Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs

[James R]

"However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument."

Only applies to the first section of the forum titled "Science". Does not apply to all of the other non-science fora..

This statement in our posting site policies and posting guidelines is aspirational.

Personally, I would like to see critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based arguments in all subforums on sciforums.

Clearly, this is not something we are likely to achieve across the board. For a person to be able to think clearly and rationally about something, to understand what evidence is and how to evaluate it, to be able to critically analyse a claim - all of that requires education.

We, here at sciforums, are not in the business of excluding people on the basis of a low level of education, common sense, training in critical thinking and analysis, or other intellectual skills. If we can help people who do not already possess them to develop some of these skills, that is a win for all of us.

Obviously, we get a lot of people who come here with claims about all kinds of things. For some, this might be the first time they have come across anybody who has asked them sensible questions about their claims. It can come as something of a shock to some people to discover that some things they take for granted might not be true. We see a lot of resistance - a lot of people trying desperately to hold onto bad ideas in the face of rational arguments and clear thinking. Some people never learn. Some people don't come here wanting to learn; they already believe they have all the answers. But other people who come here do learn things. It's not all bad news.

Just bear in mind that while a troll like Magical Realist might have no idea what it could mean to think critically about something like art or religion, let alone science or (particularly for him) pseudoscience, and no desire to learning anything about such things, other people come here with good intentions and open minds.

The trolls and the deluded, lost souls can get you down. But don't give up on the honest, well-intentioned people who are curious about the world and interested in what other people think about it.

 

[exchemist]

Mine, too. And close would have to be very close in terms of detection of civilization. The first radio waves went out in 1895, so a detection followed by a near lightspeed journey that had reached us could happen only within a sphere of 128/2 or 64 LY radius. Or much smaller, if one credits the earliest UAP sightings.

Given the limits imposed by physics I can understand why alternative hypotheses become attractive. Like a civilization way up the Kardashev scale which has saturated the galaxy with Von Neumann probes, so there is always one nearby.

Sorry just misread Kardashian scale, which conjured up the wrong sorts of mental image..............

 

[exchemist]

This statement in our posting site policies and posting guidelines is aspirational.

Personally, I would like to see critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based arguments in all subforums on sciforums.

Clearly, this is not something we are likely to achieve across the board. For a person to be able to think clearly and rationally about something, to understand what evidence is and how to evaluate it, to be able to critically analyse a claim - all of that requires education.

We, here at sciforums, are not in the business of excluding people on the basis of a low level of education, common sense, training in critical thinking and analysis, or other intellectual skills. If we can help people who do not already possess them to develop some of these skills, that is a win for all of us.

Obviously, we get a lot of people who come here with claims about all kinds of things. For some, this might be the first time they have come across anybody who has asked them sensible questions about their claims. It can come as something of a shock to some people to discover that some things they take for granted might not be true. We see a lot of resistance - a lot of people trying desperately to hold onto bad ideas in the face of rational arguments and clear thinking. Some people never learn. Some people don't come here wanting to learn; they already believe they have all the answers. But other people who come here do learn things. It's not all bad news.

Just bear in mind that while a troll like Magical Realist might have no idea what it could mean to think critically about something like art or religion, let alone science or (particularly for him) pseudoscience, and no desire to learning anything about such things, other people come here with good intentions and open minds.

The trolls and the deluded, lost souls can get you down. But don't give up on the honest, well-intentioned people who are curious about the world and interested in what other people think about it.

All it says in any case is retain an ethos of respect for the scientific method. This does not imply it is the only accepted method of intellectual enquiry (obviously it is not, if one is discussing say music or literature) , but does imply that where applicable, the scientific approach to a topic is to be taken seriously.

If MR tries to argue the scientific method is inapplicable to UFOs, that would be an interesting one to see him develop.

 

[TheVat]

Sorry just misread Kardashian scale, which conjured up the wrong sorts of mental image..............

Who are the Kardashian? JK

I'm okay with misreadings just so long as you don't think the Drake equation refers to Ludwig von Drake.

 

[exchemist]

Who are the Kardashian? JK

I'm okay with misreadings just so long as you don't think the Drake equation refers to Ludwig von Drake.

