Why I'm here...

[Scott Mayers]

Hi, I've already signed up here before but want to clarify up front that I'm only here to seek help with others already invested in the sciences and philosophy of sciences with sincerity. I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation I have severe disrespect for regarding our intellectual input (that much of our own inputs can be co-opted by our loss of rights to a default to protecting our credibility in terms of things like copyright, etc.) and how almost universally these sites present themselves to dismiss outright anything against specific inquiry or theories that differ with the status quo on conventional and institutional science.

 

I'm thus going to try to remain cautious of this in my approach and remain 'light' on my own ideas if I can't preserve my own input elsewhere prior to participating. I come here as I am without anonymity as I believe this is the best means to remain credible and hope that I can somehow at least set some example moving forward to prevent abuses online.

 

I've been working on my own theories of which I see results from my own skepticism that originally issued from questioning things like religion. But I've also expanded this to nearly everything, including other skeptics in kind. Yet, in this pursuit, I had also discovered how even the status of science as presented by many as just as worthy of skepticism. This wasn't my original stance and I also still respect it with high reverence.

 

However, certain concerns in logic and the practice of science as put forth upon specific "fringe" areas (meaning by me here the very large = Cosmology or very small = Atomic Physics) has presented theories that lack as much credibility based on how certain observations within these "fringe" areas have demonstrated a lack of logic AND to how I recognize the significance of the role of politics plays an even more powerful role within institutions intent on conserving authorities with more emphasis than the sincerity I once understood science to represent, ...especially with ideas relating to "tentativity" and a repulsion to accept math or logic as intrinsically essential as a reality apart from its use as a "tool". To me, the latter point relates to the fact of how today's paradigm reflects a dismissal of a bottom-up approach through logical first principles as a functioning aspect of science. Nowadays, most view "science" only as the top-down form based merely on inductive methods alone and universally. I believe that while the initial concern to question logic as a means to provide a functioning aspect of science (other than as a 'tool' of convenience), was due to a practical and political one to evade the problem of demarcation from things like pseudo-science or religion. However, I believe this was done prematurely and has created a set of problems to which I may dwell in here at times that demonstrate how a science in one era becomes a religion of another future one based on the same repeated cycles historically.

 

In our present paradigm, I'm concerned that the "emprical-only" method is akin to a union of labor workers OR privileged guilds act to monopolizing an industry over the intellectual convention of theory. Even while painted as today's "intellect", much of it is devised politically to foster institutional authority as even in the standards of teaching through university degrees today, they emphasize a backwards approach to foundational learning when one must spend the first undergraduate years expending unusually great efforts in learning 'facts' without upfront proofs as we are taught more how to credit other authorities. Only once one has mastered a particular area are they then 'free' to contribute to the intellectual process with natural freedoms of thinking. That is, prior to one's PhD, the emphasis for learning is about the clerical means of processes of scientific practices aimed to preserve the integrity of the institutes themselves and their authorities without actually attending to encouraging free thought. It is as if the function of it is intended to prioritize pumping out productive "labor-like" workers of science rather than clever thinkers.

 

I know this is not an absolute nor can speak confidently about this to ALL institutions. But from how I've approached my own intellect in a more traditional 'bottom-up' approach mostly outside of the formal classroom, I've found that by reversing the process by placing an emphasis on questioning AND understanding things via a step-by-step process to assure you understand each thing you learn with clear logic, it has an advantage of "internalizing" what you learn with better credibility than most who DO graduate with authority through the present system.

 

Note too that I don't believe that we should actually abandon the way formal education is taught either. What I believe however is that we must recognize both approaches to understanding with the advantages and disadvantages that both approaches have.

 

To help clarify using an example, I had initially opened a thread (I don't remember if it was here or on another science forum) that had the title, "Einstein was wrong" to which my initial words in that thread began with something like, "...well not really" and then I tried to explain my concern. Without reading, some moderator moved the thread to a junk section (a "dunce" area) to which I was offended as he only appeared to have moved it based merely on the title without reading.

