Politics is not Science

[mooeypoo]

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor.

 

Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right.

 

If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread.

 

If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree.

 

What a wonderful concept that will be, eh?

 

 

~moo

Edited September 11, 2009 by swansont
removed mod comment

[swansont]

I've copied most of Moo's post from elsewhere to start a new thread to discuss this

 

 

 

I respect Moo's opinion on this, but I have to disagree to some extent. As I see it, political statements have a large basis in fact and/or logic, rather than being solely opinion. Discussions here rarely stop with a simple subjective statement; often there is an attempt to justify that position.

 

"Vanilla is better than chocolate" is an opinion. "Vanilla beans come from the moon, which is why we must support the manned moon exploration part of NASA's budget" is not. It sounds like one, because supporting NASA's budget or not is an opinion, but the presence of vanilla beans on the moon is an objective fact, which can be falsified or supported. Further, the justification of a manned mission to harvest these purported beans is a matter than can also be discussed, because there is a logical element to this: other methods of exploration/harvesting exist.

 

If someone were to challenge the fact of vanilla beans growing on the moon, or to point out alternatives for manned retrieval (better still if supporting that with a cost/benefit analysis), these are not inherently personal attacks. I may not like that my argument has been shot down, but that is not an excuse to let the argument degrade. One needs to differentiate between opinion and the combination of facts and logic that sometimes masquerade as opinion. Opinions can differ and those differences must be respected. But, as the saying goes, while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

[mooeypoo]

I think starting this up as a new debate is a great idea. That said, I'd like to clarify my position on it - I think that it lost a bit of the context I was refering to.

 

I wrote this post as a reply to a specific argument, and the point I was trying to make is about the methodology of discussion. I am, by no means, saying that facts have no room in political debates - they sure as heck do. Obviously, the arguments are BASED upon factual data and often the facts need to be clarified.

 

However, there's a big distinction between political debates and scientific debates in terms of methodology, and I feel like sometimes we forget that, specifically in this forum, most likely because we are a mixed forum dealing with both.

 

In a scientific debate, strictly speaking, there's no room for opinion. We discuss empirical evidence and their logical course towards a conclusion. The conclusion / hypothesis / theory that results may be under scrutiny, but the methodology of debate in the scientific world is constructed upon the idea that reality is objective, not subjective, and that the universe acts a certain way, not randomly whatever we feel comfortable with.

 

In politics, however, we have more freedom to analyze and interpret the facts according to our experience (which, in science, is less relevant, being anecdotal) our emotions and our biases. We can TRY and avoid these - that's the point of having civil debates about politics - but we should also understand that the methodology of political debates are not striving towards the same goal (of a "single" objective reality/truth).

 

When we forget that there's a difference between these two methodologies, we tend to be obtuse, offensive and impatient, and the debates turn from civil exchange of opinions to an annoying fist fight match where, often, the participants end up comparing genitalia size rather than listening to one another's different interpretation of the facts.

 

I'll give an example. I am a carnivore. I love meat, I am unlikely to give it up, I do not think there's anything unethical about consuming meat in general, and, to be quite honest, I never could understand the mentality of those who define themselves vegan. I disagree with it completely.

 

When I debate this subject, I do not go into it thinking I must change vegans' minds about it. I am aware that this is a different perception, a different standard for morality that I don't share. The purpose for debating the subject - at least for me - is to learn more about the reasons why vegans do what they do.

 

My methodology of debate, therefore, is not the same one I'd use to argue a flat-earther. I will not come to this debate thinking the people in front of me are ignoring all facts - I will let them lay out the facts and evidence and explain themselves. I will then, probably, counter those evidence and explain my own position. In my experience with this specific subject, both sides will end up agreeing on the facts but disagreeing on the conclusion.

 

Unlike in science, that is perfectly fine.