On the contrary I would be more likely to think of Gabrielle Drake (seen here at Moonbase in the British 1970s sci-fi series "UFO"). :

 

[Pinball1970]

On the contrary I would be more likely to think of Gabrielle Drake (seen here at Moonbase in the British 1970s sci-fi series "UFO"). :

They were supercool.

 

[billvon]

Just bear in mind that while a troll like Magical Realist might have no idea what it could mean to think critically about something like art or religion, let alone science or (particularly for him) pseudoscience, and no desire to learning anything about such things, other people come here with good intentions and open minds.

Agreed. And I would add that when I answer MR (which is rare these days) I'm not trying to convince him; UFO's are something of a religion to him, and trying to argue someone out of their religion is a fool's errand. However, since these forums can be read by anyone here, I post in hopes that someone else reading the thread will get something out of it - some way to apply the scientific method to unexplained phenomena, or a clearer picture of how someone can observe something that seems to be impossible when in fact they are observing a fairly mundane event.

 

[James R]

Agreed. And I would add that when I answer MR (which is rare these days) I'm not trying to convince him; UFO's are something of a religion to him, and trying to argue someone out of their religion is a fool's errand. However, since these forums can be read by anyone here, I post in hopes that someone else reading the thread will get something out of it ...

MR is clearly a troll and/or a functional idiot. We're been at this long enough to say that for certain. Nevertheless, he is a very useful poster child for how not to think and for how and why people end up mired in fantasy worlds full of useless ideas and "alternative facts".

The opportunity to explain to other readers where MR is wrong and why is a gift that just keeps on giving. Even if MR was an entirely knowing troll, he is such an accurate caricature of the typical woo believer that there are endless lessons to be learned from his silly antics. If this is an act he's putting on, I have to applaud him. His portrayal of stupidity, self-blindness and obstinate refusal to be honest, even with himself, is quite masterful.

 

[Pinball1970]

MR is clearly a troll and/or a functional idiot. We're been at this long enough to say that for certain. Nevertheless, he is a very useful poster child for how not to think and for how and why people end up mired in fantasy worlds full of useless ideas and "alternative facts".

The opportunity to explain to other readers where MR is wrong and why is a gift that just keeps on giving. Even if MR was an entirely knowing troll, he is such an accurate caricature of the typical woo believer that there are endless lessons to be learned from his silly antics. If this is an act he's putting on, I have to applaud him. His portrayal of stupidity, self-blindness and obstinate refusal to be honest, even with himself, is quite masterful.

Perhaps I should rethink my approach on here. On YouTube anything goes and I will post to anyone no matter how idiotic their stance.
I visit educational and entertainment sites, science, religion and history mainly and
these sites are polluted with serious trolls, anti evolution, anti Vax, anti Einstein/QM/BB etc etc and I respond with the most informed post that I can.
Since they tend to have a very poor knowledge on these subjects it is easy to dismantle their claims.
On a science forum however I expect a level of reasonable education. Also humility, if some good information and argument is presented, one should expect members to take this on board.
When this does not happen (only twice so far) I have bailed, not through anger but because the recipients were not listening.
These threads are not just for my satisfaction in reaching a conclusion, they are also an educational tool for observers, possibly young people wanting to learn as you have pointed out.

 

[Pinball1970]

This statement in our posting site policies and posting guidelines is aspirational.

Personally, I would like to see critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based arguments in all subforums on sciforums.

Clearly, this is not something we are likely to achieve across the board. For a person to be able to think clearly and rationally about something, to understand what evidence is and how to evaluate it, to be able to critically analyse a claim - all of that requires education.

We, here at sciforums, are not in the business of excluding people on the basis of a low level of education, common sense, training in critical thinking and analysis, or other intellectual skills. If we can help people who do not already possess them to develop some of these skills, that is a win for all of us.

Obviously, we get a lot of people who come here with claims about all kinds of things. For some, this might be the first time they have come across anybody who has asked them sensible questions about their claims. It can come as something of a shock to some people to discover that some things they take for granted might not be true. We see a lot of resistance - a lot of people trying desperately to hold onto bad ideas in the face of rational arguments and clear thinking. Some people never learn. Some people don't come here wanting to learn; they already believe they have all the answers. But other people who come here do learn things. It's not all bad news.