 

What I found disturbing was that I learned that the site even had such an area AND that even being allowed to question such authorities on sites such as this were deemed "blasphemous" indistinct from any church. I won't bother with this issue only to bring this up as what has initiated a full-out personal investigation into how even the best of institutions, even science, acts in a way that conserves against their initial liberation against past authorities. I'm now more in understanding of Marx's take on how history and politics cycle in a contradictory evolution that eventually requires revolution to overthrow such inevitable evolution towards these cyclic processes. I'm against him in his intent to formulate Communism as a solution as it too only adds just another end to which in practice becomes religious in nature. The idea of sacrificing one's present conditions under a dictator of the proletariat for some 'ideal' future paradise is no different than religion as it proposes that such a future CAN exist and that it asks of the present generation to gamble that it could exist without respecting the possibility of nature itself to defeat this option in practice: an asteroid, for instance could come along on the very day of realizing such a 'paradise' and simply make all the effort meaningless anyways.

 

So, thank you for reading and I hope this will give you a background of where I stand on my presence here before proceeding.

 

Scott Mayers. Oct 4, 2015.

[swansont]

 

I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation

You can disapprove all you want, right up to the point that you break the rules.

[Phi for All]

Hi, I've already signed up here before but want to clarify up front that I'm only here to seek help with others already invested in the sciences and philosophy of sciences with sincerity. I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation I have severe disrespect for regarding our intellectual input (that much of our own inputs can be co-opted by our loss of rights to a default to protecting our credibility in terms of things like copyright, etc.) and how almost universally these sites present themselves to dismiss outright anything against specific inquiry or theories that differ with the status quo on conventional and institutional science.

 

I don't understand your position at all. How did you expect to succeed (either of the times you've joined) by coming in with an agenda that's mutually incompatible with our purpose? Why not go to the sites that allow a much less rigorous approach to scientific speculation? Why storm in to a site most people come to FOR the rigorous approach, and object to the way its run?

 

Try telling your university that it should adopt the standards your middle school had. Do it loudly, call a meeting, invite everyone.

[John Cuthber]

Hi, I've already signed up here before but want to clarify up front that I'm only here to seek help with others already invested in the sciences and philosophy of sciences with sincerity. I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation ...

 

Scott Mayers. Oct 4, 2015.

Other fora are available.

[Strange]

I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation I have severe disrespect for regarding our intellectual input (that much of our own inputs can be co-opted by our loss of rights to a default to protecting our credibility in terms of things like copyright, etc.)

 

It is very unclear what you are trying to say here. But it may be worth pointing out that you cannot copyright (or patent, or trademark) an intellectual idea. However, the rules of the forum specifically confirm the fact that you retain copyright on your posts here.

 

and how almost universally these sites present themselves to dismiss outright anything against specific inquiry or theories that differ with the status quo on conventional and institutional science.

 

I don't know any science forum that is opposed to ideas against the status quo. What the best ones are against is ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence or have no evidence to support them. Making stuff up is not science.

 

I'm thus going to try to remain cautious of this in my approach and remain 'light' on my own ideas if I can't preserve my own input elsewhere prior to participating. I come here as I am without anonymity as I believe this is the best means to remain credible and hope that I can somehow at least set some example moving forward to prevent abuses online.

 

The best way to remain credible is provide support for your ideas.

 

In our present paradigm, I'm concerned that the "emprical-only" method is akin to a union of labor workers OR privileged guilds act to monopolizing an industry over the intellectual convention of theory.

 

If you can come up with a better way of validating ideas, other than testing them against reality then I will be impressed.

 

Without reading, some moderator moved the thread to a junk section

 

How do you know they did that without reading? To refer back to the previous points: what evidence do you have?

 

What I found disturbing was that I learned that the site even had such an area

 

It is to keep unsupported ideas that contradict reality away from the real science, so that people won't be distracted and confused by it.

 

AND that even being allowed to question such authorities on sites such as this were deemed "blasphemous" indistinct from any church.

 

There is no problem with questioning authority as long as you have evidence. (In fact, using authority to support an idea is considered a logical fallacy.)

[cladking]

I'm always "cladking" and I read many of your posts. Oddly enough we seem to usually be on the same page yet we don't often fully agree.

 

I hope to see you around.

[Scott Mayers]

 

It is very unclear what you are trying to say here. But it may be worth pointing out that you cannot copyright (or patent, or trademark) an intellectual idea. However, the rules of the forum specifically confirm the fact that you retain copyright on your posts here.

