Notices
Results 1 to 91 of 91
Like Tree57Likes
  • 2 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Schneibster
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 4 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By LuciDreaming
  • 1 Post By Halliday
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By ToThePoint
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 4 Post By John Galt
  • 5 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: Supporting Your Arguments

  1. #1 Supporting Your Arguments 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I have noticed that support of arguments by scientific literature is not enforced.

    This is rather disturbing; it seems that by encouraging an atmopshere of doubt, anti-realists are gaining undeserved primacy on this board.

    I have dealt on good terms with both Harold and John Galt, but I am very disturbed by them being allowed to close a thread that their adherents have polluted and refused to provide countering data to. All that has been presented is legalistic data which is easily and quickly refuted by the scientific facts. The lack of enforcement of scientific reality is repugnant to me, and unfair in my judgment.

    If someone cannot provide evidence to support their view, and they continue to make insulting and provocative posts, I do not believe they have proven themselves capable of maintaining a suitable demeanor for a science forum. The subtle digs and insults these people use to try to support their unscientific and unsupportable views should not be tolerated on a scientific forum. I am displeased and unimpressed. When will these untruthful individuals' unsupported and unsupportable statements be denied? When will those of us who tell the truth be allowed to speak freely? When will the friends of the staff stop being allowed to trample all over the truth?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Let me be specific: I want to see credible arguments supported by scientific articles quoted from the scholarly literature. This is what I expect on a science site. If this is not the sine qua non of evidence, you are not a science site, period. I am being harassed by a number of users who are denying such evidence without any countering evidence. It is becoming tiresome. Please make it stop.

    Meanwhile all pity to staff who are forced to check these arguments to see which is true.

    If I can help with any link or any question of the evidence behind any detail of any of this please say so. I am available anytime I'm online.


    Last edited by Schneibster; March 13th, 2014 at 10:46 PM.
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    ....
    but I am very disturbed by them being allowed to close a thread that their adherents have polluted and refused to provide countering data to. All that has been presented is legalistic data which is easily and quickly refuted by the scientific facts. The lack of enforcement of scientific reality is repugnant to me, and unfair in my judgment. ....
    What threads were they? Where are they now?
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up. I know better than to complain and then try to pretend it's someone else's problem to provide evidence, but I'll wait until I see someone sporting a moderator or administrator tag before I start shooting off my mouth any further.

    On the other hand, I'm not at all shy about saying what I think about real data.

    Double-blind tests are the gold standard of scientific testing. The data I have presented are based upon double-blind tests. I don't really see why there's any question about this, other than made-up lawyering.

    It has been brought to my attention that I might be seen as criticizing Harold.

    I'd like to say that I might disagree with Harold, but I do not dislike or disrespect Harold. In fact, Harold was very respectful and polite in reminding me about combining posts, and I appreciated it a lot. I am impressed in fact with the professionalism of the staff here. Every effort is made to support the poster, and a gentle reminder of the rules always comes first. This is polite, and considerate, and it is my intention to return that in kind.

    I do not believe that any staff here I have seen so far are dishonest, which is better than anyplace else I've been. I don't hand that out. You can check my site. Shortly this site will have a pretty good review on my site, if you keep acting like you have so far.

    HTH.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 14th, 2014 at 12:07 AM.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    But all of that said, I think that pretending that lawyering comes anywhere near real scientific data is dishonest. Lawyers believe many things that physicists believe are questionable at best.
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I'm not really sure which threads are being referred to...it might help to provide some examples.

    I know as for my moderating style I'm a lot more of a stickler for evidence (preferably peer review science) based arguments in the natural sciences (upper portion) of the forum. The lowest group get the least attention to evidence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up. I know better than to complain and then try to pretend it's someone else's problem to provide evidence, but I'll wait until I see someone sporting a moderator or administrator tag before I start shooting off my mouth any further.

    On the other hand, I'm not at all shy about saying what I think about real data.

    Double-blind tests are the gold standard of scientific testing. The data I have presented are based upon double-blind tests. I don't really see why there's any question about this, other than made-up lawyering.

    It has been brought to my attention that I might be seen as criticizing Harold.

    I'd like to say that I might disagree with Harold, but I do not dislike or disrespect Harold. In fact, Harold was very respectful and polite in reminding me about combining posts, and I appreciated it a lot. I am impressed in fact with the professionalism of the staff here. Every effort is made to support the poster, and a gentle reminder of the rules always comes first. This is polite, and considerate, and it is my intention to return that in kind.

    I do not believe that any staff here I have seen so far are dishonest, which is better than anyplace else I've been. I don't hand that out. You can check my site. Shortly this site will have a pretty good review on my site, if you keep acting like you have so far.

    HTH.
    I looked at the trash but there were no threads that were yours so I was just wondering what the threads were that you said were "closed".
     

  9. #8  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up. I know better than to complain and then try to pretend it's someone else's problem to provide evidence, but I'll wait until I see someone sporting a moderator or administrator tag before I start shooting off my mouth any further.

    On the other hand, I'm not at all shy about saying what I think about real data.

    Double-blind tests are the gold standard of scientific testing. The data I have presented are based upon double-blind tests. I don't really see why there's any question about this, other than made-up lawyering.

    It has been brought to my attention that I might be seen as criticizing Harold.

    I'd like to say that I might disagree with Harold, but I do not dislike or disrespect Harold. In fact, Harold was very respectful and polite in reminding me about combining posts, and I appreciated it a lot. I am impressed in fact with the professionalism of the staff here. Every effort is made to support the poster, and a gentle reminder of the rules always comes first. This is polite, and considerate, and it is my intention to return that in kind.

    I do not believe that any staff here I have seen so far are dishonest, which is better than anyplace else I've been. I don't hand that out. You can check my site. Shortly this site will have a pretty good review on my site, if you keep acting like you have so far.

    HTH.
    Schneibster, I have some sympathy for what you say but it seems to me this is a science site open to laypeople, not just for fellow scientists. A lot of what we discuss is with people just learning, or curious about, science. For them, reference to scholarly papers is not required or even appropriate, a lot of the time. I also think that, for the same reason, we end up doing a certain amount to teach people how to think in a scientific way: the virtues of clarity of thought and expression, scepticism, validation through observation, use of models, and so on.

    It seems to me that if we were to adhere to the high standard you advocate, we would close down a lot of discussions that are quite worthwhile. I certainly agree there are individuals who are incapable of civilised discussion, but the practical problem is at what point one decides this is the explanation for the low standard of what they post, as opposed to it being due to, say, well-intentioned ignorance or lack of training in how to think or communicate.

    What I look for in a correspondent is good faith. Making statements in bad faith i.e. for a purpose other than the stated one, normally due to a hidden agenda, is for me the reason to give them the chop.
    Stargate and umbradiago like this.
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    That's pretty good advice exchemist.

    Lynx, it's the affirmative action thread, and in the cold light of the next day I have to admit it was sliding out of control. Still, only one post other than mine at any point made any reference to scholarly literature. On the other hand I had several people call me a racist, which I am not, particularly considering the data I was presenting. I was unable to get any of the main sources of abuse to talk; I put one of them on ignore and was getting ready to do it to two more. OTOH, I was having an interesting conversation with several other people.

    It is in the social sciences forum. I really think people ought to be held to account and required to respond to scholarly articles in kind, or at least with some argument better than "you're wrong and you suck."
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    It is currently being reviewed in the Mod section.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    That's pretty good advice exchemist.

    Lynx, it's the affirmative action thread, and in the cold light of the next day I have to admit it was sliding out of control. Still, only one post other than mine at any point made any reference to scholarly literature. On the other hand I had several people call me a racist, which I am not, particularly considering the data I was presenting. I was unable to get any of the main sources of abuse to talk; I put one of them on ignore and was getting ready to do it to two more. OTOH, I was having an interesting conversation with several other people.

