Raising the Standards.

[SamBridge]

I think that not only should there be just more experts in general, and not only of a wider variety, but with a much higher standard. I'm not doubting the knowledge of any specific individual, but as a passive observer in many topics, I think that there needs to be more of an effort to bring in more experts who have a Masters degree or higher in every field this site has, because so far I haven't seen an "astronomy" expert or a "psychology" expert, but also need to display a level of maturity such as that they never put in their personal opinion or emotions except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

Edited January 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[zapatos]

... but also need to display a level of maturity such as that they never put in their personal opinion or emotions except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

I didn't realize that with maturity your desire to state your opinion or show emotions diminished.

 

If the 'experts' no longer state their opinions or show emotion here, I'll just go back to reading text books.

[Bignose]

bring in more experts who have a Masters degree or higher in every field this site has

degrees awarded is no guarantee of any kind of knowledge about the field. That is classic appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

 

There are people with PhDs who post a lot of woo woo, here and on the internet in general.

 

And, heck, they gave me the (ultimately meaningless) title of Maths Expert, and I don't even have a degree in mathematics. I suppose I should probably leave now, in a very professional and mature way, of course.

 

In the bigger picture, I guess I am with zapatos above, and will express it this way: If someone just wanted to know what the 'book' says, they can just go and read the book. So, I am not really sure what the goal of the OP really is.

 

Secondly, there is nothing from stopping a psychology expert from joining the site. It's not like any of us are paid, and they award the titles based on people who consistently give what are judged good answers. So, really, to get a psychology expert here, one just needs to join and do a good job answering questions in that section. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what else you think should be done?

Edited January 22, 2013 by Bignose

[SamBridge]

degrees awarded is no guarantee of any kind of knowledge about the field. That is classic appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

 

There are people with PhDs who post a lot of woo woo, here and on the internet in general.

 

And, heck, they gave me the (ultimately meaningless) title of Maths Expert, and I don't even have a degree in mathematics. I suppose I should probably leave now, in a very professional and mature way, of course.

 

In the bigger picture, I guess I am with zapatos above, and will express it this way: If someone just wanted to know what the 'book' says, they can just go and read the book. So, I am not really sure what the goal of the OP really is.

 

Secondly, there is nothing from stopping a psychology expert from joining the site. It's not like any of us are paid, and they award the titles based on people who consistently give what are judged good answers. So, really, to get a psychology expert here, one just needs to join and do a good job answering questions in that section. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what else you think should be done?

Of course there are always fringe nut-cases in every scientific field, but that doesn't mean a degree is worthless, that's a bigger logical fallacy, and I certainly wouldn't think the site would call someone an expert without actually seeing some of their posts first, would they? Even if you don't have a degree in mathematics, you still probably have a degree in something that required advanced mathematics, which does not make what I am saying any less true, because that degree shows that you know about not only the concepts of w/e field you are in but also the math used in that field.

Secondly, nothing is stopping you from buying a pet rock, but that does that mean you have to buy it? You can just talk to some co-workers or some professors at a local colleges/universities and say "hey, would you be interested in becoming an expert for us at scienceforums.net and helping us out"? Advertising. I bet someone could talk you into buying a pet rock for whatever reason if they actually tried and talked to you.

 

 

I didn't realize that with maturity your desire to state your opinion or show emotions diminished.

 

If the 'experts' no longer state their opinions or show emotion here, I'll just go back to reading text books.

 

 

Experts shouldn't be mixing and matching opinions and science as they please, that defeats the purpose of science in the first place, they should only post what is scientific theory or consensus when posting in any scientific or mathematical topic. If someone personally asks their opinion then I think it is valid.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[zapatos]

Experts shouldn't be mixing and matching opinions as they please, that defeats the purpose of science in the first place, they should only post what is scientific theory or consensus when posting in any scientific or mathematical topic.

So it is your opinion that experts should not give their opinion?

 

An opinion is usually nothing more than what a person believes is likely, based on an interpretation of the facts. It is the expert's opinion I value the most. Aren't you in the least bit interested in the opinion of a cancer researcher when it comes to the likelihood of a new drug's efficacy?