 

 

I don't know any science forum that is opposed to ideas against the status quo. What the best ones are against is ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence or have no evidence to support them. Making stuff up is not science.

 

 

The best way to remain credible is provide support for your ideas.

 

 

If you can come up with a better way of validating ideas, other than testing them against reality then I will be impressed.

 

 

How do you know they did that without reading? To refer back to the previous points: what evidence do you have?

 

 

It is to keep unsupported ideas that contradict reality away from the real science, so that people won't be distracted and confused by it.

 

 

There is no problem with questioning authority as long as you have evidence. (In fact, using authority to support an idea is considered a logical fallacy.)

 

 

I don't understand your position at all. How did you expect to succeed (either of the times you've joined) by coming in with an agenda that's mutually incompatible with our purpose? Why not go to the sites that allow a much less rigorous approach to scientific speculation? Why storm in to a site most people come to FOR the rigorous approach, and object to the way its run?

 

Try telling your university that it should adopt the standards your middle school had. Do it loudly, call a meeting, invite everyone.

If this site is to actually be sincere to what you claim, it requires allowing descending views in contrast to what you "think" is true of scientific thought. I highly believe in a "rigorous" approach. But I already know that for asserting ANY means to dismiss questions regarding certain established theories, like the Big Bang, for instance, is acting as authoritative priests who dictate that we cannot question certain things even with appropriate means to a sincere "rigorous" argument against anything you are certain is 'closed'.

 

I believe that much of this is more political than anything regardless of any of your appeal to 'truth' when you stage such 'forums' with absurd restrictions on actual scientific matters that you simply disagree with. AND, when I see how you set up areas of 'dunce' sections (your "speculation" section and it's subtitle, "trash"), this proves you as actually being against the search for truth as you appear to be feigning you already "know" it. So, my question to you is whether this site is actually a public forum to help in fostering "rigorous" thinking, or, to what I suspect, this is a political means to merely "learn us" what to think by feigning a superior wisdom with commanded authority?

Other fora are available.

In respect to those here who demand 'support', can you suggest even one? I have found some forums useful but not with respect to "science" proper as they command similar obedience to respect theories of institutional design. I just need reference to where these sites are. I also don't want a reference to such a site that is of mere insult either to which other scientists congregate in light of pursuit of truth.

 

 

It is very unclear what you are trying to say here. But it may be worth pointing out that you cannot copyright (or patent, or trademark) an intellectual idea. However, the rules of the forum specifically confirm the fact that you retain copyright on your posts here.

Perhaps this site does. But this only applies if such moderation restricts their powers to delete material as this is sufficient to defeat such a claim regardless.

 

 

 

 

I don't know any science forum that is opposed to ideas against the status quo. What the best ones are against is ideas that are contradicted by existing evidence or have no evidence to support them. Making stuff up is not science.

 

Any site that limits questions of certain theories is conserving the 'status quo'. I'm also in contention of what people interpret upon observation and how they define what "evidence" is. This goes with the word, "support". I find this term used as a means to defer to authority beyond one's capacity to present an argument with the parties involved directly. I agree with using it too but believe that if the idea of a forum is to appeal to the intellect of those involved, it requires respecting individuals as being sincere by default (charity). But since this and most sites delimit certain topics even based solely on a title, it acts even with disrespect to any possible support that could be presented.

 

That is, I understand the concept of tentativity to conclusions in science due to its reliance on inductive processes is ironically feigning just the opposite when they limit questioning the very theories under this supposition.

 

I've mentioned that I am concerned about how the present paradigm prefers a 'top-down' approach and dismisses a 'bottom-up' one. I am referring to how most perceive the uses of logic and math in science as merely a functional tool but dismisses it as being anything beyond a human creation. When anything is argued using math or logic, if the validity of this is in doubt, I find it hypocritical for anyone to use it to 'prove' anything. When you or others think of 'support' or 'observation', these are the premises that go into arguments that derive conclusions. But most of you think of the inductive type of arguments as it is what is used most often in science. And so you interpret 'truth' as what is deemed popular like a democracy when it comes to interpreting observations or to what you accept as authoritative 'supports'.

