Request

[cnredd]

Hi folks!

 

I've been perusing your forum and see that I'm out of my league. I watch documentaries (which I'm sure you guys could dissect in 2 seconds) and like to think of myself as scientifically informed, but I feel a little small reading some things here...You guys are DEEP...

 

So I was wondering if some person(s) here could put stuff in layman's terms over at my political forum...Obviously, we're political with a dab of science, and you guys are science with a dab of politics...

 

I was thinking you could throw some interesting ideas on our forum (We have a science thread) and include your forum here in your signature, and that should get some of my members back over here to discuss issues more in-depth...

 

I fully understand if the admins here think this is spam, but I'm being sincere. I'd like people here to converse in the political game while people at my site get involved in the scientific world. Hopefully a win/win.

[CaptainPanic]

If you're gonna attract people from this forum to the politics forum, then the climate change forum probably is the topic where science and politics meet the most.

 

But then again, I doubt that people here are interested in a discussion about the difference between climate and local weather.

 

From the "Political Wrinkles forum > General Discussion > Global Warming & Climate" (on the other forum).

 

Stupid Al Gore

In an average year the first freeze for my part of Florida comes during the last week in November. The forecast for tonight calls for a near freeze and I had frost in my yard one morning about 2 weeks ago when we missed setting the record for the all time earliest freeze by about 2 degrees.

 

I guess global warming is another promise the Democrats can’t keep.

 

Nothing wrong with a post like that, if it comes from an 8 year old with a like for politics. But I do get worried when the 2nd post doesn't correct it. And when it actually goes off topic, and none of the posts after that get back on any topic at all, then I've seen enough.

 

I think I'd rather stay here for my political talks. No offense, and I appreciate the intentions to get politics and science mixed, but I'll make the effort to explain basic science in real life, and I post on my favorite forum for fun.

 

And indeed, we also have a politics forum with good discussions here .

[swansont]

Nothing wrong with a post like that, if it comes from an 8 year old with a like for politics. But I do get worried when the 2nd post doesn't correct it. And when it actually goes off topic, and none of the posts after that get back on any topic at all, then I've seen enough.

 

I think I'd rather stay here for my political talks. No offense, and I appreciate the intentions to get politics and science mixed, but I'll make the effort to explain basic science in real life, and I post on my favorite forum for fun.

 

And indeed, we also have a politics forum with good discussions here .

 

I concur.

 

I looked at that thread, and after the misunderstanding of the terminology, the thing that jumps out at me is that people seem quite happy to make scientific claims without backing them up. No rigor. No understanding of the standards of evidence. It's not surprising to me, because political discussion is often about appealing to emotion and using the legal system of evidentiary support, i.e. only bring up what supports my case, rather than the scientific approach of being thorough and attempting to eliminate all other possible effects.

 

Sometimes it's not just about explaining science in layman's terms. I think the issue is a deeper one of appreciating standards of evidence and not tolerating fallacious tactics. The discussion gets off to a bad start — having a title of "Stupid Al Gore" is an example of poisoning the well and ad hominem. It makes one wonder if a serious discussion of science is what is being sought.

[cnredd]

We can cherrypick all we'd like and come to the same conclusion on any forum...

 

I can even do this right here...

 

As soon as the LGBT people get beyond their persecution complex they will get everything they deserve. It does them no good to blame the bad old bigots and other stupid people for their social vicissitudes. Every group I know of has social vicissitudes. Women get abused and murdered just for being women. Same's true for children and dogs. The most abused and murdered people in America are black heterosexual men. It helps to remember this when complaining too much about one's own vicissiudes.

Tons of science right there!...Woo-hoo!...So much science I can barely control myself...

 

Maybe this is the same "8 year old" on my forum, eh?...

 

It seems my outreached hand has been met with aloofness and complexions of superiority...

 

Don't let me stand in your way...

 

BTW - You could've easily gone to this thread too and see how us little non-experts make serious attempts into your world...

Edited February 10, 2009 by cnredd

[ParanoiA]

You extended your hand while keeping your ears plugged. What swansont just shared with you and how you responded is EXACTLY what he predicted.

 

It's difficult for scientists to exercise patience in a highly emotive forum, since science is clinical and emotion undermines the mission.

 

I see your forum and I see a LOT of work to be done right out of the gate, before we even start on specific topics. Most people don't understand the nature of science - they think they do, but they don't. I'm one such person.

 

When I first came to this forum I didn't realize how much of a "process" science is. I never separated science from a scientist and the media. My ideas on what a theory was, facts, evidence - all of those are charged terms that carry huge consequences in how you interpret the study.

