Science: Explanation versus obfuscation

What does that even mean?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Dave is saying.. UFOs
There’s a good chance there’s life elsewhere in the universe, after all we are here, but the so far offered evidence that that life is currently visiting earth is questionable.
The God thing….
The whole idea ( a god) is questionable from the start. But, there is nothing stopping you playing with a consistent logic as to how an assumed god would run the place and interact with its followers. I’m sure Dave will let me know if I’m wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, I'm inebriated right now but, this could be a God question.

Hence, I will provide historical proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dave, it's an accusation according to the rules, see I24↗. Moreover, look, I already said it wasn't only you; sorry, James R↗ used a slightly different phrasing: "This sounds a lot like a sermon". Additionally, and this might be another of those things that you hadn't picked up along the way, but, historically, a sermon is a fairly common accusation around here. Not simply in the context of being a moderator, but also for having been around this place long enough, I'm kind of familiar with how the response to sermonizing goes. After all these years, it's the answer that remains.

Which reminds: KX's mix of fantasy and faith↗ is a sermon by the thinnest necessary margin, i.e., sure, if we need to call it a sermon, and that point is already made.

But if I find his dilution of faith to be mostly harmless, insubstantial in its present form, that's the thing, this murmur and alarm about what sounds like a sermon, &c., is an example of the reason why we tolerate certain behavior. This ritual judgment, these stations of mastery, are what whipping idols are for. It's why Jan Ardena lasted as long as he did. It's also why a thread was set aside, years ago, to harangue a particular member, and people have played along for so long they don't remember why. It's like I said: To watch allegedly intelligent people put such effort into expressing their incomprehension. It's painful to watch people put effort into making something bigger than it is. Everybody is trying to be too exacting; the inquiry needs at least two rewrites before it's even manga grade.

The result is that critics are giving it substance, provisionally granting an a priori preclusive credibility, sufficient to impose their own rhetorical structure, and, sure, whatever, but it's far more effort than the occasion requires. These are stations of performance, for their own sake. It's one of the things that stands out, Dave, if you happen to have paid attention over the years.

†​

And at some point, Dave, I don't know what to tell you. For months, now, there just hasn't been a single reference point that clicked with you. Like when you didn't know about the discussion you gave someone advice on, or gave me advice about the peanut gallery without being aware of what the thread was about; there was the months-long circumstance with moderation in general that you apparently weren't aware of; it goes on and on, even to the point that, say, over the course of six years, at least, you never figured out that my authority has certain practical limits.

And think about that, for a minute:

Really? How? I mean, let's think about this, for a minute. Six years? That's just a reference↗ point↗. Eight years, as I mentioned↑? Okay, look, James R is about as sick to death as he can be of me dragging his ass up and down about policy standards for the last however many years, but compared to simply instituting and enforcing my own policies regardless of what he thinks, I can only wonder at what reason you might imagine would have me preferring to simply yell at him, instead.

Or did you just not think it through:

I don't know, Dave, maybe someone who never knows what's going on shouldn't be so projecting and accusing. Instead of projecting, for instance, you could try paying attention to what I actually say: When you wonder why we have tolerated certain behavior for so long this is why. And compared to topics of interest, you're going to need to figure out what it means to be interested in something compared to generating pages of solipsistic dispute for the sake of condescenscion and spite. That is, in your consideration of traffic at Sciforums↗, a neighbor notes↗ "topics of interest", and perhaps we might reflect on what it means to be interested in something.

Think of two variations, Dave, on people who were wrong:

• There is an emotional experience that comes with our interactions; that emotional value appears to be a more popular interest than any given subject itself. But for some people, reality didn't work out, and they feel the weight of being wrong. And that's where some of the traffic went. Quite a lot, frankly. For various reasons, many people see their enthusiasm diminish when what they seek requires work.​

So, just for instance, think of those who sought out other pastures, where they don't need to worry about being right; and also spare a thought for those who never intended to dig themselves into this or that hole. More than a particular topic of interest is how anyone gets along with or relates to it.

Because, like I said, in your consideration of traffic at Sciforums↗, and compared to, say, more threads on topics of interest↗, as one neighbor suggests, the question of what makes a topic interesting is actually kind of difficult to account for.

 

Indeed. See below.

A limit cannot be observed directly. How could I know what limits there are unless I was told?

I have every confidence it was mentioned - buried, as it surely was under

• a full-sized, grayscale, begoggled, postapocalyptic, BDSM gimp-esque illustration that has no contextual relevance to the reader, followed by
• eight subsequent paragraphs of meandering stream-of-consciousness musings that also have no contextual relevance to the reader.

