Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Who is really capable of deciding what is not valid science visa ve Exclusion of pseudoscientists from posting in the Science sub-forums
Who here is capable of deciding what is not valid science vis a vis exclusion of pseudoscientists from posting in the Science sub-forums?
- Thread starter Wizard of Whatever
- Start date
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
"vis a vis"
The moderators, by definition. They have a fairly good background in science.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
But not a complete one.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Do you have any cases of science being excluded?
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Haven't been back long enough to tell. Also, depends on what you call science.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Really, it depends on what the moderators call science.
This forum is privately run; they have no obligation to meet your personal ideas of science. As it says in the rules - which you agreed to when you signed up - posting here is a privilege, not a right.
There are plenty of fish in the sea, if this particular fish does not suit your needs.
But, if you are sincerely and in good faith wishing to discuss the treatment of science versus pseudoscience here on SciFo, SF Open Government is the subforum to do it in. Choose your arguments wisely, as they will be challenged.
Reporting to have the thread title changed to something a little more meaningful than "Question:"
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I call mainstream theories with confirmed data, science. "My theory of dark" isn't, in my opinion, for example.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
The difference between science and pseudoscience is a large grey area. It depends almost completely on the opinions of those making the decision. Most of you would probably have a smaller set to call science than I.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Whether or not that' is true - and I do not grant that it is - so what?
Why participate in a site where the line between the two is not where you like it to be? That's the beauty of the internet, you see. You can simply go to another place that is more in line with your tastes.
But thats not what you want, is it? You want the thrill of pretending you are an enlightened one, shining your wisdom on those in shadow.
You can't really do that if you go to some other forum where they are all enlightened, and will actually talk about the pseudoscience topics with you. If everyone agrees with you, you have lost your raison d'etre, right?
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If it's not published in a mainstream journal put it in Free thoughts.
Wizard of Whatever:
We've been doing a good job of it for over 20 years now. So, there's a proven track record there.
Seattle's question is sensible:
At sciforums, we have the Site Feedback and Open Government subforums, both of which can be used to any discuss particular instances that might come up in which people disagree about a moderator's decision or want to propose a new policy. I invite you to use these facilities if you see any unfairness or unjustifiable discrimination from the moderators.
There are occasional arguments on the fringes. If in doubt, scientists themselves tend to err on the side of giving claims a fair hearing rather than rejecting them out of hand. As it happens, that's also what we do on sciforums, even in cases where there are strong indications that the claims are likely to turn out to pseudoscientific.
If you feel strongly that this place is too restrictive for you, it's worth remembering that nothing is obliging you to post here. There are many other forums in which you will be entirely free to post as much pseudoscience as you like, without restriction. Surely you're aware of this?
Moderators, including myself.
We've been doing a good job of it for over 20 years now. So, there's a proven track record there.
Seattle's question is sensible:
You answered:
So, it seems to me that unless you can point to an instance in which the moderators failed to identify legitimate science as such and excluded somebody from posting in the Science subforums on the grounds that their science was not legitimate, then your query is essentially in the realms of a hypothetical.
At sciforums, we have the Site Feedback and Open Government subforums, both of which can be used to any discuss particular instances that might come up in which people disagree about a moderator's decision or want to propose a new policy. I invite you to use these facilities if you see any unfairness or unjustifiable discrimination from the moderators.
Certainly, it does. Fortunately, we have quite a few members who are able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience with a high degree of confidence. That includes moderators such as myself.
No. It really isn't. Most unbiased scientists, for instance, can agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience.
There are occasional arguments on the fringes. If in doubt, scientists themselves tend to err on the side of giving claims a fair hearing rather than rejecting them out of hand. As it happens, that's also what we do on sciforums, even in cases where there are strong indications that the claims are likely to turn out to pseudoscientific.
If you're suggesting that there are no objective ways to distinguish pseudoscience from science, then I disagree with you.
It sounds like you're planning to try to pass off pseudoscience and science. I guess we'll see how things play out with you on this forum.
If you feel strongly that this place is too restrictive for you, it's worth remembering that nothing is obliging you to post here. There are many other forums in which you will be entirely free to post as much pseudoscience as you like, without restriction. Surely you're aware of this?
No one does. But they do a fairly good job for volunteers.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Someday you may actually wake up. And I know who and what I am. I doubt you have such self knowledge.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'd say you're a troll who fancies himself superior - but only if you stay in the small pond. You're not comfortable in bigger ponds.
So you've left the pond, found nothing out there in the bigger pond to validate you, so you've come back to a place you love/hate because only by pooping on others can you feel good about yourself. Kinda pathetic, no?
This is a story as old as time. You're not merely a troll, you're a cliché. So 20th century.
*click*
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
I don't fancy myself superior. I know that I am wiser than you. All you can do is denigrate people who are more intelligent than you. I try to enlighten those less intelligent than I.
I don't need your validation. My sojourn on this site is to relieve my boredom while I wait for release from this evil world.
That would be you, of course. We have yet to reach the stage of enlightenment clearly achieved by you to discern fact from fantasy.
I think it's working, I can feel my mind slipping away into the dull as I read more of your posts. I should achieve total idiocy in no time.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You have been and are being a little bit aggressive.
What happened? What were the hard knocks? Living hell?
Give us some perspective and things might be different.