Restrictions in the Science Forums.

I recommend TheologyWeb as an excellent discussion board that would meet this need. I am a member there in good standing myself, though I have not written much in the last month. They have a very active moderation team and professional appearance with many excellent features. They also have forums specifically limited to Christians, and others limited to non-believers, and one limited to young earth creationists. For those who prefer a limit of this kind, this works very well.The limit I am supporting here is not quite of this kind. In this board, anyone is welcome in any forum; as long as they work within the intended parameters of the forum. Restrictions are applied on an individual basis, predicated not on the viewpoint or conclusion, but on whether the poster is able to remain within the parameters of debate. The method used in TheologyWeb has a place as well; though I don't think it would works as well here.Cheers -- Sylas

My comments in this post are not a formal statement from any authority. They are my personal impression and understanding of how matters stand, but I'm open to correction, particularly from board owners. My understanding of the matter is that Faith and Belief forums are still fine for discussing matters relating to empirical evidence.That is, there is not a strict division into two styles of argument, with one for one forum and the other for a different forum. It is instead a case of choosing to remain focused on the one style of argument, or choosing to have a wider range of styles.The science forums are more restrictive. Some describe this as science forums holding people to a "higher" standard. It can just as easily be seen as holding people to a restriction without presuming anything about "higher" or "better".If people want to pursue a line of argument which does not fit within the narrow scope of scientific argument, then I am inclined to direct them towards those forums where the limitations do not apply.I don't consider myself to be as rigid on this as some members appear to perceive. I'm cool with someone speaking of the bible and of supernatural interventions in the science forums, and forming a model based on a certain understanding of the bible. My expectation is simply that there will be a substantial consideration of how well that model fits with empirical observations. It will always be acceptable to criticise a position (any position) on the basis of how well it fits physical evidence. But it is not reasonable in a science forum to dismiss physical evidence as unimportant because the bible carries more authority, or conversely to dismiss it as unacceptable to scientific orthodoxy. To refute a model, it is good scientific argument to point out where the model fails to fit with observation, or where it requires ad hoc additions that have no good basis in observation, or to address substantively the validity of the data being applied.In a science forum, it should not be considered a valid argument to reject a model because simply because it seems counter intuitive. Conversely, it will not be useful in the science forums to simply invoke sequences of ad hoc manipulations that deny the capacity of empirical observation to test a model at all.It seems to me, looking at the guidelines and their history, that EvCforum itself may have been originally set up by Percy with the basic expectation that positions would be argued and responding to substantively by consideration of external empirical data of some kind; and that what I am suggesting for the science forums is pretty much the original intent of the whole board. But of course Percy is the authority on his own original objectives.Cheers -- Sylas

Agree. I was trying to suggest this earlier, with the idea that someone proposing a thread could indicate such a restriction; but this is not a requirement of the whole Faith and Belief forum.Cheers -- Sylas

This right here is Buzsaw's own personal fundamental problem. He's been corrected on this, and never addresses the corrections. He's been shown the evidence and the models, and he doesn't understand either of them.All he is left is the tired mantra: "it's your premise".He's wrong. It isn't.The singularity is not a premise. (Reminder: singularity is actually a mathematical term, and refers in this context to the conditions in which the maths of classical physics breaks down with infinite density.) It is a conclusion. It is not assumed. It is developed as a consequence of the empirical evidence. It was not welcomed for philosophical reasons (except by Christians like the great physicist Georges LeMaitre who saw it as a creation moment). It succeeded because of the evidence.Mainstream science was brought kicking and screaming into the recognition of the finite age for the universe and the singularity at which physics fails. But it was not really that hard, because in the end, the vast majority of scientists recognized the force of the empirical evidence, and proceeded accordingly. This required some significant changes to the philosophical presumptions of many; but that's empirical science and discovery for you.It has nothing whatsoever to do with rejecting designers. Indeed, the Big Bang is often used in arguements for design. It is simply an empirically based model for the history of the physical universe, and believers can postulate a designer to be involved in this history as much as in any other.Buz is never going to understand this, and that is why he is not really capable of engaging the subject matter as would fit a discussion in a science forum. It would be fine to discuss the evidence and present alternative empirical models. It is not fine to simply ignore all the empirical arguments as if they never existed, and just keep saying "It's illogical". "It's your premise." "It's not fair." "It's unjust." "My presumptions are as good as yours."The Big Bang is certainly open for discussion. In the science forums, that discussion must be focussed on the empirical. It is not a question of rejecting any viewpoint. It is a question of allowing any viewpoint to be evaluated against physical observation. If there is no actual way to make such an evaluation, then take it to a non-science forum.Buz also says: This encapsulates another common misconception. We are not proposing to exclude an intelligent designer from the science forums.The constraint in the science forums is not on the particular viewpoint, but on the way it is considered. Intelligent Design is welcome in the science forums as long as it is presenting itself as a scientific notion with empirical consequences and theories for distinguishing design from non-design. Dembski, Behe, etc, present themselves in this way. They argue that there are some designed things, and some undesigned things, and that they can tell the difference. There is scope to evaluate the theories and the evidence, and to argue on the basis of empirical evidence whether or not the techniques make sense.Note that this debate is not about saying that Dembski or whoever else is wrong to believe in God, or in a creator. That is not an empirical claim either, and should not be pursued in the science forums. The point to consider is whether a specific model fits the evidence.There are other theological perspectives on the nature of God's involvement in the world. A very common view (perhaps even the majority view amongst Christians!) is that God is the designer of the entire natural world and not just isolated bits of it. It becomes a theological error to point to any part of the natural world and say that it is not created; and this is the main theological objection to the modern intelligent design movement. But that is a theological dispute which usually is pursued independently of empirical evidence; and so belongs in the "Faith and Belief" forums.The faith in God as creator and designer of the entire universe is held by a significant number of superlative scientists. It is consistent with science. But it is not a scientific model in the sense of being open to testing in the light of evidence. God makes it all, so there is no basis to distinguish what is created from what is not created. There is some scope here to look at the fine tuning arguments for this kind of transcendent designer, since that is rooted in empirical concerns. The discussion rarely gets resolved. It deals with matters on the extreme periphery of what can be investigated scientifically with existing technology.Cheers -- Sylas (Edited for spelling.)This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-20-2005 10:12 PM

