Science Forums Etiquette

[Tres Juicy]

And more than 10 times - cos I have plus rep´d it as i could not believe how many neg reps it had

 

 

Crazy.....

 

If people don't like the rules, why are they here?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[imatfaal]

Crazy.....

 

If people don't like the rules, why are they here?

 

Agree entirely. But...

 

I reckon you could use that to eliminate most of the participants in all of the forums; have you read the crackpots in Physics who cannot even start to do maths, the Climate Change ¨Sceptics" for whom any excuse is a good excuse to wax lyrical about the conspiracy, the wackos in Maths who think Calculus is fundamentally flawed, the zealots in Religion who say we are all gonna burn, the monomaniacs in Philosophy with an interpretation of the philosophy of science previously unknown to man, the ranting yahoos in politics that you wouldnt want to next to in a bar, and the desperately sincere Speculators with a pet theory that doesnt so much fly as plummet? But I keep on coming back - which means that I think I am one of them...

[Tres Juicy]

Agree entirely. But...

 

I reckon you could use that to eliminate most of the participants in all of the forums; have you read the crackpots in Physics who cannot even start to do maths, the Climate Change ¨Sceptics" for whom any excuse is a good excuse to wax lyrical about the conspiracy, the wackos in Maths who think Calculus is fundamentally flawed, the zealots in Religion who say we are all gonna burn, the monomaniacs in Philosophy with an interpretation of the philosophy of science previously unknown to man, the ranting yahoos in politics that you wouldnt want to next to in a bar, and the desperately sincere Speculators with a pet theory that doesnt so much fly as plummet? But I keep on coming back - which means that I think I am one of them...

 

 

Me too!

 

I have my fair share of crackpot idea's but at least I'm willing to listen and learn and I discuss my points fairly and not in a ridiculous way. If you prove me wrong, then I'm wrong (then I'll neg rep you! )

 

I enjoy talking to those people (I have often been the one who's putting forward some highly speculative material), I like to discuss idea's - Thats why we're here right?

[imatfaal]

For those that are curious the acronym feature now seems to need differnt code

 

 

[acr=Laughing Out Loud]LOL[/acr]

 

is replaced with

 

LOL

 

 

Now I am going to press post and hope the noparse code works

 

edit - it doesnt.

 

so you now need to type

[_acronym=Its not a bug its a feature]INABIAF[_/acronym]

 

to get (mouseover to view)

 

INABIAF

 

of course removing the underscores that I had to place in there to stop the software just interpreting it cos the noparse code is STILL broken

[barfbag]

@ OP,

 

Me So Great
You may be intending to become a moderator by impressing the forum staff your superb skills, impressive vocabulary, witty sense of humor and ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good,

 

 

"You may be intending to become a moderator by... ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good"

 

So it is fine and good to make derogatory comments to newbies. This explains much of the moderation I've seen.

 

Example: I received 4.... warning points for a thread where I suggested believing in telepathy could aid in the belief of a god if one existed. I think the idea of mass consciousness which would be what is occurring if we are all psychic and god is a similar concept.

 

Then I see threads that discuss gay parenting go way off topic and turn into a political debate and no warning points are given.

 

In fact I see "Thread Hijacking" as a common occurrence here yet only a few get infraction points.

 

Heck! I probably risk a ban simply by pointing this out, but at least I'm calling a spade a spade.

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

 

Now I see such behavior seems to be encouraged.

 

It should NOT BE FINE to make derogatory remarks to newbies no matter what position they hope to achieve (or already have) here.

 

At least you should recognize this about yourselves.

Edited August 3, 2014 by barfbag

[StringJunky]

@ OP,

 

 

"You may be intending to become a moderator by... ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good"

 

So it is fine and good to make derogatory comments to newbies. This explains much of the moderation I've seen.

 

Example: I received 4.... warning points for a thread where I suggested believing in telepathy could aid in the belief of a god if one existed. I think the idea of mass consciousness which would be what is occurring if we are all psychic and god is a similar concept.

 

Then I see threads that discuss gay parenting go way off topic and turn into a political debate and no warning points are given.

 

In fact I see "Thread Hijacking" as a common occurrence here yet only a few get infraction points.

 

Heck! I probably risk a ban simply by pointing this out, but at least I'm calling a spade a spade.

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

 

Now I see such behavior seems to be encouraged.

 

It should NOT BE FINE to make derogatory remarks to newbies no matter what position they hope to achieve (or already have) here.

 

At least you should recognize this about yourselves.

If you interpret it correctly, he was telling people how not to become a moderator.

Edited August 3, 2014 by StringJunky

[ydoaPs]

@ OP,

 

 

"You may be intending to become a moderator by... ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good"

 

So it is fine and good to make derogatory comments to newbies. This explains much of the moderation I've seen.

 

Example: I received 4.... warning points for a thread where I suggested believing in telepathy could aid in the belief of a god if one existed. I think the idea of mass consciousness which would be what is occurring if we are all psychic and god is a similar concept.

 

Then I see threads that discuss gay parenting go way off topic and turn into a political debate and no warning points are given.

 

In fact I see "Thread Hijacking" as a common occurrence here yet only a few get infraction points.

 

Heck! I probably risk a ban simply by pointing this out, but at least I'm calling a spade a spade.

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

 

Now I see such behavior seems to be encouraged.

 

It should NOT BE FINE to make derogatory remarks to newbies no matter what position they hope to achieve (or already have) here.

 

At least you should recognize this about yourselves.

!

Moderator Note

And now you're getting a warning point for thread hijacking again. If you want to stop getting warning points for thread hijacking, there's a simple solution: stop hijacking threads.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

Everyone,

If you see other people taking threads off-topic which the mods did not see yet, report it and we will look into it.

It is best if everyone just focuses on him/herself, and make sure that you don't break the rules anymore. Let the mods deal with the rest by reporting it.

[BrainTrainer]

What I find annoying is that when I post a comment and then a couple of hours later I have extra info and I go there to comment again on the same thread but the two posts are shown as combined, which doesn't make much sense.

[Tim the plumber]

Could an explanation of the Logical fallacy thing be listed please.

[For Prose]

Could an explanation of the Logical fallacy thing be listed please.

 

You should read this and study it well. Very very well.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster24x36.pdf

[iNow]

More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

[CaptainPanic]

Could an explanation of the Logical fallacy thing be listed please.

 

Please read our rules, and then click on the "logical fallacies" link that is provided.

[Tim the plumber]

Can I suggest that any claim that a logical fallacy has taken place needs to have it explained.

 

Just disagreeing with somebody should not constitute such a thing.

[For Prose]

Can I suggest that any claim that a logical fallacy has taken place needs to have it explained.

 

Just disagreeing with somebody should not constitute such a thing.

 

You would learn it more concretely if you tried deciphering it yourself.

Also, you are right. Simply stating "I disagree" does not constitute a logical fallacy. It's usually your reasons that follow that do.

[Phi for All]

Can I suggest that any claim that a logical fallacy has taken place needs to have it explained.

 

Just disagreeing with somebody should not constitute such a thing.

 

Don't most people here name the fallacy, so you can look it up and see what they're talking about? They should.

 

And to be absolutely clear, the logical fallacies we try to avoid are a fairly small list of the total. Strawman is the most abused, imo, which is a subset of the Red Herring. These divert discussion away from the focus, and they're really annoying to people who can't let something wrong go uncontested (which is probably most of us).

 

Personal attacks are another, and are a subset of the ad hominem. We attack ideas here, but since many find it hard to separate their ideas from themselves, there is much confusion and many misunderstandings.

 

For the most part, however, a logical fallacy is bad if that's all you've got. If I'm arguing that censoring internet access is like burning books, that it will inevitably lead to more restricted access, that's actually a Slippery Slope fallacy. However, if I can back that up with historical evidence where book burning led to more book burning (which isn't that hard to find), then it becomes more than fallacious logic.

[swansont]

 

Don't most people here name the fallacy, so you can look it up and see what they're talking about? They should.

 

And to be absolutely clear, the logical fallacies we try to avoid are a fairly small list of the total. Strawman is the most abused, imo, which is a subset of the Red Herring. These divert discussion away from the focus, and they're really annoying to people who can't let something wrong go uncontested (which is probably most of us).

 

Personal attacks are another, and are a subset of the ad hominem. We attack ideas here, but since many find it hard to separate their ideas from themselves, there is much confusion and many misunderstandings.

 

For the most part, however, a logical fallacy is bad if that's all you've got. If I'm arguing that censoring internet access is like burning books, that it will inevitably lead to more restricted access, that's actually a Slippery Slope fallacy. However, if I can back that up with historical evidence where book burning led to more book burning (which isn't that hard to find), then it becomes more than fallacious logic.

 

I would add that false accusations of logical fallacies fall under the umbrella of a red herring fallacy, i.e. a fallacy of distraction. If you accuse someone of a fallacy often the discussion shifts to whether or not it was a fallacy, rather than the topic that had been under discussion. It's fairly important to have a decent familiarity with what constitutes a logical fallacy — not all insults are ad hominem, for example (though an insult would be a rules violation on the forum).

[imatfaal]

 

I would add that false accusations of logical fallacies fall under the umbrella of a red herring fallacy, i.e. a fallacy of distraction. If you accuse someone of a fallacy often the discussion shifts to whether or not it was a fallacy, rather than the topic that had been under discussion. It's fairly important to have a decent familiarity with what constitutes a logical fallacy — not all insults are ad hominem, for example (though an insult would be a rules violation on the forum).

 

and not all ad hominem need be insulting - the fallacy is the proposed connexion between a person's character and the validity of their argument eg "you're too good-natured and honest to be able to explain the workings of the criminal mind" . Although the vast majority are insulting - and any non-insulting can almost be seen as insulting through the implication that the characteristic renders the person unable to form a correct argument.

 

With regards to the questions of logical fallacy (in a related thread) there is a nice distinction which needs to be recognized; questioning the arguments and conclusions of a paper merely through an adverse characterisation of the publication is close to fallacious whereas questioning the papers evidentiary impact through the same means is not. Two preprints on arxiv with similar referencing and methodology etc have a similar import (very little) - when one of those papers goes through the peer review process necessary to be published in a top-tier journal and the other is published in a vanity pay-for-print journal then there is a clear difference between the two when it comes to evidentiary impact

[swansont]

With regards to the questions of logical fallacy (in a related thread) there is a nice distinction which needs to be recognized; questioning the arguments and conclusions of a paper merely through an adverse characterisation of the publication is close to fallacious whereas questioning the papers evidentiary impact through the same means is not. Two preprints on arxiv with similar referencing and methodology etc have a similar import (very little) - when one of those papers goes through the peer review process necessary to be published in a top-tier journal and the other is published in a vanity pay-for-print journal then there is a clear difference between the two when it comes to evidentiary impact

There's an underlying convention that scientists try and publish in the highest-prestige journal they can, appropriate for their paper. If it's rejected, you work your way down. So a paper published in a brand-new, pay-for-print journal raises legitimate questions about whether it was submitted to (and rejected by) one that is better established and more prestigious, and why.

[imatfaal]

There's an underlying convention that scientists try and publish in the highest-prestige journal they can, appropriate for their paper. If it's rejected, you work your way down. So a paper published in a brand-new, pay-for-print journal raises legitimate questions about whether it was submitted to (and rejected by) one that is better established and more prestigious, and why.

 

Agree completely. This point often comes up in controversial topics in which the massive weight of scientific evidence is clearly on one side and not the other - eg climate change denial, anti-evolution threads, relativity is wrong etc. - and in these cases I think it necessary to be especially clear that it is the preponderance of evidence which informs our decision and not some prejudice against novel and unusual ideas nor against the sort of journals in which such ideas are published.

[CharonY]

One should also keep in mind that peer-review is not the end of the discussion, just the beginning. It is the low bar to pass to be considered scientifically valid. If something does not even pass that bar, skepticism is appropriate.

 

And with start of a discussion I mean in the context of other evidence that have passed that bar, not, for example, in the context of a random web site with garish layout.

Edited October 29, 2014 by CharonY

[swansont]

One should also keep in mind that peer-review is not the end of the discussion, just the beginning. It is the low bar to pass to be considered scientifically valid. If something does not even pass that bar, skepticism is appropriate.

 

And with start of a discussion I mean in the context of other evidence that have passed that bar, not, for example, in the context of a random web site with garish layout.

 

Indeed. It means no obvious flaws were found. Since this is a model, the true test is whether it matches with experiment. I don't see where the model has been applied to historical data to see if it works.

[Harold Squared]

I must agree with DrRocket's evaluation of "reputation points". To present the flip side of the coin, a banned member may very well have spoken the truth.

 

Of course once that person is banned we can only guess at what they have to say.

 

I am under no obligation to respond or even to read each individual post and am becoming more of a placid pachyderm but I do not bear the responsibility of a moderator, nor do I wish to.

 

Thanks to those who tirelessly seek to improve the quality of discussion here.

 

Indeed. It means no obvious flaws were found. Since this is a model, the true test is whether it matches with experiment. I don't see where the model has been applied to historical data to see if it works.

This should become easier in the age of electronic records, I would assume. Do you agree?

[ajb]

To present the flip side of the coin, a banned member may very well have spoken the truth.

It is not so much about the 'truth', but the usually the attitude and how one responds to questioning. Being wrong is no a reason to be banned.

[StringJunky]

Without exception, people are only banned for being arses.