Raising the Standards.

[SamBridge]

Could you post actual links to the offending posts - you can get a link for the individual post by right clicking the number of the post in the top right hand corner; not all of us see the same post numbers (I know it is a silly situation).

 

And I love the fact that I am now a maths expert whose opinion must now be vetted and referenced - and in such fine company as AJB and John Cuthber. Amazingly in that thread on irrationals there are real experts correcting each other; BigNose thought one thing, I commented and voiced an opinion that he might not be right (he is the expert so I was not sure enough to contradict him), and DH gave the link that showed we were both wrong. That's the whole point of discussion fora - if Bignose hadn't commented, neither would I; and you, I, and most of the forum would not have known about Gelfond-Schnieder theorem thanks to DH.

Not sure how to post links to individual posts, but where does it say in the forum rules that you must reference everything? Anyway it defiantly helps if any moderator posts a link to some kind of proof that showed if a number was irrational or not. In reference to the math section, Bignose said "most likely they are", the possibility that "they can be because <evidence>", but the assumption of it's correctness or incorrectness is what was an opinion, I'm not saying that at that point I knew that he was right or wrong. I'm also not saying every single post is some opinion based demagoguery.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

Sam, if your posts were just a little bit more knowledgeable, perhaps you wouldn't have so many issues with negative ratings.

 

IOW, study a little bit.

[StringJunky]

Not sure how to post links to individual posts,

 

Click on the number of the required post (right above avatar) and copy/paste the url from the box that appears.

[SamBridge]

Sam, if your posts were just a little bit more knowledgeable, perhaps you wouldn't have so many issues with negative ratings.

 

IOW, study a little bit.

Thank you for the immaculately well cited knowledgeable post. A lot of posts don't have anything to do with knowledge content, some I merely ask a question and no no apparent reason it's negative like "is it possible stars are alive?" or "is the universe in a loop?". I didn't even say I directly supported those theories yet I got negative marks for them, just for asking a scientific question on a SCIENCE forum.

 

Click on the number of the required post (right above avatar) and copy/paste the url from the box that appears.

Well just look in those topics anyway right near those post numbers, there should be examples of what I'm saying, I'll keep that in mind next time I need to link posts.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SamBridge

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I stopped posting in this thread as a member quite some time ago, so I'm going to step in as moderator and say we need to stop the personal attacks. ACG52, pushing SamBridge's buttons about reputation is NOT on topic. SamBridge, don't let yourself be led off-topic.

 

Responses to this modnote will be deleted. You all know by now how to deal with modnotes if you have a problem with them.

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72047-gauge-symmetry-and-conservation/ post #2

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/ post #4

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry725728 #127 #122

You know I'm not like trying to say they are wrong or anything, but there's some evidence at least.

 

I don't see what's wrong with the first, and for the last I can't be sure I'm looking at the posts you are (post count can be different for mods because posts may have been hidden owing to rules violations, but they are still counted for us but not for you)

[Ringer]

I don't see what's wrong with the first, and for the last I can't be sure I'm looking at the posts you are (post count can be different for mods because posts may have been hidden owing to rules violations, but they are still counted for us but not for you)

I believe these are the ones (If my count is the same as Sam):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/#entry725239

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry722856

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ringer

[SamBridge]

I don't see what's wrong with the first, and for the last I can't be sure I'm looking at the posts you are (post count can be different for mods because posts may have been hidden owing to rules violations, but they are still counted for us but not for you)

Well "wrong" is such an arbitrary term. I'm not saying opinions are wrong, I don't think they even can be right or wrong by definition.

[swansont]

Well "wrong" is such an arbitrary term. I'm not saying opinions are wrong, I don't think they even can be right or wrong by definition.

By "what's wrong" I meant the presence of opinions that shouldn't be there. You've claimed that it's wrong, so in the context of this discussion, it's not arbitrary.

 

I believe these are the ones (If my count is the same as Sam):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72338-irrational-numbers/#entry725239

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-7#entry722856

For the second, the topic was politics, so as far as I can see, the objection of an opinion being present is moot.

 

For the first, I'm not sure what the exact objection is. Saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" (or an equivalent) is not an opinion. (If it's being presented as an example of one then I shall have a response.)

[SamBridge]

Saying "I don't know" isn't an opinion which I agree with, but saying "it's bullocks", I don't even see that word too much anymore. But anyway, I don't think this topic is going to change things at any rate anyway.

[imatfaal]

btw the word is bollocks. nothing to do with young cattle - it's a magnificent old english swear word and in the way john used it means about the same as an american saying "bullshit!"

[ydoaPs]

except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

*ahem*

 

Edited February 5, 2013 by ydoaPs

[swansont]

Saying "I don't know" isn't an opinion which I agree with, but saying "it's bullocks", I don't even see that word too much anymore. But anyway, I don't think this topic is going to change things at any rate anyway.

 

Certainly not, if you can't come up with any examples and articulate why the examples are indicative of the problem.

[SamBridge]

Certainly not, if you can't come up with any examples and articulate why the examples are indicative of the problem.

That's fine you can say that all you want and I won't stop you, I'm just not putting the work into it because even if I do, compared in ratio to the posts that do not seem to have that problem it won't seem like it is a problem ever.

