Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44
Like Tree26Likes
  • 1 Post By jocular
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By jocular
  • 3 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Robittybob1
  • 1 Post By Tranquille
  • 1 Post By Tranquille
  • 4 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968
  • 3 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 2 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: "Science" as used Here

  1. #1 "Science" as used Here 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    It IS, after all, a Science Forum. I admit, many of my own contributions have been far from "scientific". But are discussions of technically-oriented thoughts and considerations necessarily "Science"?

    "Science" has always meant, to me at any rate, the delving into and attempted unfolding of, things and concepts related to, but not necessarily deriving immediately from, the efforts of others who have gone before.

    Am I "behind the times"? jocular


    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    No. The biggest issue about science is that it's impossible for anyone, and that includes all scientists, to be across more than a few scientific topics, let alone all the intricacies of any sub-specialty.

    Being able to discuss with people who can give some insight in ordinary language as well as links to good research is valuable for everyone.


    scheherazade and babe like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    No. The biggest issue about science is that it's impossible for anyone, and that includes all scientists, to be across more than a few scientific topics, let alone all the intricacies of any sub-specialty.

    Being able to discuss with people who can give some insight in ordinary language as well as links to good research is valuable for everyone
    .
    Inscrutable!! Agreed, but not understood! joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    "Science" has always meant, to me at any rate, the delving into and attempted unfolding of, things and concepts related to, but not necessarily deriving immediately from, the efforts of others who have gone before.

    Could you please rephrase the question?
    I do not understand what you have posted.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    "Science" has always meant, to me at any rate, the delving into and attempted unfolding of, things and concepts related to, but not necessarily deriving immediately from, the efforts of others who have gone before.

    Could you please rephrase the question?
    I do not understand what you have posted.
    My understood definition of Science is to work toward the establishment of new technical concepts without drawing upon the hypotheses of others. jocular
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    without drawing upon the hypotheses of others.
    I think you mean without plagiarising others work. Science can't work at all if everyone tries to do everything as though it were a blank slate.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    You also have that "Science of Religion" section and you could stop all the threads in there if you said the topics were not scientific enough. For a week now I have been trying to start a Scientific approach to religion thread but they just keep getting closed down, principally because they "are not scientific enough".
    But any atheistic comment can be thrown around on those threads and that is accepted as science? Is atheism equal to science but theism is just woo woo? So what is Science of Religion? Is it just another way of saying "A free for all of Atheism against religion"
    I know what I did was Science but I'm not allowed to tell how I performed my experiment and the results that I got.
    Do all the moderators work independently or is it a consensus opinion when a thread gets trashed?

    I feel mocked if you have a "Science of Religion Forum" but one where the science of my religion is not allowed to be discussed. 3-4 moderators could agree but another still closes it down. So that makes a farce of your "The Science Forum Guidelines" for in there it says in section 2: "Thus, if you are unsure whether or not something goes against the rules, PM a moderator or administrator." But unless you get agreement of all of them, the ones not asked could still chop it?

    I'm not even sure if a discussion along these lines is allowed.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Your scientific approach amounted to "I had a revelation".

    Nothing more needs to be said on why you keep getting shut down.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Your scientific approach amounted to "I had a revelation".

    Nothing more needs to be said on why you keep getting shut down.
    That is not true. I would have to show how I got into position to receive the revelation. They don't just happen out of the blue do they? It is like the LHC, they had to build this enormous machine to find the Higgs particle, without the machine you wouldn't find it. So once I got the revelation I spent the next 9 years trying to prove/disprove it. That is research too isn't it. Like they will be going over all the data from the LHC for the next decade to see if they were right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    without drawing upon the hypotheses of others.
    I think you mean without plagiarising others work. Science can't work at all if everyone tries to do everything as though it were a blank slate.
    I mean without accepting as Gospel, the work of others. This is now becoming a pedantric miasma of wit vs. wit, which is something I like to avoid, though my past posting might not lend credibility to that claim. joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You also have that "Science of Religion" section and you could stop all the threads in there if you said the topics were not scientific enough. For a week now I have been trying to start a Scientific approach to religion thread but they just keep getting closed down, principally because they "are not scientific enough".
    But any atheistic comment can be thrown around on those threads and that is accepted as science? Is atheism equal to science but theism is just woo woo? So what is Science of Religion? Is it just another way of saying "A free for all of Atheism against religion"
    I know what I did was Science but I'm not allowed to tell how I performed my experiment and the results that I got.
    Do all the moderators work independently or is it a consensus opinion when a thread gets trashed?