 

The President want's the general's opinion on whether or not an operation is likely to succeed. He doesn't want a comparison of our tactics versus their command of the high ground.

 

Note: Added this last sentence after SamBridge responded.

Edited January 22, 2013 by zapatos

[SamBridge]

So it is your opinion that experts should not give their opinion?

Well first, I don't call myself an expert, and secondly it's not science if any opinions and emotions are any sort of justification for something (except of course analytical anatomy and psychology of which is a different context), and third this topic is in the "other topics" section which I think is ok to post opinions in.

 

 

 

An opinion is usually nothing more than what a person believes is likely, based on an interpretation of the facts. It is the expert's opinion I value the most. Aren't you in the least bit interested in the opinion of a cancer researcher when it comes to the likelihood of a new drug's efficacy?

You may value their opinion, but what is more important and what actually makes scientific discoveries is science, is what's actually been observed and tested. it's not their opinion if they are merely restating what evidence or proof in science has shown. This is just for the science topics, in philosophy or speculation or those types of topics it seems completely appropriate for them to assert their opinion as those topics are not science.

Even if this site doesn't change at all I'm just going to eventually contact a university eventually about making an actual very formal national science forum site with provably credible experts (not saying the experts here aren't credible).

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[zapatos]

You may value their opinion, but what is more important and what actually makes scientific discoveries is science, is what's actually been observed and tested. it's not their opinion if they are merely restating what evidence or proof in science has shown. This is just for the science topics, in philosophy or speculation or those types of topics it seems completely appropriate for them to assert their opinion as those topics are not science.

The relative value of their opinion to observation isn't really the point. It is not as if we only have enough room in a thread for one or the other.

 

If I am curious about whether or not it is likely that String Theory is ever going to amount to much, I will never know unless someone with expertise gives me their opinion. If I have to figure it out from observations and tests, I will never know as I'm not an expert in that field.

 

If I want to know whether or not a used car is likely to be a good value, I ask my mechanic friend. I don't need him to rehash all his observations and tests he's done on that car model so that I can figure it out myself. His opinion is good enough for me.

 

I don't understand why an expert's opinion is not something you would value.

[SamBridge]

The relative value of their opinion to observation isn't really the point. It is not as if we only have enough room in a thread for one or the other.

 

If I am curious about whether or not it is likely that String Theory is ever going to amount to much, I will never know unless someone with expertise gives me their opinion.

I don't understand why an expert's opinion is not something you would value.

 

At the very least they should create a clear distinction between what is their opinion and what is scientific fact or theory. I don't value an opinions in science because opinions can lead you in the totally wrong scientific direction as every great scientist has had to discover the hard way.

I will never know unless someone with expertise gives me their opinion. If I have to figure it out from observations and tests, I will never know as I'm not an expert in that field.

 

You can know because they can explain the scientific data into terms of knowledge that you understand or possess. If I say "Hamiltonian operator", you probably don't understand that, but if I break it down and say "a correlation between variables of possible energy and space in atoms", you have a better sense of what it is.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Phi for All]

Of course there are always fringe nut-cases in every scientific field, but that doesn't mean a degree is worthless, that's a bigger logical fallacy

Or would be if someone here had actually said that. Oh, hey, strawman!

 

You may value their opinion, but what is more important and what actually makes scientific discoveries is science, is what's actually been observed and tested. it's not their opinion if they are merely restating what evidence or proof in science has shown. This is just for the science topics, in philosophy or speculation or those types of topics it seems completely appropriate for them to assert their opinion as those topics are not science.

Even if this site doesn't change at all I'm just going to eventually contact a university eventually about making an actual very formal national science forum site with provably credible experts (not saying the experts here aren't credible).

I get what you're asking for, but it just sounds like a dry lecture or a textbook instead of a discussion with real people. Most of us here acknowledge that, while the scientific method is the best way known to find trustworthy explanations for natural phenomenon as free from bias and emotion as possible, knowledge and passion go together very nicely when it comes to sharing and discussing things within an online community.