 

Of course, not all political debates are like that. Some are emotional, as they "hit a nerve" with people when the subjects are more personal. Those are hard to debate and hard to avoid getting personal in. My point, though, is that the attitude should be different than what we usually see: People who disagree with me politically are not necessarily idiots. They're not necessarily ignoring facts - they might be interpreting them differently. The debate will be much more civil if we all walk into it with THIS attitude in mind, rather than with an attitude in which anyone who disagrees with me must be ignoring all facts and being an idiot.

 

We should all take into account that in these debates we are not the only passionate participant. The people arguing the opposite position are also passionate, and they're not stupid; if you disagree on facts, lay them out. Put forth evidence, argue the validity of those evidence and showcase your interpretation and logic that leads to your conclusion, but do not pretend to be the smartest of them all in a subject that is obviously often led by emotions and personal experience.

 

My point is simple: Use the discussion to learn from one another rather than to attack each others' positions just for the sake of sticking to your own.

 

~moo

[iNow]

I have to note that, regardless of which forum/topic in which a discussion is taking place, there are certain things which are plainly unacceptable, and members here should have enough integrity to call bullshit when they see it.

 

For example, recently a member made an assertion which seemed very unlikely to be true (seemed to be an extreme exaggeration and/or fabrication), and was asked if they could provide even one single shred of evidence in support of their assertion. Their response? "That wasn't an assertion." Excuse me? Say again? That is simply unacceptable, and needs to be called out for it's lack of integrity and lack of accuracy.

 

Another example, a member while dismissing the president as "the great one" ...in an attempt to poison the well... follows their statement with the assertion that a specific topic was left out of the presidents recent speech. In reply, the speech was quoted and showed text which demonstrated without question that the poster was mistaken, and that this specific topic WAS in fact in the speech. Their response? "I stand by my words." WTF? That too is unacceptable, plainly silly (since it's been unequivocally demonstrated that their words were false, standing by them despite this IS rather silly), and also needs to be called out for its lack of integrity.

 

 

As swansont rightly commented above, we may not like it when we are shown to be wrong, but that does not mean it was some personal attack. While politics is often more subjective than objective, and also prone to deeper passions, there are still certain assumptions and premises underlying every argument which themselves must be challenged and checked. If we make bullshit claims, we should expect to be challenged... and the rest of us should expect that our membership at SFN has enough integrity to admit when they are wrong, concede to valid arguments, absorb the accurate/correct information, and adjust their views accordingly when this happens.

 

All too often, this does not happen, people keep presenting the same mistaken arguments based on the same false premises... are locked into their existing story lines and preconceptions... and it's really no surprise that exasperation sometimes ensues.

 

It may be politics, but claims should still be valid, let go when proven false, and supported when asked to do so.

[CharonY]

I am just wondering, does it make sense here to make a distinction of natural science and other sciences? In most discussion here science is equaled with natural sciences. Obviously there other branches including the humanities which are also claimed to be sciences but often use different methodologies. And there are gray areas in which those overlap, for instance psychology and in some cases (e.g. case studies) even medical sciences.

[Pangloss]

"Vanilla is better than chocolate" is an opinion. "Vanilla beans come from the moon, which is why we must support the manned moon exploration part of NASA's budget" is not. It sounds like one, because supporting NASA's budget or not is an opinion, but the presence of vanilla beans on the moon is an objective fact, which can be falsified or supported. Further, the justification of a manned mission to harvest these purported beans is a matter than can also be discussed, because there is a logical element to this: other methods of exploration/harvesting exist.

 

If someone were to challenge the fact of vanilla beans growing on the moon, or to point out alternatives for manned retrieval (better still if supporting that with a cost/benefit analysis), these are not inherently personal attacks. I may not like that my argument has been shot down, but that is not an excuse to let the argument degrade. One needs to differentiate between opinion and the combination of facts and logic that sometimes masquerade as opinion. Opinions can differ and those differences must be respected. But, as the saying goes, while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

Absolutely.

 

Note that that argument is predicated on the premise that the person, as you say, is making the argument that lunar exploration be carried out because of that growth. If you make the case that the beans aren't growing there, that argument has indeed been "shot down".