Just bear in mind that while a troll like Magical Realist might have no idea what it could mean to think critically about something like art or religion, let alone science or (particularly for him) pseudoscience, and no desire to learning anything about such things, other people come here with good intentions and open minds.

The trolls and the deluded, lost souls can get you down. But don't give up on the honest, well-intentioned people who are curious about the world and interested in what other people think about it.

"We, here at sciforums, are not in the business of excluding people on the basis of a low level of education, common sense, training in critical thinking and analysis, or other intellectual skills. If we can help people who do not already possess them to develop some of these skills, that is a win for all of us."

I suppose this is the crux of your posts I was referring to.

 

[Tiassa]

"However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument."

This isn't quite right, Dave, regardless of what is written: You've been here for eighteen years, and we have never enforced that point strictly. We've also been discussing related issues over the course of the last seven months, but apparently you missed it.

Remember↗ when I said it had been this way for years? Said the problem is that we don't really have any standards? That actually having standards is considered dangerous aggression against free speech? When you asked me about that↗, I even answered you directly↗, but apparently the answer didn't suit your needs.

Moreover, from recent discussions, I also already know you're okay with fake science and other make-believe, as long as it is wielded in the way you prefer. This puritanical face you show doesn't agree with history in general, and doesn't fit with your own behavior. I've already told you, I've lost more staff arguments than I can count about "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty".

Do you recall that I said something about thinking back over five years↗? It's now officially six years, but, sure, that also happens to be a time when I was making a point about abandoning the scientific method. If one of our neighbors↗ asked, six years ago, "Why would [Sciforums] not being a science forum preclude people from having to make sense and to back up what they say?" that question remains unresolved today, and strikes near the heart of what this all is about.

It's one thing to to quote a statement about an ethos of respect for the scientific method and evidence-based argument, but the part of "all" that might confuse people is the observable practice in evidence.

And as I prepare to turn to MR, to clarify the policy issue, it's worth noting the line he's taking is something I explained to you six years ago↗: "If it ain't hard science, then apparently anything goes," and while that was never so explicitly declared, it was and remains a fundamental component of "what it means to be 'fair'" at Sciforums. I even gave it more particular consideration↗: "Like I said, if it ain't hard science, apparently anything goes … I find the presupposition that there are no objective standards problematic … there are actually real facts." Just to be clear: "Playing the one-side-of-the-story game, equivocating because it's all just opinion and anecdote, anyway, and if it's not a physical science or math itself, then there is no fact, is precisely how we buried the prospect of a 'science site'."

#321↑ radiates a naïveté that feels unbelievable, Dave; sure, there is this particular phrasing about the scientific method, but we've discussed these ideas, before, and you've been in it for the last six years since then, and we've revisited↗ these considerations recently↗, so it just seems impossible that you don't know.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Policy note, &c.

Only applies to the first section of the forum titled "Science". Does not apply to all of the other non-science fora..

That's not quite right. The reason it looks that way that it was unfair to expect people to support certain opinions and arguments; if I explained, six years ago, "we've cultivated supremacism, and will always have a steady supply as long as we treat everything that isn't a hard science as if it is utterly relative and without foundation", that hasn't changed. And if we should view supremacism as not the problem itself but a symptomatic iteration, then the underlying drivers are egotism and sentimentality.

The ethos of respect for the scientific method is important, and the reason it looks like anything goes when it ain't hard science is, in the end, notorious. It's not something you want to rely on or take part in.

Look, the fact that this is where they find "The Big Lie"↗ nearly makes perfect sense, transcends coincidence or even irony, and is something of an embarassment to this community.

If I do little to hem you in, it's because there is no point. Some years ago, it was established that even going easy on you was, apparently, still too harsh. And, yes, the staff has some old records on this, runing back at least eight years. So, yeah, there's a reason nobody does much to officially discourage your behavior; as near as I can tell, we're not supposed to. You need to understand, Magical Realist, the reason nobody has thrown you out, yet, is that you're a whipping idol.

That is to say, your redeeming value, to these people, is that you are looked at as someone they are allowed to abuse.

Consider that Dave's thread on "explanation versus obfuscation"↗ is not fundamentally wrong to invoke "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty", but the thread he cites was set aside specifically to denigrate and abuse you. That you remain unbowed, these years later, is not necessarily an heroic tale, but after playing along for so long, others who rushed in to do their part now complain as if something else was going on.

