Since this is the "what I would do as moderator" thread (Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I would move this to the cesspool or perhaps "about members." http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53846
All of your examples pertain to religion. Yet, you mention philosophy. What of a thread that explores the nature of free will? The nature of self? The nature of cognition? Existence? Epistemology? All of these subjects are insanely abstract as there is no real science that can be used as a basis for discussion. And yet, are they to be summarily dismissed? What of talk of cognition? There is a neuroscience. And yet, it is in its infancy and thus has little to discuss unless one delves into philosophical realms of thought. Psychology? Psychology is notoriously unscientific. It's basically folk medicine and philosophy. Is it off limits? Or do you really mean to limit your definition of 'unscience' to religious topics? It seems that Dave is NOT willing to sell the forums at this time. My offer was soundly ignored on all fronts. Not even a hint of haggling. If my offer was too low, I was prepared to raise it. I still am, as a matter of fact. I only hope that he remembers me should he ever reach the point where he really considers closing the forums altogether. As to the talk of "What would I do if Owned the forums..." I'd do very little to change them. Perhaps a face lift here and there. Fix problems with the script such as the eternal log off error. Maybe make it possible for users to select different skins. I'd definitely get on the ball about getting rid of spammers. But that usually happens now, even if only slowly. The discussion, on the whole, is ok. Sure. It's not very... exciting or interesting of late. But you can't force creativity with a ban stick. I feel that the wide variety of posters is what makes this place great. The general freedom to be able to post practically anything you want is wonderful. There's plenty of science forums out there that are strict and no-nonsense... They suck ass. Why would you want to hamstring Sciforums that way? This is more of a debate forum than a science forum, you know. At times it's a kiddie forum. But that's the way things go. Up and down. The pendulum swings. Continued life is what it needs. Not a stick to steer with. As to the lyrical battle thread. At the very least it should be moved to the Arts section. I personally view the contents as cesspool material, but I can see an association with the poem and art threads.
invert, intelligent conversation is what I am after. philosophy and cognition can be very interesting, enlightening, and intelligent. religion, on the other hand, ends up being something to the effect of: atheist: "you are not making sense" theist: "god does not need to make sense" I would dance a jig if someone mentioned dennett's views on cognition, because there is original thought to be had, new perspectives explored, and a potential conclusion to be reached. those things don't happen in the religion forum. not that such things can't happen in the religion section, but it is so polarized that it quickly degenerates into pointlessness.
As much as I read, it is all about the samre thing and usually follows the same structure... it's really all about dishing out the next "snappy comeback." It's garbage, in my opinion. I really just want it moved somewhere.
I agree with your views on the religious forum. I find the threads to be boring and stupid. So. I practically never go in. Simple, yes? Religion is one of the busiest forums we have. Has always been and probably always will be. The good thing about this is that the vast majority of religious posters stay in religion and rarely venture forth. Thank god... Another thing to consider is that there are several people on this board who practically only post in religion and pseudoscience as debunkers. They'd be most upset to lose their stomping grounds. I always found that funny, by the way. These atheists who are so obsessed with god. As to cognition, I've never read Dennett. I'll keep the name in mind for future reading. However, practically every thing that one could say about cognition in this day and age is unscientific. It can be creative, but there is not enough of a scientific framework to make much sense of it. Science is not creative. Science is limiting. Creativity comes first and science comes after. Science is a winnowing process. A going through of the creative output. A testing of hypotheses. Said hypotheses created in a creative outflow. There's a reason why computers aren't scientists. I believe it was Quine who made the point that empirical statements do not have empirical consequences of their own outside of some overarching theoretical framework. That is, that when a particular experiment fails to confirm a hypotheses, there is no deductive method for determining what is wrong with the framework. There is no mechanical means of deducing which of the preconceptions that led to the experiment are in error. Much scientific debate is able to occur because of this. There are many possible solutions to any particular failed prediction. One solution might be to invalidate an entire theoretical framework. Another might be to shift about some few principles within said framework. Another might be to introduce some arbitrary element to balance out the 'equation'. (Einstein's Cosmological Constant.) The point is that it is not science which is, in the end, the arbiter. It is the human's creative mind. The interpreter. My. I'm rambling... The point being that science is not so cut and dry as some believe.
invert_nexus... I do not follow you around... so I am wondering: what areas of this site do you post? I agree though... as of late, SF has been boring. I am waiting for something interesting to come up in the physics subforum, or the philosophy subforum.
I don't post much these days. Used to post quite a bit in human science and philosophy. Biology too. Free thoughts and About the Members mostly these days. I, too, am a symptom of the times, I'm afraid... A general malaise lingers on and on... Memories of what was still redolent in the air. Perhaps some day I shall turn about and meet myself again. Or perhaps I will merely continue the descent into oblivion's dark embrace... Hmm. Nostalgic today.
science still does not know whether life arose naturally or supernaturally what was you saying about religion?
I don't understand what that has to do with anything. are you trying to say that it would be pointless discuss such a thing? well, from a scientific standpoint there is plenty to talk about. there is one group of scientists trying to make life in a form that does not exist on earth. source from a standpoint of religion, there really isn't anything worth discussing. there are many views on how it started according to the many religions out there.
don't get me wrong, i'm not plugging religion. i am simply stating that it is still open for debate, if there can be such a thing with religion.
from the link: Krulwich: A very little, itty-bitty thing gets along because it's just chemicals in the right order. Collins: Right. Now does that apply to human beings? No, I happen to think human beings fall in a different category. I think we, of all the organisms on the planet, have a spiritual nature which can't be explained by those common elements and "instruction books" and references to machine analogies. We have these remarkable features such as the understanding of what's right and wrong, which I don't think is something that will come out in the study of biology. Nor is it something that I think evolution can explain.
I recomend that you read some of dan dennett's work. I forget where in his work he talks about it. but he makes the point that too many people think that the things humans do are so complex that evolution can't account for it. he uses the example that poety seems like something that does not come from evolution. however, he says, certainly a nighengale is a much harder thing to make then the poem "ode to a nightingale" but evolution did a good job on it =] he quotes a headline from a french (I think) newspaper that says "yes we have a soul, but its made of lots of tiny robots" =]
Did anyone notice that for two weeks or so, Dave put a freeze on new members joining? My theory is that he is trying to put a stop to spammers.
He did that recently? I know he's done that at least once in the past. EDIT: Wait a minute. That was an off-topic post, dude. New thread! *shakes fist*
