What is sciforums?

[James R]

On a different topic...

I'm not sure the site was worse off with him here, or it's better with him gone. It's kind of stagnating, in terms of increasing traffic.

I don't think this is specific to sciforums. There are social media behemoths these days that didn't exist when this forum first got started. A lot of people are hardly aware, these days, that places like this one even exist. They are happy to spend their time on Snapchat or Tiktok or Instagram.

We don't advertise ourselves. I suspect that most people find us either because of direct searches for discussion forums like this, or by accident if they ever get as far as reading the 15th page of their google search results on some topic. Or else they are already on some other discussion forum and they hear about us by word of mouth, so to speak.

But, that might not be the goal; instead, increasing the integrity of a science forum, as opposed to just increasing traffic to appear ''busy,'' would be a better objective.

My impression - forgive me if I am wrong - is that you think I am worried about the "integrity" of the forum, and/or about threats to Science itself.

I can assure you, I am not worried about either of those things.

Science is chugging along, doing what science does, perfectly happily. It will continue to do so no matter how many clueless cranks believe that the world is flat or that evolution isn't a thing. True, in some quarters the cranks are getting their paws on the levers of funding for Science. That's a worry. But science will survive this blip in history, like it has survived all the other ones.

As for this place, if I was worried about the existence of our Fringe sections threatening the "scientific integrity" of sciforums, I would shut them down in a heartbeat. On the contrary, I value those subforums. They are a fabulously useful teaching tool, for those who are open to learning new things - especially stuff about how to be a better thinker.

So, it makes you wonder if when the site is busy, it's simply harder to moderate, or did we just not care as much about his ''credibility?''

If this site was busier, what would most likely happen - as it has in the past - is that we would appoint more members as moderators. A big pool of people posting makes it more likely that there'll be a big pool of talented people who are willing to give up some of their time for free to do what is often a thankless job.

I remember more bans happened related to politics back then and outright trolls.

Interestingly, we purged most of our extreme right-wing trolls before the current surge in popularity of the Far Right. Those people, like our other trolls, were incorrigibly dishonest and pathologically unable to participate in civil discussion.

We've had one or two extreme Leftists here, too, but I think I can count those on less than the fingers of one hand. They were only rarely obnoxious enough to get themselves banned.

I will never consider MR a troll, when you compare him to people who come here to spam only or bait people to argue.

A cleverer-than-average troll is a troll nonetheless. They can just take a little longer to spot than the obvious trolls.

He did incite some hostile debates lol but, it wasn't his intent, if that makes sense.

I'm really not sure why you're so confident that you know what his intent was.

I spent a lot of time talking with MR on this forum. I feel like I got to know him pretty well. I think his intent varied. He went through phases that ranged from being mostly lucid to being merely stuck in his ways to being deliberately provocative and combative, to being outright insulting and belligerent. He was quite moody.

 

[James R]

If this website had a section called The Area 51 Saloon, or The Tinfoil Hat, or some such venue devoted to Anything Goes, then I'd be right there with you, supporting MR's unbanning.

Most of the Fringe subforums attract the Tinfoil Hat brigade already. They tend to get met with sensible skepticism.

It would be inconsistent with the ethos of sciforums for us to lower the bar sufficiently to create a reality-free zone specifically for free-range discussion of all manner of woo, free from any threat of a rational thinker setting foot in the joint. Or, to put it another way: Not on my watch!

 

[Pinball1970]

increasing the integrity of a science forum,

Imagine that? Rather than batting back cranks and trolls, pasting Ai generated slop, claims with zero evidence and poorly structured arguments, we get intelligently thought out ideas with references instead? In all subjects?
Seems ok to me.

 

[James R]

Imagine that? Rather than batting back cranks and trolls, pasting Ai generated slip, claims with zero evidence and poorly structured arguments, we get intelligently thought out ideas with references instead? In all subjects?
Seems ok to me.

sciforums was never intended to be forum for professional scientists, however.

Most of us here are not professional scientists. We are not in the business of running a peer-reviewed journal to review scientific proposals.

We are a forum where people who have an interest in a scientific topic can come to ask questions and get answers from people who have some familiarity with what science is, what it has found and how it works.

We don't have a bar that people have to jump over to be allowed to talk here. Nobody is demanding proof that anybody here has a university degree. We don't even demand that you passed Math in grade 4.

Some of us do work in jobs whether specialised technical knowledge is required. But, speaking for myself, I am not here to bring my work home. If somebody wants scholarly references for all my claims - or writings to a peer-reviewed standard - then I'll be happy to provide them, just as soon as they agree to pay me for my work. In the meantime, I'm here to talk about topics that I find interesting, with other people who share similar interests.

 

[Pinball1970]

I'm here to talk about topics that I find interesting, with other people who share similar interests

That's fine, I was not being a snob about it.

MRs claims lacked substance, they usually came from YouTube. Having an idea is fine but expect it to be questioned was my point.
I have no idea how qualified people on here are, the important thing is they are open to questions regarding claims, MR was not.

EDIT: Exchemist was a professional Chemist and VAT Biology major but that's about it.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ai activity is more tiresome to deal with than the MRs of these platforms I will give him that, although that is a low bar.

 

[Sarkus]

Ai activity is more tiresome to deal with than the MRs of these platforms I will give him that, although that is a low bar.

Yeah, but imagine MR using AI to further his "arguments"!!

 

[Pinball1970]

Yeah, but imagine MR using AI to further his "arguments"!!

MR: .....therefore this can only be a UFO, there is no other explanation.

Dave: Bullshit, for the reasons I have raised that you have still not addressed.

MR-Ai: Thanks for bringing that up and I appreciate your skepticism, this is the correct scientific approach. I have taken your objections on board and I have put my response into the following framework.

1. The claim.......

 

[exchemist]

MR: .....therefore this can only be a UFO, there is no other explanation.

Dave: Bullshit, for the reasons I have raised that you have still not addressed.

MR-Ai: Thanks for bringing that up and I appreciate your skepticism, this is the correct scientific approach. I have taken your objections on board and I have put my response into the following framework.

1. The claim.......

Yeah, framework.

And I’m ever so ‘umble, Mr. Copperfield…..

 

[Pinball1970]

Yeah, framework.

And I’m ever so ‘umble, Mr. Copperfield…..

They are polite!

 

[exchemist]

That's fine, I was not being a snob about it.

MRs claims lacked substance, they usually came from YouTube. Having an idea is fine but expect it to be questioned was my point.
I have no idea how qualified people on here are, the important thing is they are open to questions regarding claims, MR was not.

EDIT: Exchemist was a professional Chemist and VAT Biology major but that's about it.

Actually no. I had several jobs in which I used chemistry, but not in a lab very much, apart from commissioning some oil plant QC labs.

 

[Pinball1970]

Actually no. I had several jobs in which I used chemistry, but not in a lab very much, apart from commissioning some oil plant QC labs.

Fair enough. I worked in labs for years using Chemistry and regarded myself as a technologist. Still do.

 

[TheVat]

Most of the Fringe subforums attract the Tinfoil Hat brigade already. They tend to get met with sensible skepticism.

It would be inconsistent with the ethos of sciforums for us to lower the bar sufficiently to create a reality-free zone specifically for free-range discussion of all manner of woo, free from any threat of a rational thinker setting foot in the joint. Or, to put it another way: Not on my watch!

Well, it wasn't a serious proposal anyway, which I thought my wording would get across. I certainly don't want a thread where the rational can't even respond. Free Thoughts, for example, we already have and there is both woo and counter-woo, so it's not reality-free. Though, sadly, no one rose to my Three Word Palindrome challenge. Cheers. Deirdre, her dried.

 

[TheVat]

Remember Wen the standing shit? He wanted his miracle cure for constipation to be accepted by qualified people. He posted a thread in hard science here,

Well, wouldn't the study of constipation be a hard science?

 

[TheVat]

There are lots of places on the internet where bullshit and nonsense can be discussed without a skeptic within cooee of the place

Australian translator requested! I'm standing by the billabong, looking confused.

 

[TheVat]

Fair enough. I worked in labs for years using Chemistry and regarded myself as a technologist. Still do.

I never did lab work in biology, though I parlayed the degree into writing up reports on life science trends (especially ecology and environmental science) for a software company management team. The Master's degree in information science I got more mileage out of. The eighties were definitely a good time to have any IT knowledge. Technologist - good descriptor for what many of us do.

 

[exchemist]

I never did lab work in biology, though I parlayed the degree into writing up reports on life science trends (especially ecology and environmental science) for a software company management team. The Master's degree in information science I got more mileage out of. The eighties were definitely a good time to have any IT knowledge. Technologist - good descriptor for what many of us do.

Indeed, oil technologist was the formula I settled on for visa applications. Developing world countries never had a problem with that and it did more or less sum up the common theme in many of my jobs at Shell.

 

[wegs]

"Anything Goes" looks alright or functional on paper, but could some overarching sense of amusement and detachment from what was dropped in it truly be maintained?

It's difficult to imagine MR posting as in the past without such attracting attention and being responded to as before, and accusations of integrity issues also consequently rearing their head again in the course of those personal interactions. With those events and judgments (unlike the UFOs, ghosts, etc) probably being outside the jurisdiction of whatever liberal allowances were stipulated in the protocol of that subforum. Unless the latter specifically stated from the start that such dialogue exchanges would be immune from good-faith standards (total lawless zone).

IOW, would it really be possible for Sciforums in general to successfully ignore what was submitted and "seemingly" promoted in that subforum, even if it was now permitted? And as a remedy to whatever bickering and penalty demands might ensue from that, also neuter any semblance of ethical criterion for conversation?

I don't know, maybe I'm overdoing the pessimism...
_

Yea, I think it would attract any and every bizarre conspiracy theorist who wouldn’t have facts to back up their opinions. And maybe that’s what this forum is also about…critical thinking needs to be applied to our assertions and opinions, to be taken seriously. It’s okay to discuss wild notions, but it still comes back to being able to explain why we believe what we do, as it relates to reality. Posting videos without the desire to be intellectually genuine about them, is ultimately the issue. I get it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, it's worth repeating that he wasn't ever banned for offering up an "alternative view". He was mostly banned for knowingly telling lies and for other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
...

Trolling isn't about "opposing views". It's about a pattern of antisocial behaviour.
...

MR finding stuff interesting or believing it to be true did not make him a troll. It was his behaviour on the forum that exposed him as a troll.

I want to highlight this, because I feel it may otherwise get lost.

MR was not criticized for having alternate views; he was criticized for trying to defend them dishonestly.

Just one example (paraphrased):
MR: "The UAP was lit up. Explain that!"
We: "Nowhere does it ever say the UFO was lit up."
MR: "Of course it had to be lit up! How else could we see it?")
We: "You made that up. It is not in the report."

That's deliberate dishonesty. It took hundreds of posts to clear it up for readers. There are many other examples.

And then MR then starts a new bait-thread: "Why UAPs are undeniable, and why skeptics are in denial"

 

[wegs]

wegs:

I'm in two minds about further responding to what is likely to turn into yet another navel gazing thread about sciforums. On the other hand, that sort of was the original intent of this thread, I suppose.

Let's start with your comments about MR himself.

If you mean that he sometimes backed himself into a corner by trying to defend previous lies he had told, then you're right that he sometimes found himself in a no-win situation. The only honest "out" that he could have taken was to own up about his lies and his habitual dishonesty, turn over a new leaf, and resolve to engage honestly in discussions in future. He could never bring himself to do that, however.

You speak of him as if he was some kind of victim of bullying here. You complain that "some of you" baited him. I would say that most of his opening gambits (e.g. his incessant posting of ridiculous unevidenced claims from random youtube videos) were him putting out bait, hoping that - a little down the track - some skeptics would become angry. I think he enjoyed trying to rile people up.


Sure, but ultimately this is a science forum. If you're here trying to oppose critical thinking and evidence and science, not out of complete ignorance but out of some impulse to belligerently troll reasonable people, then you're probably in the wrong place.

Also, it's worth repeating that he wasn't ever banned for offering up an "alternative view". He was mostly banned for knowingly telling lies and for other forms of intellectual dishonesty. He was also occasionally banned for insulting other members of the forum, but not nearly as often.

There's a great similarity between MR and Jan Ardena. Both of them had beliefs based on nothing more than a religious kind of faith. In Jan's case, it was literally a religious faith that God exists. In MR's case, it was a faith that UAPs are alien spaceships, or other woo.

When the lack of good evidence for their claims was exposed, both Jan and MR got angry and wanted to blame the messengers. They were not open to revising their opinions in the face of evidence against their beliefs or in the face of lack of evidence for their beliefs.

Both of them, in the end, resorted to knowingly telling lies, which are a good indication of what a cultist is willing to do to protect the faith.

Trolling isn't about "opposing views". It's about a pattern of antisocial behaviour.

Here at sciforums, we have an enormously tolerant and forgiving system of warnings and bans. People who would have been out on their ear after 3 posts to a forum like physicsforums, for example (and I'm not dissing physicsforums here) can keep posting dishonestly here for days, weeks, months or even years (if they are careful about how often they overstep the hard lines).

Magical Realist was not stupid. He knew how to work the system. He learned what he could get away with. In the end, he lost patience, I think. He became too angry and lost his self-control. That's what did him in. He refused to back down even on silly lies in the end. I think that, at some level, he probably decided he'd had enough. He chose to leave.

That might have been true 10 years ago. It's hard to tell. Certainly, by the time he bowed out of the forum, he was really only here to troll.

That's not a bug. It's a feature. Nevertheless, although we tolerate much more nonsense in the Fringe forums than in the Science sections, we still expect some minimum standards of behaviour there. That includes things like honesty and civility.

Nobody who posts in the Fringe sections gets banned for posting their "alternative" theories or their beliefs about the woo. If they get themselves banned, it is usually because they can't - or don't want to - control their behaviour.

What do want, instead?

"Wow! That must be a real, honest-to-goodness alien spaceship, right there! Pat on the back to you for mre great 'research'! We don't need any better proof than somebody's internet video. After all, those things are always 100% true!"

There are lots of places on the internet where bullshit and nonsense can be discussed without a skeptic within cooee of the place. If a person wants to find a place that is devoid of critical thinking, there are plenty to be found. This place isn't one of them. Our aims are different.


A better question to ask yourself might be "Why do so many people believe in paranormal activity or alien spaceships, if there is really no verifiable, repeatable evidence in support of those things actually existing?"

The answers to that question are multifaceted.

I think it is useful to explore why people believe what they believe. I also think it is useful to highlight examples of where and how thinking goes wrong. I know it can help some people to avoid falling into the same traps.

Correct. MR finding stuff interesting or believing it to be true did not make him a troll. It was his behaviour on the forum that exposed him as a troll.

I disagree that it should be removed. Apart from anything else, I think our Fringe sections attract some people who want to try their luck against the skeptics.

The fact that sciforums, to some extent, sees both sides of the believer/skeptic fences is a valuable point of difference between us and many other discussion forums. A lot of places on the internet only allow their members to see one side of the debate, while they make the other side essentially invisible.

We're inclusive. We accept all comers. All we ask is for people to have some basic manners and for them to engage in discussions honestly. I don't think that's too much to ask. Do you?

In a way, it was worth it for you to go over this again, because you’ve summed it up in one spot and maybe this post should be “pinned.” I know what went on, but admittedly, I didn’t see every interaction in real time so this is a great summation.