Meanwhile, Yazata has most assuredly seen this behavior before; I mentioned to someone else, recently, that the same thing is happening to pseudoscience and skepticism as we saw with religion and atheism. Yazata has seen this manner of skepticism before. So, insasmuch as anyone is going to talk about fighting good fights, no, certain defenses of belief just don't work out, but nothing about that suggests any given critique works any better. It's like when atheists argue with Christians and the metanarrative that emerges is watching religious zealots fight.

And as with those disputes between zealots, the failures of those who are supposed to be smarter than all that speak nothing of the believers they complain about.

And what I want you to understand is that the way you're reading the policy circumstance is not accurate: I'm describing a problem; cf., remarks to Dave, above↑ ("And as I prepare …").

Think of the idea that the world's burning down, and there are Nazis in Congress, but Magical Realist and Yazata, Write4U, or the departed Arfa Brane, are somehow the most dangerous thing going on, the foremost priority, the best and most important among the good fights.

I should probably also remind that, while this isn't Israel and Hamas, or some such, it's also true there aren't really any good guys in this dispute. Given their druthers, these are the roles people choose to play. To the other, it's not like I can actually stop the madness, as such; not only have I been expected to go easy on you, there really isn't any pretense of leverage by which I'm going to be penalizing anyone for following along after the Admin. This is all on y'all, each according to their own priorities, but no, that's not how the rules work. That part, at least, I can speak to.

As to the rest, while James R is pretty straightforward in #368↑, he's also been protecting and encouraging you the whole time, and that post is an example of why.

 

[James R]

Mod Hat — Policy note, &c.

This is "policy"?

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, I would like to say that Tiassa typically writes about Tiassa's personal opinions on things, and the above post is one more example of that.

Mixed in with Tiassa's opinions, unfortunately, are various degrees of lies and spin, along with a certain amount of vitriol directed at various people to whom Tiassa has taken a disliking.

I have said previously that I have zero interest in having any direct conversations with Tiassa unless and until he publically apologises for certain entirely false and scurrilous accusations he made about me some time ago. Tiassa has had a few months to reflect on his appalling behaviour in that regard, but nothing has come of it, which speaks to the (lack of) character of the man.

But when Tiassa starts talking as if he is setting sciforums "policy" with his opinions, I think it is important to make it clear that Tiassa certainly does not speak for me or, to my knowledge, for any other moderator of this forum.

Here are some of my thoughts on Tiassa's latest "policy", then.

we've cultivated supremacism, and will always have a steady supply as long as we treat everything that isn't a hard science as if it is utterly relative and without foundation"

Tiassa's "we" here is/was directed largely at me, I think, although perhaps he considers himself the only blameless person on sciforums, such that all of our members apart from himself are in moral deficit.

I say it is a lie that "we" have cultivated supremacism. I also think it is hyperbolic nonsense to claim that "we" treat everything except "hard science" as "utterly relative" or "without foundation". But, as always, I invite readers to judge such things for themselves; make up your own minds, based on what you read here.

Look, the fact that this is where they find "The Big Lie"↗ nearly makes perfect sense, transcends coincidence or even irony, and is something of an embarassment to this community.

Here, Tiassa is commenting on something he clearly doesn't understand, that came up in a conversation that he clearly hasn't followed. You can safely ignore this piece of rhetoric, along with most of the rest.

So, yeah, there's a reason nobody does much to officially discourage your behavior; as near as I can tell, we're not supposed to. You need to understand, Magical Realist, the reason nobody has thrown you out, yet, is that you're a whipping idol.

It is a lie that nobody has done "much" to discourage certain behaviours from Magical Realist. In fact, Magical Realist has been issued, over the years, with no fewer than 70 official warnings. The reasons that nobody has "thrown him out" are that (a) Magical Realist has never quite met the criteria for making an automatic exit from sciforums, and (b) the moderators almost never "throw out" anybody manually, except for the most extreme sorts of inappropriate behaviour (with the exception of obvious spammers and the like).