 

But that doesn't mean that their opinion in favor of lunar exploration is no longer valid, that they've been exposed as a fool or less-intelligent person, or that it is appropriate and necessary to ostracize that person in front of this community.

 

Not that you proposed such, but such is often what happens in this forum. In fact sometimes the ridicule substitutes for the refutation.

 

 

For example, recently a member made an assertion which seemed very unlikely to be true (seemed to be an extreme exaggeration and/or fabrication), and was asked if they could provide even one single shred of evidence in support of their assertion. Their response? "That wasn't an assertion."

 

It wasn't an assertion, it was a statement of opinion, because it was predicated by the phrase "from what I've seen", and you were wrong and inappropriate to call it out as a statement of fact and challenge it on that basis. An appropriate response came from another member the next day who simply asked if that opinion could be supported.

 

Challenging people's opinions as if they were making factual statements, and then claiming that because they've been unable to support their opinions that their opinions no longer "stand" and that other people's opinions are more valid, is wrong and detrimental to this community.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Pangloss
fixed a technical glitch

[iNow]

It wasn't an assertion

 

Well, you're welcome to your opinion on that, but the fact remains... It was an assertion.

[mooeypoo]

You're missing the point.

 

My point was about the attitude, not about the assertions, opinions or factoids given. If you need clarification about evidence, or if you require more evidence for a certain claim, that is not only your right to point it out, it's also demanded by plain logic that you do that.

 

The question of how you do that is what gets discussion to go to hell.

And the 'how you do that' stems from the initial attitude people come to the discussion.

 

If you treat people as if they're stupid, you won't get what you want, you will instead get defensive reactions - and unsurprisingly, and justly, and totally understandably.

 

It's all about the attitude that you approach the argument. If your attitude is that you want to share your views and see why others have theirs, you will have a much more pleasant time debating than if you hold the position that whomever doesn't agree with you needs to have their balls crushed by the multitude of evidence against their position.

 

It's the attitude.

 

~moo

 

P.S: Just in case this wasn't clear, the reason I respond without "QUOTING" anyone and use "YOU" is because there are SEVERAL people in this thread (and other threads) that's been doing this, and I don't mean this personally against anyone specific, but rather towards everyone who are willing to listen. Please don't make this personal.

[Pangloss]

I want to follow up on my point to swansont, and also to respond to some of Mooeypoo's excellent points in posts 3 & 8.

 

Some have expressed at various times in the past that they feel that opinions, especially with regard to political matters, are not an appropriate subject for this forum. IMO the main impetus for that position is the drama associated with opinion-posting. It's emo. It's hot. It's uncomfortable when people are arguing with one another. It sometimes leads to hurt feelings and lost friendships. It has lead to departures including long-standing members and hard-working staff.

 

But I feel that the tolerance of, and encouragement of, opinions is vital to this community. It brings in new members. It encourages understanding. It serves motivation.

 

As swansont says, we're not entitled to our own facts. But the facts only get us so far. Especially with regard to subjects where there are so many variables and so much uncertainty that the facts can never be fully understood. Opinion might even be said to be a necessary part of the scientific process, helping us to consider the ramifications of that data and what we should do about it.

 

swansont is probably better at handling this than anyone I've ever seen (on ANY forum), and should serve as a role model for all our members, including myself. He knows how to respond on point, to restrict challenges to the facts, and to respect differences of opinion without supporting ridiculous views.

 

So I think the problem lies more in the emotion that opinions can sometimes generate. And do that end we should continue to be careful about how we handle opinions at SFN.

 

Here are some examples that I believe undermine our purpose here:

 

... needs to be called out for its lack of integrity.

 

... there are still certain assumptions and premises underlying every argument which themselves must be challenged and checked.

 

... adjust their views accordingly...

 

A person does not need to be denounced in order to refute their factual claims. Challenge the facts, not the person. And requiring someone to change their mind is never, ever a good policy, in my view.