 

You should approach a university about your idea though. There are no "formal" science forums the way you describe them (that I've seen); could be because no one's thought of it, could be because not enough people are interested in it. It could be like finding yourself alone on a deserted island; it sounds like a great chance to get away from it all, until you realize how boring it is.

[SamBridge]

Or would be if someone here had actually said that. Oh, hey, strawman!

 

Read his post, he said "a degree does not guarantee knowledge". If it's from a credible college or university (which is why they should upload a scanned picture with their name and ID like they do on websites like istock for photography or music), then unless they forged it, there is a 99% guarantee they have some base knowledge necessarily for correctly answering questions above a high school level.

 

Or would be if someone here had actually said that. Oh, hey, strawman!

 

I get what you're asking for, but it just sounds like a dry lecture or a textbook instead of a discussion with real people. Most of us here acknowledge that, while the scientific method is the best way known to find trustworthy explanations for natural phenomenon as free from bias and emotion as possible, knowledge and passion go together very nicely when it comes to sharing and discussing things within an online community.

 

You should approach a university about your idea though. There are no "formal" science forums the way you describe them (that I've seen); could be because no one's thought of it, could be because not enough people are interested in it. It could be like finding yourself alone on a deserted island; it sounds like a great chance to get away from it all, until you realize how boring it is.

Honestly I am not very entertained when moderators put their opinions in science topics, when I ask something I want the scientific answer, some evidence for it, and that's about it. If I personally wanted an opinion I myself would ask for it.

This idea I think does have some likelihood of having much participation, after all, there's some national genius association, and there's non-science websites like the one I mentioned (istock) which requires rigorous proof that you can do what you say you can do.

While opinions may be fun and interesting, they don't belong when describing what is scientific consensus or theory, it should almost be like a separate section, and not everyone is looking to hang around, some people are looking for answers, just look at the homework section, some people don't probably want to chat around with a mod (in that topic) they want to actually get their answer, and fast.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[StringJunky]

At the very least they should create a clear distinction between what is their opinion and what is scientific fact or theory. I don't value an opinions in science because opinions can lead you in the totally wrong scientific direction as every great scientist has had to discover the hard way.

 

If in doubt ask for research papers to be cited or links to authoritative websites of relevant disciplines. On the whole, it's pretty clear when the scientists and mods here are expressing an opinion and also a lot of the long-termers enjoy and respect the scientific process so it becomes natural to pursue that ethos in their responses. Time spent here eventually indicates to you how much gravitas to give to any particular individual's response.

 

If you want a more strict and formal forum setup them Physics Forums.Org indicate in each expert's profile their academic status but the guys here are good enough for me. Ultimately, I think, the 'truth' is a slowly shifting goal-post with the appearance of each new piece of evidence and you really have to make your own mind up what to conclude from it because there will quite often be more than one expert interpretation available at any given time as to what it means...I'm talking about the 'bleeding edge' stuff here.

Edited January 22, 2013 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

 

Read his post, he said "a degree does not guarantee knowledge".

Read your post, no one said, "a degree is worthless" except you. It's a strawman argument.

 

 

Honestly I am not very entertained when moderators put their opinions in science topics, when I ask something I want the scientific answer, some evidence for it, and that's about it. If I personally wanted an opinion I myself would ask for it.

If a moderator here is involved in a discussion, they aren't allowed to moderate that discussion. They're just posting as a member. Nobody here started as a mod, we were members first. We still love discussing things with all the great people here. But thanks for your suggestion.

 

This idea I think does have some likelihood of having much participation, after all, there's some national genius association, and there's non-science websites like the one I mentioned (istock) which requires rigorous proof that you can do what you say you can do.

Fantastic! Don't you love the variety on the Web?

 

While opinions may be fun and interesting, they don't belong when describing what is scientific consensus or theory, it should almost be like a separate section, and not everyone is looking to hang around, some people are looking for answers, just look at the homework section, some people don't probably want to chat around with a mod (in that topic) they want to actually get their answer, and fast.