Of course, it is true that for a member to accrue warning points, a moderator must hand out those points, manually. Most often, but not always, those points follow other members reporting a post as problematic. Moderators have considerable discretion in deciding whether a breach of our site posting guidelines is worthy of an official warning, too.

While Tiassa is a moderator in name, he does very little in the way of actually moderating anything on this forum. I can't recall the last time he gave anybody an official warning about anything, with points attached. No, his approach is to just give us all his opinion in green text, like he did above, and call that job done. So, he has certainly done nothing to officially discourage Magical Realist's behaviours. He prefers to leave the job of "bad cop" to the likes of me, while he barracks from the side lines - usually for the opposite team than the one he's supposed to be on.

On the matter of MR being a whipping idol, there is a nugget of truth in that. I have recently written a couple of posts explaining how I see it, which is quite different to how Tiassa sees it. If you're interested, read this, for example:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/science-explanation-versus-obfuscation.165896/page-10#post-3719888

and, with that in mind

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/s...nds-up-about-uaps.166140/page-19#post-3721010

Tiassa's take on things is rather different:

That is to say, your redeeming value, to these people, is that you are looked at as someone they are allowed to abuse.

You need to understand that Tiassa sees himself as above the general fray. Tiassa wants to hunt the big fish, not the little ones. So the real truth, from Tiassa's point of view, is that it is good to keep the Magical Realists and other trolls around, because then Tiassa can complain about the people who take issue with the trolls and pretend that the real problem lies with those people instead.

In the process, of course, Tiassa gradually alienates himself from the very sorts of people that ought, ostensibly, to be his allies. Tiassa has very few friends or admirers left here. Maybe that's one reason why he is so embittered. Of course, his penchant for telling lies and for massaging truths doesn't help at all.

Consider that Dave's thread on "explanation versus obfuscation"↗ is not fundamentally wrong to invoke "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty", but the thread he cites was set aside specifically to denigrate and abuse you.

I can't find any such thread. *shrug*

Meanwhile, Yazata has most assuredly seen this behavior before...

I doubt Yazata will appreciate this attempt to drag him into this.

Worse, this is again alluding to discussions that Tiassa has clearly skipped through, apparently failing to appreciate the relevant issues or to understand the points of contention.

I mentioned to someone else, recently, that the same thing is happening to pseudoscience and skepticism as we saw with religion and atheism. Yazata has seen this manner of skepticism before.

Note that Tiassa cannot explain or describe what this "same thing" is, exactly. He insinuates, but he does not state. The aim is to create the appearance that somebody should be ashamed of something, without spelling out what the thing is. Meanwhile, there are a number of things that Tiassa himself unequivocally ought to be ashamed about, and which, if he had any personal integrity at all, he should have put to rights long ago. But it's Tiassa, so we'll probably never see that happen. Instead, there'll just be more of this.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Think of the idea that the world's burning down, and there are Nazis in Congress, but Magical Realist and Yazata, Write4U, or the departed Arfa Brane, are somehow the most dangerous thing going on, the foremost priority, the best and most important among the good fights.

Again, I point to the obvious: nobody here has compared any of the people mentioned, or their actions here, to Nazis in Congress or to other world events. Nobody except Tiassa, who is trying to set up another straw man.

I should probably also remind that, while this isn't Israel and Hamas, or some such, it's also true there aren't really any good guys in this dispute. Given their druthers, these are the roles people choose to play. To the other, it's not like I can actually stop the madness, as such; not only have I been expected to go easy on you, there really isn't any pretense of leverage by which I'm going to be penalizing anyone for following along after the Admin. This is all on y'all, each according to their own priorities, but no, that's not how the rules work. That part, at least, I can speak to.

Pay attention. This, again, is Tiassa pretending to be above the fray. Here's how he thinks: he's not "in this dispute"; he's above it. He isn't playing a role, but everybody else is. He would like to stop the madness, but sadly he is prevented from ever doing anything in his role as Moderator by "the Admin". So, all he can do is talk, talk, talk, and never act, act, act. It's a sad state of affairs that this noble man finds himself in: cursed forever to watch and throw peanuts from the sidelines, always prevented from doing the right thing by forces beyond his control or power to influence.

I say: don't get distracted by the words from this man. Watch what he does. Or, more to the point, watch what he doesn't do. He's all talk, never action. He takes no responsibility - not for this forum, not for his own lies, not for anything.