    It is in the social sciences forum. I really think people ought to be held to account and required to respond to scholarly articles in kind, or at least with some argument better than "you're wrong and you suck."
    Ok, thanks, and I agree.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Let's keep in mind that the person who called you a racist apologized. In addition, you often ask for evidence supporting hypothetical and opinions which isn't always the reason they are given. I think orange is the best color and I can't link a journal article that supports that statement. While I greatly appreciate your desire for supporting evidence, it must be applied in the appropriate context and is not always grounds for dismissing someone's opinion.
    umbradiago and Schneibster like this.
    "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
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Let's keep in mind that the person who called you a racist apologized. In addition, you often ask for evidence supporting hypothetical and opinions which isn't always the reason they are given. I think orange is the best color and I can't link a journal article that supports that statement. While I greatly appreciate your desire for supporting evidence, it must be applied in the appropriate context and is not always grounds for dismissing someone's opinion.
    Sorry, I never saw any apology. I furthermore saw continuing abuse from two more individuals. All three of them are now on mute. I made a mistake not doing that yesterday.

    You and kojax have argued with me without such antics. I'm still mulling some of your arguments over, in fact. Maybe after everything cools down we can have a real discussion about it now that I've found out who to put on ignore first.

    For that matter, both Harold and John Galt have exchanged frank views with me without any of that stuff. They're mature adults, acting in their staff capacity here ethically and doing a good job. And furthermore, expressing their personal opinions without mixing them with their duties. It's the best I've ever seen, and I've been on a lot of forums. I'm frankly impressed.

    I am willing to discuss how people feel after we've established the facts. People often feel upset about things that are not true. That's OK; happens to everyone. However, a firm division must be made between facts and feelings; and this is particularly so on a forum that announces itself as a science forum.

    Opinions are all very fine but when they're contrary to the facts they're wrong. Just that simple. And this is a science forum.

    And on edit, please tell me who that was and where the apology is. I will investigate and perhaps reconsider whether to put someone on ignore. I hate to, frankly.
    Flick Montana and umbradiago like this.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It is currently being reviewed in the Mod section.
    Thank you. I appreciate knowing.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I have noticed that support of arguments by scientific literature is not enforced.

    This is rather disturbing; it seems that by encouraging an atmopshere of doubt, anti-realists are gaining undeserved primacy on this board.

    I have dealt on good terms with both Harold and John Galt, but I am very disturbed by them being allowed to close a thread that their adherents have polluted and refused to provide countering data to. All that has been presented is legalistic data which is easily and quickly refuted by the scientific facts. The lack of enforcement of scientific reality is repugnant to me, and unfair in my judgment.

    If someone cannot provide evidence to support their view, and they continue to make insulting and provocative posts, I do not believe they have proven themselves capable of maintaining a suitable demeanor for a science forum. The subtle digs and insults these people use to try to support their unscientific and unsupportable views should not be tolerated on a scientific forum. I am displeased and unimpressed. When will these untruthful individuals' unsupported and unsupportable statements be denied? When will those of us who tell the truth be allowed to speak freely? When will the friends of the staff stop being allowed to trample all over the truth?
    Politics is not a science. Even if the facts are not in dispute, people can and will still have disagreements with the public policy, because they have different philosophies and values. So, even after you have cited your scholarly works, you still have to be prepared to debate the implications and interpretations. You do not seem willing to do that. If you have really made a better case, then people will be able to see that. Don't expect the moderators to step in and declare a winner.

    The thread was closed because of name-calling and uncivil debate. You did your share of that, calling people teabaggers, Libertards, racists. etc., and accusing them of starving children, forcing them to eat lead paint, and silly stuff like that. This is not a reasonable way to carry on a political discussion.

    I'm surprised to find that I have "adherents." Usually I'm on the polar opposite side of practically everybody else on this forum when it comes to politics.
    John Galt and umbradiago like this.
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up.
    You credit me with way too much attention to detail. Half the time I don't even know who I am replying to, since I'm more interested in the argument than the person.

    It would have been helpful if you'd drawn the attention of the mod team your concerns via the Report function, ideally by Reporting the post in which I closed the subject thread. (That was how I alerted the team to my action.)

    Now, while we are considering the issue, let's sidestep a little. I have a question for you. If a member makes a statement that reflects the current consensus of a significant majority of the scientific experts in that field, should they be required to provide the supporting peer reviewed evidence you speak of? Or not? Please summarise what would justify your response. (I am not trying to walk you into a trap here. I simply want to clarify the context in which you would like to see the approach applied.)

    Edit: I just noticed Harold's post. He and I seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum it i true, but he has expressed very cogently my views on this matter, to this point. (I shall be re-reading the entire thread in order to seek as objective a view as possible. I do change my mind based on evidence. [It happened once in '94 or '93])
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I have noticed that support of arguments by scientific literature is not enforced.

    This is rather disturbing; it seems that by encouraging an atmopshere of doubt, anti-realists are gaining undeserved primacy on this board.

    I have dealt on good terms with both Harold and John Galt, but I am very disturbed by them being allowed to close a thread that their adherents have polluted and refused to provide countering data to. All that has been presented is legalistic data which is easily and quickly refuted by the scientific facts. The lack of enforcement of scientific reality is repugnant to me, and unfair in my judgment.

    If someone cannot provide evidence to support their view, and they continue to make insulting and provocative posts, I do not believe they have proven themselves capable of maintaining a suitable demeanor for a science forum. The subtle digs and insults these people use to try to support their unscientific and unsupportable views should not be tolerated on a scientific forum. I am displeased and unimpressed. When will these untruthful individuals' unsupported and unsupportable statements be denied? When will those of us who tell the truth be allowed to speak freely? When will the friends of the staff stop being allowed to trample all over the truth?
    Politics is not a science. Even if the facts are not in dispute, people can and will still have disagreements with the public policy, because they have different philosophies and values. So, even after you have cited your scholarly works, you still have to be prepared to debate the implications and interpretations. You do not seem willing to do that.
    I'm willing to debate on equal terms. Simply dismissing scholarly references is unacceptable on a science forum. Bring some or admit they all say you're wrong. Stop making excuses. Not you of course, Harold; you didn't do that, as I recall. That is what I was responding to. I find it overweeningly proud and my immediate instinct is to puncture their balloon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you have really made a better case, then people will be able to see that. Don't expect the moderators to step in and declare a winner.
    I expect the moderators on a science site to give the science-based arguments stronger weight value than "you're wrong and you're making me feel bad." I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad, but the truth is the truth. It isn't a matter of expecting anyone to declare a winner. It's a matter of expecting the moderators to step in and stop harassment of someone who is posting academic studies. I'm sorry the academic studies say things people don't want to admit; that's sometimes the nature of truth when someone has held onto irrational beliefs for a long time. But that doesn't mean there's any evidence that the academic studies are wrong.

    "Making a case" is legalism. This isn't a legal site. It's a science site. Here we use science, not legal findings or newspaper articles, to argue serious matters. Lawyers are amateurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The thread was closed because of name-calling and uncivil debate. You did your share of that, calling people teabaggers, Libertards, racists. etc., and accusing them of starving children, forcing them to eat lead paint, and silly stuff like that. This is not a reasonable way to carry on a political discussion.
    I didn't think it was but I got called a racist before any of that, actually brought it up on the Feedback forum, got basically told "deal with it," and figured if that was the way it was that's the way I'd be. If that's not right then you better start putting the brakes on when someone starts calling someone else a racist. I reported it. AFAICS you did nothing. Sorry but everybody else is allowed to call me nasty names and I can't respond doesn't work for me and I'm surprised you didn't think of that aspect of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm surprised to find that I have "adherents." Usually I'm on the polar opposite side of practically everybody else on this forum when it comes to politics.
    Bah. You're doing fine. You're arguing your side. You've made some mistakes; I've pointed them out. You won't die. I won't die. It's all good.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 15th, 2014 at 03:24 PM.
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up.
    You credit me with way too much attention to detail. Half the time I don't even know who I am replying to, since I'm more interested in the argument than the person.

