MR complains about being moderated

axocanth said:
Sounds to me like you're testing materials, asking questions, and being asked questions.
Click to expand...
And how did I do that? Did I guess? Pray for answers? Did I decide what the results should be? Did I bother to do a literature search or use just the knowledge in my head?
Did I design any sort of method in my testing or just "test" it?
Did I use a null hypothesis?
Analyse results
Make any conclusions?
Did I identify any flaws or weaknesses?
Am I qualified to use the kit?
Did I share the study? Discuss with my peers?
 
axocanth said:
Good thing we didn't ask him the square root of nine.
Click to expand...
Dave is a good guy and introduced me to this platform. He is also a task master because he is interested in science topics and knowledgeable.
I still don't think he has forgotten my questionable grammar relating to another thread.
It is good and how we learn.
 
Pinball1970 said:
And how did I do that? Did I guess? Pray for answers? Did I decide what the results should be? Did I bother to do a literature search or use just the knowledge in my head?
Did I design any sort of method in my testing or just "test" it?
Did I use a null hypothesis?
Analyse results
Make any conclusions?
Did I identify any flaws or weaknesses?
Am I qualified to use the kit?
Did I share the study? Discuss with my peers?
Click to expand...

There's not much point telling us what you did at the office today, or at the lab on a typical day. Each one of us here could do that. To establish the existence of The Scientific Method I suggest you would need to do the following:

* Identify something that deserves to be called a method

* Demonstrate that this method is followed by all scientists in all times, all places, and all scientific disciplines -- and only by scientists

Once you've done that, get back to us. Be warned, people have been searching for this elusive method -- this holy grail or even Holy Spirit of science -- for hundreds of years now.

I'm not sure I could summon the strength to get into all this again. Take a look at the thread Yazata linked earlier; both himself and another member ("Dumbest Man on the Planet" or something lol -- is he still around?) argue intelligently (Judge not a user by his name!). See also the middle pages of my own "Stage Theory of Theories" thread for more.

And finally, in the perhaps the fifteen years or so since I've been doing this kind of thing on the internet, as far as I can recall anyway, not a single believer's faith in The Scientific Method has ever been shaken. Not unlike China's "anything can be discussed except the One-China Policy" rhetoric to Taiwan, certain cherished assumptions about science, it would appear, are simply non-negotiable.


Pinball1970 said:
Dave is a good guy and introduced me to this platform. He is also a task master because he is interested in science topics and knowledgeable.
I still don't think he has forgotten my questionable grammar relating to another thread.
It is good and how we learn.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get too personal here, so I'll say only this. A person's character is appropriately judged on the basis of not only how they treat people wearing the same color shirt as themselves (everyone is nice to their pals), but also -- and especially -- on the basis of how they treat those wearing a different color of shirt. Your pal's record of insulting and slandering his opponents speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
axocanth said:
Identify something that deserves to be called a method
Click to expand...
I can do that.
axocanth said:
* Demonstrate that this method is followed by all scientists in all times, all places, and all scientific disciplines -- and only by scientists
Click to expand...
I can't do that, the SM has context. You have to remember that the SM has malleable tenets, parts a physicist uses that a Biologist would not use, different starting points, data already bearing on it and how the new data is handled.
 
axocanth said:
And finally, in the perhaps the fifteen years or so since I've been doing this kind of thing on the internet, as far as I can recall anyway, not a single believer's faith in The Scientific Method has ever been shaken. Not unlike China's "anything can be discussed except the One-China Policy" rhetoric to Taiwan, certain cherished assumptions about science, it would appear, are simply non-negotiable.
Click to expand...
Ok well I have two recent examples I can give you that I did myself.
Questions were asked and I answered them using the scientific method.
I'm out at the moment so hopefully I will forward when I get back to the office.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I can't do that, the SM has context. You have to remember that the SM has malleable tenets, parts a physicist uses that a Biologist would not use, different starting points, data already bearing on it and how the new data is handled.
Click to expand...

No one denies -- no one has ever denied -- that scientists use an array of methods, specific to time, discipline, etc. What is denied by people like myself -- and a great many scientists themselves -- is that there exists a single, timeless, unchanging, overarching Method used by all scientists in all times and places, and used only by scientists.

And it seems to me you are implicitly conceding precisely that ("I can't do that").
 
axocanth said:
I don't want to get too personal here
Click to expand...
A good tactic. I have slipped myself a few times and it never comes across well.
axocanth said:
Your pal's record of insulting and slandering his opponents speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
You have not walked in his shoes. MR is mischievous and makes a lot of bold claims regarding the paranormal and UFOs.

James and Dave take a very scientific approach whereas MR tends to steam in.
A long time and a lot of threads so patience will wear thin and it has.
I am not that bothered either way so I tend to make a short comment or not at all.
Do MRs dilute the site with silly nonsense? Some I suppose but one is never sure how seriously he is posting on these things.
I prefer his non para threads.
Ten years experience of Dave's posts on another have given me enough education on his character.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Do MRs dilute the site with silly nonsense? Some I suppose but one is never sure how seriously he is posting on these things.
I prefer his non para threads.
Click to expand...

The site has a section entitled "On The Fringe", with subcategories "Alternative Theories", "Parapsychology", "UFOs, Ghosts, and Monsters", "Conspiracies". and "Pseudoscience".

Clearly, the site is inviting members to post on such topics. If it's "dilution" that worries you, why not petition to have that section removed? For now, however, MR's posts remain perfectly legitimate. Right?

And why can't members who are bothered by what they regard as "woo" crap simply ignore it?
 
axocanth said:
The site has a section entitled "On The Fringe", with subcategories "Alternative Theories", "Parapsychology", "UFOs, Ghosts, and Monsters", "Conspiracies". and "Pseudoscience".
Click to expand...
All legit yes, as is a critical scientific approach to pose questions.
 
Shirley you have to admit, certain members' reactions have a decidedly "Daddy! (or Moderator!) He's posting woo crap again!" feeling to them, don't you think? :)
 
Pinball1970 said:
You have not walked in his shoes. MR is mischievous and makes a lot of bold claims regarding the paranormal and UFOs.
Click to expand...

Anyone familiar with the philosophy of Karl Popper needs no reminding that what distinguishes science from pseudoscience, at least on Popper's view, is precisely the boldness of her claims. Good science -- unlike Freudian theory or astrology, say, whose claims are vague and unfalsifiable -- makes bold assertions, lays her head on the chopping block, as it were, virtually courting refutation.

Sounds to me like MR, as you characterize the situation, is embodying the proper spirit of science . . . unlike certain others who, for example, posit the existence of some nebulous entity called The Scientific Method then proceed to twist and squirm, making ad hoc adjustments here there and everywhere ad infinitum in order to resist falsification at all costs.

Ahem!
 
axocanth said:
Shirley you have to admit, certain members' reactions have a decidedly "Daddy! (or Moderator!) He's posting woo crap again!" feeling to them, don't you think? :)
Click to expand...
11.40am bloods and BP done today at pharmacy, pharmacy rang Dr for emergency appointment, Dr sent me to A&E (where I am now)

So your posts have been a nice distraction in waiting rooms!
 
Pinball1970 said:
11.40am bloods and BP done today at pharmacy, pharmacy rang Dr for emergency appointment, Dr sent me to A&E (where I am now)

So your posts have been a nice distraction in waiting rooms!
Click to expand...

My doctor told me to quit drinking, smoking, and womanizing or I'd be dead in a month. So I did the only sensible thing: I changed doctors.
 
DaveC426913 said:
No. It started in the hard sci.

I would keep it. I would just have it monitored it for fabrication, deceit and bad-faith posting. Really, like any other forum.

There's nothing wrong with advocating for paranormal stuff. I do not categorically oppose its discussion. What astonishes me is that it invariably seems to require bad-faith argumentation to sustain any case.

In other words, I do not object to the what, I object to the how.


Here's something I'd promote, for example:

As a skeptic I grant that it is possible (albeit unlikely) that X has a paranormal origin. Can you, as a paranormal enthusiast, grant that it is possible (albeit unlikely) it has a normal origin?

As a skeptic, I am open to a wide range of possibilities, especially since we can't really know, in the case of X. Are you, a paranormal proponent open to a wide range possibilities, especially since we can't know, in case of X?


Maybe I'd have or some generic version of it at the top of every thread.
Click to expand...
I missed this response yesterday, so thanks for sharing. There are no right or wrong answers in how someone would plan to manage this site, if they had the opportunity, but your method of ''promotion,'' is interesting because it pigeon-holes (probably not your intent) the category, causing any discussions to be shut down rather quickly. The UAP thread that has been pinned, has only gone on for as long as it has because of ad homs and insults - from both ''sides'' of the topic.

I'd dare say that all of the paranormal/UFO claims are basically based on mediocre video footage and/or eyewitness reports. So, we already know going in, that the scientific method is going to disprove the claims. Even common sense could disprove some of them. If nothing else, the best that will come of these discussions is ''we don't really know what it is.'' But, the trajectory of these types of threads doesn't have to lead to simply deciding if the claims are believable or not. I'm more curious as to why people believe in ghosts, or what would happen if we were to find out if space aliens actually exist?

Since these topics appear in the ''On the Fringe'' section, I'm going to venture a guess that it wasn't created to simply give scientists a place to flex. If that is the reason, an area of the forum where science can play 'wack-a-mole' as the latest paranormal claims pop up, then I fail to see why it exists. If it were one or two claims, here and there, I think it would be easier to dismiss. But, if we're being honest, paranormal activity or at least the interest in it, has become a global phenomenon. That might be worth pondering, right?

Anyway, it has required the most moderation of any other section of this forum, which is odd considering it's a ''fringey'' topic.
 
axocanth said:
Sounds to me like MR, as you characterize the situation, is embodying the proper spirit of science
Click to expand...
MR is a very naughty boy at times and I think he knows what he is doing.
Anyway as I said, there good posts a d good threads so I tend to focus on those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top