 

 

Opinions are like *** holes -- everyone has one, and most of them stink. But what would you do without one? My two bits, anyway. You're all welcome to disagree. IMO that's what makes it interesting.

[iNow]

Pangloss,

 

I notice you quoted only me in your examples which you "believe undermine our purpose here." Can you please elaborate more on how challenging premises and assertions, checking them for accuracy and validity, and asking people to adjust their arguments when the facts show their previous positions plainly wrong is "counter to our purpose?"

 

I would greatly appreciate it, as I sense that you don't often enough participate in the actual science forums to know that those qualities are directly inline with our purpose here. Thanks.

[Pangloss]

I would greatly appreciate it, as I sense that you don't often enough participate in the actual science forums to know that those qualities are directly inline with our purpose here. Thanks.

 

Really? Where on SFN are ostracization and ridicule encouraged? I admit I am not familiar with that section.

[iNow]

Really? Where on SFN are ostracization and ridicule encouraged? I admit I am not familiar with that section.

 

That is not what I asked about. Please read my request again.

 

 

Can you please elaborate more on how challenging premises and assertions, checking them for accuracy and validity, and asking people to adjust their arguments when the facts show their previous positions plainly wrong is "counter to our purpose?"

[Pangloss]

That is not what I asked about. Please read my request again.

 

 

Can you please elaborate more on how challenging premises and assertions, checking them for accuracy and validity, and asking people to adjust their arguments when the facts show their previous positions plainly wrong is "counter to our purpose?"

 

I didn't say that challenging premises and assertions, checking them for accuracy and validity are counter to our purpose (in fact I explicitly said the opposite). I don't even have a problem with requiring posters to recognize when a factual assertion was made in error.

 

I have a problem with requiring people to "adjust their views".

 

I have a problem with members being told that their opinions "lack integrity".

 

I have a problem with ostracizing and ridiculing people for their opinions. I have a problem with sarcastic asides and smirks and browbeating and bullying. And I have a problem with people who feel that those tactics benefit this community, instead of harming it.

 

And I wonder if and when somebody who supports that point of view will have enough courage and respect for this community to step forward and openly state why they feel that that's a better direction for this community to go. Perhaps this thread offers such an opportunity.

[john5746]

 

it's the attitude.

 

 

liar!

 

[iNow]

I have a problem with requiring people to "adjust their views".

 

I have a problem with members being told that their opinions "lack integrity".

All I can do, Pangloss, is ask for you to please read that post again. My point was about calling out falsehoods and upholding a certain degree of integrity in debate, not about requiring people adjust their views or requiring we tell people their opinions lack integrity. The comment about adjusting views was more about letting go of ideas which have been proven false, and about calling people out when they continue to argue based on premises which have been demonstrated to be false and inaccurate.

 

This is a bigger issue. We've been allowing baseless claims in many arguments, and I'm calling for challenges to those claims. If the challenges go unaddressed, I do not think it's unreasonable to dismiss the questionable and unfounded claims and move on.

 

Again, I fear you're reading more into my words than was intended, to the point where you are putting words in my mouth. I'm sure this is my fault, as I am a very poor writer, and I struggle frequently to articulate my points in an understandable manner. Perhaps you would be so kind as to please read that post again given the context I've just provided, as I think that may help.

 

 

 

I have a problem with ostracizing and ridiculing people for their opinions. I have a problem with sarcastic asides and smirks and browbeating and bullying. And I have a problem with people who feel that those tactics benefit this community, instead of harming it.

I suggested none of those things. Again, I feel you are putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting me entirely, and making your posts toward me far too personal yet again.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

liar!

 

Just to be pedantic, South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson actually yelled, "You Lie!!" during Obamas speech the other night.

Edited September 11, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

I feel you are putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting me entirely, and making your posts toward me far too personal yet again.

