Yazata,
My guess is that discussion of unwelcome topics was perceived to be fouling the more conventional "science" fora in the opinion of some of the moderators. So alternative fora were created to which offending posts could be banished so as to keep the science fora pure and proper.
You don't have to guess, though. Helpfully, I posted on why the alternative fora were created just yesterday, in this very thread. Perhaps you should read what I wrote, because your guess is incorrect.
The "fringe" fora were never about open-minded free-wheeling discussion of edgier topics, they were always about suppressing them and removing them from science discussion.
One third correct. Yes, they were about removing them from the science discussion. But that was already happening anyway, long before the Fringe fora were created. Mixing science and pseudoscience together as if they are on a equal footing would be very much against this site's original (and continuing) aims and ethos.
As for suppression, the creation of the Fringe subforums provided a new dedicated space for discussion of particular topics. That is the opposite of suppression.
As for open-minded free-wheeling discussion of edgy topics, the Fringe fora are what our members make them. If the discussions aren't free-wheeling enough for your liking, maybe you should post some free-wheeling stuff and encourage others to join in.
You speak as if "free-wheeling" discussions of UFOs, ghosts and monsters are being censored here. They are not. You're reading a subforum created specifically to host those discussions, among others. Magical Realists' crazy ideas about advanced aquatic species aren't censored. You can find some of that right in this very thread, free for all to peruse at their leisure.
(Which leaves open the question of what the point of the science fora is. What should they ideally be, given that Sciforums is a laypeople's discussion board populated by few if any trained and practicing scientists. It's certainly not a professional's shop-talk forum.)
We regularly have such discussions. If you want to discuss that in more detail, a more appropriate place to do so would be in the Site Feedback or Open Government forum. In my opinion, those subforums are under-utilised; I'm not sure why. A lot of people seem to want to whinge and moan rather than putting forward positive proposals for change, or even starting a constructive discussion. It's almost like a learned helplessness - like they think they just have to put up with things as they are and that change is impossible. For some more extreme cases, the attitude seems to come along with a sense of paranoia or persecution complex.
Right. About all that we are in a position to do here is to discuss the range of hypotheses about what these things might possibly be.
Space aliens is certainly one of them, regardless of how viciously those who might want to discuss it are attacked by our movement "skeptics". (Open-minded thoughtfulness has never been their strength.) Secret earthly R&D vehicles is another possibility that I've discussed several times in the course of this never ending (but strangely interesting) thread. The "skeptics" favored misidentified familiar objects remains on the table too. I've even been attacked for echoing the 'UAP Preliminary Assessment' by saying that Something was physically there and I don't know what it was, mainly because I also expressed reluctance to immediately default to 'misidentified familiar objects'.
Attacked? What form did this "attack" on you take?
Have the skeptics here not agreed with you on many occasions that there are unsolved UFOs cases in which it seems likely that "something was physically there", but we don't yet know what it was?
It's not really viable for you to keep pretending that this hasn't happened here. When you do so, you're no longer discussing things in good faith.
You know Wegs, I'm struck by how similar this argument is to the atheist vs theist battles. Our "skeptics" are analogous to our atheists (and often the very same people in fact). Their arguments are much the same. Where I differ from them is that in both cases, I'm happy saying that I don't know, assuming an agnostic position with regards to both the ultimate metaphysical questions and the possibility of extraordinary phenomena oberved in this world.
That's not a difference between you and the skeptics. The skeptics here are equally happy saying they (we) don't know and assuming agnostic positions with regards to metaphysics and all that.
I get it that, for some reason, you want to try to drive a wedge between yourself and the "skeptics" you have decided to go to war against, for whatever reason. The truth is, though, that you and them are not very far apart at all when it comes to the matter of UFOs.
I've even been attacked here for using the word 'extraordinary'.
I think you might be regarding any difference of opinion as an "attack". Does it make you feel uncomfortable when somebody disagrees with you? Is it possible that they could be right? Could something somebody else says ever change your mind? That's what open-minded inquiry is supposed to entail, remember.
Addressing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of various hypotheses would be much more productive than incessant personality battles and ad hominem attacks.
Unfortunately, in this thread, we have at least one dishonest interlocutor. That tends to muddy the waters for everybody else. People tend to get upset when people they are having a conversation with are not open and honest about things. That's when things can get personal.
I agree with you, of course, that in an ideal world it would be much better to stick to discussing the thread topic, without interpersonal factors getting in the way. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world.
And in the interests of fairness, not every self-styled "skeptic" is a bullying closed-minded asshole. (Which is how I often perceive them, probably unfairly. But it explains my hostility to them.) It works both ways.
That's either an olive branch or an accusation. I'm not quite sure which.
I like this subforum. But I agree with you that it could use more mature participants.
Again, we do not live in an ideal world. We have little choice but to deal with the immaturity as it arises, if we do not want to exclude people on the basis of immaturity.
The point here shouldn't be to insult board members that we disagree with into silence.
I agree. However, I think you're probably thinking about how Magical Realist has been treated here recently. You seem to put the onus of interacting with Magical Realist almost entirely on his opponents, while simultaneously being willing to overlook his poor behaviour which has on more than one occasion extended as far as telling deliberate and knowing lies, sometimes about other participants here.
It is not wrong to call out sub-par behaviours and dishonest tactics. Truth matters. A person might feel "insulted" or upset when they are caught out in a lie, for instance, but that doesn't mean we should not expose the lie, just to spare the liar's feelings. Other people are involved. Others may suffer from believing the lie.
Magical Realist has not been bullied into silence. He is right here, posting his usual free-wheeling nonsense (and don't mistake that for open-mindedness).
I agree that it is almost always more productive to target the behaviour rather than the person. I take some care to make sure I do that. I do not believe I have ever told Magical Realist "You are a liar". I
have told him "You knowingly posted a lie, there, and that is very poor form." On the other hand, just recently, as you may have noticed, MR has called both DaveC and myself "liar". In both cases, his specific accusations were exposed as false. Yet you are still willing to give him more or less a free pass. (Why?)
The bottom line is that we need to stop expecting everyone to agree with us and stop taking it as a personal afront if they don't. We need to develop greater tolerance for disagreement, which seems to be an inevitable spart of the human condition.
Worthy sentiments. However, you yourself seem to have taken some degree of personal offence at the "skeptical line" on UFOs. Perhaps we all have room for improvement.