    It would have been helpful if you'd drawn the attention of the mod team your concerns via the Report function, ideally by Reporting the post in which I closed the subject thread. (That was how I alerted the team to my action.)
    Actually I made some Reports of earlier similar activity on the same thread, and didn't see any changes. I therefore concluded that these folks were going to be allowed to continue behaving that way and that it was expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Now, while we are considering the issue, let's sidestep a little. I have a question for you. If a member makes a statement that reflects the current consensus of a significant majority of the scientific experts in that field, should they be required to provide the supporting peer reviewed evidence you speak of? Or not? Please summarise what would justify your response. (I am not trying to walk you into a trap here. I simply want to clarify the context in which you would like to see the approach applied.)
    Yes, I understand what you want to know and why. I expect you're reviewing policies and I want you to have the most accurate information for that.

    On such a subject I would expect to see a couple Big Name Author scientific papers from well-established peer reviewed journals, and maybe a textbook if it's a decade old. I wouldn't consider the lack of a textbook crippling, many fields have gone a century without one and I think there are fields that will not have one until late in this century after I'm dead. But there better be plenty of articles in the literature on it; a round-up of the evidence would be decisive if I trusted the source sufficiently, say Science or Nature or Lancet or some such. This is a reasonable expectation for non-controversial science.

    I believe the justification is preservation of the accuracy of my knowledge. Because if I see evidence like that, I will change my opinion. But I am extremely critical of such evidence, much moreso than a lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Edit: I just noticed Harold's post. He and I seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum it i true, but he has expressed very cogently my views on this matter, to this point. (I shall be re-reading the entire thread in order to seek as objective a view as possible. I do change my mind based on evidence. [It happened once in '94 or '93])
    Then hopefully my response to him will help you.
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Oh, and one more point: Harold, you better go tell all the universities that have Political Science programs. Because there are whole departments in them whose entire raison d'etre is Political Science and that's the name of their department.

    So I really kind of have to dispute your statement that politics isn't a science, based on that evidence.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Oh, and one more point: Harold, you better go tell all the universities that have Political Science programs. Because there are whole departments in them whose entire raison d'etre is Political Science and that's the name of their department.

    So I really kind of have to dispute your statement that politics isn't a science, based on that evidence.
    the only reason why political studies (as well as economic ones) have added the moniker of "science" to their subject is to give themselves a credibility that they otherwise wouldn't have had - a sort of physics envy if you like
    i'm not aware that these subjects follow the scientific method, and as such their description as being part of the sciences must be suspect

    read Nassim Nicholas Taleb and see how the economic and political "sciences" failed to predict, explain (apart from in hindsight) and be in any way useful in dealing with the 2008 crash
    call them philosophies if you like, but pretending they're sciences only results in mere handwaving
    umbradiago likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Oh, and one more point: Harold, you better go tell all the universities that have Political Science programs. Because there are whole departments in them whose entire raison d'etre is Political Science and that's the name of their department.

    So I really kind of have to dispute your statement that politics isn't a science, based on that evidence.
    the only reason why political studies (as well as economic ones) have added the moniker of "science" to their subject is to give themselves a credibility that they otherwise wouldn't have had - a sort of physics envy if you like
    i'm not aware that these subjects follow the scientific method, and as such their description as being part of the sciences must be suspect
    Actually they do. I can post links to technical economic and political science papers that you will have trouble with if you do not know modern probability math and that will prove you wrong if you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    read Nassim Nicholas Taleb and see how the economic and political "sciences" failed to predict, explain (apart from in hindsight) and be in any way useful in dealing with the 2008 crash
    call them philosophies if you like, but pretending they're sciences only results in mere handwaving
    The economists who weren't being funded by the Kochs saw it coming and said so. For example De Long. For example Krugman. For example James Galbraith.

    Ten years later the IMF is now admitting austerion economics is a "bad idea" duh.

    Let's start with Galbraith:

    utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/CollapseofMonetarismdelivered.pdf
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Since almost every conceivable outcome is predicted by some economist somewhere there are always economists on hand who can say "I told you so." This leaves me unconvinced by most economic theory.
    dan hunter likes this.
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Since almost every conceivable outcome is predicted by some economist somewhere there are always economists on hand who can say "I told you so." This leaves me unconvinced by most economic theory.
    LOL, so it's luck.

    You cannot possibly be serious. You realize these people are prize-winning economists, including Krugman who has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, right?

    My experience with US Libertarian Party members is they don't know any economics. You're confirming it.

    Let's try some basics. Here's how the problem started: http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news-....html?page=all

    I really suggest you read that article. It tells how this all happened. I have further supporting articles I'll be posting in further posts. This is standard economic theory. You have stuck your head in a chipper.

    So I have a question since you've actually stepped over this line elsewhere and been reported: are moderators allowed to threaten members openly on the forums? You'll want a thread or response up really quickly because in a little bit I'm going to post that question as a subject on this feedback forum. And if that doesn't work it will go up on my web site.
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Please stay on topic. No threats were made. No lines were crossed. Do not raise this in this thread again. (View that as a threat if you wish. It is however a request by a moderator.)

    The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to known warmongers, so I wouldn't be surprised to see their Swedish cousins make similar errors. You seem to be focused on recent economics. If you look over the longer term my argument remains solid.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Noticed you deleted that.

    I think you're over the line, dude. I think you better stop. You're damn lucky I didn't get a copy of it or it would be up on the board public in your red type right now.

    You are abusing your powers. Stop now.
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    So I have a question since you've actually stepped over this line elsewhere and been reported: are moderators allowed to threaten members openly on the forums? You'll want a thread or response up really quickly because in a little bit I'm going to post that question as a subject on this feedback forum. And if that doesn't work it will go up on my web site.
    Check the guidelines.

    6. CONTACTING MODERATORS

    We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, ...

    ... however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

    6(a) If you complain about what you feel are shortcomings of the current Moderation team, the topic will most likely be deleted as it will create a topic which is a target for spam and abuse.
    Let me repeat. We will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

    PM a moderator if you want to continue this further.
    "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
     

  28. #27  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Actually they do. I can post links to technical economic and political science papers that you will have trouble with if you do not know modern probability math and that will prove you wrong if you do.
    using a probabilistic approach is not the same as the prediction and testability that is at the core of the scientific method
    in fact using some of the tools of science in order to fool the public into thinking you're doing science while at the same time not getting the basics right comes dangerously close to pseudoscience

    how many economic forecasts have turned out to be woefully wrong, which has not deterred the economists involved in producing further forecasts using just the type of complex mathematical and probabilistic approaches you proclaim is a sure sign of them doing science

    a good scientific approach would be to look at the tools used, look at the predictions made and review how far the prediction fell short from the actual outcome - imo a comprehensive review like this has never been carried out by any economist, hence the central part of the scientific method of testing the validity of tools and methods does not exist in the field of economics
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Actually they do. I can post links to technical economic and political science papers that you will have trouble with if you do not know modern probability math and that will prove you wrong if you do.
    using a probabilistic approach is not the same as the prediction and testability that is at the core of the scientific method
    in fact using some of the tools of science in order to fool the public into thinking you're doing science while at the same time not getting the basics right comes dangerously close to pseudoscience

    how many economic forecasts have turned out to be woefully wrong, which has not deterred the economists involved in producing further forecasts using just the type of complex mathematical and probabilistic approaches you proclaim is a sure sign of them doing science

    a good scientific approach would be to look at the tools used, look at the predictions made and review how far the prediction fell short from the actual outcome - imo a comprehensive review like this has never been carried out by any economist, hence the central part of the scientific method of testing the validity of tools and methods does not exist in the field of economics
    The problem is that the Koch brothers have paid to pollute economics with "economists" who aren't scientists.

