What is sciforums?

davewhite04

davewhite04

Valued Senior Member
Is it a science forum as much as a religious one? World events. What did the founder want? Anyone know.

To me this is as much a philosophy site as it is science?! That's what it says on the home page, so why are people keep on saying "this is a science forum"?
 
It's not what it once was. In the deep past, the top section might have qualified as an online workshop. And even in the philosophy and religious sections, there was perhaps a coterie of more(?) interesting "favorite adversaries" to argue with who eventually got lifetime banned, or just left before they received the axe. Wind moaning through semi-empty corridors, now.
_
 
C C said:
It's not what it once was. In the deep past, the top section might have qualified as an online workshop. And even in the philosophy and religious sections, there was perhaps a coterie of more(?) interesting "favorite adversaries" to argue with who eventually got lifetime banned, or just left before they received the axe. Wind moaning through semi-empty corridors, now.
_
Click to expand...
Maybe sciforums started cancel culture!

EDIT: Off topic slightly, really want to see opinions and explanations for the op question!
 
davewhite04 said:
Maybe sciforums started cancel culture!
Click to expand...

Heh. But don't blame James. There were a lot more mods back then, with an array of potential sensitivities. Also, plenty of low-grade cranks like today, so it's not like the bulk weren't justified.
_
 
C C said:
Heh. But don't blame James. There were a lot more mods back then, with an array of potential sensitivities. Also, plenty of low-grade cranks like today, so it's not like the bulk weren't justified.
_
Click to expand...
Yeah I remember some of the old days, I always rated James as a moderator, he's the only mod now it seems.

EDIT: I was more vocal about people who shouldn't be banned back in the day.
 
davewhite04 said:
Yeah I remember some of the old days, I always rated James as a moderator, he's the only mod now it seems.

EDIT: I was more vocal about people who shouldn't be banned back in the day.
Click to expand...

There was one on the pro-science or reason side whose username I can't even recall now. But at the time, I felt that was a big loss to the forum. They got into a hard-harded state about some issue, and refused to budge after warnings and minor bans, and eventually bought the farm. Almost like watching a felo-de-se in slow progress.
_
 
C C said:
There was one on the pro-science or reason side whose username I can't even recall now. But at the time, I felt that was a big loss to the forum. They got into a hard-harded state about some issue, and refused to budge after warnings and minor bans, and eventually bought the farm. Almost like watching a felo-de-se in slow progress.
_
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw a similar one. Marshall or something. Harmless, just spoke his mind.
 
C C said:
It's not what it once was. In the deep past, the top section might have qualified as an online workshop. And even in the philosophy and religious sections, there was perhaps a coterie of more(?) interesting "favorite adversaries" to argue with who eventually got lifetime banned, or just left before they received the axe. Wind moaning through semi-empty corridors, now.
_
Click to expand...
У нас ещё несколько лет назад были форумы с миллионными количествами пользователей , на которых общались и профессора, руководители Вузов, и простые дворники. И общались очень продуктивно. Я помню девушку, она официанткой в одном из заведений быстрого питания работала, так на неё все местные философы и даже физики были подписаны. Никогда не знаешь, где найдёшь бриллиант. Все ищут в магазинах и на приисках, а он иногда под ногами незамеченный в грязи валяется.
Сейчас все эти форумы позакрывали - цензура.
 
Even though i constantly talk about it as a science forum, science is one subset of a larger group of rational thinking disciplines. It doesn't have to be just focused on science.

I believe the original vision statement still applies:

"As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. 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. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty."


Perfect. No notes.



When you see me pushing - this is what i am pushing for.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember this place ever being exclusively a science forum.

I always felt that made it a better experience - though I can understand wanting to remain true to the scientific method for those subjects.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Even though i constantly talk about it as a science forum, science is one subset of a larger group of rational thinking disciplines. It doesn't have to be just focused on science.

I believe the original vision statement still applies:

"As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. 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. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty."


Perfect. No notes.



When you see me pushing - this is what i am pushing for.
Click to expand...
"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."

Basically saying you need to be sound of mind.

Do you think?

If you as a scientist reads that and think every religious discussion needs scientific evidence, it's poorly worded.
 
davewhite04 said:
"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."