 

NOTE: If you or anyone can recommend to me how to use the 'quote' or multiquote buttons, this might be helpful. Should I be using '<>' for tags rather than '[ ]'? Or is there a link to how the software of this site operates? Thanks.

I'm always "cladking" and I read many of your posts. Oddly enough we seem to usually be on the same page yet we don't often fully agree.

 

I hope to see you around.

thanks, cladking,

 

I recognize your namesake from the skeptic and/or philosophy forums. It's nice to see familiar people around.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Acme]

...NOTE: If you or anyone can recommend to me how to use the 'quote' or multiquote buttons, this might be helpful. Should I be using '<>' for tags rather than '[ ]'? Or is there a link to how the software of this site operates? Thanks.

 

...

Here you go: Can' Quote, Can't COPY Paste

 

All-in-all, whining is futile.

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks for link Acme.

 

As to "whining", this is just trivializing my point without fairness and only demonstrates precisely the kind of behavior I aim to diminish in online forums. I will eventually be able to publish my own theories (elsewhere) but find it necessary to determine how to defeat the way politics plays a powerful role in today's science through the adapted methods and institutional protectionism that goes against my own progress. So I need to appeal to first defeating the kind of thinking that things like this site is promoting (in part) even without their apparent recognition of how it abuses society and actually promotes dissent to the intent to promote intellectual appeal for science and truth.

[Acme]

Thanks for link Acme.

 

As to "whining", this is just trivializing my point without fairness and only demonstrates precisely the kind of behavior I aim to diminish in online forums. I will eventually be able to publish my own theories (elsewhere) but find it necessary to determine how to defeat the way politics plays a powerful role in today's science through the adapted methods and institutional protectionism that goes against my own progress. So I need to appeal to first defeating the kind of thinking that things like this site is promoting (in part) even without their apparent recognition of how it abuses society and actually promotes dissent to the intent to promote intellectual appeal for science and truth.

You're welcome and good luck with all that.

[Strange]

If this site is to actually be sincere to what you claim, it requires allowing descending views in contrast to what you "think" is true of scientific thought.

 

It does allow dissenting views. It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas.

 

I highly believe in a "rigorous" approach.

 

Then you should appreciate the fact that the forum requires people to support their ideas.

 

But I already know that for asserting ANY means to dismiss questions regarding certain established theories, like the Big Bang, for instance, is acting as authoritative priests who dictate that we cannot question certain things even with appropriate means to a sincere "rigorous" argument against anything you are certain is 'closed'.

 

This is not true.

 

In respect to those here who demand 'support', can you suggest even one? I have found some forums useful but not with respect to "science" proper as they command similar obedience to respect theories of institutional design. I just need reference to where these sites are. I also don't want a reference to such a site that is of mere insult either to which other scientists congregate in light of pursuit of truth.

 

So you are looking for a site that is scientifically rigorous but does not impose any requirements for rigour on its members? Good luck with that.

 

Perhaps this site does. But this only applies if such moderation restricts their powers to delete material as this is sufficient to defeat such a claim regardless.

 

Your copyright in the material you write does not require anyone to publish it.

 

 

I agree with using it too but believe that if the idea of a forum is to appeal to the intellect of those involved, it requires respecting individuals as being sincere by default (charity).

 

sorry, sincerity is no substitute for evidence. A great many people are sincere but wrong.

 

NOTE: If you or anyone can recommend to me how to use the 'quote' or multiquote buttons, this might be helpful. Should I be using '<>' for tags rather than '[ ]'? Or is there a link to how the software of this site operates? Thanks.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=help

 

Using the quote function does seem to cause some people a lot of trouble. (Oddly, that seems to be disproportionately high among people posting their own personal theories. Go figure.)

[Scott Mayers]

 

It does allow dissenting views. It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas.

 

 

Then you should appreciate the fact that the forum requires people to support their ideas.

 

 

This is not true.

 

 

So you are looking for a site that is scientifically rigorous but does not impose any requirements for rigour on its members? Good luck with that.

 

 

Your copyright in the material you write does not require anyone to publish it.

 

 

 

sorry, sincerity is no substitute for evidence. A great many people are sincere but wrong.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=help

 

Using the quote function does seem to cause some people a lot of trouble. (Oddly, that seems to be disproportionately high among people posting their own personal theories. Go figure.)