I think it's great that in your short time here you've found so much that we're doing wrong. I was completely unaware of all this horrible opinion being forced upon the science boards by my fellow mods.

[SamBridge]

Read your post, no one said, "a degree is worthless" except you. It's a strawman argument.

 

Well then read my post again, I didn't say anyone said it was worthless, I used it as a comparison to point that a degree is still valid even if a few nutcases have some. His point was "nutcases have degrees therefore degrees don't mean much", if he did not mention that nutcases have degrees as a point to degrade the validity of a degree, I don't know why he bothered posting that.

 

I think it's great that in your short time here you've found so much that we're doing wrong. I was completely unaware of all this horrible opinion being forced upon the science boards by my fellow mods.

So let me get this straight: you do think it's a good idea to mix opinion and science as you please? Because that sounds insane. If you don't, you need to be more clear and less sarcastic.

 

To some people adding opinions are interesting, to others they are more annoying, and some just don't really care either way, but many members of those different groups still want one thing: credible answers. As I said more than once, I am not saying any particular moderator or expert does not have a valid knowledge in science or maturity, but observing the site as a whole, it seems to be an occurance, if you take all the times where moderators/experts get frustrated and/or tired and just stop trying, I think it adds up to at least something.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

My opinion of this discussion is you're misapplying the term, 'opinion.'

 

An opinion doesn't necessitate an idea, answer, etc., contrived from thin air. What Phi, zapatos and others are referring to are the informed opinions (these are the same as what you call a 'credible answer') of our resident experts, which are valuable contributions to the scientific discussions that take place here. Perhaps you could be more clear as to what exactly it is you take issue with?

 

Also, a few of the mods here were resident experts before they were mods (and members before that, as Phi noted), except for maybe the people who have been here forever (e.g. swansont) as I'm not sure when the resident expert title was established. Perhaps I am not clear on what problem you actually have when staff make contributions to a thread as a member (note: that excludes moderator actions).

[swansont]

I don't recall when I was named an expert, but it was some time after I started posting. As I recall there were no actual physicists on the site posting regularly when I showed up, and it took a little time for people to accept that I knew what I was talking about, which is entirely reasonable IMO. Credibility is earned.

 

As to the proposal we have more experts, the first step is getting more people with expertise to show up and holding their interest. There's a divide between giving help to people who know only a little physics, and talking physics with people who do it for a living. Our emphasis is on the former. People who do that professionally often teach, so what's their motivation to do even more of the same? So you're limited to people like me, who like the teaching interaction but don't do it for a living (or do it anymore, as in my case). Also, a fair amount of the posts here are debunking purveyors of alternative ideas, held by people who generally present little deference to established science, which means it's not so much teaching as arguing. Meaning you have to get people here that like to do that, at least on occasion. Otherwise they'll get bored and leave. This is a hobby of sorts. One does it out of enjoyment. Not many scientists really enjoy arguing with crackpots.

[SamBridge]

Well, I guess it may not be as bad as I originally thought, but there should still be a greater diversity.

[Phi for All]

Well then read my post again, I didn't say anyone said it was worthless, I used it as a comparison to point that a degree is still valid even if a few nutcases have some. His point was "nutcases have degrees therefore degrees don't mean much", if he did not mention that nutcases have degrees as a point to degrade the validity of a degree, I don't know why he bothered posting that.

Although Bignose can speak for himself, I can almost guarantee he did NOT mean, "nutcases have degrees therefore degrees don't mean much". What he actually said was "degrees awarded is no guarantee of any kind of knowledge about the field", and that seems like a big difference to me. He's not trashing degrees, he's just saying it's not an infallible measure of expertise.

 

So it seems like you're trying to set up and attack an easier argument, since you'd never find anyone here who would tell you a degree is worthless. I could be wrong though; perhaps you're just adding your personal opinion of what Bignose said.

 

So let me get this straight: you do think it's a good idea to mix opinion and science as you please? Because that sounds insane. If you don't, you need to be more clear and less sarcastic.

