Does the moderator list need updating?

[krash661]

And I agree: remove the woo sections. Let the cranks go elsewhere for "validation".

what about the focused arguers,
IMO they seemed to be the majority of the problem here.
this thread along with many are obvious examples.

all in all , it appears to me for the last two years this place has been winding down, and over ridden with the elements that makes this place the cesspool it is today.

 

[Magical Realist]

We want them to prove that their beliefs have some scientific merit.
They can't do that because they don't require scientific proof for their beliefs.

For example. Evidence that ghosts exist.
1. People have talked to ghosts.
2. People have felt the presence of ghosts.
3. Sounds recorded on tape sound like voices.

That is the evidence they are willing to accept,
because it is belief not science.

Don't forget vetted photos of apparitions, video of moving chairs/objects, repeated accounts of the same phenomena at the same locations, etc. It's really quite amusing to watch the sci squad go ballistic when I actually DO post evidence like this. "But that's not evidence! It's a fake photo! It's a smudge! It's double exposure! It's..it's.. UHG!" (flatline...............) Not that I'm trolling. But I DO wonder why it's such an emotional issue for them. One little ghost and suddenly it's like the end of their world. One is almost tempted to see this as a crisis in faith.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We want them to prove that their beliefs have some scientific merit.
They can't do that because they don't require scientific proof for their beliefs.

But they're also looking for scientific affirmation for those beliefs.
You can't have it both ways.
Either you want science to accept that your beliefs have scientific merit - in which case you work by the rules of science, or you don't - in which case you f*ck off to somewhere where your beliefs will be uncritically accepted.
You don't (shouldn't) skateboard at a performance of Shakespeare and expect to be taken seriously.

Like I said: they're trolling.
Since they cannot provide evidence there's no point them being here on a science site.
Essentially the cranks are merely displaying their insincerity (or gross ignorance of what science is and how it works).

So, as you suggested, we should remove those sections altogether.
But, until that happens (and unfortunately I doubt that it will) are you of the opinion that there's no point in pointing out - for those readers who are learning about science and thus not equipped as yet to distinguish crankery from science - that the claims posted are in fact crap?
And, likewise, are you of the opinion that insincerity, and/ or wilful ignorance, should be treated with "respect"?

 

[Balerion]

Don't forget vetted photos of apparitions, video of moving chairs/objects, repeated accounts of the same phenomena at the same locations, etc. It's really quite amusing to watch the sci squad go ballistic when I actually DO post evidence like this. "But that's not evidence! It's a fake photo! It's a smudge! It's double exposure! It's..it's.. UHG!" (flatline...............) Not that I'm trolling. But I DO wonder why it's such an emotional issue for them. One little ghost and suddenly it's like the end of their world. One is almost tempted to see this as a crisis in faith.

All of this could describe you. And you know that. Which is why this is trolling. You're just trying to get a reaction.

 

[Dywyddyr]

what about the focused arguers

Do they have evidence?

all in all , it appears to me for the last two years this place has been winding down, and over ridden with the elements that makes this place the cesspool it is today.

One of those elements being you...

 

[Kittamaru]

Now now Dywyddyr, no need for name calling... infuriating as the current state of this site may be.

 

[krash661]

Do they have evidence?


One of those elements being you...

no i was agreeing with you.
i meant they also should go somewhere else.

as for your second comment, amusing.
i'm one of the ones who attempted to keep the reality of science.
i'm not the one continuing to meaninglessly argue page after page of this nonsense in this thread.
think about that.

edit-
not sure why you would feel offended from my words.
which is why you would make that comment you did.
but i have a clue why.
it would be because you felt what i said pertained to you.
that alone speaks volumes.

or maybe it was a form of misunderstanding my words.
which is also amusing since what i stated is very clear.
also think about that.

 

[Gremmie]

I have to agree with CK here...

You create a subfora for ghosts, bigfoot etc...

And you expect more than conjecture from posters?
That's just silly.

If you don't like the "fringe" don't bother with it.

Yes, this is supposed to be be a science forum...
But, we have several subfora, created by the powers that be.

People bitch about theists... Yet we have a religion subfora.
Bitch about people that believe in ghosts, yet we have a subfora for that too.

Geez, either remove all non-science subfora, or just accept it.

I have to be honest... Most of what posters like MR or GIA post doesn't grasp my interest.

But, I feel they have the right to post here, as long as they post in the proper areas.

Now, as far as moderation goes...

We only seem to have a handful of mods as of late.

I don't post much anymore... Some of you know the main reason why.
But, I also don't post much due to the fact, I don't want to be baited into a permaban.
This seems to happen more frequently lately.

Sadly, I see more posters being subject to this... Pity.

 

[Kittamaru]

Originally, the "fringe" forum was, as I understand it, more of where the pseudoscience stuff that cropped up in the regular science forums was simply moved to... not a place intended for actual discussion. Obviously, that has changed over the years - I will still enforce the requirements of SOME sort of substantiating evidence if you are making a claim; if that evidence gets discredited or torn apart, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, simple as that. However, I am going to start being tougher on the lack of civility that I see going on.

 

[Gremmie]

Originally, the "fringe" forum was, as I understand it, more of where the pseudoscience stuff that cropped up in the regular science forums was simply moved to... not a place intended for actual discussion. Obviously, that has changed over the years - I will still enforce the requirements of SOME sort of substantiating evidence if you are making a claim; if that evidence gets discredited or torn apart, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, simple as that. However, I am going to start being tougher on the lack of civility that I see going on.

Point taken...
Civility should always be maintained.

But, how can you ask for proof or citations, when someone is only stating their opinion or belief?
It just seems nonsensical to me.

As I said, you don't like "fringe", either don't read it, or remove the subfora.
Seems a simple fix.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But, I feel they have the right to post here, as long as they post in the proper areas.