    That doesn't mean economics isn't a science.

    The saltwater economists all predicted if there wasn't more stimulus the economy wouldn't get better quickly. I'd say they were right on the money, and the freshwater economists were all being paid by the Koch brothers to lie. The deficit is low, the debt is dropping rapidly. The economy isn't getting better.

    Just sayin'.

    Meanwhile, have you actually ever read any real economics?

    You will find this fairly dense, pretty detailed, and using a lot of math for being "not scientific." Like all the social sciences, economics makes hypotheses and tests them. They then become numeric theories, just like "real science." Calling it a "pseudo-science" is an insult, an appeal to emotion, a fallacy, and untrue.

    http://econbrowser.com/archives/2009/01/five_reasons_wh
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 16th, 2014 at 02:16 PM.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Meanwhile I think it's a reasonable request to support your arguments with scholarly data or admit they're not supported is always in order on a science forum, and members should be required to respond with data or admit their assertion is unsupported.

    Not silliness like requiring a member to prove their cats love them.

    Which BTW I have provided evidence to support: No Logic Immigration helps the economy ?

    I am more than happy to provide actual data to quash an unreasonable claim. Having done so I expect the claim to be rejected by reasonable persons.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 16th, 2014 at 04:25 PM.
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Meanwhile I think it's a reasonable request to support your arguments with scholarly data or admit they're not supported is always in order on a science forum,
    The overall theme is science but not every part of the forum has that at its core. The political, general and other threadss near the bottom are more conversational, as well as serving as an outlet for those not experts in any science as well as to discuss more light hearted non-scientific topics.

    To some degree inferring that anything other than rigorous science discussions in a science forum, distracts from that purpose, is akin to stating that a coffee/break area in a physics research lab means that really aren't about physics.


    Not silliness like requiring a member to prove their cats love them.
    I agree that was silly.
    --

    As a science economics doesn't seem to be much of one...namely because it deals with a complex behaviors for each science is only now starting to understand at the individual level. Can it be studied in a scientific way? As a natural phenomena I'd have to say yes, but its methods don't seem to resemble science methods to any significant degree--making that rather moot.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm pretty sure the staff know which and if they need links I have already said I'll fix them up. I know better than to complain and then try to pretend it's someone else's problem to provide evidence, but I'll wait until I see someone sporting a moderator or administrator tag before I start shooting off my mouth any further.

    On the other hand, I'm not at all shy about saying what I think about real data.

    Double-blind tests are the gold standard of scientific testing. The data I have presented are based upon double-blind tests. I don't really see why there's any question about this, other than made-up lawyering.

    It has been brought to my attention that I might be seen as criticizing Harold.

    I'd like to say that I might disagree with Harold, but I do not dislike or disrespect Harold. In fact, Harold was very respectful and polite in reminding me about combining posts, and I appreciated it a lot. I am impressed in fact with the professionalism of the staff here. Every effort is made to support the poster, and a gentle reminder of the rules always comes first. This is polite, and considerate, and it is my intention to return that in kind.

    I do not believe that any staff here I have seen so far are dishonest, which is better than anyplace else I've been. I don't hand that out. You can check my site. Shortly this site will have a pretty good review on my site, if you keep acting like you have so far.

    HTH.
    Schneibster, I have some sympathy for what you say but it seems to me this is a science site open to laypeople, not just for fellow scientists. A lot of what we discuss is with people just learning, or curious about, science. For them, reference to scholarly papers is not required or even appropriate, a lot of the time. I also think that, for the same reason, we end up doing a certain amount to teach people how to think in a scientific way: the virtues of clarity of thought and expression, scepticism, validation through observation, use of models, and so on.

    It seems to me that if we were to adhere to the high standard you advocate, we would close down a lot of discussions that are quite worthwhile. I certainly agree there are individuals who are incapable of civilised discussion, but the practical problem is at what point one decides this is the explanation for the low standard of what they post, as opposed to it being due to, say, well-intentioned ignorance or lack of training in how to think or communicate.

    What I look for in a correspondent is good faith. Making statements in bad faith i.e. for a purpose other than the stated one, normally due to a hidden agenda, is for me the reason to give them the chop.
    I think this is well said.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Meanwhile I think it's a reasonable request to support your arguments with scholarly data or admit they're not supported is always in order on a science forum,
    The overall theme is science but not every part of the forum has that at its core. The political, general and other threadss near the bottom are more conversational, as well as serving as an outlet for those not experts in any science as well as to discuss more light hearted non-scientific topics.
    I would have said that was true of the bottom-most group of fora, but there are formal sciences among the social sciences. There is scientific formality there, no matter how bad the philosophers have made them look. I have to admit that anthropology has become incredibly political, and extremely careful review is necessary for some articles from the 1980s which were heavily slanted. OTOH, the 1990s saw a move away from this kind of propagandist approach, and back to science. The only place a reservoir of this kind of denial exists any more is among the nutjob skinnerist animal behaviorists that insist animals don't feel emotions. I don't really think making that kind of distinction among the social sciences and the physical sciences based on the outrageous statements of crank extremists on the social science side is either accurate or useful. I would say you guys did a fine job of making a set of fora divided among hard sciences, technology, and social sciences, and fluffy crap everybody wants on their forum. I think you question yourselves too much in that way; and not enough in others. Just because someone wants to be a member of the staff doesn't mean they're suited to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    To some degree inferring that anything other than rigorous science discussions in a science forum, distracts from that purpose, is akin to stating that a coffee/break area in a physics research lab means that really aren't about physics.
    I don't mind someone saying, hey I seen this and it doesn't agree with where I saw you say X. What I mind is someone saying you believe X and you're a racist, when in fact X is an anti-racist belief. You don't tell me I'm a racist over coffee unless you wanna be wearing it while you watch me leave. There was a time when such conversations were through seconds and ended with pistols for two and coffee for one in the misty dawn.

    There are a lot of insults you can call me that I'll blow off. Racist is not one of them. I am a proud liberal Democrat, I have never discriminated against anyone I know of and I resent anyone who calls me a racist permanently unless I get a retraction and an apology. Calling me a racist is a damned fucking lie period. Don't mistake me: you never have. But others here have, and not apologized either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As a science economics doesn't seem to be much of one...namely because it deals with a complex behaviors for each science is only now starting to understand at the individual level. Can it be studied in a scientific way? As a natural phenomena I'd have to say yes, but its methods don't seem to resemble science methods to any significant degree--making that rather moot.
    This is an unfortunately common opinion. In fact, it's incorrect, but unless you can get some kind of reasonable treatment of the social sciences on this site you're never going to hear about it because they'll kick me off.

    The methods are actually mathematical, and based on simulations as many complex engineering models (like aircraft wings, the weather, and ecological fitness landscapes) use extensively.

    In addition as I have said before, there are an entire school that are trying to deny real economics because rich people don't want everyone to find out that they're the problem, and they're willing to pay any crank who will deny it. The foremost of these are the Koch brothers in the US, who you will find are being mentioned in the US Senate as a major problem lately. Right behind them are the German and London banksters. And after them are the US insurance and investment banksters, now that they've been freed from Glass-Steagall.

    Even governments shouldn't be as rich as these people have gotten. They're the ultimate anti-libertarians. And the US Libertarian Party worships them.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 16th, 2014 at 09:23 PM.
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    The methods are actually mathematical, and based on simulations as many complex engineering models (like aircraft wings, the weather, and ecological fitness landscapes) use extensively.
    Most engineering models are not scientific, and I doubt there's any reasonable comparison between economic models and actual science model such as meteorology (which are almost entirely based on physics plus numerical techniques to handle boundary conditions and data handling). Being math intensive does NOT make it scientific. But feel free to start a seperate thread so we can do direct comparisons and look at what's under the hood compared to science.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    The methods are actually mathematical, and based on simulations as many complex engineering models (like aircraft wings, the weather, and ecological fitness landscapes) use extensively.
    Most engineering models are not scientific,
    But the math that they use was discovered by scientists. Kirchoff's Voltage and Current laws, and Thevinin's and Norton's Laws, as well as Ohm's and Joules' Laws. And these are algebra; and they're good enough for second-approximation burnt-transistor hunts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and I doubt there's any reasonable comparison between economic models and actual science model such as meteorology (which are almost entirely based on physics plus numerical techniques to handle boundary conditions and data handling). Being math intensive does NOT make it scientific. But feel free to start a seperate thread so we can do direct comparisons and look at what's under the hood compared to science.
    Please tell me you have heard that weather is not climate.
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    The methods are actually mathematical, and based on simulations as many complex engineering models (like aircraft wings, the weather, and ecological fitness landscapes) use extensively.
    Most engineering models are not scientific,
    But the math that they use was discovered by scientists. Kirchoff's Voltage and Current laws, and Thevinin's and Norton's Laws, as well as Ohm's and Joules' Laws. And these are algebra; and they're good enough for second-approximation burnt-transistor hunts.
    So what? The math isn't what makes it science...it's the entire approach of using inductive reasoning to form hypothesis, deductive reasoning to test them that makes it science. Math is a tool used by science, and often had to be invented (the mother of invention thing)--not science in and of itself. Use of scientific discovered equations doesn't make it science either. (just like my use of calculus doesn't' make me a mathematician--far from it) And I'm pretty sure one could receive an advanced degree in either engineering or economics without ever becoming proficient in the science methods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and I doubt there's any reasonable comparison between economic models and actual science model such as meteorology (which are almost entirely based on physics plus numerical techniques to handle boundary conditions and data handling). Being math intensive does NOT make it scientific. But feel free to start a seperate thread so we can do direct comparisons and look at what's under the hood compared to science.
    Please tell me you have heard that weather is not climate.[/QUOTE]
    [quote]Considering I've taught meteorology, have a Master's in meteorology and been peer review published in both fields (really sister fields)...I could write hundred of pages about them (and probably have on this forum over the years).

    Do you know what science is? Perhaps that's the issue. If so welcome to the forum and it's not a bad place to learn so long as you stay in the upper half of the forum.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    The methods are actually mathematical, and based on simulations as many complex engineering models (like aircraft wings, the weather, and ecological fitness landscapes) use extensively.
    Most engineering models are not scientific,
    But the math that they use was discovered by scientists. Kirchoff's Voltage and Current laws, and Thevinin's and Norton's Laws, as well as Ohm's and Joules' Laws. And these are algebra; and they're good enough for second-approximation burnt-transistor hunts.
    So what? The math isn't what makes it science...it's the entire approach of using inductive reasoning to form hypothesis, deductive reasoning to test them that makes it science. Math is a tool used by science, and often had to be invented (the mother of invention thing)--not science in and of itself. Use of scientific discovered equations doesn't make it science either. And I'm pretty sure one could receive an advanced degree in either engineering or economics without ever becoming proficient in the science methods.
    Actually you'll find most scientists claim if you don't have a numeric model you're speculating.

    You'd be wrong in my experience of receiving a degree in Electronics Engineering. Maybe they don't teach you guys as much for it these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    and I doubt there's any reasonable comparison between economic models and actual science model such as meteorology (which are almost entirely based on physics plus numerical techniques to handle boundary conditions and data handling). Being math intensive does NOT make it scientific. But feel free to start a seperate thread so we can do direct comparisons and look at what's under the hood compared to science.
    Please tell me you have heard that weather is not climate.
    Considering I've taught meteorology, have a Master's in meteorology and been peer review published in both fields (really sister fields)...I could write hundred of pages about them (and probably have on this forum over the years).

    Do you know what science is? Perhaps that's the issue. If so welcome to the forum and it's not a bad place to learn so long as you stay in the upper half of the forum.
    I would question someone who thinks social science "isn't science." Sorry that's over the line.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 16th, 2014 at 10:53 PM.
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I would question someone who thinks social science "isn't science." Sorry that's over the line.
    Well, if you call "soft science" science then yeah.
    Otherwise...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Facts are facts, Dywyddr, and you can't deny what's in the rocks any more than what's in the sky or what happens in the particle accelerators.

    You wanna keep an eye out over your shoulder, too. They're doing this new thing called fMRI that lets them measure thoughts.
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Facts are facts, Dywyddr, and you can't deny what's in the rocks any more than what's in the sky or what happens in the particle accelerators.
    Funny, there was next to no mention of rocks when I did my degree course in the social sciences.
    (And, on day one, the tutors admitted that the social sciences are not yet sciences: too much "qualitative" work").

    This is one reason why the soft sciences are harder (to study) than the hard sciences.

    People, unfortunately 1, aren't susceptible to precise (controlled variables) experimentation.

    1 When I take over, however...
    Harold14370 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Facts are facts, Dywyddr, and you can't deny what's in the rocks any more than what's in the sky or what happens in the particle accelerators.
    Funny, there was next to no mention of rocks when I did my degree course in the social sciences.
    (And, on day one, the tutors admitted that the social sciences are not yet sciences: too much "qualitative" work").

    This is one reason why the soft sciences are harder (to study) than the hard sciences.

    People, unfortunately 1, aren't susceptible to precise (controlled variables) experimentation.
    Individuals aren't, true. However, crowds are. They're not always predictable, but they are predictable tantalizingly often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    1 When I take over, however...
    In the 24 1/2 century, right?

     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Sorry that's over the line.
    You'll find I'm often the one here defending psychology, sociology and other fields challenged by their inability to make precise measurements--their methods are often sound, yet seriously hampered by inability to measure things and a huge baggage of their history (sort of like a physicist who once in a while refers to Greek elements of earth, wind, fire...etc).

    My point is economics doesn't even measure up to those standards. And if they do....please start a thread about it and show us science types we are in error.
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Krugman says the same thing I do: economics is a science, but not all economists are scientists. Got a link if you like.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ot-scientists/
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 17th, 2014 at 12:54 AM.
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Krugman says the same thing I do: economics is a science, but not all economists are scientists. Got a link if you like.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ot-scientists/
    Actually he's not saying economics is a science. I mean his very statement and misuse of the word "theory" shows his ignorance about science--and him not being a scientist, nor science trained, even with the caveats he's using the loosest possible definition of science.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Krugman says the same thing I do: economics is a science
    No he doesn't:
    Maybe Economics Is A Science
    That's "maybe".
    And he goes on to say:
    But while there are clearly scientific elements in economics
    While there may well be scientific elements IN economics that doesn't mean that economics itself is a science.
    Schneibster likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I might be a member of Krugman's fan club if he had one, but he doesn't think - or at least he doesn't say here - that economics is a science. His last paragraph is pretty clear on this.

    The point is that while Chetty is right that economics can be and sometimes is a scientific field in the sense that theories are testable and there are researchers doing the testing, all too many economists treat their field as a form of theology instead.
    I think he's wishing, fruitlessly in my view, that the profession as a whole could be as scientific as the best of sociology (as an example). But the academic dominance - and not a little aggression - of the adherents of Hayek and the Chicago school and their relentless groupthink is a huge obstacle. Any truly investigative, data-based, rigorously analytical academic approach to economics may have to wait for quite a few retirements.
    Even the kind of multi-disciplinary stuff that can usefully be done with people like Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett Richard G. Wilkinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the reasons and consequences of inequality is, for the time being, a very minor sideline to what the self-appointed leaders of economics academia support and encourage.
    KALSTER and Schneibster 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
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    All this is true about economics and politics not being hard sciences, but what I had in mind was that even if they were hard sciences, you'd still have a moral component subject to debate. For example, your economic model might show that you can accrue large profits by importing African slaves to work on your plantation. You may have verified this by extensive testing. This does not necessarily mean you should import African slaves to work on your plantation.
     

  48. #47  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    which also goes for the fruits of many of the hard sciences : just because you can do something, does that mean you should ?
    adelady and Schneibster like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Here's a question to ponder: we're a science board. Shouldn't we favor scientific evidence? There is, after all, scientifically obtained evidence available in many political and economic questions. I think the difference for me is I'm more open to simple argument in these fields than, say, computer science or electronics, since these are my expertise, or astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology which are my hobby. And if Markus starts arguing with me about astrophysics I'm gonna do a hell of a lot of listening and ask an occasional question and figure I'm prolly wrong and I am looking at a major opportunity to learn something, if I can figure out what he's talking about.

    I think legalistic arguments should be heard; but when I hear statements that are simply not true according to academic research I'm going to challenge them and I don't think "Justice so-and-so says X" is an argument if Justice so-and-so isn't a sociologist (and they aren't, they're lawyers). And if people start dismissing detailed academic research with arguments like "politics isn't a science" I wouldn't expect a moderator to declare a winner, but I think a warning that this is a science board and you can't just deny evidence without producing some of your own of like kind and dependability, is in order. This is the core of my argument. I wouldn't care to see anyone kicked off (unless they go nuts like RomanK, of course, and even in his case I honestly hope he wises up). I just would like the moderators to lean in the direction of scientific evidence. I think it's appropriate on a science board.

    Arguments touching the character of the opponent should be, as always, extremely restricted and limited to criticism of their provable actions/statements not their person. And there should be a lot of scrutiny of such statements to ensure they are in fact correct and provable, and of bad character. Assumptions like "affirmative action is racism" which are actually political slogans that ignore real research results need to be eliminated from this kind of evaluation. Using them is evidence, in fact, of the intent to deceive.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    For example the evidence I was presenting was based on a McGraw-Hill textbook, Plous, S. (Ed.). (2003) Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 206-212). New York: McGraw-Hill. It cites numerous government and academic studies and other textbooks as well as numerous scholarly papers.

    At one point someone called this a "novel."

    Yes really.

    I think a moderator warning is appropriate in that case. Next they'll be calling Thomas/Finney a "novel about math." Or Gravitation a "novel about Einstein by three unknown physicsts." (I have actually seen an idiot on another site claim Gravitation is "outmoded." I wrote them up on my blog and still occasionally stop by and post a taunt. For non-physicists, this textbook will be "outmoded" about the time someone proves Einstein was "wrong.")
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 17th, 2014 at 03:21 PM.
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Here's a question to ponder: we're a science board. Shouldn't we favor scientific evidence? There is, after all, scientifically obtained evidence available in many political and economic questions.
    That point hasn't really been shown. I think you'd be a lot better off simply saying "empirical evidence," rather than saying "scientific evidence." Obviously few of the science types here consider most political or economic questions or their fields capable of doing serious science--myself included.

    I think legalistic arguments should be heard; but when I hear statements that are simply not true according to academic research I'm going to challenge them and I don't think "Justice so-and-so says X" is an argument if Justice so-and-so isn't a sociologist (and they aren't, they're lawyers). And if people start dismissing detailed academic research with arguments like "politics isn't a science" I wouldn't expect a moderator to declare a winner, but I think a warning that this is a science board and you can't just deny evidence without producing some of your own of like kind and dependability, is in order. This is the core of my argument.
    We get that....we also disagree when the thread is in the non-science parts of the forum. If you can show evidence that's fantastic--and it should probably win the day is it is compelling--just don't expect mod help to mute counter arguments. Most of the long term membership can tell the difference between well supported evidence and pure rhetorical arguments and prefer the former.
    --
    For example the evidence I was presenting was based on a McGraw-Hill textbook, Plous, S. (Ed.). (2003) Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 206-212). New York: McGraw-Hill. It cites numerous government and academic studies and other textbooks as well as numerous scholarly papers.

    At one point someone called this a "novel."

    Ok, so it's not a novel. It is what it probably claims to be an non-peer review anthology. Such works usually rate higher than novels, but lower than peer-review science publications; they stand entirely on the credibility of their authors with their respective communities--simply having a lot of references doesn't mean much (pseudoscience are often heavily referenced).


    Arguments touching the character of the opponent should be, as always, extremely restricted and limited to criticism of their provable actions/statements not their person. And there should be a lot of scrutiny of such statements to ensure they are in fact correct and provable, and of bad character.
    Agreed report them and we will review and deal with them.

    Assumptions like "affirmative action is racism" which are actually political slogans that ignore real research results need to be eliminated from this kind of evaluation. Using them is evidence, in fact, of the intent to deceive.
    Political slogan or not doesn't mean it's wrong--don't get caught in that trap.
    LuciDreaming and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Here's a question to ponder: we're a science board. Shouldn't we favor scientific evidence? There is, after all, scientifically obtained evidence available in many political and economic questions.
    That point hasn't really been shown. I think you'd be a lot better off simply saying "empirical evidence," rather than saying "scientific evidence." Obviously few of the science types here consider most political or economic questions or their fields capable of doing serious science--myself included.
    I would offer this article as an exemplar of scientific research, and of revelation of bad technique.

    Counting civilian casualties in CIA

    This is academic evidence presented in the scholarly literature. And it's damn persuasive.

    It's also not legalistic, emotionally charged, or systematically inaccurate.

    And one is pretty clear that there is a source that is unscientific after reading it.

    They've since improved, and Stanford has as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think legalistic arguments should be heard; but when I hear statements that are simply not true according to academic research I'm going to challenge them and I don't think "Justice so-and-so says X" is an argument if Justice so-and-so isn't a sociologist (and they aren't, they're lawyers). And if people start dismissing detailed academic research with arguments like "politics isn't a science" I wouldn't expect a moderator to declare a winner, but I think a warning that this is a science board and you can't just deny evidence without producing some of your own of like kind and dependability, is in order. This is the core of my argument.
    We get that....we also disagree when the thread is in the non-science parts of the forum. If you can show evidence that's fantastic--and it should probably win the day is it is compelling--just don't expect mod help to mute counter arguments. Most of the long term membership can tell the difference between well supported evidence and pure rhetorical arguments and prefer the former.
    I would say only the bottom-most group is "non-science." This is part of our disagreement. I can see wanting to have fluff sections. I can't see including social science in that, when there is research to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    For example the evidence I was presenting was based on a McGraw-Hill textbook, Plous, S. (Ed.). (2003) Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 206-212). New York: McGraw-Hill. It cites numerous government and academic studies and other textbooks as well as numerous scholarly papers.

    At one point someone called this a "novel."

    Ok, so it's not a novel. It is what it probably claims to be an non-peer review anthology.
    Nope. It was peer reviewed when it was originally published. You keep revealing you haven't even looked at it.

    Dude it's a textbook. Hello? By McGraw-Hill? You know, one of the textbook manufacturers? Are you telling me they wrote a textbook that's somehow questionable? Are you serious? What's next, alien probing?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Arguments touching the character of the opponent should be, as always, extremely restricted and limited to criticism of their provable actions/statements not their person. And there should be a lot of scrutiny of such statements to ensure they are in fact correct and provable, and of bad character.
    Agreed report them and we will review and deal with them.
    I did and nothing happened and they continued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Assumptions like "affirmative action is racism" which are actually political slogans that ignore real research results need to be eliminated from this kind of evaluation. Using them is evidence, in fact, of the intent to deceive.
    Political slogan or not doesn't mean it's wrong--don't get caught in that trap.
    Nice try.

