough people here that are interested in genuine, objective debates focusing on philosophy/religon/ethics/whatever that the P&R board should be able to work.

 

sorry if that pisses off any of the mods/admin that already have had to put up with lots of flak trying to fix the problem; like i said, i appreciate your voluntary work keeping this board running, and the above is in no way intended as an unnapreciative winge.

 

so... can we not have another bash at fixing the P&R board? maybe leave it closed for a while as a 'cooling off' period, formulate some new rules, and re-open it? maybe even appoint some P&R mods (ecoli gets my vote, as possibly does sysipus) to take the strain off of the other mods?

 

I'm not going to say it's completely out of the question. I'm also not going to lie - I'm fed up with dealing with it.

 

This is probably going to get me in hot water with the rest of the staff, since I've pretty much been the driving influence for closing P&R and I think a lot of people are happy to see the back end of it (from a moderating perspective). However, if there is overwhelming support for a reopening, then it might happen. But (and this is a big but), it's entirely dependent on being able to find a set of new, local moderators willing to spend a lot of time going over that forum with a fine toothpick 24/7, and an extremely stringent set of rules and guidelines. Your best bet (if you're interested) is to send me a PM.

 

No promises, though.

[Sayonara]

Just to add to what Dave said...

 

1) We did consider having the P&R forum in a moderated state, like debates or announcements. However that would mean that the staff have to read every single post that goes in there and make a decision about what to do with it.

 

From experience, I can tell you now that no matter the guidelines or what have you that you lay down, that invariably leads to people checking the post queue, realising that they can't be arsed making value judgements about complex issues, and slinking off to leave it for someone else. Someone who likely does the same thing.

 

 

2) When Dave says "if there is overwhelming support for a reopening, then it might happen", you can be sure that we will not accept "small number of vocal members in indignant backlash" as a substitute. Just so you all know.

 

A lot of effort is being put into providing a new home for P&R, which is something that a small number of you either don't fully appreciate or are totally ignoring.

[gcol]

Discussion of science, on the other hand, does.

At first glance, that was a good soundbite., but it should not be true. The very basis of the scientific method is constantly under attack from creationists and IDers and lines of research stymied by religious lobbies. If science wants to retreat behind its ivory tower fortifications, it must not bleat when the walls begin to crumble. There is no such thing as a true vacuum. If science thinks it can operate or think or discuss within one, it is deluded.

[Sayonara]

At first glance, that was a good soundbite., but it should not be true. The very basis of the scientific method is constantly under attack from creationists and IDers and lines of research stymied by religious lobbies.

Creationists and IDers rarely post in the P&R forum.

 

They usually go straight for the jugular (in their heads, anyway) and post in the evolution forum, creating new threads.

 

I see no reason why this should not continue to be the trend, and we will continue to debate such matters into the dust in precisely the same manner that we always have.

 

Maybe it should not be true, but it largely is.

 

If science wants to retreat behind its ivory tower fortifications, it must not bleat when the walls begin to crumble. There is no such thing as a true vacuum. If science thinks it can operate or think or discuss within one, it is deluded.

Well, now you're replacing scientific discussion with science again. We don't "do" science here, we talk about it, and we are not stopping the discussion of the implications of science on religion or vice versa in the appropriate context.

[Severian]

Bottom line, I do not think I'm a candidate for the SFN you envision. Although your view did not entirely carry the day this time, I have no reason to believe my input will be sought on further changes.

 

Since you quoted me, this looks like it is directed at me. For the record, I am not a mod, so the decision to close P&R had nothing to do with me, although I do support the decision.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have to say that the closure of P&R has materially decreased the value of SFN for me and I am uncertain as to whether I will stay. Bewtween IMM's posts on Veganism and the rough and tumble exchange on Islamic radicalism, Sisyphus invariably disspassionate and informative posts on philosophy, I learned from P&R. For the first time in my life, I do not think that Veganism is per se ridiculous (and even feel a bit guilty when I tuck into a steak).

Rough and tumble is the big problem here. Seven of the last ten post reports we've gotten (before we closed it) have been the Philosophy and Religion forum, and there have been many discussions in there that just go off the deep end. As other staff have said, we wouldn't really mind keeping it if there were enough staff willing to watch the forum carefully. As it is, the forum will be split off... if you have a better solution, do tell.

 

I do not deny the right of the leadership to close the P&R. I'm not the one who spends money and time to make SFN happen. I appreciate their efforts and if P&R detracted to the value they received from the endeavor then it is game over for P&R with no hard feelings. Twas fun while it lasted.

Don't worry, there'll be alternative venues.

The fact that there was concern about the Politics board also gives me concern even though, for now, they have decided not to terminate. Had I earlier realized that there was a real possibility of closing P&R or Politics, I probably would not have invested nearly as much interest in SFN. Personally, had I been in a leadership position, I would have let it be known long ago that Politics and P&R were potentally on the chopping block. Maybe that was posted but I sure missed it.