 

That wasn't my intention, but I guess I understand where you're coming from. I felt the same way after I read post #3. Even though you left out my name out of that quote I still felt obligated to respond. I'm sure you felt the same way when I posted your quotes above, even though I was trying to address a larger issue, just as I'm sure you were.

 

I should have made my point without the quotes. I apologize for that.

 

We don't seem to be doing to well at establishing moral high ground over one another and I think Mooey is pretty angry with us. Wanna fight some more or call a truce?

 

Let's see if we can find some common ground:

 

This is a bigger issue. We've been allowing baseless claims in many arguments' date=' and I'm calling for challenges to those claims. If the challenges go unaddressed, I do not think it's unreasonable to dismiss the questionable and unfounded claims and move on.

[/quote']

 

I absolutely agree that this is a larger issue -- well said.

 

Personally I think this community does very well at challenging baseless assertions. I don't think we're letting anybody get away with anything, though I do think that it's an ongoing effort that requires a lot of vigilance.

 

One problem that seems to generate at least some of this ire is that they keep appearing. I.E. people still sign up and they still say stupid things (cue iNow and his face-palm of doom!). One thing that helps is if you realize that in at least one sense those appearances are a GOOD thing. It means the community is getting the message out that this is a place where people can come to and get answers, and when they do they see that pseudoscience is addressed, and not elevated above science.

 

You've also mentioned stubbornness as a negative trait in opinion discussions, and that's understandable as well. But I wonder if the real problem there is that measuring success seems to come down to who got the last word, or whose statements were supported by other posters, or other measures that don't actually equate to accuracy or validity or even real wisdom (people can make mistakes in groups too).

 

Can we find a better way to measure success? Maybe we need thread polling, something to record where most of the community came down on the issue. What do you think?

[insane_alien]

polling reflects opinion, not fact. that sends the message that either answer could be correct depending on how many people agree with it. this tends not to be the case in reality where it is entirely possible for an idea to be flat out wrong(although that won't stop people thinking it is correct).

[swansont]

None of this was meant to be personal, despite the friction of past discussions. I think we'd all appreciate it if we could speak in generalities and hypothetical exchanges, to reduce the danger of this flaring up.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Going back to my previous example, "Vanilla is better than chocolate." That's an opinion, if stated as a personal preference. But it could also be an attempted assertion of fact, or interpreted as such. Whether that's the case depends on the context of the discussion.

 

One of the problems in these threads is how such a statement is handled. Language is, or often can be, ambiguous, and one cannot assume that a statement they make is not going to be misinterpreted; this is one of the differences with science, where more care is taken in defining terminology. I think what's important is not to simply assume that a statement has a particular interpretation, nor to assume that a misinterpretation is deliberate. That's where the wheels tend to come off the wagon.

 

"Vanilla is inherently superior to chocolate" is a clearer statement, IMO, which would be an example of an attempted assertion of fact, while "I like vanilla more than chocolate" is more clearly a statement of opinion.

[iNow]

Personally I think this community does very well at challenging baseless assertions.

 

I agree, but I really wasn't talking about the community as a whole... I was referring specifically to the politics forum. Far too often when a claim gets challenged, the person making the challenge is the one who is castigated and told they are being rude and not respectful, somehow "putting their opinion in front of others."

 

There are some things which are not opinions, but what has been frustrating me is how so much nonsense keeps getting protected under the umbrella of "people are welcome to their opinions, so stop putting yours above theirs." That's harmful to the community. If someone says that it's their opinion that 2+2=7, I'm going to correct that, too, so I don't think claims about politics, economics, or current events should should be treated any differently. If someone says something which is plainly false, the person who identifies it as such should be rewarded, not scolded and told to go sit in the corner.

 

Not all things are opinions, but even if they are, one should be able to support them logically and/or with evidence in the face of challenge... even in the politics board.

 

I guess it's personal with me. All the time people see me as some sort of monster, or jerk for challenging their premises, assumptions, or conclusions. It's exasperating because, in my mind, all I'm doing is trying to uphold some basic minimum standard of academic integrity. I'm basically applying the same mindset in politics as I do in any other topic arena. So yeah, it bothers me that this behavior is being dismissed as "ridicule" or "ostracization."

