Also in the rulez: "...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/ 1] Whether there is evidence is what's under debate, isn't it? Being science-mined doesn't men we turn away from questions we don't have answer to. 2] There's plenty of evidence for UFOs; there is a much smaller set (possibly empty) that UFOs are alien in origin. The reports and cases are certainly worth discussing. That forum, like several others is given more leeway - but still doesn't mean people can just decree stuff without defending it. MR is very vocal, not just about UFOs, but about ghosts as well. He has been around here for many years, and I have been in multiple discussions with him on multiple topics, over thousands of posts - and he has always flatly denied basic, known science (eg. he insists that memory and perception are perfectly reliable - both for UFOs sightings and ghost sightings - so any account of any report is taken as gospel truth.) If you want to see this pattern of scientific denial, check out this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-do-ghosts-wear-human-clothes.155788/ "... sight is incredibly reliable in spite of it's filtering of irrelevant details. When we see a person walking in front of us, there is a person walking in front of us. Every time. Never do we imagine such things happening unless we are on drugs or have a brain disorder. None of your examples establish this hallucinating going on in normal people. It just doesn't happen..." He also has happily declared he will believe any stranger's account because he thinks "people don't lie". "No..that people describe things that happened to them is always sufficient to believe them. "Eyewitness direct experience is the gold standard of what happened in every case, from the news to history to autobiographies. And it's sufficient for the paranormal as well. We believe what people say they experienced when there is no compelling reason to doubt them." "I believe what people say they've experienced when I see they have no agenda or reason to be lying about it. That's just normal sane living. It may make me gullible..." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-do-ghosts-wear-human-clothes.155788/page-5#post-3369159
Well, if those are the rules, those are the rules. Good to know. I didn't realize that the scientific method of reasoning/providing evidence, was required in those forums. (There is no verifiable method to proving that ghosts exist for example, because much of what could be considered evidence, others might simply view as hearsay, or conjecture.) Not sure what would be considered irrefutable evidence in such instances. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But, maybe that is a thread topic for another time.
Let me add another level to that while I'm still around...... Eye witness accounts of murder, robbery, accidents and such, are seen on terra firma and more likely then not within distances that we would view as sufficiently reliable in most cases, not all mind you just most. Identifying things in the air and/or space, either from firmly on terra firma or in the air or space, is open to much more reason for doubt and/or scientific scrutiny...many things obviously come into play like illusions, delusions, atmospheric conditions, abnormal atmospheric phenomena such as sprites for example, and unlike eye witness accounts on the ground, are mostly separated by great distances and speed.
They are definitely relaxed for these other fora - as you point out, it wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise. But those relaxed requirements, can, in turn, be abused by some. MR has been given a LOT of slack, moderators say. More than pretty much anyone here in the last few years. What you're seeing is the last shreds of patience giving way. My point here is less about MR than about the fact that you won't really have to worry about running into this - since you, like most of us, have a built-in limit on toxic behavior.
Wegs, would you be encouraged to continue a ''discussion'' with someone who says this to you: ''your mentally ill and paranoid if you question someone's first hand experiences.''
He can't be that bad, the mods wouldn't stand for it. He would be banned wouldn't he.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That site adheres to a more “self-regulating” style of moderation. And as far as MR goes, maybe we shouldn’t discuss his posts until he returns from his ban. Just to be fair to him.
Is that a pretty name for giving poor old syne a mob kicking?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you see it as such lol - but, like CC said - Syne doesn’t see himself as a victim or bullied. Not sure if you’re a member there, but that would be the place to address it, not here. And you can ask him yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the definition of "scientific evidence" is often stretched quite a bit here, but often there is at least some. If not, James starts asking for it. Well, there is _evidence_ for both (I once saw a UFO for example.) But I agree there's no _convincing_ evidence; even the one I saw most likely had a mundane explanation (like an aircraft with the wrong color navigation lights.) However, the pursuit of science often includes consideration of unlikely explanations - even if we end up proving 90%+ of them wrong. Also, from my experience in other forums, there is value in having such forums to drain such topics from the more relevant forums, so a forum on astronomy isn't cluttered up with UFO reports (for example.)
Hmm... This is starting to sound like political/social irony à la progressivism, clothed in Good Samaritan appearances. "Poor old Syne" again, mob kicking, victim-hood ambience...
So, how do you propose one goes about having a meaningful discussion about the possible existence of UFO's and alien aircrafts, without it derailing into name calling and ad homs? Maybe MR feels ''persecuted" because he considers much of what he posts relating to UFO's, to be evidence, as it has convinced him. To me, that subforum isn't to be taken too seriously, but maybe the trouble comes in if people post videos and eye witness ''interviews'' as concrete ''proof'' of alien life, etc. So, in that regard, it could turn into a slippery slope of anything goes.
However deep you want to go CC. The last time I saw a post like your #31, was Rainbow's. I also said somewhere ''poor MR''. You haven't forgot poor MR already have you?
I doubt MR likes being referred to as "poor MR" once or multiple times, either. Just because his political orientation may differ from Syne's doesn't mean he'd enjoy being slotted as an object of pity.