Politics has little danger of going as it is. It's not as personal and controversial as P&R was, and several staff members are quite willing to moderate it.

 

I don't think I would ever go to a point system for warnings. This gives the mere illusion of objectivity and strikes me as something a elementary school teacher might impose on an unruley class. Don't lose all of the marbles from your jars kids, or you won't get recess! How can you have any pudding if you don't have your meat?

Do you have an alternative suggestion that would also be fair? The points system is the best we could come up with.

[Tetrahedrite]

I have to say that the closure of P&R has materially decreased the value of SFN for me and I am uncertain as to whether I will stay. Bewtween IMM's posts on Veganism and the rough and tumble exchange on Islamic radicalism, Sisyphus invariably disspassionate and informative posts on philosophy, I learned from P&R. For the first time in my life, I do not think that Veganism is per se ridiculous (and even feel a bit guilty when I tuck into a steak). I appreciate the depth of prior thought in Philosophy which, frankly, I have never spent adequate time in study. Yes, there were dust ups on occassion but I live my life in conflict and the chance to learn something is far more important than having to read few a few petty squabbles.

 

I do not deny the right of the leadership to close the P&R. I'm not the one who spends money and time to make SFN happen. I appreciate their efforts and if P&R detracted to the value they received from the endeavor then it is game over for P&R with no hard feelings. Twas fun while it lasted.

 

The fact that there was concern about the Politics board also gives me concern even though, for now, they have decided not to terminate. Had I earlier realized that there was a real possibility of closing P&R or Politics, I probably would not have invested nearly as much interest in SFN. Personally, had I been in a leadership position, I would have let it be known long ago that Politics and P&R were potentally on the chopping block. Maybe that was posted but I sure missed it.

 

It may also be that, even more frankly, I am not the demographic they are looking for at SFN. I do not have a science background which is something I regret in my life. I can rarely, if ever, contribute more than an uninformed question to the core science topics and, therefore, have simply lurked in Politics and P&R. If this is not the kind of poster you are seeking to attract, I think you should be clear when people register.

 

I feel like you do. Let me know where your going.

I whole heartedly agree with both of your sentiments. Even though I have posted regularly in a large number of the other forums (especially chemistry and general science), I think I will not frequent the site as much now that the P & R forum has been removed. I suspect that this will be the case for many people. I also believe that setting up a P & R forum on another site is really of no use, because it a)there are hundreds of other religion forums on the net, and b) it will not have the same authority to keep discussions logical (and dare I say scientific) that the forum in its now redundant state.

 

Just my 2 cents

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I whole heartedly agree with both of your sentiments. Even though I have posted regularly in a large number of the other forums (especially chemistry and general science), I think I will not frequent the site as much now that the P & R forum has been removed. I suspect that this will be the case for many people. I also believe that setting up a P & R forum on another site is really of no use, because it a)there are hundreds of other religion forums on the net, and b) it will not have the same authority to keep discussions logical (and dare I say scientific) that the forum in its now redundant state.

The idea of the new site will to be to retain the nice shiny logicalness. And I beg to differ - our current forum was nowhere near scientific, as it ended in insults more often than not. Just remember that the new site will share users and the old posts from the current P&R forum, and so it'll share quite a bit of the old's qualities.

 

Also remember that we are going to (well, hopefully) open a Philosophy forum here on SFN, since that is more relevant to science.

[Jim]

Having given this quite a bit of thought, I've concluded it is time for me to move on although I'm not sure to where.

 

Let me first thank those who created this board. I can't image the time and energy that went into seeing this endeavor from concept to creation. Although, ultimately, the way this has developed does not suit my particular needs, my hat is off to you all for what you have created and I hope that the board becomes more of what you envision.

 

Most of all, I want to thank the posters. I won't even attempt to name them individually but I feel that my world view has been improved by you all. On occassion, a political or other issue would come up over lunch that we had discussed here and I could only smile at the advantage I had in the discussion. SFN increased my respect for what I don't know. Sometimes a new perspective was something of a culture shock for this Okie boy but I know I gained by the nexus this board provided between a slew of very intelligent people interested in science and the events of our day.

 

I'm so tempted to name names but I'd be here half the morning. I only regret that there wasn't a SFN convention where I could have met you all, even the curmudgeons like myself.

 

In any event, no hard feelings and I wish you all the very best.

 

Jim

[CPL.Luke]

I agree with Jim and others, by removing the openesss that we here at SFN had the community and the site suffers. There are alot of other science websites out there that discuss science to a far higher level of technical detail, but were the only ones who put a human face on the discussion and say that were not just interested in science and "I want to know what you guys think of my idea".

 

Besides the topics in the P&R forum were very interesting and entertaining to read (for the most part) and I believe they kept people coming back to the site. Also removing a very popular part of the forum at a time when the post count has been dramtically diminished in recent months is not at all wise in my oppinion. If there aren't alot of new posts being made regularly, then people will stop coming back to the site.