That's another easy argument you've decided to set up and attack instead of what I actually argued. Since trying to defend against strawmen often makes a debater look weak, I often choose sarcasm instead; it tends to point out the absurdity of the strawman position better than anything else, and it shows the rest of the readers that the original argument was quite clear and is simply being either manipulated or misunderstood.

[SamBridge]

Although Bignose can speak for himself, I can almost guarantee he did NOT mean, "nutcases have degrees therefore degrees don't mean much". What he actually said was "degrees awarded is no guarantee of any kind of knowledge about the field", and that seems like a big difference to me. He's not trashing degrees, he's just saying it's not an infallible measure of expertise.

 

 

Now I'm just starting to think you're obsessed with looking infallible to the public eye. Let's imagine some scenarios:

"Yeah Nixon was pretty bad"

'Yeah but you don't think he was bad as Hitler do you?'

No one said that person A said that Nixon was as bad as Hitler, but person B clearly did not say that if you just slow down and read it.

"I don't like jean shorts"

'But I'm guessing you don't hate them as much as leather shorts'

"oh yeah, leather shorts would be horrible"

No one said that person A said that they hated jean shorts as much as leather shorts, and we can clearly see that.

So it seems like you're trying to set up and attack an easier argument, since you'd never find anyone here who would tell you a degree is worthless.

I'm trying to setup that you generally do not have to worry about that if the degree is from a credible source. If it's from something like Madison University of Mississippi (not Wisconsin), then that's not credible, but if it's from an Ivy League college, you probably don't have to worry about that person being a fraud.

 

That's another easy argument you've decided to set up and attack instead of what I actually argued. Since trying to defend against strawmen often makes a debater look weak, I often choose sarcasm instead; it tends to point out the absurdity of the strawman position better than anything else, and it shows the rest of the readers that the original argument was quite clear and is simply being either manipulated or misunderstood.

That wasn't a strawman, that was an actual point, it is absurd that you think you should mix opinion and science as you please., doing such defeats the purpose of science. Based on everything you've said in this topic, I think you should reconsider calling yourself a moderator, what you're saying is frankly one of the most absurd things I've seen on this site so far.

 

"Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought"

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Phi for All]

 

Now I'm just starting to think you're obsessed with looking infallible to the public eye.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

I'm trying to setup that you generally do not have to worry about that if the degree is from a credible source. If it's from something like Madison University of Mississippi (not Wisconsin), then that's not credible, but if it's from an Ivy League college, you probably don't have to worry about that person being a fraud.

I recall having a president in the US recently with a BA in history from Yale and I'm completely convinced he was a fraud.

 

And actually what you're saying is a classic Appeal to Authority as Bignose mentioned, now with a little No True Scotsman thrown in:

 

Person 1 - "No one with a degree from a college would claim something like that."

 

Person 2 - "Actually, I have a Master's degree from Creighton University in Nebraska."

 

Person 1 - "No one with a degree from an Ivy League college would claim something like that."

 

That wasn't a strawman, that was an actual point, it is absurd that you think you should mix opinion and science as you please., doing such defeats the purpose of science. Based on everything you've said in this topic, I think you should reconsider calling yourself a moderator, what you're saying is frankly one of the most absurd things I've seen on this site so far.

Except I never said that one should mix opinion and science as you please. Never. Not once. You ignored my stance, that what you're asking for seems like it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion since it would remove most of the passion that learning seems to thrive on, and you chose instead to claim I meant we should mix opinion and science as we please.

 

But I'm NOT going to suggest that you should reconsider calling yourself a reader.

[zapatos]

I'm trying to setup that you generally do not have to worry about that if the degree is from a credible source. If it's from something like Madison University of Mississippi (not Wisconsin), then that's not credible, but if it's from an Ivy League college, you probably don't have to worry about that person being a fraud.

It is good to know we have someone on this site who is qualified to decide what degree programs are credible.

 

I don't know where these people got their degrees, but they all have at least a PhD. They are also all creationists. (I only copied about 20% of the list)

 

 

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

• Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
• Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
• Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

 

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

 

That wasn't a strawman, that was an actual point, it is absurd that you think you should mix opinion and science as you please...