    I feel mocked if you have a "Science of Religion Forum" but one where the science of my religion is not allowed to be discussed. 3-4 moderators could agree but another still closes it down. So that makes a farce of your "The Science Forum Guidelines" for in there it says in section 2: "Thus, if you are unsure whether or not something goes against the rules, PM a moderator or administrator." But unless you get agreement of all of them, the ones not asked could still chop it?

    I'm not even sure if a discussion along these lines is allowed.
    A point I tried to make quite some time ago, but the impetus was lost among some distracting argumentation, and never returned to. I believe that certain issues arising between a Moderator, let's say, and a reasonably reliable poster, should be "thrown into the ring" for purpose of securing the stand of the majority. Likely won't happen, because the concept "fringes" on the idea of "questioning authority" in an arena where authority is NOT questionable from without. In other words, only a Mod may "pick on" a Mod. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Can we not make this about robbitybob? Jocular had an intention for discussion and Robbitybob, you should not be making this about you, and anyone giving argument to his attempted hijacking of this thread is simply giving him a soapbox and excuse to continue.


    in answer to the OP, I think adelady hit the nail on the head. If every scientist had to start from scratch, not going off of what others have already figured out and picking up where they left off, then we would still be trying to perfect the wheel and harness fire.

    As far as science of religion is concerned, there is a way to scientifically look at religion. By looking at how religion affects the human psyche and therefore behavior. Basically, looking at it from a psychological and sociological perspective.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    As far as science of religion is concerned, there is a way to scientifically look at religion. By looking at how religion affects the human psyche and therefore behavior. Basically, looking at it from a psychological and sociological perspective.
    There is also how religion affects science and scientific research and fields like medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by jocular
    A point I tried to make quite some time ago, but the impetus was lost among some distracting argumentation, and never returned to. I believe that certain issues arising between a Moderator, let's say, and a reasonably reliable poster, should be "thrown into the ring" for purpose of securing the stand of the majority. Likely won't happen, because the concept "fringes" on the idea of "questioning authority" in an arena where authority is NOT questionable from without. In other words, only a Mod may "pick on" a Mod. jocular
    The risk of that is popularity. Popular members who go up against a moderator and the issue is thrown into the ring, as you put it, even if they are wrong, if they are likeable, their friends would support them.

    I have had many disputes with Harold on this forum, for example. Does not mean he bans me for disagreeing with him. Nor has he moderated me for disagreeing with him.

    It comes down to whether you trust the other moderators to do their jobs and to do the right thing, if it becomes an issue of someone being unfairly banned, for example. Will they always agree? Probably not. But I don't think having everyone get involved in such things is the best way to go about it. End being being like the fight scene in Anchorman (I'd bring the grenade by the way!).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    How can you be so dismissive of something you don't know about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    without drawing upon the hypotheses of others.
    I think you mean without plagiarising others work. Science can't work at all if everyone tries to do everything as though it were a blank slate.
    I mean without accepting as Gospel, the work of others. This is now becoming a pedantric miasma of wit vs. wit, which is something I like to avoid, though my past posting might not lend credibility to that claim. joc
    If you don't accept the work of others before you, you really need to have a very good argument. Science has tended to take part of what came before and built on that. So yes the past is not Gospel but they don't want to let young scientists get the wrong ideas either. And I found that out 3 years ago when I went onto Physics Forums and said I think Einstein is wrong. I lasted about 4 hours on that forum.
    So you have to be careful how much you try and tip over the past scientists.

    Were you wanting to put forward new ideas? They usually have a section for that 'Pseudoscience' or 'New Theories'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    How can you be so dismissive of something you don't know about?
    If you're going to compare your "revelations" with the building of one of the great modern marvels of the scientific community, you had better explain yourself.

    I am left to assume that your revelations required billions in financial backing and the support of some of the greatest minds on the planet. Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    I contribute when I can with any knowledge. I feel I should probably be more quiet. My humor takes over.....i......and I don't want to offend the mods or others.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    How can you be so dismissive of something you don't know about?
    If you're going to compare your "revelations" with the building of one of the great modern marvels of the scientific community, you had better explain yourself.