As to the rest, while James R is pretty straightforward in #368↑, he's also been protecting and encouraging you the whole time, and that post is an example of why.

Tiassa: although I vomit slightly in my mouth at talking directly to such a hate-filled man, I will address you directly on this. If you want to toss Magical Realist, Tiassa, you have my blessing. We'll all see what you do - or don't do.

 

[exchemist]

Mod Hat — Policy note, &c.



That's not quite right. The reason it looks that way that it was unfair to expect people to support certain opinions and arguments; if I explained, six years ago, "we've cultivated supremacism, and will always have a steady supply as long as we treat everything that isn't a hard science as if it is utterly relative and without foundation", that hasn't changed. And if we should view supremacism as not the problem itself but a symptomatic iteration, then the underlying drivers are egotism and sentimentality.

The ethos of respect for the scientific method is important, and the reason it looks like anything goes when it ain't hard science is, in the end, notorious. It's not something you want to rely on or take part in.

Look, the fact that this is where they find "The Big Lie"↗ nearly makes perfect sense, transcends coincidence or even irony, and is something of an embarassment to this community.

If I do little to hem you in, it's because there is no point. Some years ago, it was established that even going easy on you was, apparently, still too harsh. And, yes, the staff has some old records on this, runing back at least eight years. So, yeah, there's a reason nobody does much to officially discourage your behavior; as near as I can tell, we're not supposed to. You need to understand, Magical Realist, the reason nobody has thrown you out, yet, is that you're a whipping idol.

That is to say, your redeeming value, to these people, is that you are looked at as someone they are allowed to abuse.

Consider that Dave's thread on "explanation versus obfuscation"↗ is not fundamentally wrong to invoke "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty", but the thread he cites was set aside specifically to denigrate and abuse you. That you remain unbowed, these years later, is not necessarily an heroic tale, but after playing along for so long, others who rushed in to do their part now complain as if something else was going on.

Meanwhile, Yazata has most assuredly seen this behavior before; I mentioned to someone else, recently, that the same thing is happening to pseudoscience and skepticism as we saw with religion and atheism. Yazata has seen this manner of skepticism before. So, insasmuch as anyone is going to talk about fighting good fights, no, certain defenses of belief just don't work out, but nothing about that suggests any given critique works any better. It's like when atheists argue with Christians and the metanarrative that emerges is watching religious zealots fight.

And as with those disputes between zealots, the failures of those who are supposed to be smarter than all that speak nothing of the believers they complain about.

And what I want you to understand is that the way you're reading the policy circumstance is not accurate: I'm describing a problem; cf., remarks to Dave, above↑ ("And as I prepare …").

Think of the idea that the world's burning down, and there are Nazis in Congress, but Magical Realist and Yazata, Write4U, or the departed Arfa Brane, are somehow the most dangerous thing going on, the foremost priority, the best and most important among the good fights.

I should probably also remind that, while this isn't Israel and Hamas, or some such, it's also true there aren't really any good guys in this dispute. Given their druthers, these are the roles people choose to play. To the other, it's not like I can actually stop the madness, as such; not only have I been expected to go easy on you, there really isn't any pretense of leverage by which I'm going to be penalizing anyone for following along after the Admin. This is all on y'all, each according to their own priorities, but no, that's not how the rules work. That part, at least, I can speak to.

As to the rest, while James R is pretty straightforward in #368↑, he's also been protecting and encouraging you the whole time, and that post is an example of why.

So Godwin's Law rears its head, bizarrely.

I really have no idea at all what you are trying to say here. It seems to be a model of rambling opacity.

 

[foghorn]

Think of the idea that the world's burning down, and there are Nazis in Congress, but Magical Realist and Yazata, Write4U, or the departed Arfa Brane, are somehow the most dangerous thing going on, the foremost priority, the best and most important among the good fights.
.

Why is the world burning and why are Nazis in Congress, is it something to do with the process of how some people think and understand things?
American shows about ghosts and uaps are just feeding mush direct into people brains and makes them easy meat for the political and news shows.
Fight the good fight wherever it maybe...

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Notes

This is "policy"?

James, there is over eight years of records on this. Don't even pretend.

