The Purpose of the Pseudoscience sub-forum

Sciforums is one of the most visited and most linked to science forums on the internet. It's descriptor is An Intelligent Community.

Should the pseudoscience sub-forum be expected to be a section where anything goes and the scientific-method is a forgotten principle? Where the so-called "woo-woos" and "nutters" can flame and rant without the expectation that their arguments conform to reason and method of science? Where they can legitimately complain that they are being constrained or unfairly attacked by the skeptics and science-minded who require them to support their claims with evidence?

Or should the Pseudoscience sub-forum be expected to reflect the sciforums description of "An Intelligent Community?" Where it is a given that pseudoscience means fake science and that the scientific method and priniciples are valid? A place where those concerned with the state of science education and progress in the world can discuss the dangers and problems associated with pseudoscience?

I'm not suggesting that one or the other line of thought should be censored or prevented in the pseudoscience sub-forum, but I am asking what the members and moderators of sciforums expect of it. Sometimes it seems as if the pseudoscience section is simply considered by the moderators and members to be that place where the nutters are and the rest of science is discussed in sections like "Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology" or "Earth Sciences." If a thread about rocks on Mars that look like alien artifacts is created in the former, it ends up in the "Pseudoscience" section. Perhaps rightfully so. But is this all this section is meant to be: just a step up from the "Cesspool?"

It would seem that this section as well as the "Parapsychology" section (which is also a pseudoscience, ironically) are stepping-off points for nutters that eventually invade the other sections, something I've noticed has had a certain amount of complaint.

In my opinion, both sides of the skeptical/pseudoscience position should be allowed discussion, but what I'm asking is this: "what is the expectation that sciforums -as a community- has with that section?" Too often the argument is made "why is there a pseudoscience section of pseudoscience isn't accepted as valid there?" This is usually done after a post or thread is edited for trolling/spam/baiting/ad hom behavior or after a skeptic ridicules a person's position (which they usually equate, falsly, to ridiculing the person).

Many times this argument is made by the non-skeptical believer after skepticism and reason has been applied to topic in general. They seem to be completely oblivious to the idea that the members of a science forum would find unreasoned, unevidenced, wild claims to be far-fetched. And the say over and over, things like "if you have nothing constructive to add, go away;" or "this isn't your thread:" or "if you don't believe why do you post;" etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pseudoscience to me means what the literal translation is:

false science

it includes among other things happehs face reading theory
his bullshit does not belong in the science forum

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

an established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html


Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sadly I think pseudoscience fails to live up it's title, so yes, it is just one step up from the cesspool.

If people presented a picture, video, or story, and then at least some half arsed analysis, that would be pseudo science. But they only present the story, and the pros, and call anyone mentioning the cons, and accuse us of being MIB or whatever.

I think many don't realise that criticism is constructive, it's like buffing rust off a tool before you use it. Some things need a little abrasion to work better. Theories being a case in point.

Let's put this in perspective. A friend of mine spent three years of his PhD looking for catalysts for a certain reaction. He found none, but still got his PhD. Real science includes falsifying theories, and news days, but the work has to be done, and published, so others don't tread the same ground, wasting time and effort.

Seems all we do in pseudoscience is waste time and effort treading over the same ground however, because woowoos won't abandon any story, event or alleged happening, even after it has been proven to be mundane, and invoke conspiracies.

We need discerning pseudoscientists, and they are rare.

I think therefore it's more of a pseudoreligion, than a pseudoscience.

btw, I've voted 'something else' because pseudoscience _could_ be a springboard into real science for some. So it's not a problem per se? I don't think the 'anything goes' approach works, we have to have some standards.

 

I voted "something else" because even the crackpots are entitled to some space where they can gather and discuss stupid, impossible and unrealistic things. Something similar to the cesspool but more like a voluntary insane asylum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've absolutely no interest in those people or their various "theories" (better and more accurately described as garbage). I also wish there was option that could block the whole thing from even appearing on the "newest post" listing - which is what I use to see what's being discussed. Many of the other categories have interesting things in them but I'd rather this one be invisible to me. Instead, I have to sort out the nutcases one by one and put them on an ignore list.