"It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas."

So you are simply ignoring the points I'm making as I clearly argue that the section implies it is a "dunce-cap" section, not some mild 'off topic' area. Also, it is a section that moderators move one to in disrespect of the poster for the area they initially CHOSE to place the topic in.

 

I also questioned the validity of the term "support" as this is merely a code word for AUTHORIZING other peoples efforts that the site prefers. For much of this it is also biased to favor the specific ideals of the ones setting this site up as.

 

 

 

 

But I already know that for asserting ANY means to dismiss questions regarding certain established theories, like the Big Bang, for instance, is acting as authoritative priests who dictate that we cannot question certain things even with appropriate means to a sincere "rigorous" argument against anything you are certain is 'closed'.

This is not true.

Can YOU support your counter-claim here? Merely stating this me untrue, explain please. This is an example of the kind of aptitude of thinking I find odd here. Logical dialectic is as much a function of science as is the practice of merely 'observing' and 'experimenting' or crediting other sources who do. I think that this is more about the fact that the vast majority of practicing 'scientists' don't get as far as a PhD. Undergraduate education focuses on 'research-style' essay-type writing or testing ones' understanding of the status quo without questioning authority until they've been privileged to later on. This is a backwards approach to teaching as it is based on rote training. It also biases the ones who DO get as far as a PhD thesis ( ~8 years). By then even if they had contention with their education, by that point investment in the institutional process that gets them there blinds them to dismiss the very process they learned.

 

 

 

Your copyright in the material you write does not require anyone to publish it.

False. Unless you are some non-North American country that privileges this to you, our Western systems do not even accept a "poor-man's copyright". The following is from the Wikipedia article on "copyright":

 

 

"Poor man's copyright"

Main article: Poor man's copyright

A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the "poor man's copyright". It proposes that the creator send the work to himself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the postmark to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. The United States Copyright Office makes it clear that the technique is no substitute for actual registration.^[29] The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique and notes that the technique (as well as commercial registries) does not constitute dispositive proof that the work is original nor who the creator of the work is.^[30][31]

 

"sorry, sincerity is no substitute for evidence. A great many people are sincere but wrong."

Again, I have no doubt that all you likely consider as "evidence" is what some formal institution qualifies as "evidence" and requires that it be through their authority, regardless of even equivalent means to demonstrate this independently. You also have NO actual idea of what I know and you seem to associate me (without even knowing of any theory I have as I have not presented one) to diminish what I'm saying here. And your declaration of what is "wrong", again without substantial followup explanation is severely lacking any hint of rationalizing at all, including support.

I guess I'm going to have to approach this with a Socratic approach a lot on this site as those like yourself sound absurdly too in need of 'respecting your authorita!' [ref. Cartman, from South Park]

Edited October 6, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Strange]

"It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas."

So you are simply ignoring the points I'm making as I clearly argue that the section implies it is a "dunce-cap" section,

 

In what way does it imply that? The very fact that it is called "Speculation" implies to me that it is for people with imagination and new ideas.

 

Can you quote some part of the description that implies what you suggest?

 

Also, it is a section that moderators move one to in disrespect of the poster for the area they initially CHOSE to place the topic in.

 

Moderators will sometimes move a post if it is in an inappropriate place; for example, if you post about geology in the physics section. I don't see why moving a speculative idea to the section labelled "Speculation" should be considered disrespectful. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is.

 

I also questioned the validity of the term "support" as this is merely a code word for AUTHORIZING other peoples efforts that the site prefers.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that view? (See what I did there.)

 

In other words, you are wrong. Your opinion is completely unjustified.

 

Can YOU support your counter-claim here? Merely stating this me untrue, explain please.

 

Of course. There have been many threads discussing scientific research that questions the big bang. I think I might have even started one myself (but that might have been elsewhere, on a similarly "strict" forum.)

 

Your copyright in the material you write does not require anyone to publish it.

False. Unless you are some non-North American country that privileges this to you, our Western systems do not even accept a "poor-man's copyright". The following is from the Wikipedia article on "copyright":

 

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. All I said was, the fact that you own copyright in work you post here does not stop the owners of the site deleting it. You cannot insist that they publish your work. Copyright gives you ownership of the work; it does not give you the right to insist it is published.