[Genecks]

@ SamBridge,

SFN has been a nice website for experts to get together and talk on a webforum. It has been pretty good at doing that. The thing about becoming an expert is that you often become busy and do not have time to get on this website and discuss things. SFN is a community project, and it's nice that people are willing to contribute as much as they already do. Nonetheless, it's a great place for people to argue about stuff. Also, I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't argue about biotech companies or various scientific protocols and their efficacy. There are other places on the web, however, where people go to argue about molecular biology protocols as I've learned in the past year... This is not the only forum, and to limit oneself to only this forum is to short one's self. One must learn to drink from many water sources.

 

As somewhat of an expert, I'm busy talking to other experts. However, I like to spend time in the academic learning parts of this forum, because I feel it helps accomplish more than answering specific topics. If I tell someone how to become a neuroscience student or biology student rather than answering one biology or neuroscience question, then I feel like I have accomplished a lot. Also, I like to analyze some aspects of sciences and discuss what I have learned: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=45761

 

Organic chemistry is difficult for many students. I sometimes wonder, however, that even if people find better ways to understand and memorize the material that instructors will just increase the level of difficultiy, because it acts as a 'measuring stick' to see how prepared a student may be for medical school.... Always a pain.... Can never win... ugh..

 

But yes, do not short yourself by only sticking to one part of the Internet. It would be great if SFN had more scientists with at least their master's degree. However, that would more than likely benefit someone like me, as I'm at the graduate level of education. Personally, I think it would be great if there were more Ph.D-level individuals with research experience on this web forum, especially if they had a lot of background in teaching people their trade, knowledge, critical thinking skills, and discuss employment prospects for all levels of individuals. That would be super...

 

I am still waiting for CharonY to offer me a paid research position.

 

I do not think a graduate-level educated person would be necessary to teach others the introductory aspects of various materials.... combine that with the fact that many graduate-level persons SUCK at teaching... then you can only hope you find someone who is GOOD at teaching graduate-level or lower topics to others... A person who has recently encountered and mastered the material would be a good teacher (an assumption), because the material is fresh, the required level of mastery is recent (mastery levels increase as years pass), and the person has a level of confidence... Although, such a person would be biased in their personal experiences, if they can understand your learning style and implement a paradigm of teaching to you, that makes them all the better: I have a background as a cognitive neuroscientist (but I've moved toward bioregeneration as of late).

 

Grab someone who had their education 50 years ago, and unless the person avidly teaches the materail to many other people, I'm doubting their integrity... These are from personal experiences that I've had.

 

So, SamBirdge, although I can understand where you are coming from, I believe your argument lacks in your personal experience in dealing with the many problems people have in order to obtain higher education. As such, I am under the assumption that you have failed to go about learning about the many personal experiences people deal with in obtaining a higher education.

 

Although people here may disagree with me on this, there is also the whole "trade secret" aspect to it. The "trade secret" aspect is not teaching other individuals your "trade," thus generating a "barrier to entry" into your trade. As such, there is an economic aspect deterring individuals from freely teaching their knowledge to other individuals. AKA: Take what you get and like it.

 

I'm a philosopher first and a scientist second. I'm a transhumanist. I believe through science that a new age of knowledge and understanding can be made. As such, I am often interested in contributing to science so that other people can become scientists. It's a self-destructive act, but I find in the self-sacrifice that more can be obtained. It is egoist and yet altruistic: a middle-ground for me. I like a challenge, and I like equilibrium.

@ Bignose, I disagree.

You cannot get an accredited degree without proving yourself.
There are standards...

If someone is a crackerjack BS'er, it'll be figured out in time.

Also, if someone is doing serious science without an education, the person is more than likely doing something illegal: At least in the realm of biomedical sciences. If someone is doing some serious chemistry without a degree, I will have to wonder what their goal is... thus making me consider the person is either a terrorist, freedom fighter, or planning criminal activity.

 

@ SamBridge

 

Seek knowledge from multiple sources. The problem with having all kinds of experts on here and all kinds of people asking questions would be that there would be so many more questions and answers to occur. As such, the forum would need to be adjusted to compensate for such. I understand what you mean, SamBridge. However, the forum board layout keeps a general trend. Were admins to really expand on each of the boards, I question how powerful this web forum could become. Because of how long the web forum has been around, it could possibly swallow up the other science boards on the Internet. It already did swallow up hypography if I understand correctly. However, the administrators do not appear to have a competitive spirit. The website would get really gaudy really fast, thus losing its artistic feature.

 

Also, in reference to more sophisticated aspects of higher sciences, many scientists don't want to talk about what they are working on. The reason for that is COMPETITION. There is an economic aspect to all of it: Hence why there exist "weed out" courses in higher education... they're meant to show academia's and science's capitalist nature rather than its communistic nature.

 

Economics... think about that for a while.

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.

 

There is probably at least one astronomy expert around here. Also, there 'is' a psychology expert around here... some liberal individual of whom has his/her master's, as the individual claims. The person made me question if nuns are mentally ill, which I guess you could argue they are when becoming detached from any religiosity view: This was in reference to the old question if homosexuality is a mental illness (not for discussion on this thread).

 

Science in a lot of ways has a lot to do with "opinions." There is a whole philosophy of science.

 

I keep my eye on neuroscience, psychology, and biology experts around here.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Genecks