Is this a bible thumper's site or a science site?
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
I'm not in a rage at all. Im actually lying in bed typing this on my phone after spending the evening painting at my art class. You and MD might not like to have your short comings as wannabe scientists pointed out in a clear and methodical fashion but that is not my or anyone else's problem.
Scientific discussion should be honest and informed. If you don't know something then you should admit it to yourself and others. Making things up, as you have about the Standard Model, or ignoring peoples corrections as MD does, is not how to engage in honest discussion.
I know you'd like to give yourself an excuse not to listen to my comments, "Oh he's just in a mood, ignore him" but you're only kidding yourself. Contrary to your comments I am perfectly calm. Contrary to your comments I am not currently lacking in things to spend my time doing, I spend 4 weekday evening out doing sport and art and philosophy courses if you must know. It might be hard for you to accept but someone can be completely calm and level headed and still not buy your nonsense or overlook your dishonesty.
Scientific discussion should be honest and informed. If you don't know something then you should admit it to yourself and others. Making things up, as you have about the Standard Model, or ignoring peoples corrections as MD does, is not how to engage in honest discussion.
I know you'd like to give yourself an excuse not to listen to my comments, "Oh he's just in a mood, ignore him" but you're only kidding yourself. Contrary to your comments I am perfectly calm. Contrary to your comments I am not currently lacking in things to spend my time doing, I spend 4 weekday evening out doing sport and art and philosophy courses if you must know. It might be hard for you to accept but someone can be completely calm and level headed and still not buy your nonsense or overlook your dishonesty.
If I did NOT want to listen to your comments, I would NOT respond to them. Art, eh? . . . seems you and Pincho have some other common interests!
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that's because most Sciforums participants are laypeople. Only a small minority appear to be scientists or university students in the sciences.
Philosophy, religion and politics are subjects that everyone already has opinions about and don't demand a great deal of training, background or education from those who want to jump in.
So laypeople find those subjects less intimidating than science and mathematics.
Isn't there something where the religious threads get archived?
Does that affect the post tally?
I recall you mentioning it a while back.
. . . or artsts . . or philosophers, simply because they attend evening classes . . . .
I also agree with AN.
This place ceased to be about science about the same time it adopted the monniker sciforums. Save for the social science in regards to studying the behaviors and postings of it's community, and a lot of political science there is very little science any more. It's a community, and any attempts to correct the status quo will result in outrage by the hangers-on. It's been this way for some years now, you kinda just have to accept it and move foward.
The name sciforums will always bring out the religious who think science is the serpent in their garden of eden. If you want a real science forum, you have to name it something that would be too complex for the fanatics with their flaming keyboard swords to wage their war against.
This place ceased to be about science about the same time it adopted the monniker sciforums. Save for the social science in regards to studying the behaviors and postings of it's community, and a lot of political science there is very little science any more. It's a community, and any attempts to correct the status quo will result in outrage by the hangers-on. It's been this way for some years now, you kinda just have to accept it and move foward.
The name sciforums will always bring out the religious who think science is the serpent in their garden of eden. If you want a real science forum, you have to name it something that would be too complex for the fanatics with their flaming keyboard swords to wage their war against.
Last edited:
I attend evening classes in philosophy and art because I work full time and I want to keep my mind and hands agile. Idle hands and minds, and all that...
I guess I could just sit around here and mock others for bettering themselves, but I have something to get out of the kiln...
Stop trolling, that was an intentional attempt to get a rise and start a flame war. It is odd how you complain about behaviours that you yourself exhibit.
It's a science thumper site. May Darwin save your soul.
*pecks GeoffP on the cheek cordially and toddles off to get him a Johnnie Walker Black*
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I actually have a problem with Darwin too.
Creatures evolve by adapting to their environment. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't even come close to explaining why some frog's color and texture looks like a rock. Natural Selection doesn't come close to explaining why a leaf bug looks like this:
Another pic of this amazing creature that evolved by adapting to its environment, like we all did:
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
One of the things I like most about Sciforums is that it gives laypeople a place to discuss science. That's an important and a valuable service in my opinion.
Too often science appears to laypeople as an aloof white-coated priesthood, conducted in incomprehensible mathematical hieroglyphs, admitting only PhDs as participants and sneering at the rest.
I'm not a PhD so maybe I'm biased, but I think that there might still be a useful place for amateurs in science. Even today, we still see real contributions being made by amateur astronomers, wildlife biologists, and geological rockhounds, for example.
And it's important that there be friendly and non-threatening places where amateurs, non-professionals and anyone interested can get together (albeit virtually) and talk to other people who have the same kind of (sometimes obscure and isolating) interests that they do.
I think that Sciforums fills a real need.
Of course the downside of opening a science website to lay participation is that... it's going to attract a lot of laypeople. So the prevalence of ignorance, foolishness and crankery is going to be a lot higher than it would be in a graduate seminar at Cal Tech.
It might be true that some of the non-scientific general discussion forums have kind of become the tail that wags the dog. Maybe Sciforums doesn't really need a 'politics' forum and some of the others.
I do believe very strongly that Sciforums does need a philosophy forum though. But it would be nice if it was more interested in discussing the philosophy of science. Of course, the typical layperson isn't really aware of the philosophy of science and knows next to nothing about it. So perhaps that's not going to happen.
And you know, the tempestuous relationship between science and religion really is an important subject, both historically and intellectually. It's certainly worthy of discussion. And it certainly attracts a great deal of interest from Sciforums' readership. That's not really a bad thing at all and interesting discussions about epistemology and scientific methodology often arise from it. It's a valuable hook into areas and issues that can be very educational and thought-provoking.
Too often science appears to laypeople as an aloof white-coated priesthood, conducted in incomprehensible mathematical hieroglyphs, admitting only PhDs as participants and sneering at the rest.
I'm not a PhD so maybe I'm biased, but I think that there might still be a useful place for amateurs in science. Even today, we still see real contributions being made by amateur astronomers, wildlife biologists, and geological rockhounds, for example.
And it's important that there be friendly and non-threatening places where amateurs, non-professionals and anyone interested can get together (albeit virtually) and talk to other people who have the same kind of (sometimes obscure and isolating) interests that they do.
I think that Sciforums fills a real need.
Of course the downside of opening a science website to lay participation is that... it's going to attract a lot of laypeople. So the prevalence of ignorance, foolishness and crankery is going to be a lot higher than it would be in a graduate seminar at Cal Tech.
It might be true that some of the non-scientific general discussion forums have kind of become the tail that wags the dog. Maybe Sciforums doesn't really need a 'politics' forum and some of the others.
I do believe very strongly that Sciforums does need a philosophy forum though. But it would be nice if it was more interested in discussing the philosophy of science. Of course, the typical layperson isn't really aware of the philosophy of science and knows next to nothing about it. So perhaps that's not going to happen.
And you know, the tempestuous relationship between science and religion really is an important subject, both historically and intellectually. It's certainly worthy of discussion. And it certainly attracts a great deal of interest from Sciforums' readership. That's not really a bad thing at all and interesting discussions about epistemology and scientific methodology often arise from it. It's a valuable hook into areas and issues that can be very educational and thought-provoking.
This has never to my knowledge been a pure science site. Why is God important to science anyway? Because if you believe in God and the supernatural and miracles, what's the point of studying science? Natural law could be overthrown in an instant if God can do anything. All we would be learning about is a set of temporary conditions allowed by the whim of the creator. This would undermine most science, and this is why religious questions are relevant.
I actually have a problem with Darwin too.
Creatures evolve by adapting to their environment. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't even come close to explaining why some frog's color and texture looks like a rock. Natural Selection doesn't come close to explaining why a leaf bug looks like this:
Pretty sure that our darling GeoffP was just being cheeky, Motor Daddy.
I definitely agree with you, but Darwin made a good start of it, eh. We must attribute some thanks to him, don't you think?
I also agree with Yazata to some extent, but sometimes good scientists don't have the patience for some of the crackpots we have around here and they go away because nothing is done about the crackpots. We love to ban people who are abrasive and a bit anarchistic, but we lurve the cretins, yes we do. And that is kinda a sad state of affairs.
I actually have a problem with Darwin too.
Creatures evolve by adapting to their environment. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't even come close to explaining why some frog's color and texture looks like a rock. Natural Selection doesn't come close to explaining why a leaf bug looks like this:
...
Yes it does. Apparently you need this site very badly.
How come you are so arrogant . Even your ID is arrogant probably enjoy insulting people ?
By the way were you not a participant of an Australian forum ?