 

The owners of the site can choose what to allow and what to delete. It is entirely their choice.

 

Again, I have no doubt that all you likely consider as "evidence" is what some formal institution qualifies as "evidence" and requires that it be through their authority, regardless of even equivalent means to demonstrate this independently.

 

No, that is not what evidence means.

 

You also have NO actual idea of what I know and you seem to associate me (without even knowing of any theory I have as I have not presented one) to diminish what I'm saying here. And your declaration of what is "wrong", again without substantial followup explanation is severely lacking any hint of rationalizing at all, including support.

I haven't said anything about you or your ideas. Because, as you say, I know nothing about you are your ideas. So I can't understand how I am "diminishing" you.

I also haven't said that any specific idea is wrong, so I don't understand what you expect me to explain.

You have not explained why sincerity matters more than evidence. However, sincereley someone believes the big bang model is wrong, the evidence is against them.

[swansont]

"It would be very easy to not have a section to allow people to express novel ideas."

So you are simply ignoring the points I'm making as I clearly argue that the section implies it is a "dunce-cap" section, not some mild 'off topic' area. Also, it is a section that moderators move one to in disrespect of the poster for the area they initially CHOSE to place the topic in.

 

It's your choice to interpret speculations as a "dunce cap" and the moving the posts is an act of disrespect. We have certain listed behaviors that would get it moved there, so it it really is a choice — we've told you what will happen before you even posted. (In a way, posting such material outside of speculation could be construed as a sign of disrespect) That you choose indignation as a response as opposed to discussion of whatever science was on the table not only fails to impress, it invites dismissal IMO, and I suspect other mods feel similarly.

 

At the end of the day, it's not up to you how the site is run and your participation here is voluntary.

[Strange]

I don't approve of how this or all sites that I've encountered before have created EULAs and have forms of moderation I have severe disrespect for regarding our intellectual input (that much of our own inputs can be co-opted by our loss of rights to a default to protecting our credibility in terms of things like copyright, etc.) and how almost universally these sites present themselves to dismiss outright anything against specific inquiry or theories that differ with the status quo on conventional and institutional science.

 

As you have no control over any of those things, just why are you here?

[Scott Mayers]

 

It's your choice to interpret speculations as a "dunce cap" and the moving the posts is an act of disrespect. We have certain listed behaviors that would get it moved there, so it it really is a choice — we've told you what will happen before you even posted. (In a way, posting such material outside of speculation could be construed as a sign of disrespect) That you choose indignation as a response as opposed to discussion of whatever science was on the table not only fails to impress, it invites dismissal IMO, and I suspect other mods feel similarly.

 

At the end of the day, it's not up to you how the site is run and your participation here is voluntary.

This is a matter of perspective considering your (or the site's) declaration or claim. I've argued this elsewhere regarding the nature of 'public' accountability on sites intended to invite the public. My only real problem is that this behavior is ubiquitous for science forums that I can find thus far. I'd prefer a forum that I could have a different set of agreements. Any sincere ideas?

 

 

 

In what way does it imply that?

 

You're being quite selective to what I said. I said and you should be able to see for yourself, that the section called, "Speculation" has a subtitle with it labeled, "Trash".

 

From reading your other words, it is clear that you are imposing something on me that I have not even earned yet. I don't think I'll waste time on you. I've already stated my purpose here and will only proceed for my own interests of inquiry, ....NO theorizing. I wouldn't waste time on contributing to a site I actually have strong disagreement to by your clear stances in disrespectful abuse of the public.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[John Cuthber]

. I'd prefer a forum that I could have a different set of agreements. Any sincere ideas?

 

 

Set one up.

[Strange]

My only real problem is that this behavior is ubiquitous for science forums that I can find thus far. I'd prefer a forum that I could have a different set of agreements. Any sincere ideas?

 

That is because most science forums are focussed on science.

 

You could try the "Space, Time and the Universe" forum set up and run by a number of people who left another science forum (with even stricter rules than this one) who got fed up with the restrictions on the discussion and speculation.

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/forum.php

 

One of the most popular threads there right now seems to be on a math fallacy; a subject that would be closed down on many forums after the first post.

