Should something be done about unscientific people?

Originally Posted by Cluelusshusbund

You'r a super mod... why not use you'r own jugment based on what you thank is bes for Sciforums.???

oK... so why not start cullin the wors of the worst but slow down on the perma-bans befor "traffic consideration" becoms an issue an ther-for you will have hit the happy-medium of whats bes for Sciforums... yes.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said that where? I said it were a risk factor for, not a cause. Do smarten up and learn the difference, fatboy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you are describing right there is in the spirit of what I am talking about when I use the expression "unscientific people." People will continue to promote some idea and respond to contrary evidence by ignoring it and addressing something else the person said instead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep... somptin simular to that is curently goin on in a thred about the apeal of thankin free will is an illusion... but it has lead to som very smart scientific type people to make som fantastic posts on the issue... when thers no new science type stuff to add the un-scientific person will be ignored an the thred will end (all wit-out moderater interference).!!!

PS
I say bravo... thats Sciforums at its best.!!!

 

I see that you are immature and you picked up on something that you thought would get you a lot of support and it has but you already knew who would support your cry baby tactics and i really dont care about that.

Do you know what happens to members who use derogatory terms to personally attack?

Do you know what happens to memebers who start threads targeting specific members?

Or i should say supposed to happen. Because normally, and according to the rules, you would be taking a vacation right now.

 

John, I am trying to explain something to you in that thread and you ignored it. Cause and risk factor are different concepts. Yet, when I cite a risk factor, you conflate it with me saying that it is a cause.

Risk factors aren't causes. Why is that hard for you to understand? Obesity is a risk factor for non-insulin dependent diabetes as well. However, obesity isn't really the cause of diabetes. The same holds true for smoking and cancer. It also holds true for "female sex" and osteoporosis. Female sex is a risk factor for osteoporosis, not a cause. How hard is it for you to grasp these differences?

 

Egads clueluss'.
As time goes on, more and more I find myself in agreement with you on all sorts of issues.

All of what you say here is of great import.

I think that many here would not find it surprising for me to admit that I agree with the sentiment of the OP. It used to be that attempting to engage in discussion with these 'unscientific' people sometimes enraged and almost always frustrated me to no end.
But no more.
As you've described, for our purposes on this Site, there is no better means of dealing with these characters than to simply ignore them.

Of course, Moderators must act to curtail their behaviour if and when it tends to impede rational discourse.

To my mind, much of the behaviour mentioned in the OP could be (and should be..) classified as Intellectual Dishonesty....

 

Dont come off to me like the nice guy now. You were nasty from the very beginning in that thread and even the "people" agreeing with you here DISAGREED with you there. Now you tried to railroad me...you conspired against me thinking you had an easy target and it would be fun. I wont hold a grudge towards you and i am not an internet tough guy and cetainly do not jump on the band wagon looking for a little bone to be thrwon to me. No, i would rather stand up for what is right because i tell you this, what you are doing is NOT RIGHT.

 

here is a thought..

how bout one of the experts start a teaching thread to teach those of us that don't know the process of science..IE..supposition, theory,hypothesis, scientific etiquette, and any of the basics that can be of use here on sciforums..

have the users sign up for this class, (like to formal debate thread)

have a new forum and subforums for this...call it Sciforums Academy, this can also be used as a disciplinary action, remove access for all forums but this one, for those users that don't quite deserve to be banned..

actually this would also work in reverse..a new user only has posting rights in this forum (maybe free thoughts and/or religion also)until they can graduate into the rest of the forums..

 

So then you pick out what is wrong with those statement instead of just babbling on and on about them. All you guys are doing is showing intolerance for someone\something you dont agree with which is fine but NEVER tell me you are better than a dictator, because you are not. I will be honest with you, i dont have these weaknesses.

 

I dont agree with someone i use the ignore button. Even when i logged out and saw the other posts of the members i have on ignore (in this thread), i didnt read them. I admit i have four or five members on ignore and its no big deal so Will...you put me on ignore.

 

I'm sorry. I am upset, upset at the names i am called...its not right, i dont treat people like that.

 

From the Peanut Gallery:

how much of that is inherent to the scientific vocation..
IE..in order to be valid it has to be verified by other scientists,you would not get other scientists support if they can find things wrong with it..
AND/OR
one might not be communicating what one thinks they are communicating..
AND/OR
one is pry trying to communicate ones emotional state of being, (trying to let the other person know how mad one is,)
instead of communicating any point...
AND
Agree and Respect are two different things...um..how is respect taught?

 

Bells, myself and other people were trying to get the point across to him that, in this instance, everything is a risk factor...if you want to look at it that way. If he is going to claim for example: if you touch this green paint you will get cancer" we are bordering on the superstitious. For him to infer that i am stupid for having an opinion on something that even the best scientists dont agree on is just a form of bullying. And i dont agree with people jumping on the bandwagon for something they perceive as fashionable to pick on another person. I go out of my way to do the opposite and being popular means absolutely nothing to me because that is very easy to do.

And then the obesity thing is just flat out BS. To which he called me "fatboy".

 

IOW can't you just agree that when he says 'this' it means 'this' to him?
and when you say it is 'that' it means 'that' to you..

confused yet?

 

DNA damage isn't a risk factor john. It *is* the cause of cancer, because it leads to overexpression of oncogenes. I posted a full text page on this in that thread, designed specifically to educate people, and it came directly from my medical-surgical nursing book. You comparing that to me saying you get cancer from green paint is an exaggeration.

As well, the obesity thing is not flat out BS. SAM explained why too. Because you are overweight, you wish to deny it. I'm beginning to learn something here. People just really don't like it when you scan for them published, academic textbook sources that discredit pseudoscientific bullshit.

 

Life itself is a risk factor

Yes, John, everything is a risk factor if you want to look at it that way. And, to tell you the truth, that's the point at which you just throw up your hands and remind people that life is a 100% fatal sexually-transmitted disease.

And then you get on with your life.

I mean, I know a guy who believed sugar is a risk factor. Not for diabetes, or anything like that, but because it does cellular damage. In this case, however, we have to define damage as the result of what those cells do naturally.

Hell, for all I know, he still believes it. But at some point he just gave over to the fact that he likes chocolate, and he prefers a little bit of coffee with his sugar. And a cigarette.

Life goes on ... at least, until it doesn't.

If you touch the green paint? How about if you breathe the air?

In either case, the question is why. Oh, the green paint is full of lead? The air is polluted with asbestos dust?

Okay, makes sense.

Meanwhile, as a practical consideration, my seven year-old daughter has just given up french fries because her maternal grandmother has her convinced she'll die of a heart attack if she eats them.

And I thought to point out that I think you're wrong: Being popular is not an easy thing to do. Rather, it's very time-consuming and quite labor intensive.

I mean, that's why I gave it up. You know, one day I woke up and it hit me that I'm just too lazy to be popular. Well, that and the music sucks. And the fashion. And the vernacular. And ....

But I digress.

 

Of course one does. That's not the point. The point is that, despite reasonming with these people in that manner, after that, they still refuse to engage in rational discourse.

Do try and stay on topic instead of spewing boo-hooray.