Since disagreement can apparently be a reason for banning (see thread Ban reason #17), Sciforums should work out a clearer approach to issues of disagreement. What is Sciforums' policy for disagreement? What is Sciforums' epistemology of disagreement? * * * Can one rationally hold a belief while knowing that that belief is not shared (and indeed, is explicitly rejected) by individuals over whom one possesses no discernible epistemic advantage? If so, what assumptions must one be making about oneself and about those with whom one disagrees? In deciding what to believe about some question, how (if at all) should one take into account the considered views of one’s epistemic peers? The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement Whether epistemic peers are debating abortion, God’s existence, or art, the degree of doxastic revision required will be determined by the level of justified confidence with which the beliefs in question are held. And both the degrees of justification and confidence enjoyed by a given belief can be influenced by countless factors. What Should We Do When We Disagree?
From my point of view it seems that it is up to the moderators to decide what they feel is going on within a dialog between people to determine who is being more deceitful or is causing a problem more so than just discussing a problem by becoming an attacker of someones personality rather than using proper facts to challenge what's being talked about. There's other factors as well but I believe that's a big chunk of what happens here.
It makes poor logic to ban a person for disagreeing with the prevailing view, even if they lack significant data and are making a claim merely from observation or intuition. History demonstrates that a great many new theories and their proponents were dismissed in the early stages for being unsupportable. For being of persistent disagreeable nature, verbally attacking other posters and the use of unprofessional language, I perceive banning to be a reasonable tool to maintain an orderly flow of information and the reputation of this forum. Guidelines must be clear and they need be applied in a democratic rather than autocratic or arbitrary manner.