Tiassa: although I vomit slightly in my mouth at talking directly to such a hate-filled man, I will address you directly on this. If you want to toss Magical Realist, Tiassa, you have my blessing. We'll all see what you do - or don't do.

What's the matter, James? Can't make good on your own tough talk↗?

Of course, this has long been a problem. Like I said, eight years. The ridiculous coincidence is that when we go back to review our notes, you did the same thing, then, too. With questions of intellectual dishonesty, and a propositon to define the term, you did manage to grant permission to stomp on a member. But you also disdained discussion of intellectual dishonesty, and then went on to shield Magical Realist.

That was August, 2015.

And here we are in 2023, and what was it you said in September, those ninety-six months later? You told MR, "There will be no more kid gloves or free passes for you."

If you need me to do the job, then stay out of the way, but what was true eight years ago is largely still true, today, so at this point, it isn't about tossing him, yet. See, it's eight years later, and other than your arbitrary say-so, we still don't really have a reason.

And it's still unclear if you actually understand that your staff was trying to not be arbitrary. I'm not going to throw people out of here arbitrarily, or for personal satisfaction.

(If you'd like me to actually quote you, here, then say so. I'd be happy to.)

Anyway, I'll get the rest in black ink. For instance, there's no point in wasting green ink on the difference between "setting policy" and descriing the policy in effect. After all, you already know the difference.

 

[Tiassa]

I really have no idea at all what you are trying to say here. It seems to be a model of rambling opacity.

Oh, well, I'm explaining to MR the history of why he is, as you might put it↗, something contentious.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, well, I'm explaining to MR the history of why he is, as you might put it↗, something contentious.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure he's well aware of what makes him contentious: it seems to be his raison d'être on the forum. He is capable of taking in scientific explanations when he makes one of his forays into the hard science sections. So this UFO/paranormal schtick is clearly a pose he strikes, for reasons best known to himself.

And it has to be conceded that some of the thread he starts, or keeps going, have some amusement value.

 

[Yazata]

MR is clearly a troll and/or a functional idiot.

He's just somebody who disagrees with you. You seem to be totally intolerant of that. Intead of agreeing to disagree, and ideally giving some reasons for your disagreement, you attack, insult and bully.

We're been at this long enough to say that for certain. evertheless, he is a very useful poster child for how not to think

Do you really believe that you are somehow qualified to teach other people how to think? Pretty arrogant, don't you think? Perhaps what we should be doing isn't simply assuming that we already represent the paragon of proper reason, and instead acknowledge the interesting issues of how best to think about the edge-cases that the "fringe" fora present us with. The "fringe" fora needn't be an annoyance on a science board, but rather a resource.

and for how and why people end up mired in fantasy worlds full of useless ideas and "alternative facts".

And there you go. You seem to have already made up your mind about "fantasy worlds", "useless ideas" and "alternative facts".

I would define a 'fact' as an objectively existing state of affairs. (I recall you agreeing with that in the past.) The problem that we human beings face is that none of us has privileged infallible access to what the facts are. All we have is our own beliefs about the facts, based on sense data, authority and on inference from those things in the light of what we already believe that we know. None of us have the proverbial God's-eye-view of reality.

So what you call "alternative facts" is really just another way of referring to differing beliefs about what the facts actually are. Those differences of opinion have been the human condition since the stone age, and they probably always will be. So we probably need to learn to tolerate intellectual diversity, not reflexively try seek to stamp it out so that only our own beliefs remain. (Yes, I'm reminded of religious missionaries.) The best we can do is provide our personal reasons for holding the beliefs that we do, try to be as persuasive as we can, and then let others make up their own minds.

The opportunity to explain to other readers where MR is wrong and why is a gift that just keeps on giving. Even if MR was an entirely knowing troll, he is such an accurate caricature of the typical woo believer that there are endless lessons to be learned from his silly antics.

Again, how do you know what is and isn't whatever you call "woo", if you haven't already formed a belief about it? And how can you pretend to enter into these discussions with an open mind, when you are already dismissing those who disagree with your own beliefs as "woo believers"?

If this is an act he's putting on, I have to applaud him. His portrayal of stupidity, self-blindness and obstinate refusal to be honest, even with himself, is quite masterful.

The same thing can be said about his critics.