|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 9:28:52 GMT 1
Sciencefile...moderated by bikerman. That won't be biased at all then.  |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 9:46:25 GMT 1
Sciencefile...moderated by bikerman. That won't be biased at all then. I asked a question there recently about a possible aether and the silence was deafening! I got the impression that one should 'tow the line' a bit on pain of ostracisation. I would prefer a forum that tolerates a reasonable degree of speculation rather than one where certain topics are tacitly regarded as 'off-limits.' We are not all scientists and it is inevitable that some of us are going to ask rather naive questions from time to time but, surely, this is how one progresses, isn't it? There was a question about UFOs recently and the implied derision of some of the respondents was quite sickening, as if the very mention of such a topic should never be mentioned. This, to me, represents sheer arrogance by people who think they have all the answers. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 9:56:24 GMT 1
You missed pomposity and closed mindedness....and sheer nastiness. |
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Sept 20, 2010 9:57:30 GMT 1
Speculate away abacus. Speculation in science is interesting and often informative whether correct or not.
However people who present mere speculation as certainty and peer review as proof are as disingenuous as they are dishonest. We do indeed expect a little normal scientific modesty on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 20, 2010 10:10:05 GMT 1
So the people who scoff at global warming and present no proof of their opinions other than being rude and vociferous are in your book 'in' while the people who point to the overwhelming scientific arguments to the contrary are 'out'
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 10:21:29 GMT 1
You missed pomposity and closed mindedness....and sheer nastiness. Oh yes, those too!  |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 20, 2010 10:24:10 GMT 1
Well, You did ask! If You have the time then read ALL of this thread... www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7702637&skip=140&show=20#p100035001if someone consistently 'doesn't answer' the arguments put forward with counter arguments, then eventually the conclusion is drawn that it is just the purpose to goad and not discuss the thread. It started to happen on this board, it was apparent, on one early morning that the idea was to 'get a name in lights' by posting 'dummy answers' and 'dubious threads' to achieve same. . An observation consistently pointed out in posts. I stress this is just my opinion.
StuartG
mod: A point consistently - to - An observation... [too many points!] |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 10:24:13 GMT 1
Speculate away abacus. Speculation in science is interesting and often informative whether correct or not. However people who present mere speculation as certainty and peer review as proof are as disingenuous as they are dishonest. We do indeed expect a little normal scientific modesty on this board. Fair comment, Joanne, after all, nothing is set in stone! |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 10:30:40 GMT 1
jonjel, isn't it just better to simply ignore such people if you think they have dubious motives? By ignoring, rather than responding to objectionable posts such posters lose their power.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 20, 2010 10:32:20 GMT 1
ps. I would like to stay and discuss this further, 'live'. Unfortunately for me the fridge/freezer has clapped out, and ASD? has a deal on for cheap fidges/freezers! BFN
StuartG
re: garden peas now mushy peas...
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 10:33:40 GMT 1
 ps. I would like to stay and discuss this further, 'live'. Unfortunately for me the fridge/freezer has clapped out, and ASD? has a deal on for cheap fidges/freezers! BFN StuartG re: garden peas now mushy peas...
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 28, 2010 13:14:31 GMT 1
Speculate away abacus. Speculation in science is interesting and often informative whether correct or not. However people who present mere speculation as certainty and peer review as proof are as disingenuous as they are dishonest. We do indeed expect a little normal scientific modesty on this board. Except there is a vast difference between speculation within science, and the sort of pseudo-speculation you get on here from certain posters. In short, speculation based on ignorance of the relevant science is totally pointless. Peer review as proof -- what a daft statement! Peer review is certainly a better standard that anything else anyone has to offer, and proof is the sort of word that no decent scientists would use anyway. I feel the democratic fallacy coming on, and I'm afraid I'm no longer that confident in the ability of the admin -- especially given the totally crap threads that have been allowed to proliferate, and the lack of any decent discussion so far. Not quite as the BBC boards, but fast going that way if this is the standard of moderation we are going to get. |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 28, 2010 16:33:43 GMT 1
We may well have had some 'crap threads'. They may not be to Your liking or mine. I prefer a less stilted approach. I find the Science Forum stifling but I would go there for dissertation on www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1265716832 "Standard Deviation Formula (Read 1,335 times)" [You, Eamonn et al] but a bit of discussion/argument, no. Alan Calverd gets 'put down' by one of the many moderators, of different distinctions, on most occasions. His opinion I respect, as I think do a lot of 'the others'. Like a lot of idle parking wardens waiting to pounce at a hint of 'waywardness'. www.sciencefile.org/SciFile/forum/science-education/281-public-understanding-of-science?limit=25&start=20. I agree that the 'B' word, albeit blanked, is incorrect, but what do You do on a new board, don't want to drive everyone away. You have robustly defended/schooled the inquisitors, I've been following it, as I believe, have many others. Might I suggest a bit more of the 'piffle' blandishment ! What are You like on CMB, when I feel that I have read enough to discuss it's origin and the other thing of 'red-shift' [can it shift so far red it goes radio, time allowing] . 'Keep Your pecker up' [no rude connotations in that one] as my Dad used to say to Mum. Cheers, StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 28, 2010 19:16:46 GMT 1
Speculate away abacus. Speculation in science is interesting and often informative whether correct or not. However people who present mere speculation as certainty and peer review as proof are as disingenuous as they are dishonest. We do indeed expect a little normal scientific modesty on this board. Except there is a vast difference between speculation within science, and the sort of pseudo-speculation you get on here from certain posters. In short, speculation based on ignorance of the relevant science is totally pointless. Peer review as proof -- what a daft statement! Peer review is certainly a better standard that anything else anyone has to offer, and proof is the sort of word that no decent scientists would use anyway. I feel the democratic fallacy coming on, and I'm afraid I'm no longer that confident in the ability of the admin -- especially given the totally crap threads that have been allowed to proliferate, and the lack of any decent discussion so far. Not quite as the BBC boards, but fast going that way if this is the standard of moderation we are going to get. May I, a worthless wretch, an intellectual non-entity, approach the table of your magnificence - seek an audience if you will - and make a point regarding the above? (grovels on floor furiously tugging forelock) The science I comment on is seeking to explain/quantify/forecast the real world - the environment - that I observe closely. I have observed the reality for decades and can humbly report that the science you so vehemently defend is....... pish. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 29, 2010 14:10:20 GMT 1
I was actually talking about cosmology, not whatever you thought I was talking about.
And anecdotal evidence is not evidence, lesson one.
|
|