On this point, I disagree with the otherwise perspicacious jar, and side with Buzsaw.People who have an initial premise of validity for the Biblical account can still reach into the area of science. (Particularly if they don't actually know much about the available evidence; but I digress.)Whether you are doing science is not about how you arrived at your initial premise, but how you attempt to argue or defend it. Thus, for example, a died-in-the-wool 100% literal historical bible believing creationist may have arrived at their beliefs without any use of empirical reasoning. What matters is whether they are able to show that their model has implications for empirical evidence, and can be tested in the light of empirical evidence.This is the heart of "scientific" creationism, and the science forums are explicitly intended to facilitate discussion between two perspectives on whether empirical evidence counts for, or against, creationist or evolutionary models. It matters not a bit whether or not someone had already accepted a conclusion for other reasons.This may just be my subjective impression, but IMO the creationist position is ludicrous, and they consistently get their heads handed to them on a platter. But a new player up to the plate who thinks they can do better is always welcome. As long as they are looking at the empirical data, it is fine.Someone who fails to make any impact in the empirical domain may sometimes be tempted to abandon that line of argument, and revert to bold claims about biblical inerrancy or the nature of God. People may well choose to hold onto their belief on the basis of some other authority or argument, and that is their prerogative. But the scientific debate is over at that point, and the other arguments belong in other forums. This is wrong. Buz has never grasped the model, or the evidence, or the reasons why it is so dominant for scientists. His inability to understand what makes an argument empirical is why he has been restricted, and this inability is also the heart of his perception of injustice.The rules are truly the same for both sides. Work with the empirical evidence, and you can do it in the science forums. Argument based on personal incredulity or based on consistency with the nature of God or with atheism, must be taken elsewhere, and we have the forums for that as well.The restriction is to an individual, not to a group and not to a viewpoint. The restricted individual is Buzsaw. There are pros and cons to this, I grant.Most creationists actually do understand the significance and form of empirical argument, and make an attempt to use it. That debate is the whole reason for the science forums. If Buzsaw wants to make another attempt at an argument which he thinks ought to be accepted under the rules applied for a scientific debate, I would suggest that he start a thread in Is It Science?. Although that is technically a science forum, I have restored Buzsaw's permissions to that forum, since it seems fair enough to engage this meta-debate in that forum. It would still require a topic proposal.Cheers -- Sylas

The word is "empirical".No matter how often this is explained, Buzsaw just does not listen. This is nothing but an obdurate refusal to pay attention.It is not about the viewpoint. It is about what kinds of argument you use, not the conclusion. Arguments are scientific when they are based on the empirical. These are the arguments which are debated in science forums, for any viewpoint.No claim has been made that only empirical arguments are valid. The point is simply that only empirical arguments are scientific, and that the science forums are set aside for those who wish to pursue empirical arguments.ANY viewpoint is allowed. Infinite universe, finite universe, designed universe, random universe, static universe, expanding universe, steady state universe, spinning universe, universe on a pogo stick, whatever you like. Just deal with how your viewpoint, or the viewpoints you wish the criticize, engage the empirical.If you want to tackle how a viewpoint is consistent with personal intuitions, or revelation, or philosophical principles, or ethics, or theological doctrines, or ease of comprehension, or styles of pedagogy, or other such matters, then try another forum and leave the science forums for those who know what empirical means and are able to discuss the many and varied viewpoints in that light.Until Buzsaw grasps this simple distinction between viewpoints and empirical arguments, and until he has the elementary common sense and decency to repeat accurately what he has been told time and time and time again, I am totally opposed to his distracting science forums with this foolishness.The science forums remain fully open to any viewpoint, and to any debater who engages the empirical arguments for or against their viewpoint.Sheesh! -- Sylas

Buz, our discussion of this issue is over; and this is my last comment to you on the matter.My best efforts have been described as unjust and out of context and given with the aim to discredit. None of these is true, and a meta-debate about such things is just piling the absurd upon the absurd.I've tried to explain the expectations in the science forums to the best of my ability, with all sincerity, and with a considerable investment of time. Further attempts will only serve to alienate and anger. It no longer serves any useful purpose, and it is destructive of good relations. So I withdraw.The thread can remain open to general discussion of what is expected in the science forums; though I think that the matter is by now pretty clear to nearly everyone. The present policy is that any viewpoint is welcome, and that there is no presumption of any special standing for one viewpoint over another. The requirement is simply that the debate focuses on scientific empirical arguments. This applies across the board, for all viewpoints and for all debaters.Thank you, and goodnight. Sylas

Thanks PaulK... there is a whole forum given over to the discussion of what is or isn't science. It is Is It Science?. I pointed this out previously. If people would like to debate the standing of different arguments as scientific or not, then that would be the place.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 05-24-2005 08:12 AM