And do the sceptics have a "right" to question?
Or is it meant to be free-rein for woo?

i'm one of the ones who attempted to keep the reality of science.

Hence your claims regarding Die Glocke?
That sort of "reality of science"?

not sure why you would feel offended from my words.
which is why you would make that comment you did.
but i have a clue why.
it would be because you felt what i said pertained to you.
that alone speaks volumes.

At least two (unwarranted) assumptions in there.
Exercise for the student, as they say...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I will still enforce the requirements of SOME sort of substantiating evidence if you are making a claim; if that evidence gets discredited or torn apart, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, simple as that. However, I am going to start being tougher on the lack of civility that I see going on.

Well MR... if those postin ther beliefs in the fringe forum are a bit careful about how they word ther "claims"... it does apear that Kitta will lean toward keepin the discussions civil... but im guessin some posters will still have to be ignored from time to time.!!!

PS:::

Kudos to Kitta.!!!

 

[Gremmie]

And do the sceptics have a "right" to question?
Or is it meant to be free-rein for woo?
Of course... Anything posted is subject to being questioned.

But, you can't expect a "woo" subfora to be "woo" free, is my point.

And you can't expect anyone to back up an opinion or belief, with "proof".

Now, someone says "I know for a fact"... Yeah, you need to back that up, or shut up.

 

[krash661]

Hence your claims regarding Die Glocke?
That sort of "reality of science"?

you have no clue what is actually science or what is actually being worked on, as obvious as you just made it.
you only know of the isolated view of society.
it's that simple.

i wouldn't exactly call it an assumption.
there was a reason why you became offended from my words.
again, which is exactly why you said such things.
if you had any clue of human behavior or how mentalities work in correspondence, then you would understand why it appears you were offended or just did not understand.
it's actually that simple.

all in all, continue your ridiculous rant and raving like you have been

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Of course... Anything posted is subject to being questioned.

But, you can't expect a "woo" subfora to be "woo" free, is my point.

And you can't expect anyone to back up an opinion or belief, with "proof".

Now, someone says "I know for a fact"... Yeah, you need to back that up, or shut up.

Thanks Gremmie... thats it in a nutshell an not realy all that complicated.!!!

 

[Dywyddyr]

you have no clue what is actually science or what is actually being worked on, as obvious as you just made it.

Yup.
Yet another assertion/ assumption with zero evidence.

you became offended

Assumption.

if you had any clue of human behavior or how mentalities work in correspondence, then you would understand why it appears you were offended

Uh, is it because people find it easier to ascribe emotions to the writer rather than simply read the words that were written?

all in all, continue your ridiculous rant and raving like you have been

And it devolves into accusations...
There's a surprise.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Of course... Anything posted is subject to being questioned.
But, you can't expect a "woo" subfora to be "woo" free, is my point.
And you can't expect anyone to back up an opinion or belief, with "proof".

So we simply... do what?
Let them continue to post, unchallenged?

 

[krash661]

Uh, is it because people find it easier to ascribe emotions to the writer rather than simply read the words that were written?

i find this little statement hypocritically contradicting.
since it was this that is the source of this comical conversation between me and you.
but i do have a question for you,
are you at least a back yard scientist?
what have you back engineered recently.
or what are you working on at this moment ?

for me the surprise was,
i thought maybe you were not of this kind,
but obviously i was proven wrong, you are obviously a focused arguer.
what you choose to respond with , makes it obvious.
all in all, i had enough of your nonsense,
so please continue on your meaningless ranting and raving of irrelevant nonsense that you enjoy so much.

 

[Gremmie]

So we simply... do what?
Let them continue to post, unchallenged?

Can you actually "challenge" an opinion?
It's just that, an opinion. You can debate it though, and that's what I thought forums like this, were for.

I think some people just feel their opinions hold more merit than others do.

 

[paddoboy]

Originally, the "fringe" forum was, as I understand it, more of where the pseudoscience stuff that cropped up in the regular science forums was simply moved to... not a place intended for actual discussion. Obviously, that has changed over the years - I will still enforce the requirements of SOME sort of substantiating evidence if you are making a claim; if that evidence gets discredited or torn apart, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, simple as that. However, I am going to start being tougher on the lack of civility that I see going on.

And therein lies part of the problem.
Can someone tell me why posters such as chinglu and Farsight are allowed to post their drivel in "Astronomy and Cosmology" or "Physics and Maths"?
How much longer do we need to put up with the pseudo claims of chinglu?....In the Physics and Maths section for crying out loud!
Fixing that up would be going part of the way to solving the problem.

The following post says it all in my opinion.

And what I'd like is for those promoting the woo to not display their contempt - by ignoring, or trying circumvent, the conventions of science - in the first place.
But I doubt that'll happen.
When someone talks b*llocks there should not only be no surprise when the response is open sarcasm or whatever but also no condemnation of those doing so.

Or perhaps you'd manage to be politely credulous if someone walked up to you in real life and claimed that they actually had 3 hands and were 27 feet tall.
Assertions with no evidence that contradict known facts (or invent their own "facts") deserve zero respect and those promoting them deserve none either.

Unless you're positing that such posters are mentally ill and should be treated as if they weren't rational socially-adjusted adults (i.e. they don't fall under any "normal" rules of personal interaction).

I have mentioned at least thrice now, a method used for Alternative hypothesis pushers in another forum.
They post their hypothesis in the appropriate section...[alternative hypothesis]
They must answer all questions put to them by their critics.
And they have a month to do so, and supply evidence supporting their hypothesis, and/or invalidating the incumbent model.
At the end of that month, if no evidence is forthcoming, the thread is closed.
Needless to say, all have been closed.
Now that would solve it all! :shrug: