Is this an information kiosk rather than a forum for debate?

[GeneralDadmission]

You were told not to reintroduce the topic. Thread closed.

 

I didn't reintroduce the topic. I asked for an explanation of how there had been recourse for discussion allowed. Can't say I'm particularly impressed with the quality of debate available here. It actually appears to be actively avoided.

The only point the moderators here have willingly clarified for me is who gets to end a discussion here.

[ajb]

Can't say I'm particularly impressed with the quality of debate available here. It actually appears to be actively avoided.

Few people actually come here with things that we can debate. Usually the threads are direct science question, and these get direct science answers, or they are pushing their pet theories. The latter are usually base on poor understanding and misinterpretation. Not much to scientifically debate.

 

The only point the moderators here have willingly clarified for me is who gets to end a discussion here.

In truth most of us are okay with the moderation rules. However, if you think you have been unfairly treated you can ask other moderators to take a look.

 

Anyway, if you are polite, stick to the rules and don't push your own pseudoscience ideas then you will have no problems here.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

Few people actually come here with things that we can debate. Usually the threads are direct science question, and these get direct science answers, or they are pushing their pet theories. The latter are usually base on poor understanding and misinterpretation. Not much to scientifically debate.

 

 

In truth most of us are okay with the moderation rules. However, if you think you have been unfairly treated you can ask other moderators to take a look.

 

Anyway, if you are polite, stick to the rules and don't push your own pseudoscience ideas then you will have no problems here.

 

I wasn't pushing my own pseudoscience idea. I was requesting assistance in defining how to construct the equation that illustrates the model for measurement. I have achieved a degree of this through inference against references. As I am not practiced at assessing the accuracy of a constructed equation I would still require guidance in showing a model. I appreciate your feedback ajb as you engage the question I ask rather than focus on an imperfectly worded reference I would only have included to provide context for my question.

Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[ajb]

I wasn't pushing my own pseudoscience idea. I was requesting assistance in defining how to construct the equation that illustrates the model for measurement. I have achieved a degree of this through inference against references. As I am not practiced at assessing the accuracy of a constructed equation I would still require guidance in showing a model. I appreciate your feedback ajb as you engage the question I ask rather than focus on an imperfectly worded reference I would only have included to provide context for my question.

I have not been following your threads closely to be able to give you any advice. Also, we cannot really start to discuss this here as that would be off topic.

[studiot]

 

Is this an information kiosk rather than a forum for debate?

Started by GeneralDadmission, Today, 05:35 AM

 

 

 

Forums usually end up being whatever the members make of it, despite the rules, which are usually just a version of common sense and common politeness.

 

Like ajb, your subject headings have not interested me so I have not been following them, but your post in this thread makes me wonder if you are scientifically trying to run before you can walk.

 

In the words of Moontanman's people, "Tread softly on the mountain."

[GeneralDadmission]

I have not been following your threads closely to be able to give you any advice. Also, we cannot really start to discuss this here as that would be off topic.

 

I was not seeking resolution on this subject and have posted this thread only to register my confusion with how to conform to the forums requirements. I have posted a thread titled "The Zero Degree Paradox" on the Relativity section. I feel I owe MrAstrophysicist a debt as the brainteasers he supplied provide the basis of everything I have studied since I chose to investigate this question. Any observations you have on the thought experiments included will be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Forums usually end up being whatever the members make of it, despite the rules, which are usually just a version of common sense and common politeness.

 

Like ajb, your subject headings have not interested me so I have not been following them, but your post in this thread makes me wonder if you are scientifically trying to run before you can walk.

 

In the words of Moontanman's people, "Tread softly on the mountain."

 

Fair sentiment and appreciated. I am simply confused by requesting guidance in formulating an equation and receiving only ridicule regarding the quaintness of my vocabulary.

[swansont]

The "quaintness" of one's vocabulary is often a reflection of the depth of one's knowledge. If you don't know the terminology, you probably haven't studied the subject. Which leads to using the terminology wrong, and means people will not understand what you're saying.

 

(If you are familiar with Monty Python references, it's like saying "My hovercraft is full of eels")

 

You are in science-land, and it's up to you to learn to speak some science. Speaking your own language won't let anyone understand you.

[GeneralDadmission]

The "quaintness" of one's vocabulary is often a reflection of the depth of one's knowledge. If you don't know the terminology, you probably haven't studied the subject. Which leads to using the terminology wrong, and means people will not understand what you're saying.

 

(If you are familiar with Monty Python references, it's like saying "My hovercraft is full of eels")

 

You are in science-land, and it's up to you to learn to speak some science. Speaking your own language won't let anyone understand you.

 

Yes. Fair enough(shame-face). After many years of following a line of logic I've got to a point where all the threads are coming together. I am also not practiced in the scientific method of defining an hypothesis. I've been largely thinking out loud in the hope that people might recognize what needs to be defined hypothesis-wise within the modelling I've done over the years. I can reassure you the pressure has been removed from your capacities to interpret my language. The content of the Zero Degree Thread is allowing me to define what I need to show among some other factors I've been able to connect today. I withdraw any suggestion of complaint and will confine my posts to questions with intelligible reference.

[Wolfhnd]

The tittle of this post raises question that I have been considering.

 

I think that at times argument or debate may be necessary for clarification but science is a cooperative adventure where ideas are shared and refined. Debate for debates sake can impede cooperation and lead to unnecessary animosities. We would not share our ideas if there was certainty that they could not be falsified unless for the purposes of indoctrination or self aggrandizement.

 

The internet is a wonderful medium for sharing ideas and feelings but like all social activities there is a necessary segregation of individuals by interests. The question then is not if these forums are an information kiosk rather than a forum for debate but how inclusive the management wishes to make them.

 

There should be no expectation that the language of science should be excluded for the sake of inclusion of the general population. There also should be no expectation that clarity would be achieved by the use of a common language. In general I have found this forum courteous and patient with non scientists. This reflects I believe the democratic nature of science in which the only requirement for inclusion is that an individual is curious and studious.

 

There is a problem that we are all aware of however. It can best be illustrated by the latest cover of National Geographic promptly and bolder headlined "Science Under Attack". Science being the step child of the enlightenment has a heritage opposed to authoritarian dictate. I commend the management of this website for not descending to the level of those that attack science and resisting the temptation to exclusion and authority that politics so often lead us to. Upholding the egalitarian nature of science is the best defense against it's enemies.