You might wish to stop digging the hole you are in before it gets any deeper. How do you think a researcher determines what to pursue next? Does he know what will be fruitful? Of course not. He chooses what, in his opinion, is likely to be a good area of research. Every single next step in research is done because it is the opinion of the researcher that this is the route to take. Every single interpretation of data is opinion.

 

If no one ever gives their opinion in science, there will be no debate. If no one ever gives their opinion in science we will never know what the concensus is.

 

It is absurd to think you can take opinion out of science.

 

I think you should reconsider calling yourself a moderator, what you're saying is frankly one of the most absurd things I've seen on this site so far.

 

"Maybe it wasn't as bad as I thought"

I think you should reconsider whether or not you are ready for a science forum.

[jp255]

I think opinions are quite important in a response, especially when it comes to interpretation of a paper. A stand alone summary of some research the expert finds isn't always the best answer. I'd always prefer a critical summary/appraisal with some input from the expert about the strength of the evidence/support (eg. limitations that are not mentioned, other opposing research), more so if I have little knowledge in the subject area. In such a subject area, I probably wouldn't be able to pick up on these additional inputs if I had read the original paper myself.

 

Removing opinions from an answer would probably lead to more cases of misinterpretation, like misinterpreting suggestive evidence as proof. I don't know about you, but I'd rather input my opinion in an answer to minimise the chance of the question poster misinterpreting the research and I'd rather read an answer with opinions of this kind.

 

I'd just like to add that conversing with people on these forums is an valuable way to improve your ability to critically examine evidence. Thinking about, and considering the expert's opinion and how they might have reached it, or discussing the evidence with them is worthwhile. That just gave me an idea, science courses at university should use forums like this for the purpose of improving critical appraisal skills, this is something I would have liked to have been incorporated into the course (in some respects I have learnt more in this forum than I did at university). Slight derail! but anyway, this wouldn't be possible without opinions.

Edited January 22, 2013 by jp255

[timo]

I think that not only should there be just more experts in general, and not only of a wider variety, but with a much higher standard. I'm not doubting the knowledge of any specific individual, but as a passive observer in many topics, I think that there needs to be more of an effort to bring in more experts who have a Masters degree or higher in every field this site has, because so far I haven't seen an "astronomy" expert or a "psychology" expert, but also need to display a level of maturity such as that they never put in their personal opinion or emotions except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

I believe pretty much everyone would agree with you that a higher standard in this forum would be highly welcome. Also, surprisingly many people would agree that more forum-designated experts would be much welcome, be it for being able to identify credible sources or simply as a result of a higher standard. I can also faintly remember times when we more or less officially said that an expert should roughly have the equivalent knowledge of a PhD in the respective field. So some of the negative comments you got for being concrete (Masters degree) rather than avoid-a-real-statement-that-people-could-call-you-to vague seem a bit lame to me.

 

That said, you have to admit the question: What's your point? You obviously don't propose to randomly push a few people into the "experts" user category to have more experts. And as Swansont correctly says, professional scientists rarely feel the urge to invest their free time in an internet forum which is intellectually less stimulating than their work routine. After the 5th thread where someone demands his superiority to be acknowledged because he found out that gravity in reality is magnetism, even the morbid curiosity that initially makes you bother turns into annoyance.

I see two options for improving the quality of posts here: 1) Everyone attempts to improve the quality of their contributions (e.g. not picking up any detail offering the option to prove someone wrong, but trying to overall add something substantial to the discussion). 2) The staff improves average quality by more rigorous selection at the post-intensive quality bottom, which may arguably even lead to some quality in-flux from above (lately, I often felt and followed the urge not to continue posting in a thread after having read the other posts). Both options are not easy to implement, both are unlikely to happen. Your call for improving post quality is not the fist one by far - I would already be happy if threads started by people on my ignore list were not displayed to me, but even this has not been realized. And I can fully understand why the staff is reluctant to kick people out - I wouldn't want to do that, either. So what you are left with is improving the quality of your own posts. That you can influence. In fact, I sometimes decide to try that, myself.