 

I'm not trying to marginalize people, I'm trying to marginalize weak, unfounded arguments grounded in fallacious or nonexistent logic. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that would improve discussions, not hurt them...

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that we have to get rid of the idea that people are entitled to their opinions. The problem is that "opinion" is too broad a term, such that saying opinions are protected allows people to make factual claims as if they were opinions. For example, "I think Obama is a pedophile" or "I think you are a moron" may be opinions... but such opinions have no place anywhere in civilized discourse. Even if that truly is their opinion.

 

The problem with said opinions is that they allow basically anything to be said or hinted at while leaving the perpetrator immune to criticism. After all, they're entitled to their opinion, right? But there really is no reason to allow such opinions to go unchallenged, nor to let people think they can go around saying them. Because some opinions contain embedded factual claims that are able to be proved or disproved. People may not embed claims nor insults in an opinion and expect to be untouchable.

 

Contrast this with more "proper" opinions. Eg, "I like chocolate better than vanilla". Who could challenge that? Well, one of your close friends or perhaps a brain scientist actually could. Eg the scientist could demonstrate that your brain regions responsible for pleasure light up more when you eat vanilla rather than chocolate and make a strong case that the opinion you expressed was in fact wrong. You see, whenever opinions meet facts, inevitably the facts win. That an opinion can even be challenged on a factual basis means that there is no need to regard it as an opinion as opposed to a factual claim.

 

Where then the place for opinion? Some things cannot be proven or it is not worth the effort to do so. Anything completely subjective, certain premises or value judgements, and conclusions that are reached from too much unclear data or overly convoluted reasoning (such that neither they nor anyone can reach a definite answer). Also, while any opinion can be countered with facts, counter-opinions may not be used to challenge an opinion.

[abskebabs]

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor.

 

Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right.

 

If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread.

 

If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree.

 

What a wonderful concept that will be, eh?

 

 

~moo

 

Interesting, I think I can sympathise with some of the motives behind your creation of this thread. I think a lot of threads on this forum have been little more than attack threads, e.g. against those who oppose socialised healthcare.

 

Howver do you consider these statements "merely opinions"?

 

1. Increasing the minimium wage to $40 an hour will create unemployment, all other things being equal.

2. Inflating the money supply in circulation will produce price inflation or a lesser amount of price delflation further down the road, all other things being equal.

3. Increasing public debt to finance the welfare-warfare state will consume/destroy otherwise available financial capital(and possible future "real capital") that could have been allocated productively on the market.

 

I look forward to your response, just so I know where we stand.

Edited September 12, 2009 by abskebabs

[swansont]

I have a problem with ostracizing and ridiculing people for their opinions. I have a problem with sarcastic asides and smirks and browbeating and bullying. And I have a problem with people who feel that those tactics benefit this community, instead of harming it.

 

And I wonder if and when somebody who supports that point of view will have enough courage and respect for this community to step forward and openly state why they feel that that's a better direction for this community to go. Perhaps this thread offers such an opportunity.

 

Perhaps you can come up with some scenario/example of osctracizing/bullying. Other than banning (done by staff consensus for rulebreaking), I don't see how anyone is ostracized. Disagreement is not bullying. This is a place for discussing viewpoints, which have both adherents and detractors. However, it is not simply a place for preaching/soapboxing — we expect people to explain the reasoning and facts that are behind those views, and the facts and logic presented are fair game for rebuttal. There's nothing inherently personal about such a rebuttal. So what constitutes bullying, etc.?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Interesting, I think I can sympathise with some of the motives behind your creation of this thread. I think a lot of threads on this forum have been little more than attack threads, e.g. against those who oppose socialised healthcare.

 

Howver do you consider these statements "merely opinions"?

