Is SciFo a science forum?

[birch]

"my opinion is as good as yours".

It is antithetical to a forum of rational fact-based discussion.

you typed that with a straight face? all discussions here are based on facts? lol. that's just a damn lie.

the only fact-based discussion are in the hard science section but the issue is only the fringe section is not given the leeway as much as the rest of the other subfora and that includes philosophy, politics, and religion.

"my opinion is good as yours" is the meme, not the exception in all discussion outside of hard science.

 

[birch]

I'm sorry that you are either incapable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the importance of fact based science and evidence based discovery.

i'm sorry that you continue to ignore blatantly that discussion outside of hard science are not based on "fact-based science and evidence based discovery."

the point was clearly made but you ignore it like the intellectually dishonest moderator you are, evidently.

the point is, again, that the members express all types of suppositions and opinions as if they are facts (oftentimes, they are not even challenged). and they are not harshly condemned as violating forum rules as much as fringe topics and especially by MR and GIA.

i am not saying that it should be as it would inhibit most discussions but that the fringe should be allowed the same leeway.

 

[DaveC426913]

i'm sorry that you continue to ignore blatantly that discussion outside of hard science are not based on "fact-based science and evidence based discovery."

the point was clearly made but you ignore it like the intellectually dishonest moderator you are, evidently.

the point is, again, that the members express all types of suppositions and opinions and they are not harshly condemned as violating forum rules as much as fringe topics and especially by MR and GIA.

It is not required that all assertions must have their facts explicitly represented. But assertions must be defensible if challenged. Granted not all defenses have actual facts to back them up, but that doesn't man they don't have to be defended with logical rational argument based in fact.

you typed that with a straight face? all discussions here are based on facts? lol. that's just a damn lie.

I didn't actually say that, but if you you'd like to review the rules that apply to site-wide:

• Support your arguments with evidence.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
• etc.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

 

[birch]

Support your arguments with evidence.

the point is most members don't in other discussions. oh, people jump on it like white on rice in the fringe section but are totally oblivious to those same fallacies and errors in the rest of the subfora.

but i guess that's okay because it's not ufo's, ghosts, goblins and bigfoot.

 

[DaveC426913]

the point is most members don't in other discussions. oh, people jump on it like white on rice in the fringe section but are totally oblivious to those same fallacies and errors in the rest of the subfora.

but i guess that's okay because it's not ufo's, ghosts, goblins and bigfoot.

Which is why I included

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

If it's in Fringe, then it is, by definition, extraordinary.

 

[Seattle]

The site would be much better and much easier to regulate I would think if the "On The Fringe" section was eliminated. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of this forum. All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The site would be much better and much easier to regulate I would think if the "On The Fringe" section was eliminated. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of this forum. All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

Aparently managment disagrees

 

[Kittamaru]

The site would be much better and much easier to regulate I would think if the "On The Fringe" section was eliminated. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of this forum. All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

I agree with that, to be honest. The idea that it simply contains the fringe stuff has, over the years, been shown to be utterly false.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Aparently managment disagrees

Edit:::

Aparently managment [that counts] disagrees

 

[DaveC426913]

Edit:::

Aparently managment [that counts] disagrees

Dude.

 

[Kittamaru]

Dude.

Eh just ignore him. He has nothing better to do but make snide little jabs at me and other folks he dislikes. It's kind of sad, actually - if this is how low he must go to find enjoyment in life, I rather pity him, but he still remains on my ignore list.

 

[paddoboy]

the point is most members don't in other discussions. oh, people jump on it like white on rice in the fringe section but are totally oblivious to those same fallacies and errors in the rest of the subfora.

but i guess that's okay because it's not ufo's, ghosts, goblins and bigfoot.

Please supply a reference of a scientifically based assertion, that has not or cannot be backed by reliable, appropriate evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

Which is why I included

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

If it's in Fringe, then it is, by definition, extraordinary.

The site would be much better and much easier to regulate I would think if the "On The Fringe" section was eliminated. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of this forum. All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

Other sites also have their alternative hypothesis fringe sections, but the initiator must answer all questions and supply reliable evidence backing his hypothetical. If not the thread is locked or shut down after a short period.
Most though do not entertain ghosts, goblins, UFOs and such to their credit.

As Dave said and as science requires extraordinary claims, such as UFOs for example, certainly require extraordinary evidence.
And as Seattle has said, this site would be far better to do away with such nonsensical, discussions.

 

[sweetpea]

Aparently managment [that counts] disagrees

Clueluss, the fact ''Aparently managment [that counts] disagrees '' is very much to your liking then? You want the spook sections:
My bold below...

Does it bother you that other sites freely discuss ufos an gosts... an if not... why woud it bother you if ufos an gosts was freely discussed in the gost ufo forum here at Sciforums.???

Obvously you ant... but im for changin the rules in the ufo gosts forum to make Sciforums more inclusive insted of usin curent rules as a way to force people away.!!!

A simple rule change for the gost ufo forum woud eliminate that an then anybody that wanted to coud freely discuss gosts an ufos wit-out threats of ponts flags an bans.!!!
Does it bother you that people discuss gosts an ufos at other forums... i mean... do you go ther an Bich at 'em... if not... why woud you have a need to go the gost ufo forum here at Sciforums an Bich at them for freely discussin gosts an ufos.???

------------

All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

Hear Hear.

 

[exchemist]

The site would be much better and much easier to regulate I would think if the "On The Fringe" section was eliminated. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of this forum. All the disruption comes from attracting "the fringe" to an otherwise rational site.

I'm not sure that is true. Some of the most frustrating disruption has been the vendettas conducted in the hard science sections, by people of a vexatious disposition who think, at least, that they are arguing about real science!

It seems to me that having a fringe section is useful, to redirect cranks who want to argue their case, rather than simply trashing their threads. But perhaps the elaborate subdivisions we have are a bit excessive and indeed attract people to think they are positively welcomed here, to post all manner of nonsense.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm not sure that is true. Some of the most frustrating disruption has been the vendettas conducted in the hard science sections, by people of a vexatious disposition who think, at least, that they are arguing about real science!

It seems to me that having a fringe section is useful, to redirect cranks who want to argue their case, rather than simply trashing their threads. But perhaps the elaborate subdivisions we have are a bit excessive and indeed attract people to think they are positively welcomed here, to post all manner of nonsense.

Perhaps your own vendetta and vexatiousness should be directed at the likes of river, timijon and others of that ilk, instead of others that at least are making an effort to keep debates in the sciences, as science and in line with the scientific method.

 

[Seattle]

I'm not sure that is true. Some of the most frustrating disruption has been the vendettas conducted in the hard science sections, by people of a vexatious disposition who think, at least, that they are arguing about real science!

It seems to me that having a fringe section is useful, to redirect cranks who want to argue their case, rather than simply trashing their threads. But perhaps the elaborate subdivisions we have are a bit excessive and indeed attract people to think they are positively welcomed here, to post all manner of nonsense.

I certainly agree about all the elaborate subdivisions. I don't agree that a fringe section is useful on a science related forum. Who else does that? What other science related forum has such a problem with nutjobs hanging around?

I don't know that much about other forums but I remember being on an astronomy related site in the past. They had no crank problems. If such a person were to post it would simply either be removed or they would be warned and then banned if they continued.

It wasn't really even an issue however. Everyone that was there talked about astronomy or astro-physics or related subjects.

Here, fringe seems to be the primary subject.

 

[Kittamaru]

Here, fringe seems to be the primary subject.

Welcome to SciFo

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Clueluss, the fact ''Aparently managment [that counts] disagrees '' is very much to your liking then? You want the spook sections:

Yes... i thank it woud be beneficial to Sciforums to accommodate a Science section an a "spook" section... but not in the trainwreck fashion its done now.!!!

You an like minded science people coud moderate the science areas an keep out the people who dont belong an ban 'em to the "spook" sections... a win win win situation for science people... spook people... an Sciforums site traffic.!!!

 

[parmalee]

Perhaps your own vendetta and vexatiousness should be directed at the likes of river, timijon and others of that ilk, instead of others that at least are making an effort to keep debates in the sciences, as science and in line with the scientific method.

Incidentally--and irrespective of whether or not this is a "science forum"--how do the likes of timojin, for instance, who consistently posts the most odious racist tripe, under the pretense of "science" (however inexpertly), not get banned from this forum?

Of my own admission, I've yet to, uh, fully familiarize myself with all of the site's rules, but I would think that such blatant racism (see "Mulatto" thread, for instance) would certainly be sufficient for a permanent ousting. And the "scientific" aspect of it--as much as his obsession with "white skin" can be perceived as science related--even more so.

I know that these kinda unknown site Administrators (not the moderators, mind) seem to have used Der Schloss as blueprint for illumination of the site's purpose and intents, but persistent and blatant racism is kind of a no-brainer, yeah?