LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt seems to me that the 'guidelines' for discussion prohibit an open discussion.
That does not seem very scientific to me.
As a scientist I would want to an open discussion, science to my my mind cannot be true science if opinions are censored.
October 1st, 2009, 09:29 PM
It seems to me that the 'guidelines' for discussion prohibit an open discussion.
That does not seem very scientific to me.
As a scientist I would want to an open discussion, science to my my mind cannot be true science if opinions are censored.
October 1st, 2009, 09:39 PM
I think it depends where its being censored. Obviously a peer-review journal is not the appropriate place for any idea. But if your talking about this site, I agree that would be ideal, but in some instances the high number of creationists on the internet might make deeper discussion of evolutionary concepts (like discussing evolution's effect on medicine with a creationist constantly interupting saying 'but there is no evidence!) more difficult. That said I think there's a place to discuss anything on this forum, as long as you pick the right subforum.Originally Posted by memero
It's not about censorship, it's about the type of discussion allowed in different sections. Before this section was switched to strictly being about the scientific study of religion all that went on here was fundamental Christians yelling at militant atheist.
Edit: And the occasional attempt by a Muslim to prove that the Qu'ran is a science text book.
Lets face it science would still be in the stone age if people were prevented from voiceing their beliefs.
Such censorship is not appropiate to science.
"We will have nobody proselytize that the world is round in here!
It is purely for the scientific study of the flatness of the earth!"
Totally ridiculous I am sure you will agree.
Aye and before that it was just the flat earthers yelling at the round earthers.
There is science in the Koran, there is science in almost every book.
If you have a closed mind you will be a very poor scientist indeed.
Completely not the same. This section is about scientific study of religion, such as sociology and anthropology involving the subject of religion. Someone's personal beliefs and discussing aspects of a faith within it's own parameters is theology and should be discussed in the philosophy sectionAye and before that it was just the flat earthers yelling at the round earthers.
It is not censorship to say that science should be discussed in a science section.
It is censorship to say what you define as science is the only thing which can be discussed.
A true scientist would use logic and persuasion to show why another's theory was flawed.
A true scientist is prepared to accept that he could be wrong.
I am sure there are many here who know of cases where a scientific view considered to be 'gospel' have proven to be incorrect.
Basically what is happen here is that only the current gospel is being allowed to be preached, thus hampering scientific advancement.
Censorship is basically fear of the truth.
I didn't create the definition of science
Statements of faith can never be verified by the scientific method so they can never be science. The difference is that if I disagreed with you over whether the Earth were flat or somewhat spherical, we would be talking about something that could be verified. We can go out and collect data about the shape of the Earth and test our conflicting hypotheses. You can't do this with faith, it is not compatible with scientific reasoning, and thus should be discussed elsewhere.
What is scientific about telling people how surely they are going to hell the whole time? What is scientific about preaching to people about the grace and power of god? What is scientific about disregarding all evidence in opposition to your agenda/convictions and accepting virtually any anecdote in support of it without question? What is scientific about setting out to find proof of a preexisting personal certainty and being willing to distort anything in support of it?
You probably have not been involved in many discussions with fundamentals; or are you one of them by any chance?
All scientific theories are statements of faith.I didn't create the definition of science
Statements of faith can never be verified by the scientific method so they can never be science. The difference is that if I disagreed with you over whether the Earth were flat or somewhat spherical, we would be talking about something that could be verified. We can go out and collect data about the shape of the Earth and test our conflicting hypotheses. You can't do this with faith, it is not compatible with scientific reasoning, and thus should be discussed elsewhere.
So if scientic theory is not science you can see how absurb things are.
Telling them they are going to hell is part of their theory.
If you ban theorys, you ban science.
The only assumption science is based on is that the world we live in is an objective reality. This is the only assumption that allows us to reach any conclusions about the world, if you don't make that assumption then you don't make any progress and you just end up going in circles.All scientific theories are statements of faith.I didn't create the definition of science
Statements of faith can never be verified by the scientific method so they can never be science. The difference is that if I disagreed with you over whether the Earth were flat or somewhat spherical, we would be talking about something that could be verified. We can go out and collect data about the shape of the Earth and test our conflicting hypotheses. You can't do this with faith, it is not compatible with scientific reasoning, and thus should be discussed elsewhere.
So if scientic theory is not science you can see how absurb things are.
Scientific theories are not statements of faith, they are evidence based.
If you want to make statements about something supernatural that can not be investigated, then you are not interested in science.
Theories by definition are unproven and thus not evidence based.The only assumption science is based on is that the world we live in is an objective reality. This is the only assumption that allows us to reach any conclusions about the world, if you don't make that assumption then you don't make any progress and you just end up going in circles.All scientific theories are statements of faith.I didn't create the definition of science
Statements of faith can never be verified by the scientific method so they can never be science. The difference is that if I disagreed with you over whether the Earth were flat or somewhat spherical, we would be talking about something that could be verified. We can go out and collect data about the shape of the Earth and test our conflicting hypotheses. You can't do this with faith, it is not compatible with scientific reasoning, and thus should be discussed elsewhere.
So if scientic theory is not science you can see how absurb things are.
Scientific theories are not statements of faith, they are evidence based.
If you want to make statements about something supernatural that can not be investigated, then you are not interested in science.
Without theories, without faith, there is no science, that's why this sub-forum is unscientific.
It's not a science sub-forum, it is propaganda.
I rarely read or post on this forum when I scan the threads and they are dominated by religious whackos. Our culture is steeped in religious 'opinion' and 'input'...24/7 radio stations...TV...etc. all spewing their Christian hatred: drink the kool-aid or face eternity being skewered on Satan's pitchfork and BBQ'd for eternity.
Should the Jesus freaks be kicked off of science forms? I have mixed feelings. I don't like censorship of any of any type. I'd say on a public forum 'No'. I belong to 'by invitation' science forums and mythological ramblings by Jesus freaks, etc. aren't permitted...all postings are topic oriented.
It's best just to ignore the god pushers. It's tough as they are annnoying like mosquitoes or a crying baby. Important not to feed their delusions when they post. Ignore then instead of taking the bait...they usually don't want rational debate but a reason to push their irrational beliefs.
But of course it is this forum which does not want debate because it makes it imposible through censorship.
And your 'relational debate' seems to edging towards hurling insults, attackinh the messanger not the message.
English obviously isn't your first language so I'll ignore your bizarre grammar and spelling. What is 'relational debate'... is that a language comprehension issue or a misquote? (try the edit button).But of course it is this forum which does not want debate because it makes it imposible through censorship.
And your 'relational debate' seems to edging towards hurling insults, attackinh the messanger not the message.
To answer your questions. Yes, I am quite comfortable attacking the messenger. Jesus freaks, Bible thumpers etc. are attacking me and other rational thinkers. In fact, as mentioned in my posting, they threaten us with being skewered on Satan's pitchfork if we don't accept their mythology. I also mentioned that I am not in favour of censoring these delusional posters. Let them spew their Christian hatred or any other mythology. The more they post, the sillier they come across.
The fact that theories are "unproven" has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based. It is logically impossible to prove anything in science, only disprove. Thus, a theory is what is left when all the stuff that isn't verifiable is thrown out, and we are left with the stuff that can be tested and hasn't been disproven.
Once again
Well your post seem to rather devoid of science and consists largly of insults against people who are not even here.
Perhaps if you yourself stuck to science you would not have so much of a problem.
I don't think anyone in this thread has threatened to stick you on a skewer, although it is early days yet.
Wel if you are saying you cannot disprove God then it seem rather foolish to dismiss him??The fact that theories are "unproven" has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based. It is logically impossible to prove anything in science, only disprove. Thus, a theory is what is left when all the stuff that isn't verifiable is thrown out, and we are left with the stuff that can be tested and hasn't been disproven.
Once again
All the best scientist hace been open minded, persevering where other have failed, achieving the 'impossible'.
Where would we we be now if Einstein could not think 'outside of the box'?
You can't disprove something which isn't verifiable, thus it should not be included in any discussion of science. There is an infinite number of conceivable possibilities in this world if we don't reject the untestable. What makes the scientific method useful is that it rejects that nonsense that has no bearing on scientific progress. The point being that in science your ideas have to have bearing on natural principles that can be tested.Wel if you are saying you cannot disprove God then it seem rather foolish to dismiss him??The fact that theories are "unproven" has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based. It is logically impossible to prove anything in science, only disprove. Thus, a theory is what is left when all the stuff that isn't verifiable is thrown out, and we are left with the stuff that can be tested and hasn't been disproven.
Once again
All the best scientist hace been open minded, persevering where other have failed, achieving the 'impossible'.
Where would we we be now if Einstein could not think 'outside of the box'?
Should I remain open minded to the possibility the Easter Bunny exists? I can't disprove him either.
Well if it isnt' verifiable why are you studying it?You can't disprove something which isn't verifiable, thus it should not be included in any discussion of science. There is an infinite number of conceivable possibilities in this world if we don't reject the untestable. What makes the scientific method useful is that it rejects that nonsense that has no bearing on scientific progress. The point being that in science your ideas have to have bearing on natural principles that can be tested.Wel if you are saying you cannot disprove God then it seem rather foolish to dismiss him??The fact that theories are "unproven" has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based. It is logically impossible to prove anything in science, only disprove. Thus, a theory is what is left when all the stuff that isn't verifiable is thrown out, and we are left with the stuff that can be tested and hasn't been disproven.
Once again
All the best scientist hace been open minded, persevering where other have failed, achieving the 'impossible'.
Where would we we be now if Einstein could not think 'outside of the box'?
Should I remain open minded to the possibility the Easter Bunny exists? I can't disprove him either.
It's kind of an oxymoron isn't it, you are scientifically discussing what you believe is not scientific, which seems rather an absurd situation to be in.
Sort of like a dog chasing it's tail really, or something like that!!
Your not going to catch it so the dog may as well sit on it's ass, in which case the dog can actually catch it!!
You are either dense or willfully ignorant. Religion as a sociological phenomena is real and can be investigated. This is where sociology, psychology and anthropology comes in.
Then how can you discuss it by excluding the views of the religious?
Views of the religious aren't excluded. You can be an anthropologist and a Christian at the same time, that doesn't mean you can use "God made it this way" as an argument for explaining a kind of human behaviour.
A good place to put hypotheses not generally considered scientific is the pseudoscience or philosophy sections. You might get some reasonable debates there. Scientific debate that fits the modern definition of science I think is encouraged. I don't think there is censorship here, just a bit of organization that can get annoying (especially if you want your idea to be seen as scientific).
So I am just wondering out loud here, how come we don't have a section on the Scientific Study of History? Or, the scientific study of Education? Or the scientific study of philosophy? How come religion got singled out for this singular treatment? Just wondering out loud. Don't pay me no heed.
It used to be just the religion section, but it was mostly bogged down by theological disputes and people using it as a soap box to preach from. So, a more specific title and set of rules was created to prevent that problem. This is at its core a discussion forum, and preaching is not a matter of discussion. It is just telling people what they have to believe because you believe it.
October 3rd, 2009, 07:08 PM
What sort of "scientist" are you? I'm curious what sort of "scientist" hasn't an understanding of science and the usage of theory in science.
In other words, I doubt your assertion that you are "a scientist."
Well what did you expect in a religious forum?
You found religion was a 'problem' because people were discussing it thus you decided to exclude religion?
A forum is for resolving disputes and putting your point of view across, this you say as a problem because like many forums on the internet you don't like people discussion things, that smacks to much of free speech, and we can't have free speech on the internet, oh no that must be banned!!!
And of course free speech and discussion smacks of 'trolling' doesn't it?
Saying tomething to get a response, as if getting a response if not he whole idea of
saying something!!
I mean if you exclude people saying something because they believe it you arrive at the ridiculous position on only alowing people to say what they don't believe!!
Or pretty similar anyway.
If people preach as you put it, then you just have to state why you disagree and thats is it basically. You don't have to censor people.
I mean basically you are putting across the view that you are absolutely right yet you are barring people who also think they are absolutely right, thus effictively you should ban yourself from the forum also.
October 3rd, 2009, 07:36 PM
The point is really you can't really have a scientific discussion on something which is, by definition, outside the realms of science.What sort of "scientist" are you? I'm curious what sort of "scientist" hasn't an understanding of science and the usage of theory in science.
In other words, I doubt your assertion that you are "a scientist."
October 3rd, 2009, 07:55 PM
Without realizing it, you've answered my question. If you truly understood science, then you'd understand the irrational stance of your latest statement. Religion is, most definitely, in the realm of science. Religion is a human construct and, thus, makes itself available for study by anthropology, psychology, sociology and even physics (when you consider the claims that religious adherents make about prayer, zombie messiahs, etc.).The point is really you can't really have a scientific discussion on something which is, by definition, outside the realms of science.What sort of "scientist" are you? I'm curious what sort of "scientist" hasn't an understanding of science and the usage of theory in science.
In other words, I doubt your assertion that you are "a scientist."
Only those that are closed-minded and willfully ignorant would adhere to the notion that religion is outside of the realm of science.
October 3rd, 2009, 09:00 PM
YOU WILL BURN IN HELL.Without realizing it, you've answered my question. If you truly understood science, then you'd understand the irrational stance of your latest statement. Religion is, most definitely, in the realm of science. Religion is a human construct and, thus, makes itself available for study by anthropology, psychology, sociology and even physics (when you consider the claims that religious adherents make about prayer, zombie messiahs, etc.).The point is really you can't really have a scientific discussion on something which is, by definition, outside the realms of science.What sort of "scientist" are you? I'm curious what sort of "scientist" hasn't an understanding of science and the usage of theory in science.
In other words, I doubt your assertion that you are "a scientist."
Only those that are closed-minded and willfully ignorant would adhere to the notion that religion is outside of the realm of science.
NEVER FORGET THAT.
REMEMBER YOU BANNED ME WHEN YOU ARE ROASTING FOR ALL OF ETERNITY IN THE FIRES OF HELL.
IT WIL BE NO USE BEGGING FOR FORGIVENESS THEN YOU WILL NEVER LEAVE
YOU WILL BE THERE FOR ETERNITY.
SWEET DREAMS!!
*yawn*
Bye Esbo.
| « pragma-dialectical experiment | Trolling » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
