A proposed ''game'' of sorts...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well actually, I want to ask a question first.... I know we have a number of believers here... we also have quite a number of skeptics... so...

    If I proposed some kind of thread which would involve our discussion on UFO's, could both sides keep it civil? In British Parliment, there is something called ''Parliment Language'' and basically it means there is a non-standard course of language which can be stricken from the records. Keep this in mind.

    I want to gather an equal amount of believers vs skeptics to present their conjectures for or against the UFO phenomenon. The thread will be judged by a Panel of four members who otherwise will judge the thread but who do not have any ''thoughts outside of what they hear''. This is the closest thing to a non-biased panel I can think of.

    We will have our own, Parliment Language - words like troll, word salad ect cannot be used. Derogatory remarks will be stricken or hopefully removed by a compliant mod. The only words we can use, which is viable in the sense of not causing to derail a thread is ''straw man''.

    Is anyone interested in taking part?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Why is straw man permissible, but not word salad? This seems an arbitrary exclusion.

    The problem with this exercise is that many arguments presented by Believers are nonsense. They're illogical and unscientific, yet presented as both. For example, you have said that you witnessed a UFO act in a way that was "quantum mechanically impossible." This is hokum, yet you're suggesting I'm supposed to pretend it has merit?

    These rules only hinder the skeptic, not the Believer.

    If you want to have a civil discourse, toughen your skin to being told you're wrong, and that your ideas are ill-conceived and poorly presented. Be prepared to be told you don't know what you're talking about. Do not retaliate to the dismantling of your position by calling someone an idiot, and do not cry foul when someone points out that you're using words you don't seem to understand.

    Instead of trying to prevent skeptics from calling you out on your inane theories, how about we simply make an agreement to refrain from hostilities? No name-calling, no insinuations of low intellect, (which does not include inferences of someone not understanding a concept or appeals for better grammar/presentation), no snide dismissals of points, no ducking questions.

    I'm for it, but I don't see it happening. Why don't you simply propose a formal debate in the Formal Debate section?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    This is why there must be sanctions on certain information so that those who do speak unintelligent about the subject can be stricken off the panel. That of course would be left to the ''judges'' to put into motion.

    You may as far as I am aware by my own rules, say the ''arguers for'' do not know what they are talking about or attack scientific proposals, but equally you must show evidence for such an accusation - if personal attacks is all the other side has to offer, then there can be an addmission to adjourn the discussions until the evidence has been properly evaluated. If it turns out that the other side is using ''side-tracking'' methods of personal attacking nature to acheive their goals, then the accused side can call for a motion to dismiss the claims based on a one-sided arguement based on personal attacks --- You may of course, state that the other side does not know what they are talking about, but it must be left at that and the other side if the judges agree with those contentions, can either make the accused party present more evidence or they can stricken that off the records. Any more than one attempt at personal attacks on any one debate may be deemed as derailing the debate and can be strickened off the record, or worse, the accuser may face been stricken off the panel all together.

    In other words, one may point out errors but they are not allowed to repeat those accusations unless the accused party has not moved on in knowing they fully recognize their mistake or error.

    The rules apply to the believer as well as the skeptic. The nature of the evidence also can not be confused with stating proof. No one has proof essentially unless someone has indeed, something extraordinary to announce, which is unlikely anyway.

    You can not indulge in personal theories in the extent that it has no justification, which would be last sanction on the discussion. Neither side can willfully keep up a debate if their theories are not within atleast a scientific core of reasoning or with documented evidence to support their claim - no frivolous statements can be made therego of personal theories without any substantial evidence to go with it - claims may require therefore, proof. As always, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence..

    Does this seem clear enough?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    This sounds like a great idea.

    Perhaps, if you could find a willing moderator to carry out your commands, you could be the actual moderator of this thread.
    You could set up a sciforum society to discuss the thread, and talk about it with like minded people, but you would make the decisions.
    Then we could see how a person who has trouble with moderators manages to moderate a thread him/her self.

    The moderator could write things in red like "removed by Reiku" etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  8. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Even you opening post includes discrepancies in fact. The people that you call sceptics are the people who aren't actual sceptics, they are people who have pulled you up on your Youtube proof. The people that you call UFO sceptics are in fact Youtube sceptics. The proof that you present is nearly always fallible almost immediately.
     
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Thank you.

    Exactly, about the moderator writing, the proposal thread debate is here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2911407#post2911407

    Please join and enter and mark either ''believer/for'' or ''skeptic/against''.

    Thanks again. I think it will be interesting.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Youtube may be regarded as evidence so long as they provide evidence that the video can be trusted.

    There should be no problems there pincho.

    Join?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    This is real test to all, to see if a real debate on the UFO phenomenon can be conducted in sciforums.

    I think we should make some history

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    OK I'm in, but using a small 'p' on Pincho also shows certain signs of lowering the opposition.
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Remember to state whether you are for or against. Important.
     
  14. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I 'for' real 'evidence' of 'ALIEN UFO's'.
     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I will enter you in.

    From now on, refer to the debates thread in the Gov.
     
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I need to ask why.

    If you are unable to discuss the subject without conforming to the exact rules and without resorting to attacking methods constantly, then perhaps your tactics of discussion will require a nip and tuck?

    :shrug:
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Define "attacking methods." If you mean name-calling, then I already agreed that this is a worthwhile exercise, but probably better-suited for a formal debate, where you're not going to have outside influence mucking things up. Something with structure.

    But I don't think you're merely talking about that. You've already disqualified "word salad," which tells me that you just don't want people being able to call out others for junk science or illogical posts. Calling a post "word salad" is not an insult, it's an observation. It implies nothing about the poster, only the point being presented. So what you really want is to be about to spout of nonsense without having someone say "Hey, that's nonsense."

    If that's what you want, I refer you back to my original post: toughen up. No one here is obligated to take your feelings into account, nor do any of your wacko theories deserve respect. You have to earn that respect. You're just trying to circumvent that by instituting word bans. That's ridiculous.

    And if one of us need to give a "nip and tuck" to our "tactics of discussion" (seriously? Tactics of discussion?), I'd wager it's the one of us who has been banned multiple times.
     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Word salad'' can not be used because it is a statement on the integrity of the post concerning the quality of the post. A straw man is not so much interested on the quality of the post, only the methodologies presented.

    ''You've already disqualified "word salad," which tells me that you just don't want people being able to call out others for junk science or illogical posts.''

    No. you must explain the reasons, ''word salad'' is a statement without reasons applied. That is invalid to the proper investigations.
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Have you considered the format for such a debate? Are we discussing the rules, or are you sticking to this whole "Nobody can say bad things about my argument" piffle? If the answer to that last one is yes, count me out.
     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I already have considered every rule. Even the format of the discussions and how each of us will have a fair ''hearing''.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Wrong again. Word salad and straw man are both comments on the integrity of a post, as well as the integrity of the point being presented. If "straw man" is a comment on method, then so is word salad; after all, it implies that the poster is simply throwing words together without any care for how they fit.

    And why is it wrong to comment on the integrity of a post?

    "Invalid to the proper investigations" is a perfect example of word salad. It means absolutely nothing. Neither does your explanation for why that particular term is disqualified. WTF does "it's a statement without reasons applied" mean? What are you trying to say? Take a minute, speak plainly.
     
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It's not up to you to consider every rule, it's something all parties have to agree upon. And "we'll all have a fair hearing" doesn't add any more clarity to the matter. What do you mean by "hearing"?

    Come on, man. Use your words!
     
  23. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Agreed. I will present these rules as ''equally'' as possible. My rules should be fair enough for a universal agreement.
     

Share This Page