I am not the first, or only, member who has pointed out that you do not write for the comprehension of your audience - you write only for your own pleasure.

Which is fine. if that's what brings you joy. But if what you'd really wanted was to be heard and understood, you would have comported yourself appropriately. Comprehensibility is first the responsibility of the writer, and only subsequently the responsibility of the reader.

So which is it? Writing for self-pleasure or writing for communication?

(Rhetorical question. You won't answer; you will deflect culpability. That's OK, we know which. You've no business complaining you're not understood.)

 

Dave, you presumed two different things to be the same because it was convenient to your argument. There was no logical reason to do so. How could you know? Well, for starters, there is a basic part that comes down to thinking.

Seriously, Dave, a moderator, and an administrator. It's not hidden, it's right in front of you.

Since you're just recycling, at this point, I'll remind you what I said in August, Dave, which is that I always love this particular delayed effect, which is why I am so utterly unsurprised that you would bring it back to me yet again.

Anyway, this basic difference, the practical limit of my authority, was right in front of you, as self-evident as can be, and even a detail you missed along the way¹. You spent six paragraphs and two bullet points on your own embittered make-believe, which seems an approximately apt summary of this thread and its underlying complaint.

To wit:

July↗, this time; that is, I would refer you to my prior remarks from the last time you tried this one.

And, you know, since I can tell you what I'm saying and why I'm saying it, and you will still make believe in order to complain and accuse, your rehash lecture on comprehensibility falls short. Also, your make-believe corrodes your complaint of a "Big Lie".

There is nothing new, Dave, about the idea that I can give this or that post any amount of time and thought I might, and what comes back is hasty scratch.

And that anger, that smoldering, passionate judgment might in many cases be vapid horseshit, but it also reinforces a particular point: There is an emotional experience that comes with our interactions; that emotional value appears to be a more popular interest than any given subject itself. That is, in your thread on traffic at Sciforums↗, Dave, we have occasion to consider "topics of interest"↗, and what it means to be interested in something.

Consider your fallacious juxtaposition, Dave, "Writing for self-pleasure or writing for communication". And more than simply being fallacious, it's also stupid. The prospect that a writer's satisfaction in writing is somehow utterly seperate from the communicative value of writing is absurd, even if that's how you think it works for you. But no, Dave, it's not all for egotism; achieving actual, useful communication with you, for instance, if it needs some purpose above and beyond actually communicating usefully with you, is one of the mysteries of communication. To the other, spending such effort for the personal satisfaction of forcing the recalictrant to say something useful pursues an ephemeral pretense of reward greatly exceeded by its waste, and long outlasted by its corrosion.

And if it was just you, or even just Sciforums, then maybe it would be mere egotism for me. But this bit with people refusing communication in order to keep complaining, while hardly new², and certainly a house specialty, is not something confined exclusively to our humble bedlam. It's a real, living phenomenon with real, living implications, and would be helpful, in general, to communicate across certain gaps. And, yes, the accomplishment of a difficult and complicated task often brings people some measure of personal satsisfaction; certainly, even you're capable of figuring that part out.

Which also reminds a certain point: Nothing requires that I take you seriously, and if your record over time is a coin toss on that point, the present thread is a reminder of what taking you seriously gets anyone. If I take you at face value according to the topic post, there is a lot to talk about. As the history since has shown, that's not really what you're on about. Even this thread comes back to the question of what it means to be interested in a subject, i.e., whether you are complaining toward a solution↗ or just to complain↑. And, again↑, in your consideration of traffic at Sciforums↗, perhaps we might reflect on what it means to be interested in something. Do you understand what that means, Dave? People who are interested in science, and especially physics, might find the heavy ion experiment↗ interesting news, but, as I suggested↑ earlier, it's not necessarily the sort of discussion that interests them.

Or, per #190↑, the occasion provides a particular illustrative example. And you understand what that means, right: The reaction to KX's fanciful inquiry is an illustrative example showing the nature of people's interest in a subject.

And lots of stuff has illustrative value, like the cromulence of speculative childsplay↑. What you pointed to↗ isn't particularly objectionable, or anything like that, but do consider the cromulence of two critics discussing their rules for the gods they invent for the purpose of criticizing God. At its most ridiculous, such behavior can turn a debate between atheists and Christians into a dispute between religious zealots. As one who has made a certain point about literary criticism³ for a while, now, it looks like you're trying to rediscover something that ought not be so obscure. You're more direct than I would be, "has not attempted to state that objectively God exists". But also consider the condition, "or that his beliefs are right and mine are wrong", alongside your description of "a perfectly fine philosophical discussion" that is nothing more than speculative criticism.