    Political slogans shouldn't be "proof" on a science forum. Nor should they be permitted as justification for personal insults.
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Political slogans shouldn't be "proof" on a science forum.


    And you are missing the point. Actually you seem to be missing the entire point of this thread and the numerous feedback you've gotten about your rigid insistence to apply science, something you haven't shown you even understand, to every corner of the forum. It's not going to happen and would actually distract from the tone of letting there be outlets for those not scientifically minded, but perhaps interested, or just learning. If you can't accept that than you should probably find another forum.
    LuciDreaming and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Dude it's a textbook. Hello? By McGraw-Hill? You know, one of the textbook manufacturers? Are you telling me they wrote a textbook that's somehow questionable? Are you serious? What's next, alien probing?
    While I'm not given much these days to reading textbooks per se 1 I'd like it noted that with any book it's not a matter of "Is this book questionable?" but rather "How questionable is it?".
    ALWAYS assume that any single book has errors.
    Unless you're of the opinion that authors, proof readers and type setters are infallible.
    And that new information will never come to light.

    1 I go for the specialist technical books in my particular subject(s). (Probably what would be textbooks were my interest(s) ever to be taught in schools).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Ummm, a textbook is one thing.

    The fifteen or fifty academic research papers it refers to are, quite frankly, fifty others.
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Political slogans shouldn't be "proof" on a science forum.


    And you are missing the point. Actually you seem to be missing the entire point of this thread and the numerous feedback you've gotten about your rigid insistence to apply science, something you haven't shown you even understand, to every corner of the forum. It's not going to happen and would actually distract from the tone of letting there be outlets for those not scientifically minded, but perhaps interested, or just learning. If you can't accept that than you should probably find another forum.
    Excuse me but that's the fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

    There hasn't been any rigidity. In fact I said I might accept arguments with compelling logic that didn't yet have scientific evidence.

    You have misinterpreted something, or you have an unmentioned agenda.

    And are you really, truly against teaching novices real science? Are you trying to teach them that the reviewers in scientific journals are all dishonest? Is this really your intent?
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You have misinterpreted something, or you have an unmentioned agenda.

    And are you really, truly against teaching novices real science?

    Are you trying to teach them that the reviewers in scientific journals are all dishonest? Is this really your intent?
    Huh? Charging windmills?

    --

    Ok you made a request on the site feedback that we apply more rigid "scientific standards" in the political sub-forum after getting pissy about what was happening in a thread you were in. We've been round and round about this but to sum up what I and it appears the mods opinion on that request.

    Request denied.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    OK but you understand your decision is anti-democratic, anti-scientific, and not logically justifiable, right?
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You have misinterpreted something, or you have an unmentioned agenda.

    And are you really, truly against teaching novices real science?

    Are you trying to teach them that the reviewers in scientific journals are all dishonest? Is this really your intent?
    Huh? Charging windmills?

    --

    Ok you made a request on the site feedback that we apply more rigid "scientific standards" in the political sub-forum after getting pissy about what was happening in a thread you were in. We've been round and round about this but to sum up what I and it appears the mods opinion on that request.

    Request denied.
    And let's be honest about what the post in question was: No Logic Immigration helps the economy ?

    Moderator Warning: I gave you a friendly warning. It was not a threat: it was well meaning advice. You chose to ignore it.

    Be very clear, the onus is upon you to provide the supporting data for your assertion. That is the way science works. It is the way this forum works.

    Therefore, provide supporting data within forty eight hours, or withdraw your assertion, or accept a suspension. Your choice.

    Do not respond to this modnote in this thread. If you have issues with it, pm me, or a moderator, or report the post.


    So basically you support this post.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Maybe you can call this TheScienceForumExceptForLibertarianPoilitics.

    Since you refuse to penalize Libertardians for calling lifelong liberal Democrats racists.

    Or maybe TheTwoScienceandTwoLibertarianForums.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 17th, 2014 at 10:04 PM.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    C'mon Jack, it's Chinatown. You both make good points. As a non-scientist, liberal, free-thinker, I value all opinions and well-supported ideas, and even stupid ones. We are all free to decide which to ally ourselves with. Let's go back to our corners. Schneib, I know where you're coming from; you're a younger man than myself and burning with passion. Let it go
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Hey, if I made my point and there won't be any more racism insults it's all good.



    And I find it kinda funny
    I find it kinda sad
    The dreams in which I'm dying
    Are the best I've ever had
    And I find it hard to tell you
    I find it hard to take
    When people run in circles
    It's a very, very
    mad world
    mad world


    -© Orzabel 1983
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 17th, 2014 at 11:05 PM.
    Stargate and umbradiago like this.
     

  63. #62  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Maybe you can call this TheScienceForumExceptForLibertarianPoilitics.

    Since you refuse to penalize Libertardians for calling lifelong liberal Democrats racists.

    Or maybe TheTwoScienceandTwoLibertarianForums.
    i feel insulted, and i'm sure so does the rest of the mod team
    i'll do something that i've never ever done before, and that is to make a threat as mod : retract your statement or i'll give you a ban
    you have 24 hours
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Maybe you can call this TheScienceForumExceptForLibertarianPoilitics.

    Since you refuse to penalize Libertardians for calling lifelong liberal Democrats racists.

    Or maybe TheTwoScienceandTwoLibertarianForums.
    i feel insulted, and i'm sure so does the rest of the mod team
    Moderator Warning: I gave you a friendly warning. It was not a threat: it was well meaning advice. You chose to ignore it.

    Be very clear, the onus is upon you to provide the supporting data for your assertion. That is the way science works. It is the way this forum works.

    Therefore, provide supporting data within forty eight hours, or withdraw your assertion, or accept a suspension. Your choice.

    Do not respond to this modnote in this thread. If you have issues with it, pm me, or a moderator, or report the post.

    Personally I'd be embarrassed.

    Reported for threats.

    I respond to threats with contempt. Especially when they're made by someone armed, against someone who cannot respond, that's particularly disgusting. It's abuse of power. Apparently such abuse is taken for granted here; sorry, but not by me. But for this post by marnix, I'd've gone on my way. A threat will always get my attention, and the threatener will not enjoy my response. If you thought I was stubborn before you ain't seen squat.
    Last edited by Schneibster; March 18th, 2014 at 03:57 PM.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    So you know:

    When a member of DHS started yelling at me in a business meeting, I walked out, packed up, and headed for the airport. My boss reached me on the white phones at the airport, informed me I had her 100% support, since I was obeying her orders (this person was well known and she had ordered me to stand up and leave if he started in) and asked, if he was gone, if I saw any other problems on their staff. I said no, and she asked me if I would go back. I said yes. I never saw him again.

    That is who I am and that is how I expect to be treated. If you start yelling you are a loser and I won't work with you. You can fix it by apologizing and never doing it again.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    DogLady likes this.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post





    A threat will always get my attention, and the threatener will not enjoy my response. If you thought I was stubborn before you ain't seen squat.
    Impressive!
    A genuine Internet hard case!
    LuciDreaming likes this.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Lots of people who are smart give in to harassment like this.

    I don't. I made sure I was big enough that when they started trying to beat up on the smarts I was a hard target. I've gotten lots of people who thought they were gonna beat up on the smart to fight friends of mine who were bigger than them. And the ones who were my size I've whupped. Not to mention several who thought they were out of my weight class and found out different, abruptly.

    I'm perfectly willing to write this place up as another Libertardian science bullshit site. It's up to you.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Meanwhile thanks for telling me who to put on my ignore list.