    I am left to assume that your revelations required billions in financial backing and the support of some of the greatest minds on the planet. Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.
    How much did the LHC cost you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    in answer to the OP, I think adelady hit the nail on the head. If every scientist had to start from scratch, not going off of what others have already figured out and picking up where they left off, then we would still be trying to perfect the wheel and harness fire.

    I agree with that.
    Progress in science can only be achieved if scientists use the knowledge that has been collected by their predecessors.
    jocular likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    As far as science of religion is concerned, there is a way to scientifically look at religion. By looking at how religion affects the human psyche and therefore behavior. Basically, looking at it from a psychological and sociological perspective.
    There is also how religion affects science and scientific research and fields like medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by jocular
    A point I tried to make quite some time ago, but the impetus was lost among some distracting argumentation, and never returned to. I believe that certain issues arising between a Moderator, let's say, and a reasonably reliable poster, should be "thrown into the ring" for purpose of securing the stand of the majority. Likely won't happen, because the concept "fringes" on the idea of "questioning authority" in an arena where authority is NOT questionable from without. In other words, only a Mod may "pick on" a Mod. jocular
    The risk of that is popularity. Popular members who go up against a moderator and the issue is thrown into the ring, as you put it, even if they are wrong, if they are likeable, their friends would support them.

    I have had many disputes with Harold on this forum, for example. Does not mean he bans me for disagreeing with him. Nor has he moderated me for disagreeing with him.

    It comes down to whether you trust the other moderators to do their jobs and to do the right thing, if it becomes an issue of someone being unfairly banned, for example. Will they always agree? Probably not. But I don't think having everyone get involved in such things is the best way to go about it. End being being like the fight scene in Anchorman (I'd bring the grenade by the way!).
    I hopefully believe my thoughts are true, that they are fair. However it comes down to their decision. Not ours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    How can you be so dismissive of something you don't know about?
    If you're going to compare your "revelations" with the building of one of the great modern marvels of the scientific community, you had better explain yourself.

    I am left to assume that your revelations required billions in financial backing and the support of some of the greatest minds on the planet. Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.
    How much did the LHC cost you?
    Well, the USA contributed hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. I could probably break it down specifically if I had the interest...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by robittybob1 View Post
    but i'm not allowed i refuse to tell how i performed my experiment and the results that i got.
    fify
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    You are seriously trying to compare the LHC with your delusions?

    Your delusions aren't science. It is a symptom of an illness that you would use science to diagnose and treat. But the delusion, or as you see it, your "revelation", is not science.
    How can you be so dismissive of something you don't know about?
    If you're going to compare your "revelations" with the building of one of the great modern marvels of the scientific community, you had better explain yourself.

    I am left to assume that your revelations required billions in financial backing and the support of some of the greatest minds on the planet. Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.
    How much did the LHC cost you?
    Well, the USA contributed hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. I could probably break it down specifically if I had the interest...
    Everyone chipped in a little, OK, I accept that and probably NZ contributed too, but to get the revelation I had to pay the full price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Can we not make this about robbitybob?
    Better yet...let's make it about ME!!! (singing) Me, me, me, me...cuz I'm the center of the world! j/k

    I learn a hell of lot more on this board than I teach..that's for damn sure. Although I can help with somethings...like the computer or electronics forum, and important stuff like wearing a nose clip if your going to do an extended keg stand.

    Sometimes the advanced threads go way over my head, but there might be one little nugget I do grasp that adds to my knowledge bank....and for this....I thank you all.
    babe likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Everyone chipped in a little, OK, I accept that and probably NZ contributed too, but to get the revelation I had to pay the full price.
    oh bless, there's one born every minute, isn't there ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by robittybob1 View Post
    but i'm not allowed i refuse to tell how i performed my experiment and the results that i got.
    fify
    There is a new word to learn ! FIFY never heard if it before!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Everyone chipped in a little, OK, I accept that and probably NZ contributed too, but to get the revelation I had to pay the full price.
    oh bless, there's one born every minute, isn't there ?
    Do you know what I mean? It has to be a lifetime dedication to a pursuit. All in.

    PS Hi Marnix - greetings, I haven't seen your comments before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    The risk of that is popularity. Popular members who go up against a moderator and the issue is thrown into the ring, as you put it, even if they are wrong, if they are likeable, their friends would support them. Sometimes, but often not, as many are "chicken-shit" when it comes down to brass tacks, and would rather forego friendship when risk of their own ass' abradement looms.

