studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Is the science here withering away, this morning's screenshot says it all. 2
Robittybob1 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Is the science here withering away, this morning's screenshot says it all. rename.jpg Is this the most important question in the end.
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I think it just a result of having one particularly vociferous preacher turn up. Hopefully he will get bored and wander off soon. 1
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 I think it just a result of having one particularly vociferous preacher turn up. Hopefully he will get bored and wander off soon. This will happen more quickly if you don't feed the _____. 1
david345 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 This will happen more quickly if you don't feed the _____.The worst thing you can do is not respond. Science will die if it does not have the last word. These trolls can always be beat. It just takes a little imagination. Disagreeing with them is not immoral. Their dishonesty is immoral.
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 The worst thing you can do is not respond. Science will die if it does not have the last word. These trolls can always be beat. It just takes a little imagination. Disagreeing with them is not immoral. Their dishonesty is immoral. Unfortunately the figures in my screenshot don't (scientifically) bear this out. View totals by category Other : 348 Religion : 154 Science : 136 With science coming in a poor third.
Phi for All Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 History tells us people want to talk about religious topics, but they don't want to listen to people preaching at them. Without the section specifically for religion, members start introducing god(s) into other conversations, and we really don't want that in the mainstream. We've done without the section briefly before. We just made the rule that nobody could bring up religion at any time, which led to questions about any supernatural subject (if we can talk about Bigfoot, why not God?). The censorship angle was what made us put the section back. We figured out it was better to have a section you aren't forced to visit rather than a subject you aren't allowed to talk about. The software doesn't let us remove religious topics from the front page though, and that seems to cause a problem as well. It makes the section more visible to those who wish it would just go away.
John Cuthber Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I guess it won't be long before his preachy style and refusal to provide any evidence gets him banned.
Phi for All Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I guess it won't be long before his preachy style and refusal to provide any evidence gets him banned. So, would it have been better to block him from posting about the subject, or is anything gained from discussing it with him? I know a lot of people with passion for a subject that can't be persuaded away from ill-conceived stances, but I also know that many readers walk away with insights they don't bother to share.
MonDie Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 [snip] The software doesn't let us remove religious topics from the front page though, and that seems to cause a problem as well. It makes the section more visible to those who wish it would just go away. That religious section looks awfully inviting. Its presence must be responsible for a portion of the religious threads. Maybe tuck it away within the philophy section.
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I think his combination of rambling, incoherent posts and an insistence that everyone else "be scientific" and use "perfect logic" is quite amsuing. That is probably the only reason for engaging with him. Certainly he isn't going to change his mind (and why should he) and is clearly incapable of presenting an argument in a way that will persuade anyone else.
imatfaal Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 ! Moderator Note Let's not personalise this in any way please - nor use this thread to criticise any particular member or their posts and to the Original Question - No. Firstly, it is not true and secondly Religous isn't a word
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 We used to have a policy in place so that people couldn't just show up and start spamming in religion or politics — they had to establish some credibility by participating in scientific discussions first. But that didn't seem to help anything, and at the time, only seemed to stifle some contributions. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59020-politics-philosophy-and-religion-post-restrictions-lifted/ Unfortunately the figures in my screenshot don't (scientifically) bear this out. View totals by category Other : 348 Religion : 154 Science : 136 With science coming in a poor third. "Other" includes speculations, and there is a lot of science discussed there. Not, usually, by the thread starter, but certainly in shooting the ideas down.
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 secondly Religous isn't a word So someone finally spotted my irreverend deliberate spelling mistake. The point I am making is that the % is too high IMHO. Other sites seem to have lively technical without religious overtones. Ask Dave, his last site simply bans the subject and is technically lively and friendly with only light touch moderation needed. I have seen folks happily sending speciality technical components and information halfway round the globe, just to help others (and have done so myself), courtesy this site
Phi for All Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Ask Dave, his last site simply bans the subject and is technically lively and friendly with only light touch moderation needed. dave the SFN Admin? A different Dave? This was the problem we ended up with last time. Banning an entire subject can hardly be considered light-touch moderation. I have no problems with telling people that religion is the one thing they can't mention here, but historically the problems are not as simple as you think. Yours are not the only reasonable arguments.
