birch:
I think it is very unfair, harsh and manipulative to have a fringe forum that is open for discussions of the paranormal etc but expecting scientific proof when we all know there isnt one, yet.
As billvon said, it's a science forum. That means that some of the people here are inevitably going to look at Fringe ideas from a scientific, critical-thinking, rational perspective.
There are plenty of places on the internet where you can have an uncritical discussion of ghosts, or the yeti or close encounters of the third kind. People will cheer you on and share their own anecdotes about the times they were kidnapped by aliens too.
Discussions in our Fringe sections are never shut down because of a lack of scientific proof of paranormal claims.
I fail to see how making a place for consideration of such claims is "manipulative". Nobody is forced to go there. Nobody is forced to defend their beliefs. But they
can expect their beliefs to be subjected to questions, rather than being accepted uncritically. Anybody reading those forums goes in with eyes open about what questions and objections they are likely to face if they post credulously on certain topics.
It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect people who are making claims to make some attempt to defend the plausibility of such claims - whether they be in the Science sections or the Fringe.
Why have a subforum like that unless its just to bully people who open topics for speculation.
We provide a service not available in many other places on the internet. You give people who hold "fringe" views some latitude to test those views against the ideas of people who may not agree with them. If a poster would prefer a cosy bubble of agreeable like-minded people who will pat him or her on the back and heartily endorse his ghosts stories or the one about the time he thought his mum would phone and then she did, then places like that are easily found.
And if moral support is needed, you will notice that it's seldom a case of one believer against an army of closed-minded believers in the Orthodoxy. We have our own cheer squad of paranormal believers right here.
Our Religion subforums and our Politics subforums are similar. We have our atheists, but we also have our share of steadfast believers in various gods and religions. We have staunch liberals and staunch conservatives, some moderates, and even a few people who are out there on the outer edges of various political persuasions.
If there is an overall philosophy that binds what we do at sciforums together it is to try to encourage critical thinking - about whatever subject we're talking about. And if there's a pattern to be discerned regarding posters to get a "hard time" from some of our regulars, I'd say that it is usually that those posters don't show much evidence of critical thought. [Very important here not to mistake "critical thinking" for "cynical dismissal", by the way, since they are very much not the same thing.]
The naysayers have nothing to add except the usual 'no proof, then its bs, the end' essentially wanting to shut it down. Its setting people up for them to be bullied, condescended to, or infracted.
Condescension and bullying can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder, so it's difficult to make a general comment, as opposed to dealing with specific instances of behaviour. Poster X can claim that poster Y is being condescending in dismissing X's belief, while poster Y claims at the same time that poster X is being unreasonably arrogant in holding to that certain belief in the face of apparently reasonable arguments that might call the belief into question.
As for infractions, moderators should never use their "powers" to preferentially shut down one side of an intellectual argument. The moderators' job is to enforce, where necessary, reasonable standards of discourse between participants in the discussion. This is not to say that moderators are forbidden from engaging in discussions as "normal" members, though it is understood that they should never invoke moderator privileges to force a "win" for "their side" of an argument or to shut down an opponent that they are personally engaged against. There are grey areas here, of course. Extreme intellectual dishonesty can on occasion amount to trolling, thus justifying moderator intervention, though even there it can be very bad form for a moderator who is involved in the discussion to switch roles from that of participant to enforcer.
Also, the most obvious is those who arent even at least curiously open-minded just go into that subforum just to block any speculation or possibilities except the most banal explanation everyone already is aware of when it comes to the unexplained or yet to be proven. The one size fits all 'must be imagination, mental illness, mistaken identity so shut up now' to all and any attempt to start a topic. No, they then need to stay out of a topic they obviously arent interested in. Its like going into a certain hobby or interest convention telling everybody there how you think their interest is silly.
Have you considered that, perhaps, it's the people who start the Fringe threads who may be coming into a kind of Science/critical thinking convention (if that's what sciforums is), telling the people here that they are closed minded and should just accept certain things uncritically?
What do you think the aim of the Fringe sections is? Is it for critical discussion of the topics there? Or do you think it is/should be more a place of fun, where people give free reign to their craziest notions without fear of being asked inconvenient questions?
Its just wrong. Period. Its not the science section. Repeat: its not the science section. Repeat again: its not the fuking science section. The way that subforum is not understood in context. If the moderators are going to be that much of an anvil, they should apply the same exacting, hard knock on wood, standards to the philosophy subforum since thats all personal opinion and interpretation touted as truth. It would stop any discussion from getgo. Heh.
It is interesting that you mention philosophy. Philosophy is the subject that, perhaps more than any other, demands rigorous standards of critical thinking. Philosophy questions
everything at the most fundamental level - what can be known, what things there are, what it means to be good, etc. - but it demands that ideas be connected logically, and that all positions taken be defended against objections.
If a forum creates space specifically for art, politics, philosophy, religion, paranormal, ufo's etc you have to respect the context of what those types of forums would entail and the interest/topics made when it is known those areas are not about hardcore scientific evidence either by nature or its on the fringe of what is currently known or understood.
You're right that hardcore scientific evidence is not needed for those things. But would you agree that it's reasonable to expect somebody posting in any of those areas to be willing to defend (in the sense of support with reasonable argument or justification) any claims he or she makes? Or do you think they should be more places where people just express preferences - "I like modern art!", "Yay for alien spaceships!", "The Republican party is the best and Democrats are all idiots!", "My God is bigger than your God!" etc.?
Its a different context and on the fringe. Of course it isnt scientific or have evidence yet! If you are only going to allow topics that already are proven, dont create those subfora, otherwise its rude to those who take the chance to speculate or open up!!!
You speak about "allowing" topics, as if certain topics are disallowed in some official way - or maybe you just mean they are being suppressed unofficially.
It seems to me that most topics here are open for discussion. You just can't expect a completely uncritical discussion.
The fact that we have such an extensive Fringe section at all makes us, I think, quite unique among "science forums". Many similar forums have no patience for any of that "fringe" stuff, and immediately expunge any such thing that is posted. They choose to concentrate entirely on what you might call "hard science". I'm not saying that's the wrong choice. I'm just saying it's a different choice than we make here. On the other hand, there are also plenty of dedicated "fringe" forums out there on the interwebs, whose participants prefer not to hear, or otherwise ignore, all inconvenient facts and questions.