    I have had many disputes with Harold on this forum, for example. Does not mean he bans me for disagreeing with him. Nor has he moderated me for disagreeing with him. Agreed! Some disputes also, mainly trivial, though. I perceive his approach as being fair and well thought-out. Where another Mod "blurted-out" a sharp criticism garnished with unveiled threats, Harold used obvious tact. See, I refuse to get emotionally involved in mindless, faceless bullshit, rather trying to "present" myself as I am, and as I believe. Don't misconstrue here, though. I am also difficult to deal with (ask my wife!)

    It comes down to whether you trust the other moderators to do their jobs and to do the right thing, if it becomes an issue of someone being unfairly banned, for example... Will they always agree? Probably not. But I don't think having everyone get involved in such things is the best way to go about it. End being being like the fight scene in Anchorman (I'd bring the grenade by the way!).
    No stranger to forums (though many will raise their eyebrows at that remark), way back in mid-2000s during my first experience with one, the Admin. took severe issue with me, publicly, over my contention that a member he had banned did not deserve that treatment. I dug my own grave, thinking the others would support me. I suggested he query the rest of the folks involved in the thread, in a more democratic way. His response was, "I don't care about the other members"! Though "green", I realized he had "snipped off" his own gonads by publicly making that remark, and responded in kind, questioning his value and integrity in full view of all reading. The "issue" was immediately resolved, as Admin slunk away into the shadows.

    Nonetheless, I was not proud of having had to lower myself to the level of such an "individual in charge". jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just more nonsense from Bob
    What about that impactor comment did I get that one right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Can we not make this about robbitybob?
    Better yet...let's make it about ME!!! (singing) Me, me, me, me...cuz I'm the center of the world! j/k

    If you insist:

    Macgyver (mak-'gīvə):
    "Someone who can jump-start a truck with a cactus."
    (Urban Dictionary)

    Macgyverism (mak-'gīvər-ism):
    "the ability to use a dorito, some duct tape, and a paper clip to create a time machine."
    (Urban Dictionary)
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    The risk of that is popularity. Popular members who go up against a moderator and the issue is thrown into the ring, as you put it, even if they are wrong, if they are likeable, their friends would support them. Sometimes, but often not, as many are "chicken-shit" when it comes down to brass tacks, and would rather forego friendship when risk of their own ass' abradement looms.

    I have had many disputes with Harold on this forum, for example. Does not mean he bans me for disagreeing with him. Nor has he moderated me for disagreeing with him. Agreed! Some disputes also, mainly trivial, though. I perceive his approach as being fair and well thought-out. Where another Mod "blurted-out" a sharp criticism garnished with unveiled threats, Harold used obvious tact. See, I refuse to get emotionally involved in mindless, faceless bullshit, rather trying to "present" myself as I am, and as I believe. Don't misconstrue here, though. I am also difficult to deal with (ask my wife!)

    It comes down to whether you trust the other moderators to do their jobs and to do the right thing, if it becomes an issue of someone being unfairly banned, for example... Will they always agree? Probably not. But I don't think having everyone get involved in such things is the best way to go about it. End being being like the fight scene in Anchorman (I'd bring the grenade by the way!).
    No stranger to forums (though many will raise their eyebrows at that remark), way back in mid-2000s during my first experience with one, the Admin. took severe issue with me, publicly, over my contention that a member he had banned did not deserve that treatment. I dug my own grave, thinking the others would support me. I suggested he query the rest of the folks involved in the thread, in a more democratic way. His response was, "I don't care about the other members"! Though "green", I realized he had "snipped off" his own gonads by publicly making that remark, and responded in kind, questioning his value and integrity in full view of all reading. The "issue" was immediately resolved, as Admin slunk away into the shadows.

    Nonetheless, I was not proud of having had to lower myself to the level of such an "individual in charge". jocular
    It is scary for you are not sure what you'll see the next time you turn on your computer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    @robbitybob as you provided no evidence who knows. Also keep your nonsense streams separate in the approprate threads.
    I understood you were bringing in thoughts from other threads when you said "Just more nonsense from Bob"

    Maybe I was jumping to conclusions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You were, there's more than enough nonsense from you in this one.
    "Thread: "Science" as used Here" I think I have kept to the topic pretty well considering! Sometimes I come up with new ideas, I am an inventor by nature.
    New Hypotheses are on the cards if there is nothing in place already.
    Makes for interesting discussions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    "Revelation" is not science so the above post is MORE nonsense.
    Did I mention Revelation? It was more hypotheses drawn out of logic from science. You have written plenty of papers so you must have come to new conclusions about the world around us, haven't you?
    I do it everyday even at work I come up with new ideas and solutions, some work, some don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    As far as science of religion is concerned, there is a way to scientifically look at religion. By looking at how religion affects the human psyche and therefore behavior. Basically, looking at it from a psychological and sociological perspective.