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 Yes, cuddly, glove puppet Dave, whom I have always found the most affable person. (The other site referred is AllAboutCircuits, where, at the moment, there is more hard discussion about basic Physics and Maths than here)
StringJunky Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 So, would it have been better to block him from posting about the subject, or is anything gained from discussing it with him? I know a lot of people with passion for a subject that can't be persuaded away from ill-conceived stances, but I also know that many readers walk away with insights they don't bother to share. Apart from the out-and-out preachers, I ask myself "Why do people want to talk about their faith on a science forum?" and I think it's often because they want to test it.against scientific thought processes. We will hardly ever know the effect on them but I'm sure some go away with new insights, like you say. If there weren't any websites like this one, spreading the scientific view to everyone, and not just the choir, religious doctrine can only continue unabated. I also agree with you that banning religion will only allow it to creep into mainstream stuff like it did before: no point history repeating itself. I hardly post in Religion but it's right that it's there. I'd hate to see this forum become too devout about science and excluding those who challenge it. We wouldn't wish to become like those we oppose would we? 1
MigL Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) The problem seems to be that you can't really discuss Religion ( politics is almost as bad ), because it is based upon beliefs or faith, rather than facts. No matter how many facts you present in your argument, you will not change someone else's beliefs. Religion and science are based on differing paradigms. I, myself, have stopped responding to a certain new member, because no good can come of it. Although I find it kind of refreshing that we've always had members trying to dissect Religion with Science, which isn't right, and now we have someone doing the opposite; dissecting Science with Religion, which obviously isn't right either. You know what we need ? Some gruff, opinionated, older guy, who 'doesn't suffer fools', to call this new member 'ignorant of the facts'. Anyone know someone like that ? Edited January 5, 2015 by MigL
Phi for All Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Apart from the out-and-out preachers, I ask myself "Why do people want to talk about their faith on a science forum?" and I think it's often because they want to test it.against scientific thought processes. We will hardly ever know the effect on them but I'm sure some go away with new insights, like you say. If there weren't any websites like this one, spreading the scientific view to everyone, and not just the choir, religious doctrine can only continue unabated. I also agree with you that banning religion will only allow it to creep into mainstream stuff like it did before: no point history repeating itself. I hardly post in Religion but it's right that it's there. I'd hate to see this forum become too devout about science and excluding those who challenge it. We wouldn't wish to become like those we oppose would we? I feel much the same way about it. I think we have something unique, a place where people can talk about virtually anything in a scientific context, with the caveat that if you make assertions rather than state your opinion, you need supportive evidence. I don't mind people talking about their faith. I've learned a lot about faith over the years, and I understand what it means to many people, For me, SFN religious discussions help keep the focus on what we can address using scientific methodology, rather than simply talking about what we believe. Once the misconceptions are pared away, once natural explanations have taken the place of superstition and wishful thinking, what's left seems much more interesting and meaningful. I'm not looking to dissuade somebody from a religion they've had all their lives, but I think the vast majority of people would want to know the facts so they can be informed. I don't think it really aids faith to believe that your god is the one who brings the rain and makes sure the harvest will be fruitful. Ultimately, everybody doesn't learn the same way. We need a variety of ways to teach what we know. What's compelling to one isn't to another, so we need multiple perspectives. You know what we need ? Some gruff, opinionated, older guy, who 'doesn't suffer fools', ti call this new member 'ignorant of the facts'. Anyone know someone like that ? This guy is a walking fallacy, he is. It's like when someone tells you they're "naturally skeptical". It could be an attempt to set themselves up as an authority of Truth. They're skeptical of everything, so when they say they believe something, it's supposed to carry extra weight because they normally don't. It's the same with this "doesn't suffer fools" nonsense. It automatically makes the non-sufferer into some kind of non-foolish authority who "just tells you like it is", or " calls a spade a spade". It's a tactic to make your position unassailable, and it grants authority to label fools, which is a personal attack as far as staff is concerned. It's too easy to dismiss what you think is foolishness, and doesn't help discussions. I'd rather ban people who can't seem to get with the program rather than keep them here as fools. 3
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 To those who like to see some religion mixed in with their science diet. Every school teacher allows some non educational activity by her students Every army sergeant allows some horsing around by the squaddies Every foreman allows some privat chit chat etc by the workers But all tighten things when the amount of side activity becomes excessive and detrimental to the main. So what % religion is acceptable for this site?
michel123456 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I have a proposal. Put the Religion as a sub-forum of Speculations (next to the trash can). 1
Phi for All Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I have a proposal. Put the Religion as a sub-forum of Speculations (next to the trash can). It's not its placement that's under fire, it's the fact that its threads show up on the front page and make it look, occasionally, like that's all we talk about. In these instances, it wouldn't matter if the percentage was 99% science, if the front page happens to show 10 religion topics out of 20 total, it looks like we're talking about God half the time.
michel123456 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Ok. lets introduce some new rules then. _Each time the word God is written a minus in rep. When its GOD all in caps that gives you minus three. _Each time the word Truth is written, a minus in rep. -When the words GOD & Thruth are in the same sentence, the thread goes to the Trash Can. note. I am not really serious. 1
StringJunky Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) You can censor your own choice of forums to view in the New Content page. Go down the left-hand column of the New Content page then select Filter By Forum > Click on the forums you want to view in New Content > Click Save. Edited January 5, 2015 by StringJunky
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now