 

 

[SamBridge]

Faith in humanity -2

 

I recall having a president in the US recently with a BA in history from Yale and I'm completely convinced he was a fraud.

Did you see a picture of his diploma with his ID?

 

Pot, kettle, black.

 

I recall having a president in the US recently with a BA in history from Yale and I'm completely convinced he was a fraud.

 

And actually what you're saying is a classic Appeal to Authority as Bignose mentioned, now with a little No True Scotsman thrown in:

 

Person 1 - "No one with a degree from a college would claim something like that."

 

Person 2 - "Actually, I have a Master's degree from Creighton University in Nebraska."

 

Person 1 - "No one with a degree from an Ivy League college would claim something like that."

You obviously care more about public appeal that being logical. If you read my post, not only did I say "99%" certainty that they have some base knowledge above a high school level, but I did not say that anyone said that degrees were worthless, it was a comparison to an extreme to establish the poster did not advocate that extreme as I also pointed out in a later poser. A few nutcases may be frauds, but that does not mean that a greater of majority of people with high-end degrees have a high likelihood of also being frauds, all you need to do is just be watchful.

 

Except I never said that one should mix opinion and science as you please. Never. Not once. You ignored my stance, that what you're asking for seems like it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion since it would remove most of the passion that learning seems to thrive on, and you chose instead to claim I meant we should mix opinion and science as we please.

Go back and read it, I asked if you think it's appropriate to mix science and opinion as you please, but instead of getting a logical answer you decided to be sarcastic. Learning science does not come from random opinions, it comes from investigating relationships between variables that represent things in nature. Whether or not it would be interesting is beside the point, science is not done to be interesting, it is created to investigate our physical world with certainty.

 

It is good to know we have someone on this site who is qualified to decide what degree programs are credible.

 

Read up on "Madison Mississippi University", it is not a credible college, that is not my decision, that is an observed pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_University

 

 

If no one ever gives their opinion in science, there will be no debate. If no one ever gives their opinion in science we will never know what the concensus is.

 

It is absurd to think you can take opinion out of science.

You are obviously not a scientist. If I do an experiment where there is a controlled variable, lets call it distance, and a non-controlled or dependent variable, let's call it potential energy, it doesn't matter what opinion you have, if you plot the data, you will for a fact see that as the distance from the ground increases, the potential energy increases. That conclusion is in no way shape or form dependent on any opinion in any fashion, it is purely dependent on what is measured, and many tests have redone the experiment to confirm it, that is what science is, it is not an opinion. Saying "Well in my opinion I still don't think it goes up even though the data says it does" is called a state of "denial".

 

Fact: Opinions are not a part of concluding the relationship between variables in scientific data. If you can model data under the equation y=x^2 with test-ably predictable results, any opinion from anyone is worthless, no matter what, the relationship is "y=x^2" for whatever the testable results extend to. "Why" that relationship occurs without testing is called "speculation" or "hypothesizing", and such things are not science, but with mathematics derived from tests and if necessary extensive number theory, you can prove that a certain phenomena is in fact the cause for another thing.

 

I think you should reconsider whether or not you are ready for a science forum.

I think you should learn proper scientific procedure.

 

Not only that, but you mentioned a list of scientists who are creationists. However, religion in no way impairs your cognitive thinking ability. Believing in any religion is fine as long as it does not interfere with conducting scientific experiments and as long as you do not use it as a justification of a scientific conclusion, science is not connected with religion, your list is meaningless.

 

I see two options for improving the quality of posts here: 1) Everyone attempts to improve the quality of their contributions (e.g. not picking up any detail offering the option to prove someone wrong, but trying to overall add something substantial to the discussion). 2) The staff improves average quality by more rigorous selection at the post-intensive quality bottom, which may arguably even lead to some quality in-flux from above (lately, I often felt and followed the urge not to continue posting in a thread after having read the other posts). Both options are not easy to implement, both are unlikely to happen. Your call for improving post quality is not the fist one by far - I would already be happy if threads started by people on my ignore list were not displayed to me, but even this has not been realized. And I can fully understand why the staff is reluctant to kick people out - I wouldn't want to do that, either. So what you are left with is improving the quality of your own posts. That you can influence. In fact, I sometimes decide to try that, myself.

 

 

If this site refuses to change then that is why one of my goals is to create an accredited official science website where people who call themselves experts must show their diploma with an ID analyzed by a group of other experts as well as always asserting what is their opinion from what they have 99% or more confidence in is true, as well as trying to stay out of personal conversations when responding to inquiries of scientific matters. How do the first experts get on board then? That's why I approach professors I know at relatively near-by colleges or universities about it first. If you really wanted to have a person chat with experts, you would send them a private message.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Phi for All]

Did you see a picture of his diploma with his ID?

You know, I did rely on the media, the state of Texas, the Yale Corporation, the GOP and the US Congress to vet the man's credentials (any single one of those sources wouldn't have sufficed}. Are you saying that without direct observation I was mistakenly relying solely on the opinion of those experts in their respective fields?

 

You obviously care more about public appeal that being logical. If you read my post, not only did I say "99%" certainty that they have some base knowledge above a high school level, but I did not say that anyone said that degrees were worthless, it was a comparison to an extreme to establish the poster did not advocate that extreme as I also pointed out in a later poser. A few nutcases may be frauds, but that does not mean that a greater of majority of people with high-end degrees have a high likelihood of also being frauds.

I don't like the tacit approval that ignoring logical fallacies implies. I don't like seeing you put words in other people's mouths. And when someone makes a statement and you argue using a comparison to an extreme that the original argument didn't intend, you're strawmanning, plain and simple.

 

Go back and read it, I asked if you think it's appropriate to mix science and opinion as you please, but instead of getting a logical answer you decided to be sarcastic. Learning science does not come from random opinions, in comes from investigating relationships between variables that represent things in nature. Whether or not it would be interesting is beside the point, science is not done to be interesting, it is created to investigate our physical world with certainty.

My logical answer was, "You ignored my stance, that what you're asking for seems like it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion since it would remove most of the passion that learning seems to thrive on, and you chose instead to claim I meant we should mix opinion and science as we please." It's right there in black and white, and now in red as well.

 

And none of that post used sarcasm. I still haven't asked you to reconsider calling yourself a reader, despite yet another failed attempt.

[John]

A few thoughts:

 

First, and maybe I'm being a bit silly here, a website with a requirement that new experts be vetted by existing experts may run into a bootstrapping problem. Putting into place a seed population of experts may help with that, of course, but then some or all of that seed population may need to be removed later for the sake of consistency.

 

Second (and forgive me if I'm wrong, as I've not been active for most of SFN's life), it's my understanding that Resident Expert status is an honor rather than an occupation. The system stems from a desire to recognize those who have demonstrated knowledge with informative and helpful posts, not from a desire to fill those pesky vacant "Resident Expert" positions the admins just refuse to list on Monster. Of course, experts are given some limited powers of moderation, but that strikes me as being a perk more than an obligation.

 

Third, this place is a science forum, not a free university. Experts, and anyone else, are free to say what they like, within the established rules, based on their best understanding of the topics at hand. Even in a university, it's not as if professors refuse to provide insight or share opinions and speculations during lectures. This is one of the primary advantages of having a knowledgeable person available to assist with learning. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a textbook (or, dare I say, a well-cited Wikipedia article) is sufficient if dry information is all that's desired. In any case, I'd trust the powers that be to remove an expert whose posts fell dramatically in quality over time.

 

Fourth, there are members who, despite having not yet been recognized as Resident Experts, generally make useful posts on a variety of topics. Perhaps more Experts would be nice, but they aren't the only sources of good information here.

 

Fifth, this thread seems to be getting needlessly hostile.

 

SamBridge, in light of all that's been said, do you still hold the same views you did in your original post? And if not, what still bothers you about the way SFN is set up currently?

Edited January 22, 2013 by John