 

This is why Rush can successfully demonize global warming because he'll criticize science for what the media is reporting. He'll criticize science for what some scientist's personal views might be. He'll criticize science based on elementary school logic like snowfall in October in Oklahoma.

 

So when a scientist, like Swansont, visits your forum, I'm sure he just sees a mountain of a wall to overcome just to clear up those fundamental issues - before we even start with particular subjects, like global warming. It's daunting, and likely not going to be appreciated. This comes from experience, not speculation.

[Mokele]

If you want to get your forums to be more rational and scientific, for each idea, ask two questions:

 

1) What would it take to prove this idea wrong?

 

2) What is a circumstance/test that would yield noticeably different outcomes based on whether this idea is right or wrong?

 

 

The first one is the ultimate foundation of any rational idea. If you cannot define a circumstance which disproves an idea, you cannot test it, and it's reality is unknowable, making it worthless.

 

Just ask your posters what would the test of their idea, and the criteria for declaring it false. Then see if the real world has already provided such a test. If they cannot come up with a test and with criteria for falsification, they're either irrational or stupid, and not worth listening to either way.

[CaptainPanic]

We can cherrypick all we'd like and come to the same conclusion on any forum...

 

I agree that I should have attempted to describe the problem in general with the forum, rather than seemingly cherrypick one nice example.

 

So allow me to correct this.

 

From visiting the forum as a guest, and reading multiple threads, I came to conclude that the average person visiting the political forum has no intention to have a discussion based on arguments. I have found that the majority of posts contain jokes or (not surprisingly) politically colored expressions of ideas. Most posts I just described are not backed up by links, references or explanations.

 

Although it is true that there exist posts which would qualify imho as "a good start", those are followed immediately by a non-serious post containing a joke, funny movie or topic that is only related with a lot of imagination.

 

And regarding the one post which was suggested to be scieitific (link provided in post #4) about gayness:

It is a story based on what people belief. Although the theory sounds nice, it is not what I call scientific. On the first page of 10 posts, only post #4 provided a link to a page that linked to some scientific background.

 

And this is no longer cherrypicking. I read posts on the science, tech. and health forum until I got blocked for reading too many threads without being a member (happens at 10?)... at some point, statistics can be used to make a valid conclusion that this forum gets a poor score in the field of science. I have seen enough posts that were completely unscientific (on the science tech. and health forum), and not enough posts that were in any way scientific. And from that I conclude that I think that I will have a problem communicating with the members of the political forum... which is why I'll spend my time here, on my favorite forum.

 

I do agree that there is still a chance that I have simply missed all the quality posts. This is also scientific: you admit that there is a possible error in the measurements. The question is: how large is the error? I cannot say much about that, because I could not be bothered to do a statistical analysis about my measurements

[swansont]

We can cherrypick all we'd like and come to the same conclusion on any forum...

 

I can even do this right here...

 

Tons of science right there!...Woo-hoo!...So much science I can barely control myself...

 

Maybe this is the same "8 year old" on my forum, eh?...

 

It seems my outreached hand has been met with aloofness and complexions of superiority...

 

Don't let me stand in your way...

 

BTW - You could've easily gone to this thread too and see how us little non-experts make serious attempts into your world...

 

Now ask yourself this: I gave a critique, and got an emotional response based on a tu quoque ("but you do it too") fallacy. What kind of response should I expect from other members of that site? Instilling scientific rigor into arguments is a form of criticism, and not everyone responds to objective criticism very well. The arguments have to be about credible information, not about who can shout the loudest.

 

ParanoiA's post sums things up pretty well.

[Mr Skeptic]

We can cherrypick all we'd like and come to the same conclusion on any forum...

 

I can even do this right here...

 

Tons of science right there!...Woo-hoo!...So much science I can barely control myself...

 

Maybe this is the same "8 year old" on my forum, eh?...

 

But notice how that post was immediately followed by a member asking him to back up what he said, and a mod warning that its getting off topic. Yes, every forum has some childish individuals, but that does not mean these people will be allowed to be childish.

 

Essentially in a science forum, one of the rules is that if someone makes a claim they should be able to back it up, and logical fallacies and appeals to emotion don't count.

 

It seems my outreached hand has been met with aloofness and complexions of superiority...

 

Don't let me stand in your way...

 

BTW - You could've easily gone to this thread too and see how us little non-experts make serious attempts into your world...

 

That looks like a fairly descent thread, as do many of the threads in your science section (not much depth though, but at least not full of poor arguments). However, some topics touch both science and politics. Those tend to get rather nasty here, even though our forum is science oriented -- I'd imagine they get worse in a politics oriented forum.