And if we want to, sure, we can try to make a point about how speculation is a common aspect of both your cromulence and KX's fancy, but it is both less effort and more important to consider that the discussion 'twixt Daves has certain value as an illustrative example showing the nature of people's interest in a subject.

Or, per #190: This is why, and perhaps we might reflect on what it means to be interested in something, which leads to a question about how reasonable standards↑ of anything might disrupt that interest.
____________________

Notes:

¹ I understand, that you missed the detail, but, for the record, you did participate in a certain 2022 thread in which Tiassa and James R discussed this point, including Tiassa's explicit clarification↗: "James, you can stop me if you choose to. I cannot stop you even if circumstance were to suggest I must."

Also worth observing is that six years ago, even Cluelusshusband↗ could explain a basic sketch, Dave: "Keep in mind that Tiassa answrs to James R."

² It's a question that just doesn't stop asking: "How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care," K. T. Nelson↱ asked in 2017, "but wants you to get upset—someone for whom 'this makes people upset' is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?" At Sciforums, it's an important question to keep at hand, and while it is generally a question of political discourse—

e.g., or, at least, ostensibly, gun control (2018)↗, Mueller investigation (2019)↗, Trump supporters (2019; also the subject of Nelson's 2017 question)↗[/url], compromise and Appeasement (2020)↗, the spectre of civil war (2022)↗, liberalism and conservatism (2022; incl. reflection ca. 2004)↗, and Twitter (2022)↗​

—the range of what passes for political discourse is much broader than the most direct applications. How to communicate with people who refuse communication? It's a very similar question, and has to do with discursive function more than any particular politics.

³ See also, 2017↗, and again↗, 2018↗, 2019↗, 2020↗, 2021↗ with an applied example↗ in the same thread; and an example from 2023↗ that ... oh. ​

 

James R is the administrator. You are only a moderator. That's your defense.

So be it.

Your commitment as moderator supercedes your personal feelings and freedom to express them.
You have a responsibility to - at least outwardly - respect the adminstrator's administrations, for the sake of the forum.

Retract your accusations and make good with the admin, so that the forum can begin to heel.

That's One Good Thing you could do to Moderate the forum. It would take one short post.

 

Do go on.

I'm curious what analysis the man who keeps claiming to not know whats going on might offer.

 

No need. Your move.

 

See, you can't even tell anyone what you're on about.

Kind of like the last eight months.

 

You can't use me as an excuse to not act. It wouldn't matter if I were a naked hermit in a desert hole using pigeons to post. Address the message, not the messenger.

You're just a moderator; he's the admin. Those are your words. So do the thing that you know could set this forum on a path to healing.

 

Look, Dave, it's eight months later. You really need to stop making this shit up.

 

Posted today:

You confirmed it yourself as a present issue. Seriously, It's right in front of us. (Just a few posts up.)

So you're a moderator. James R is the administrator.

Part of your responsibility as a moderator is to support the admin. That supercedes any in-thread disagreements you might have - for the good the site. Make nice. Retract your accusations. Act as one.

 

Yes, Dave, I'm aware this thread is an eight-month troll job just to stir shit, but, you know, it would have been rude to presume that at the outset.

And, y'know, hey, I would be remiss to have passed on the opportunity to work back toward "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty". You didn't really start to show until #10↑, but that's looking back. As it is, the period makes clear what it gets anyone to take you seriously.

 

Deflection.

A truth would be as sound even coming from the mouth of a clown. So call me a clown. Done and done.

So you've addressed the messenger. Now address the message.

Make nice. For the good of the site.

 

So much for "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty".

Thanks for making that clear.

 

No need to make me seriously. I'm a clown, remember?

That's the messenger addressed; now how about addressing the message?

 

That's not his thing.

 

If the message is just more of your make-believe, Dave, what's the point?

 

You're still dodging. It doesn't matter what this clown says or thinks; you know perfectly well that this feud is hurting the site - as does everyone else. That fact doesn't go away even if I turned out to be a million circus monkeys randomly banging away on a million keyboards.

Tell us, why would anyone take you seriously, watching you put your own pride before your obligation to the site?

It does not have to be a soul-crushing thing to say 'I had an opinion but I may have overstepped expressing it. I withdraw it.'