 

You're being quite selective to what I said. I said and you should be able to see for yourself, that the section called, "Speculation" has a subtitle with it labeled, "Trash".

 

You should be able to see for yourself that it is not a subttitle.

 

From reading your other words, it is clear that you are imposing something on me that I have not even earned yet.

 

Then I think you are reading things into it that are not there.

 

I wouldn't waste time on contributing to a site I actually have strong disagreement to by your clear stances in disrespectful abuse of the public.

 

So why are you posting here?

Edited October 7, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

This is a matter of perspective considering your (or the site's) declaration or claim. I've argued this elsewhere regarding the nature of 'public' accountability on sites intended to invite the public. My only real problem is that this behavior is ubiquitous for science forums that I can find thus far. I'd prefer a forum that I could have a different set of agreements. Any sincere ideas?[/quote}

 

Start your own site.

 

You're being quite selective to what I said. I said and you should be able to see for yourself, that the section called, "Speculation" has a subtitle with it labeled, "Trash".

No, it doesn't. It has a sub-folder, entitled the trash can. Much like the lounge has a subfolder called book talk, or most of the science section have subsections to them. Each of them have hyperlinks. Clicking on speculations and on the trash can take you to different places.

 

I wouldn't waste time on contributing to a site I actually have strong disagreement to by your clear stances in disrespectful abuse of the public.

Not catering to your preferences is not abuse, much less disrespectful abuse. You mentioned Cartman earlier; you have a similar tone to his (e.g. when his mom wouldn't buy him an iPad)

[Arete]

Rather than viewing the Speculations section as a "dunce-cap" section, I would view it as a clearing house. New ideas are posted there because the sub-section has a specific set of rules which compel the poster to validate that their idea falls under the purview of science, and is thus relevant to the forum at large. Threads/ideas which don't pass muster or are off topic are generally locked, with only the most egregiously off topic or unsupported threads sent to the "trash can" as to not clutter the forums with off topic, unintelligible and unequivocally wrong threads - thus allowing the archives of the forum to serve as a useful reference database. It should also be noted that threads from any subsection of the forum can be moved to the trash, not just threads from Speculations.

 

Unfortunately very few threads from Speculations turn out to be of scientific merit. There are several reasons for this including but not limited to:

 

1) Discussion of new concepts in the scientific community generally plays out at conferences and in the peer reviewed literature, rather than on anonymous internet fora. Therefore most of the new ideas presented in internet fora are from outsiders without formal training, and tend to contain flaws which a more seasoned scientist might not generally make.

 

2) Also, most badly flawed ideas in the scientific community tend to end up discarded during discussion with colleagues/background research/talking with one's mentors - or at worst are gunned down during peer review. Most scientists would agree with me in that I come up with a number of bad ideas for every one worth pursuing. A significant part of (at least my) scientific training was learning how to be wrong. Many of the speculative posters here react badly to criticism and assume that everyone else is too stupid to get their idea, or that they are being unfairly persecuted, and react antagonistically, rather than revising or abandoning their flawed ideas.

 

3) Internet science forums tend to attract a number of crackpots circulating the interwebs posting nonsensical gibberish. Many have been rejected by legitimate scientific publishing sources, so this is their equivalent of a street corner, sandwich board and a megaphone. I for one don't want the forum to become an internet equivalent of Speaker's corner, so agree with the deletion of such threads.

[Scott Mayers]

I've stated my concerns here and am satisfied with this. I don't agree to the tone of many of you here but is something I'll have to live with. Thank you to those clarifying that the "trash" section is only a subforum of the "speculation" area. I did not get this impression and so can only suggest that it be more clearly distinct and separated from "speculation" regardless.

 

I'll leave this thread to begin participating as I am not going to dwell on this. Thank you. I think that you'll see through my actual approach in discussions that I'm not simply any 'crackpot'. But I also value people in charity to them as human beings and believe that even the most apparent 'crackpot' is not always the case if we take time and care to our own behaviors to treat them as sincere even where they may not. I believe that there IS a means of communicating to everyone to convince them to think better even where they may even initially intend harm. ...unless, that is, they are simply non-humans.

[Phi for All]

I'll leave this thread to begin participating as I am not going to dwell on this.

 

!

Moderator Note

Well then, thread closed.