 

1. Increasing the minimium wage to $40 an hour will create unemployment, all other things being equal.

2. Inflating the money supply in circulation will produce price inflation or a lesser amount of price delflation further down the road, all other things being equal.

3. Increasing public debt to finance the welfare-warfare state will consume/destroy otherwise available financial capital(and possible future "real capital") that could have been allocated productively on the market.

 

I look forward to your response, just so I know where we stand.

 

 

Not to get into the details, since this isn't the place, but I would say that these are not opinions. They seem to be conclusions drawn from economic models of some sort. I would expect you to be able to support each statement, and I would also want to feel free to question the reasonableness/pertinence of them, depending on the context of the discussion (e.g. the first statement; if nobody is suggesting such an increase, then it may be a red herring to discuss it).

[Pangloss]

Perhaps you can come up with some scenario/example of osctracizing/bullying. Other than banning (done by staff consensus for rulebreaking), I don't see how anyone is ostracized. Disagreement is not bullying. This is a place for discussing viewpoints, which have both adherents and detractors. However, it is not simply a place for preaching/soapboxing — we expect people to explain the reasoning and facts that are behind those views, and the facts and logic presented are fair game for rebuttal. There's nothing inherently personal about such a rebuttal. So what constitutes bullying, etc.?

 

Sure, but I think you already know the answer. You've issued infractions for sarcasm and rudeness. Obviously they were being sarcastic or rude for a reason. In short, I don't feel that we have a community that supports bullying. I do feel that we have to remain vigilant on that issue. Let me see if I can expand on that. Here are some general categories of ostracizing/bullying, as I see it:

 

• Rudeness
  
• Sarcasm
  
• Ridicule
  
• Stating that nobody here agrees with the poster
  
• Leaping to conclusions about a poster's underlying motivations (e.g. determining that an opponent to gay marriage is also a homophobe)
  
• Last-wording
  

 

In addition, as a general rule we don't delete posts, which means that those comments, that sarcasm or rudeness that we've issued an infraction for, were generally left in place, and often (usually?) without comment from a moderator. So from an outside perspective, and also from the perspective of the bullied member, it appears that they have been bullied, and nothing was done about it. In effect, the bullying was successful, and the member has been ostracized for their opinion.

 

However, when we instead issued a rebuke in the thread indicating that such behavior was not acceptable and should cease, and/or if the offending (bullying) comment was deleted, in my opinion the attacked member was more likely not to feel bullied. So we know how to avoid and/or reduce bullying/ostracizing behavior, and we've sometimes even put that into practice. (I've seen you do these things as well.)

 

I believe this has an impact on the community as a whole. People see what's tolerated and what's not, and they adjust their behavior accordingly. When we show that we won't tolerate rude behavior, people understand why and change their behavior. When we don't show it, the atmosphere moves toward one that is tolerant of bullying behavior. This is a pretty straightforward equation, and it's one that literally thousands of Web forums have dealt with. In most cases they ignore the problem, and the inevitable result is that the forum becomes dominated by its most active members, and those will generally form a generally accepted set of opinions, and any dissent is bullied into submission (or dissenters become pet opponents, who return mainly to stir up trouble, which is equally worthless). There are many liberals-only and conservatives-only forums around the Web. Ones that openly support the posting of both sides? Not so much - because it's a struggle. I believe that it's not only important to tolerate opinions, but is also consistent with our purpose of using and promoting science and reason.

 

I agree with you -- disagreement is not bullying. And this is not a place for soapboxing. It's not a place for soapboxing by members who oppose gay marriage because all gays are aliens with tentacles and purple skin, but it's also not a place for soapboxing by members who feel that anybody who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe. Disagreement is to be protected and preserved, and that's a two-way street.