Ahh, well. That's just wishful thinking on my part but it would enhance the quality of my visits here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Go ahead and give them their space - and I'll just keep eliminating idiots as I encounter them. (And I'll also admit that my thought about "even a blind squirrel finding an occasional nut" still isn't enough reason to pay any attention to most of them.)

 

I think there should be a pseudosci forum, but I also think that the participants should use scientific method in their studies and discussions.

 

No, no, Avatar! If they had to do that they'd have absolutely nothing to talk about!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It would always have people joining in or starting threads about woo-woo subjects, but would those that have a position that is outside of science have the expectation that their speculations and fantasies should be without ridicule or criticism? Or should it be legitimate to point out that this is a science forum first and your opinions, while welcome, may be subject to harsh criticism.

I'm all for moderation of anyone who insults others directly or makes posts just to insult the person. But the person's position should be completely open to ridicule, insult and criticism. As long as each are constructive. Meaning a post that simply says "your idea is a load of crap" shouldn't be allowed unless the critic goes on to demonstrate or say why.

The reason I bring this up is because woo-woos and nutters will often bring up the same argument when a skeptic criticizes their position: "this is the pseudoscience section, leave me alone" or "why do you guys keep bothering us in the pseudoscience section?"

I'm saying that this section should be a place were the over-arching intent is to criticize and discuss pseudoscience as a problem. Instead, it appears to be a place where pseudoscience is considered valid and skepticism is a problem.

 

Your point is well taken. But I still believe it should be a place where they can gather and dazzle one another with their silly ideas. And just leave them there by themselves. Already too many of them are posting their nonsense in actual science categories. And I think that once several members have proven/shown it to be gibberish they (the scientific-minded) should request it be moved to pseudoscience - and just allow it lie there and die.

 

I like the pseudoscience sub-forum as it is. It's a bit like a frivolous gossip supplement in a broadsheet newspaper; you know that just glancing at it will lower your IQ, but you can't resist reading it anyway. I enjoy Sciforums for the thoughtful correspondence from some of its contributors, but it wouldn't be the same without pseudoscience as it is in its current form.

 

Meanwhile, I don't even know who you are. I interacted with you briefly in the "Stryder Hates us" thread (I actually looked to be sure).

I think 2 things are clear: 1) you didn't look at the date/time stamp of my first post here; 2) you didn't actually read what I've written here or there. At all times I've given my opinion, and I'm now seeking the opinions of others.

In a post prior to our exchange in the Stryder thread, I not only call for such opinion, I link to this thread.

I think I'd like you to either cite where I've "declared a fact" to you regarding the purpose of the Pseudoscience sub-forum or offer an apology in this thread for misquoting me. Perhaps re-read this post and the first sentance of this, earlier, post.

 

Pseudoscience subForum should be renamed to "Questionable Science" or something like that.

We need a another forum called Closed Threads where threads exist and can be posted in but wont showup in Newposts or members recent replies section. But they will have the closed icon, anyone who wants to post in it will have to manually go to the thread by searching it.

 

I'm sorry Meanwhile, but I don't understand what you mean by this:

 

Anomalous, I think you just need to go to those other forums you say are so much better and leave us alone here. If the other forums are so much better, why do you keep coming back here?

 

i asked him the same thing about 3 or 4 times already
personaly i think they booted him

 

i think i shall slam the illogical poll first
tremble in fear, skin
i have arrived

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bolloks to you Gustav.

I think the pseudoscience forum should be a place to air out the dirty laundry, so to speak. If nothing else it gives visitors a good look at how diametrically opposed the two camps are (scientific method - the way of the true skeptic, and the credulous belief method - the way of the true woo-woo). They may not want us there (why would they?) but tough cookies. It's also good practice for honing your debunking skills and anger management.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, Spookz.

I'm quaking in my boots.
*yawn*

 

just as the crackpots are your prey, you pseudos are mine. your presence is the prime attraction of the pseudoscience forum and that draws me in like a moth to a flame

now get back to your practice.
use me as a guinea pig

 

Now when did I say that ?