Basically saying you need to be sound of mind.
Click to expand...
No, a lot of people do not have skills in critical thinking. Some users here don't even think rationally.

One user here argues that God must be real because a life without God would be pathetic. That's wishful thinking. Imagine concluding that unicorns are real because a world with unicorns would be fun.


davewhite04 said:
If you as a scientist reads that and think every religious discussion needs scientific evidence, it's poorly worded.
Click to expand...
Well, evidence does not always have to mean physical artifacts.

The Bible's writings contain evidence - for example of historical persons and events, some asserted to be eyewitness accounts.
True, it is possible to question the quality of some of that evidence, but evidence it is.

We dont want people must making stuff up without support.

As a counter-example, witness another user's assertion of a soul, made of magical matter that can radio communicate with other souls thousands of miles away. They've made up this claim right from their own imagination. You can see how this is qualitatively inferior to a position that at least uses documents like the Bible to support it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
No, a lot of people do not have skills in critical thinking. Some users here don't even think rationally.

One user here argues that God must be real because a life without God would be pathetic. That's wishful thinking. Imagine concluding that unicorns are real because a world with unicorns would be fun.



Well, evidence does not always have to mean physical artifacts.

The Bible's writings contain evidence - for example of historical persons and events, some asserted to be eyewitness accounts.
True, it is possible to question the quality of some of that evidence, but evidence it is.

We dont want people must making stuff up without support.

As a counter-example, witness another user's assertion of a soul, made of magical matter that can radio communicate with other souls thousands of miles away. They've made up this claim right from their own imagination. You can see how this is qualitatively inferior to a position that at least uses documents like the Bible to support it.
Click to expand...
I just about agree.

But I think the line between critical thinking and philosophy(religion) is blurred, and those are the places that can be fruitful for both parties.
 
davewhite04 said:
I just about agree.

But I think the line between critical thinking and philosophy(religion) is blurred, and those are the places that can be fruitful for both parties.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a line between them; they are the same.
Without critical thinking, philosophy is better known as daydreaming.
 
davewhite04 said:
We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm open to alternate viewpoints.

What kind of philosophical discussion can be had without critical thinking? Isn't that how we got things like "magical matter that needs no explanation?" I mean, it requires some critical thinking to analyze how a soul might work, or why it;s even neds to explain anything. Without it, isn't it just a daydream?
 
C C said:
It's not what it once was. In the deep past, the top section might have qualified as an online workshop. And even in the philosophy and religious sections, there was perhaps a coterie of more(?) interesting "favorite adversaries" to argue with who eventually got lifetime banned, or just left before they received the axe. Wind moaning through semi-empty corridors, now.
_
Click to expand...
I think MR's ban should be overturned.
 
wegs said:
I think MR's ban should be overturned.
Click to expand...
Maybe you've forgotten why he eventually got himself permanently banned in the first place.

Here's the post explaining his permanent ban:

UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

A forecast
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com
Bear in mind that there was a lead-up of years of dishonesty from him, and endless "second chances", before eventually he got too belligerent to care any more about backing off the lies long enough for some of his warning points to expire.

There's a lot of really useful discussion surrounding Magical Realist's particular brand of dishonesty and clowning. For example, you could do a lot worse than to look back at this post, from July 2023, and the discussions that followed in on the next few pages:

UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

I remember Sean Kirkpatrick telling the congressional subcommittee that there were 650 anomalous cases currently. That's quite a few. I don't know if these were previous to ruling out other things or after it. Sean Kirkpatrick told the NASA meeting that AARO currently has about 800, and that...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com
---

Now, with all that in mind, tell me why you think his ban should be overturned. And, if it was, what makes you think he would want to come back? He burnt his bridges knowingly and deliberately. I gave him endless chances to do the right thing and try honesty, but his trolling was more important to him.

This thread stands as a really useful record of where that kind of dishonesty, evasiveness and wishful thinking can lead people. If you're feeling nostalgic, it makes for an excellent read. Compare the many claims that Magical Realist made (including his many lies) with the measured, sensible and thoughtful responses that many other posters made to counter his fabrications.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top