    I agree with that, although the creation of some of the recent threads in the Scientific Study of Religion section indicates that not every member is aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon
    "Revelation" is not science so the above post is MORE nonsense.

    Member PhDemon, although I have great respect for you and I am always looking forward to your input,
    it might be advisable to halt the quarrel with member Robittybob1.

    Member Robittybob1, you have not made a good first impression on the Science Forum, I am afraid.
    I can understand that you want to advocate for your ideas, but it would be advisable to come down from your soapbox.

    Otherwise, it might lead to the deterioration of member jocular's thread, which is something I do not desire.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; November 1st, 2013 at 02:55 PM.
    seagypsy and PhDemon like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did I mention Revelation?
    Did you write posts #9 and #24?

    It was more hypotheses drawn out of logic from science.
    Your "logic" tends to be as slipshod as your "science".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did I mention Revelation?
    Did you write posts #9 and #24?

    It was more hypotheses drawn out of logic from science.
    Your "logic" tends to be as slipshod as your "science".
    Demon was talking about "the post above","Science" as used Here
    how was I to know he meant "posts" entered in yesterday.

    D...r (too difficult to spell) - you are an expert on criticism but where is your originality?
    I think I could match your logic.
    Try me.
    How would you test this?
    Have you started a thread recently?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; November 1st, 2013 at 02:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    As far as science of religion is concerned, there is a way to scientifically look at religion. By looking at how religion affects the human psyche and therefore behavior. Basically, looking at it from a psychological and sociological perspective.

    I agree with that, although the creation of some of the recent threads in the Scientific Study of Religion section indicate that not every member is aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon
    "Revelation" is not science so the above post is MORE nonsense.

    Member PhDemon, although I have great respect for you and I am always looking forward to your input,
    it might be advisable to halt the quarrel with member Robittybob1.

    Member Robittybob1, you have not made a good first impression on the Science Forum, I am afraid.
    I can understand that you want to advocate for your ideas, but it would be advisable to come down from your soapbox.

    Otherwise, it might lead to the deterioration of member jocular's thread, which is something I do not desire.
    Delete the comment please you are the ones bringing up this stuff not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    @robittybob, you mentioned it in post#9 and in other posts have made inferences about it (that bollocks comparing it to the LHC for one). It's becoming obvious to me you are a wind up merchant, I won't be responding to you anymore in this thread which you seem to be hi-jacking with your crap.
    We had moved on from that and it is you guys who keep bringing it up again. I am talking about physics hypotheses and you weren't, as in the Moon thread.
    Mystery of the moon...
    Maybe John Galt will see my reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Member PhDemon, although I have great respect for you and I am always looking forward to your input,
    it might be advisable to halt the quarrel with member Robittybob1.

    Member Robittybob1, you have not made a good first impression on the Science Forum, I am afraid.
    I can understand that you want to advocate for your ideas, but it would be advisable to come down from your soapbox.

    Otherwise, it might lead to the deterioration of member jocular's thread, which is something I do not desire.
    Why the hell are you talking like RoboCop?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    It is all good. I am trying to be friendly with all here. D...r is the most unreasonable so far. Everyone else says their bit and comes to a new level of acceptance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    Otherwise, it might lead to the deterioration of member jocular's thread, which is something I do not desire.
    Please, though I deeply appreciate support, the direction or conditions to which readers warp, twist, convolute, or question my threads has no particular impact upon me. I simply reflect back on the adage about the "Hermit with stones of brass".........joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    Otherwise, it might lead to the deterioration of member jocular's thread, which is something I do not desire.
    Please, though I deeply appreciate support, the direction or conditions to which readers warp, twist, convolute, or question my threads has no particular impact upon me. I simply reflect back on the adage about the "Hermit with stones of brass".........joc
    I don't want it to turn to a beat up Robittybob thread either. Did you get you points answered?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  2. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  4. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •