Petition to get buz full access again.

I am only a junior member so doubt my vote counts for much...The creationist side is a bit thin. It is sometimes hard not to dogpile.I have read a fair few of his posts and I believe he would be more valuable to the creationist side that DB and IMJ.Jar mentioned the non member readers. At this moment there are 193 visitors here. It would be a sad waste of those readers time if they were reading one of the posts I have been involved in where I am trying to explain what the word 'nature' means to IMJ or the word 'communicate' to DB. At least with Buz, there is meat to the actual discussion. The other readers may actually see a debate worth reading. They should be able to see if one side has not provided sufficient evidence or not. Particularly when his opponents point the fact out.I pinched this from one of the other thread advising of why Buz was restrained, I am pretty sure it was from Admin but I have closed the window -

quote:

---

Buz lost his permissions in the science forums because of his views about what constitutes valid evidence differs from that of science. That means he can no longer discuss science topics related to the creation/evolution debate at this site, at least not until he is able to reach a consensus with other members here about the nature of scientific evidence.

---

If Buz shows that he is incapable of doing this, then he would have blown his last chance.I say let him back in.

That's the crux of the matter, Fear. Admin requires evidence in science but in spite of the Free Online Dictionary definition he adamantly excludes anything supernatural as having possible evidence. Nothing relating to the supernatural may be considered in science relates to evidence as he sees it.

Thanks to Taz and others who have come forward to advocate for what, IMO, would make for a more lively and interesting board.

Specifically what definition is that Buz?

You should know what it includes and what it excludes from The Free Online Dictionary. , Jar.

It appears from this from Admin that before consideration he wants to know what EvC members consider the nature of scientific evidence to be by definition.I'm not allowed to propose new topics. Perhaps someone else needs to propose one.Does the Free Online Dictionary, which I cited, for example, include or exclude evidence of anything relating to the supernatural like physical historical events? Biblically related archeological research? Historically acclaimed fulfilled prophecy, etc?Is researched evidence, not conclusive, but supportive to the existence of a supernatural a possibility?

It appears Buzz is going in the OPPOSITE direction. Message 6Someone is going to have to start a petition to get buzz SOME access again

Posting lengthy proposals for topics that fail to meet the requirements, and then refusing to edit them to meet the requirements is not going to endear anyone to the moderators.The sanctions against Buz are a result of the problems he causes. A good faith effort to address those problems is required. Displaying obvious bad faith is just asking for the sanctions to continue.

I would be interested for hear what the lurkers think about this matter. My own opinion is that Buzz won't really modify his approach so why bother: however, as you say a thread with him in it could be valuable to the lurkers.Lurkers: what say you?

Just in case anyone believes Buzsaw's characterization of my views on evidence of the supernatural in his Message 17, my actual position on scientific evidence is that it be empirical. Real events, natural or otherwise, leave behind evidence apparent to our senses.As I've explained before, Buzsaw's restriction from the science forums is because it became the pattern that science threads in which in he participated eventually became dominated by exchanges consisting of, in effect, "Buz, you've presented no evidence," followed by, "Yes, I have," and the eventual decline into the equivalent of "Have not", "Have to".Buz is not actually required to change his views on evidence. What he's required to do is participate in a way that doesn't turn so many of the threads in which he participates into discussions of his views on evidence. Since he was unable to do this himself moderators (me, in this case) addressed the situation.At EvC Forum, members who have a tendency to turn threads into discussions of the same issue are asked to take discussion of that issue to a single thread. So I asked Buz for a thread proposal to discuss the nature of scientific evidence, but he seems unwilling to work with me through the thread proposal process.While it warms my heart to see large post counts posted every day, I'll still remind people who would like to discuss science topics with Buz that there *are* other discussion boards out there. Try Evolution Fairy Tale. I like the moderators over there, they seem very well intentioned and informed, plus if I'm going to throw post volume anyone's way it may as well be Fred's.--Percy

I would say that one major point of disagreement seems to be the use of critical evaluation of evidence. i.e. is the claim asserted as evidence true, or at least very likely to be true, and does the claimed connection really stand up.Buz seems to hold that such evaluation is inherently wrong - at least when applied to his claims. Certainly he complains bitterly that such considerations are applied to his "evidence", and holds that the findings of the enquiries should be ignored. His claims in the Exodus thread, for instance, were eviscerated on these very grounds. Which is why the more scientifically inclined members hold it as a major defeat for Buzsaw - while he claims it as a victory.

You should know what it includes and what it excludes from The Free Online Dictionary. , Jar. \[/qs\]I'm still confused about what you are claiming Buz.

quote:

---

evidence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. evidenced, evidencing, evidences
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

​

evidence [ˈɛvɪdəns]
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health
3. (Law) Law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc. See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence
(Law)
turn queen's (king's, state's) evidence (of an accomplice) to act as witness for the prosecution and testify against those associated with him in crime
in evidence on display; apparent; conspicuous her engagement ring was in evidence

---

Here are the definitions from your link.Now I don't see the supernatural mentioned anywhere, and only one definition mentions science.So which of those definitions were you referring to when you asserted "Admin requires evidence in science but in spite of the Free Online Dictionary definition he adamantly excludes anything supernatural as having possible evidence."Where did Admin ever say that it was impossible for the supernatural to be evidenced?

I think you're right. I was hoping that a thread on the nature of scientific evidence would include the importance of assessing relevance, strength, replicability, etc.

I think a big issue involves the question of whether someone places SOURCE over CONTENT.In many groups, the SOURCE of something is more important than the actual CONTENT transmitted. Testimony rules supreme. A great example is the use of the films marketed by folk like Ron Wyatt, Walt Brown, Lennart Mller and others as "evidence". The films actually are simply testimony, no physical evidence is ever presented but the SOURCES are considered sufficient.Lennart Mller as an example is often referred to as a "scientist" when he has no real training or experience as an archaeologist and that is the area the films supposedly address.Testimony.How much value should be placed on Testimony in science?

quote:

---

How much value should be placed on Testimony in science?

---

The motto of the Royal Society is "Nullus in Verba" which may be rendered "take nobody's word for it". A foundational principle of science is that unsupported testimony should not be taken as significant evidence.