 

We do a great job at dealing with unpopular opinions that are scientifically unfounded. We don't do as well when it comes to popular opinions with a weak or interpretable scientific basis. There it sometimes becomes a struggle, with people taking sides and everyone trying really hard not to produce a situation where we end up wielding the ban stick over an opinion, but at the same time ensure that inaccurate assertions are appropriately and politely refuted. But it can sometimes be a tough call, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some of us feel that we've sometimes failed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Discussion about gay marriage moved into a new thread here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43986

Edited September 12, 2009 by Pangloss

[swansont]

Sure, but I think you already know the answer. You've issued infractions for sarcasm and rudeness. Obviously they were being sarcastic or rude for a reason. In short, I don't feel that we have a community that supports bullying. I do feel that we have to remain vigilant on that issue. Let me see if I can expand on that. Here are some general categories of ostracizing/bullying, as I see it:

 

• Rudeness
  
• Sarcasm
  
• Ridicule
  
• Stating that nobody here agrees with the poster
  
• Leaping to conclusions about a poster's underlying motivations (e.g. determining that an opponent to gay marriage is also a homophobe)
  
• Last-wording
  

 

You're right, I have issued infractions for such behavior. And I would do so again — one can disagree without ridicule or rudeness.

 

 

In addition, as a general rule we don't delete posts, which means that those comments, that sarcasm or rudeness that we've issued an infraction for, were generally left in place, and often (usually?) without comment from a moderator. So from an outside perspective, and also from the perspective of the bullied member, it appears that they have been bullied, and nothing was done about it. In effect, the bullying was successful, and the member has been ostracized for their opinion.

 

However, when we instead issued a rebuke in the thread indicating that such behavior was not acceptable and should cease, and/or if the offending (bullying) comment was deleted, in my opinion the attacked member was more likely not to feel bullied. So we know how to avoid and/or reduce bullying/ostracizing behavior, and we've sometimes even put that into practice. (I've seen you do these things as well.)

 

Issues of moderation practice and policy are things to be discussed among the staff, I'll caution everyone to stick to the topic at hand, but we do delete inappropriate comments on some occasions. It depends on the circumstances.

 

I believe this has an impact on the community as a whole. People see what's tolerated and what's not, and they adjust their behavior accordingly. When we show that we won't tolerate rude behavior, people understand why and change their behavior. When we don't show it, the atmosphere moves toward one that is tolerant of bullying behavior. This is a pretty straightforward equation, and it's one that literally thousands of Web forums have dealt with. In most cases they ignore the problem, and the inevitable result is that the forum becomes dominated by its most active members, and those will generally form a generally accepted set of opinions, and any dissent is bullied into submission (or dissenters become pet opponents, who return mainly to stir up trouble, which is equally worthless). There are many liberals-only and conservatives-only forums around the Web. Ones that openly support the posting of both sides? Not so much - because it's a struggle. I believe that it's not only important to tolerate opinions, but is also consistent with our purpose of using and promoting science and reason.

 

I agree with you -- disagreement is not bullying. And this is not a place for soapboxing. It's not a place for soapboxing by members who oppose gay marriage because all gays are aliens with tentacles and purple skin, but it's also not a place for soapboxing by members who feel that anybody who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe. Disagreement is to be protected and preserved, and that's a two-way street.

 

I think it's important to recognize that there are other intolerable behaviors. There are times where it is clear that the "bullying" behavior described above has been provoked. Misrepresenting someone's argument, for example, often evokes a strong response. In most cases this is an honest mistake of interpretation, but it's sometimes hard to imagine that it wasn't deliberate.

 

When "Vanilla is better than chocolate" elicits a response like

 

"So, like we're supposed to eat vanilla ice cream for breakfast, lunch and dinner?!?"

 

This is a classic appeal to ridicule; the response is a strawman of the position, and presented in a way to mock the statement and have it appear to be ludicrous. This kind of action often escalates tempers, and that's one reason why logical fallacies are not an acceptable mode of argument. The usually represent some kind of personal attack.

 

A big problem is that attacking the argument sometimes feels like a personal attack.

[Pangloss]

I agree.

 

So then it seems we are in agreement that disagreement is not bullying, and can be provoked, but bullying behavior sometimes still occurs.