    Sorry marnixR is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her. User Name


    So I am not to blame in what follows since I am forced to listen to this person's lies and pretend they're true or get banned.
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    This forum appears to be undergoing an epidemic of officiousness. It's quite ugly.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    This forum appears to be undergoing an epidemic of officiousness. It's quite ugly.
    Says the most officious person on here......
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Hi Schneibster,

    I'm not really sure what you're going on about at the moment, but I would recommend that you just let it go and forget about it. You seem like you are/could be a good contributing member to the forum, and I'd hate to see that end.
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm perfectly willing to write this place up as another Libertardian science bullshit site. It's up to you.

    That will not solve anything, nor is it suited on a forum intended for a scientific discussions.
    It stands to reason that one is justified to challenge this forum, but this discussion has boiled down to a mud-slinging contest.

    Would it be appropriate if a Staff member closed this thread for a few hours so that the participants of this discussion can reconsider their respective positions?
    "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.
     

  74. #73  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,320
    @scneib to begin with I had some sympathy for you but you've spun off the track. You don't like how the forum is moderated then go somewhere else. Your "threats" to give an unfavourable view on your blog are laughable, who cares?
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I'm not a seventeen year old college kid, nor am I a newbie on the 'Net. If you disrespect me you can expect consequences. If you want to have people who know stuff on your forum you can't allow moderators who have problems dealing with their personal power harassing us. It will get our backs up and we will leave.

    Choose if you want smarts or arrogant moderators who aren't answerable for their misuse of power.
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Would it be appropriate if a Staff member closed this thread for a few hours so that the participants of this discussion can reconsider their respective positions?
    It's too late. I have now been personally threatened by two moderators. You have an obvious problem. Kicking me off will merely make it obvious to everyone.
     

  77. #76  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,320
    meh...
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Would it be appropriate if a Staff member closed this thread for a few hours so that the participants of this discussion can reconsider their respective positions?
    It's too late. I have now been personally threatened by two moderators. You have an obvious problem. Kicking me off will merely make it obvious to everyone.

    My suggestion was not intended to be a way of censoring you or any other member who participated in the discussion above.
    It was a possible way of ensuring that everyone involved in that discussion could take a time-out, in order to reconsider the points being made.
    "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.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    So I must say what you want or I am banned.

    So much for free speech. Guess you're afraid of the truth.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  80. #79  
    Global >•< Mercenary ToThePoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    World.Wide.Web
    Posts
    9
    Just to put things in perspective...

    With over 99,400+ members, the Science Forum site feedback section is impressively free of people complaining & getting all agitato over moderation.

    Until the guy with NPD showed up.
    jgoti likes this.
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Would it be appropriate if a Staff member closed this thread for a few hours so that the participants of this discussion can reconsider their respective positions?
    It's too late. I have now been personally threatened by two moderators. You have an obvious problem. Kicking me off will merely make it obvious to everyone.

    My suggestion was not intended to be a way of censoring you or any other member who participated in the discussion above.
    It was a possible way of ensuring that everyone involved in that discussion could take a time-out, in order to reconsider the points being made.
    So far I've been more angry every time I returned.

    I am willing to be persuaded by strong arguments.

    If you try to push me around you'll find I'm almost certain to do what you don't want in order to spite you. I rebel. I recognize only intellectual authority. If you know and you can prove it I'll listen. If you try to force me I will die before I submit.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by ToThePoint View Post
    Just to put things in perspective...

    With over 99,400+ members, the Science Forum site feedback section is impressively free of people complaining & getting all agitato over moderation.

    Such things are mostly settled via private messages with the Staff, as stated in the Forum Guidelines.
    Furthermore, the number of registrated members is lower (~90.000); the number of active members (post count > 0) is ca. 14.000.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    If you try to push me around you'll find I'm almost certain to do what you don't want in order to spite you. I rebel. I recognize only intellectual authority. If you know and you can prove it I'll listen. If you try to force me I will die before I submit.

    Again,
    I am merely suggesting that a short time-out (perhaps via temporarily closing this thread) could be beneficial for the participants of the discussion.
    "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.
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by ToThePoint View Post
    Just to put things in perspective...

    With over 99,400+ members, the Science Forum site feedback section is impressively free of people complaining & getting all agitato over moderation.

    Until the guy with NPD showed up.
    Says the 5-post n00b who joined to start trouble. Febble joined ScienceForums to get me banned and hasn't posted there in the month since. I'm still making fun of them over it.

    Meanwhile enumerate the other members of this site who have been threatened with being banned if they couldn't prove their cats loved them:

    No Logic Immigration helps the economy ?

    Moderator Warning: I gave you a friendly warning. It was not a threat: it was well meaning advice. You chose to ignore it.

    Be very clear, the onus is upon you to provide the supporting data for your assertion. That is the way science works. It is the way this forum works.

    Therefore, provide supporting data within forty eight hours, or withdraw your assertion, or accept a suspension. Your choice.

    Do not respond to this modnote in this thread. If you have issues with it, pm me, or a moderator, or report the post.
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    So much for free speech. Guess you're afraid of the truth.
    There's no free speech here. This is a science forum, and is run by the owner and moderators to create the sort of discussions they want to see in it. Woo is often removed.

    If you want a forum that contains only what you want it to contain (i.e. your version of "the truth") feel free to start one. There are plenty of free forum sites out there that would be happy to host you and all your friends who are "not afraid of the truth."
     

  85. #84  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,320
    Reply to post #80. Have you tried growing up before you submit? You have joined a forum, administrated by moderators, you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here. If you don't like how the place is run, go somewhere else.
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Reply to post #80. Have you tried growing up before you submit? You have joined a forum, administrated by moderators, you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here. If you don't like how the place is run, go somewhere else.
    Sorry, you either respect expertise or you don't. I have it and it's respected in places you have no concept of.

    I'm willing to submit to proper moderation.

    This isn't.
    umbradiago likes this.
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Do not call me a racist again.

    Do not threaten me again.

    umbradiago likes this.
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I have to take my wive to be examined for stomach cancer tomorrow morning.

    Thanks for this on top of it.

    I think I'll go buy a pistol. I think it's easier than drugs.
     

  89. #88  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,320
    I have expertise in my area (a PhD and over 20 peer reviewed publications) and can acknowledge it in others, in this thread you are being an arse. That's only my opinion but judging by the responses you're getting I'm not alone. You have joined a forum, you have discovered you disagree with the management (I've had run ins with the mods myself) you need to make a decision, accept moderation or go away. Your choice, if your blog disses this site no one here will care. Edit after post #87, how low can you go, using family tragedy to play for sympathy, ignore list.
     

  90. #89  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Do not call me a racist again.

    Do not threaten me again.

    Moderator Action: You have never been threatened. You have been asked to adhere to forum guidelines. You have been asked to honour the very concept you have promoted in this thread. When you got uppity about this you were issued with a warning, not a threat. It seems you do not understand how forums work. In addition you have made outlandish allegations about other members and have generally behaved like a spoiled and ignorant brat. Personally, I have had enough of it (even without the ludicrous pm you sent me). I'm banning you for a week. Others on the mod team may take pity on you and reduce the length of the suspension. (I shall have no problem with that.) If and when you return I suggest you adopt a more mature attitude.
     

  91. #90  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Good grief. If he comes back after a week, I doubt he'll last long.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I tend to agree.

    I was somewhat in agreement with his early concerns, but the last few days have been like watching a four year old have a melt down in a grocery isle.
    adelady, tk421, RedPanda and 2 others like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 07:32 PM
  2. About supporting the old
    By shckm2686 in forum Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 6th, 2011, 05:18 PM
  3. Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW
    By cypress in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 11:21 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 31st, 2009, 05:51 PM
  5. First Cause Arguments
    By jjg in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 10th, 2008, 02:20 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
  •