Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,484 Year: 6,741/9,624 Month: 81/238 Week: 81/22 Day: 22/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 304 (209526)
05-18-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by coffee_addict
05-18-2005 11:36 AM


Re: endless discussions
GAW-Snow writes:
I'd have to side with buz on this one.
[image of Forum descriptions omitted]
It says "Is the evidence of the divine apparent in the design of nature itself?"
There is some disagreement amongst moderators as to the value of explaining these things ad infinitum.
The moderators are also members here. They just have some extra roles for direct action to help manage the board, but apart from that we all discuss these things. Most of the discussion is here; there are also some shorter exchanges just between moderators in the admin forums. Views expressed in public forums do have an impact; but at the same time actions get taken from time to time, in spite of the fact that there can never be total unanimity.
I'm not going to debate this at length either. But basically, the forum description given by GAW-Snow is accurate. The forum is intended to discuss the question "Is the evidence of the divine apparent in the design of nature itself".
Being in the science forum does not mean that only one view on this question is allowed. It means that the nature of the discussion is about evidence as used in science. Empirical evidence. Observation, models, tests, processes and so on, whether they involve purely unconscious forces, or interactions with a conscious intelligence. Participants are not required to limit themselves to unconscious forces. Evaluation or proposals for empirical evidence of interactions with a conscious designer are very much on topic on the forum.
The forum description might be updated sometime to make this more explicit, but nearly everyone can manage to understand what it means, and why this is a feature of a science discussion, whether it be mainstream science, or maverick science, or theistic science or supernatural science or whatever.
Buzsaw is restricted because he does not understand what empirical means. He keeps bringing up purely philosophical perspectives and calling them empirical, and nothing has ever managed to penetrate and get him to actually engage in a manner that fits the forum.
Buz's religious views are not restricted in toto. He is more than welcome to pursue them in the appropriate forums, since religious and philosophical perspectives and approaches are certainly pertinent as well. Buz won't agree that his manner of pursuing the topic fails to fit the requirements of empirical discussion. He continues to believe that it is his conclusions which are being restricted, rather than his approach. But in fact, it really is his approach. It is not that the approach is bad or unacceptable. It is that it is not empirical, and does not fit the forum for discussion scientific evidence.
Buzsaw can dispute this endlessly, and I expect he will. He is a valued member here, and I'm glad to have him back with us again. But he does not understand or comprehend what empirical means or the nature of discussion intended in the science forums. They will remain for discussion of empirical evidence, and people who cannot manage that may be restricted. Disagreement and comment is welcome, but we've gone around the mulberry bush with this endlessly.
As a minor spelling point for others (not GAW-Snow), since it is a recurring error: the word is "empirical". Not "imperical".
Cheers -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-18-2005 10:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by coffee_addict, posted 05-18-2005 11:36 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 11:40 PM AdminSylas has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 304 (209537)
05-18-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by AdminSylas
05-18-2005 10:20 PM


Re: endless discussions
Buzsaw is restricted because he does not understand what empirical means. He keeps bringing up purely philosophical perspectives and calling them empirical, and nothing has ever managed to penetrate and get him to actually engage in a manner that fits the forum.
Hi Sylas. Thanks for saying something. I was feeling a bit forsaken here by the mods.
1. Can you specify some post of mine which establishes that I do not understand the word "empirical?"
2. Was my debate with Jar concerning my ID hypothesis "purely phylosopical, in your opinion?
3. Were the two posts that Percy noted, motivating him to ban me from these forums, including Intelligent Design, (my expertise) purely philosophical?
4. Did I rate my hypotheses as imperical in these posts or others?
5. "Fits the Forum." Must my views now "fit" those of the forum majority so as for me to participate? Is that what we have here?
6. Should I be banned from the Biblical Accuracy and Inerrancy forum (fully demonstrated over the years as another field of my expertise)?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AdminSylas, posted 05-18-2005 10:20 PM AdminSylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 12:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 304 (209538)
05-18-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by AdminJar
05-18-2005 10:03 PM


Re: Bible A&I ...
There is a forum called Bible Studies that is one the Faith based forums were you can discuss things such as the meaning of a passage.
Are you allowing/advocating that I address Intelligent Design and Bilical Accuracy and Inerrancy matters in this forum, or are these now subjects that this elderly 60 year Biblical veteran is disallowed to address?
Edited to change the word "discuss" to "address."
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-18-2005 11:58 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by AdminJar, posted 05-18-2005 10:03 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminJar, posted 05-19-2005 12:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 275 by AdminNosy, posted 05-19-2005 12:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 278 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-19-2005 6:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 304 (209541)
05-19-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
05-18-2005 11:50 PM


Re: Bible A&I ...
Frankly, right now I'm not sure there is a place where you can debate ID but we are discussing the possibility of opening an ID forum over in the Faith side where your ideas would likely have a better audience.
Bible A&I is meant to examine the Bible using the same method as science, in otherwords, follow the evidence and look for external support.
What might be a good idea if you wish to discuss some aspects of Biblical Accuracy would be to propose a PNT on your topic of choice to be discussed in the Bible Study forum. There you could use internal features of the Bible to support your viewpoint while in the Bible A&I you would have to support your position with external evidence.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 275 of 304 (209545)
05-19-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
05-18-2005 11:50 PM


"science" discussions
If you want to conduct an actually "science"-like discussion, Buz, you may open a thread on the F&B side if you want and request in your opening post that scientific standards be applied.
I don't think it would be fair to have admin enforcement of that to too great a degree but I'm sure others would hold the conversation to such standards.
Who knows maybe you can show an ability to handle such discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 304 (209547)
05-19-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
05-18-2005 11:40 PM


Re: endless discussions
Hey Buz. You are likely to continue to feel forsaken. The general feeling is that discussion is completely pointless.
The difficulty with pointing out individual posts is that we drop again into the endless cycles of nitpicking over minutiae and interpretation and validity of judgements. I'm not going there again.
There are pretty much two views.
One view is that we should not apply any restrictions at all, and that you should be free to say anything you please and apply any line of argument you like in the science forums. Most of your support is of this kind.
There is another view that the science forums are intended for a particular style of argument and evidence. They are not restricted in the conclusions allowed, but in the argument used. Argument should be focussed on empirical evidence. That is, we look at observed phenomenon and use that as leverage for discussing the processes by which those particular phenomena arose in the particular form that we observe them.
I've looked at your recent engagement in the science forums. It does not deal with the subject matter in this way. I am sure you disagree, but I am simply not interested any more in persuading you on this point. The posts are still there and easily found by those interested.
The more serious question on moderation procedures is whether or not we really want to limit the science forums to discussion focussed on evidence relating to empirical observation and models specifically focussed on explaining empirical details.
I am in favour of continuing to restrict you from biblical accuracy. This is not a reflection on your ability in the subject, but a reflection of the manner in which you engage it. Your style of engagement is well suited to forums for exegesis and interpretation generally; and quite unsuited to the matter of historical accuracy as indicated by empirical evidence.
I tend to restrict myself from that forum as well. I think that discussions of biblical accuracy on the basis of empirical lines of evidence are mostly ridiculous and fail to understand the bible at all. I definitely include in this those who argue that the bible is "wrong" on the basis of empirical lines of argument. But that is a meta-discussion which does not belong in the forum. So I just ignore it.
On the great debate with jar... I thought it was dreadful, and the main problem was jar, not you. The benefit of a one on one debate is that there is time to look carefully and make considered focussed responses without extraneous detractions from a more free ranging open discussion. Jar piled in like it was a race, and the whole benefit was wasted..
Your point number 5 needs a crystal clear response:
Buzsaw writes:
5. "Fits the Forum." Must my views now "fit" those of the forum majority so as for me to participate? Is that what we have here?
NO IT IS NOT.
This kind of thing is why you are so infuriating, and why discussion is so pointless. I was crystal clear that no there is not a requirement that anyone has to fit any majority view. There never has been. Such a restriction would be totally counter to the whole idea of this web forum.
What is required is to engage by consideration of empirically based lines of evidence.
You've stripped "fit the forum" away from context and misrepresented it as a requirement that the views have to fit the forum. That's not the case. There is no restriction with respect to views.
It's quite clear that you'll never get this, but since I've actually put a comment on the table this needs to be underlined. People are not restricted for having views that fail to fit the majority. This has never been an issue. It is not why Buz is restricted.
Buzsaw may think that there is some underlying motive to remove his viewpoint. But that is not the reason given, and if anyone simply refuses to believe that we are being honest about the reason for restriction, so be it. I don't care any more.
Cheers -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-19-2005 12:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 11:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by coffee_addict, posted 05-19-2005 11:32 AM AdminSylas has not replied
 Message 281 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 12:17 PM AdminSylas has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2228
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 277 of 304 (209589)
05-19-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by coffee_addict
05-18-2005 6:47 PM


Re: ID as faith
Lam writes:
I say give him full access and let the members and buz work it out.
Again, I agree with... well, Lam.
How is anyone going to learn anything by being restricted from the very place they need to be to learn what they need to learn most urgently?
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - Confucius

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by coffee_addict, posted 05-18-2005 6:47 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 278 of 304 (209598)
05-19-2005 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
05-18-2005 11:50 PM


Re: Bible A&I ...
The consensus opinion of the various admin seems to be that you are badly unable to discuss things science. You seem to be a theologian. Stick to the "Faith and Belief" and "Bible Studies" forums, and don't fret about being able to take part in the "Intelligent Design" or "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" forums.
If you are inclined, I encourage you to propose the "Theology of Intelligent Design (A no science topic)" topic, to go into the "Faith and Belief" forum.
Adminnemooseus
ps by edit, to Parasomnium:
How is anyone going to learn anything by being restricted from the very place they need to be to learn what they need to learn most urgently?
The science forums are available to Buzsaw, read only.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-19-2005 06:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2005 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 279 of 304 (209649)
05-19-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by AdminSylas
05-19-2005 12:42 AM


Re: endless discussions
AS writes:
One view is that we should not apply any restrictions at all, and that you should be free to say anything you please and apply any line of argument you like in the science forums. Most of your support is of this kind.
Not necessarily. As is probably well known, I am one who is very easily irritated by pseudo-scientific arguments and usually don't waste time with them. What I do believe in is that arguments should not always be strictly held to the same standard in the science forums.
If anyone remembers Admin's most spectacular post of all times (traffic laws), the standards should be held to same degree, more or less. We can see buz as the 18 year old who never got past the "I can drive as fast as I want without any danger" attitude of a 16 year old. Sometimes we get frustrated with him for not slowing down and obeying traffic laws. Sometimes it irritates us so because he refuses to put on his seatbelt. But by golly, why revolk his driving priviledges when you can give him tickets after tickets after tickets and fine the hell out of his parents?
While I lost hope on some people, buz is certainly not one of them.
Like I said before, I think it is better than this matter be dealt with by letting the members and buz work it out. The admins can continue to give him tickets and fines for every traffic law violation.
PS In case anyone wants to say that buz's attitude is like a drunk driver, I would respond that insulting other members is drunk driving. Buz only drive above the speed limit and not have his seatbelt on.
Added by edit.
Another thing is I'm just afraid to miss something good that he has to say. Buz's point of view is certainly different than most people.
This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-19-2005 11:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 12:42 AM AdminSylas has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 280 of 304 (209656)
05-19-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Adminnemooseus
05-19-2005 6:06 AM


Too strict a division here I think
If you are inclined, I encourage you to propose the "Theology of Intelligent Design (A no science topic)" topic, to go into the "Faith and Belief" forum.
I'd kind of like to see a whole forum geared to something like the Theology of Creationism -- or even, to put it maximally paradoxically, the Theology of Science -- where all the Biblical bases for creationist thinking about natural science -- either ID or YEC or anything else -- could be discussed freely, but NOT EXCLUDING what you might consider to be explicitly scientific considerations. There is too strict a division being made here for some of us, or for me anyway, as when you prescribe the above to be "a no science topic."
I'm personally tired of fighting the science requirements here and would enjoy the opportunity to discuss Bible-based ideas about evolution and related questions without being nagged all the time to meet such requirements, but on the other hand I don't want to be prohibited from bringing in any "strictly" scientific ideas that may apply.
{Edit: However it might be titled or defined, I'd like it to be able to include the kind of ideas I was posting on the Simple Evidence for ID thread last night, and including the Junk DNA subtopic as well, because it fits right into the overall idea of a perfect universe that's been damaged that I was pursuing.}
Possibly this kind of forum would suit Buz's interests and talents too.
Edited to correct thread title
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-19-2005 12:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-19-2005 6:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Admin, posted 05-19-2005 12:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 12:33 PM Faith has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 304 (209659)
05-19-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by AdminSylas
05-19-2005 12:42 AM


Re: endless discussions
The difficulty with pointing out individual posts is that we drop again into the endless cycles of nitpicking over minutiae and interpretation and validity of judgements. I'm not going there again.
But this has been the problem all along. Admins fail to cite specific posts and specify how they've violated any forum rules. Most often they aren't even cited, but it's been these generalized bogus charges. Percy has cited some posts, but that's it. He cited a post when he totally banned me with no chance of discussion as to what was specifically wrong. Then now he cites two posts, both of which he failed to show violations of forum rules and one which was totally bogus, Jar being the one in error and who, if any, should've been admonished. Instead of a peep about his posting behavior, I get banned. The same gross bad posting conduct by Jar was ignored when he bulligerantly argued both Faith and me that the Gospel of John is fraudulent and that there was no doctrine in the NT about Jesus relative to our salvation.
THERE'S NO JUSTICE HERE WHATSOEVER FOR FUNDAMENTAL BIBLICALISTS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. FAITH KNOWS THAT TOO, AND YOU PEOPLE DON'T CARE A WHIT! FAITH IS A LOT SMARTER THAN I AND IF YOU PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT SHE AGREES THAT MY CONDUCT HERE IS NOT A BIT WORSE THAN MANY AND A LOT BETTER THAN SOME WHO NEVER GET EVEN A SIMPLE ADMONISHMENT (Admin Jar for a starter) He frustrates the heck outa both Faith and myself when debating the Bible, a topic which he obviously knows or cares little about, yet debates til the cows come home with nonsense WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!
I don't care any more.
I had hoped you would've cared more about fairness, balance and justice in adminstration, but obviously few seem to care here so long as their secularist ideology is not jeopardized. You seem to be a nice guy, Sylas, but imo, unjust in this matter.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 12:42 AM AdminSylas has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13107
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 282 of 304 (209660)
05-19-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
05-19-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
I like the general thrust of this idea, but am unsure how best to proceed. I'm not yet happy with the forums in the Social/Religious issues category, and so I'm open to proposals. What forums are missing from this category? What forums that are already in this category should be renamed or modified in their focus? Should any forums be eliminated?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:31 PM Admin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 304 (209665)
05-19-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Admin
05-19-2005 12:18 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
I'm getting behind on my legitimate work so I can't take the time now but I'd like to think about it later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Admin, posted 05-19-2005 12:18 PM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 304 (209668)
05-19-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
05-19-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
Possibly this kind of forum would suit Buz's interests and talents too.
I and others have proposed a pseudoscience forum, which is basically what you seem to be proposing, but nothing seems to be progressing with that. From my observation and experience here, it appears our views must be held at bay and only be allowed a minimal airing, so as not to jeopardize the majority views. Too much effective creationism, especially the ID variety will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, any kind of science forum in which secularist counterparts cannot control the agenda may be a tough proposition here.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 287 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-19-2005 3:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 304 (209674)
05-19-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Buzsaw
05-19-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
I and others have proposed a pseudoscience forum, which is basically what you seem to be proposing, but nothing seems to be progressing with that.
That title bothers me because it implies something false and I'd like to affirm Biblical creationist ideas as true (I tend to think of evolutionism as pseudoscience myself ). If it's getting basically at the same thing then let's see where my idea goes. There may be a better title for it yet though.
From my observation and experience here, it appears our views must be held at bay and only be allowed a minimal airing, so as not to jeopardize the majority views. Too much effective creationism, especially the ID variety will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, any kind of science forum in which secularist counterparts cannot control the agenda may be a tough proposition here.
I'm seeing some lightening up here myself, and appreciating how I'm being dealt with. I think having a separate forum that discusses science from a Biblical point of view, with the word "theology" in it, would probably reassure the science diehards that they don't need to dog our every step to preserve the integrity and reputation of science as they see it, because the title would compartmentalize our views sufficiently -- even disqualify them in their minds, but that's OK, as it would leave us free to defend them with whatever means are appropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 12:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by AdminJar, posted 05-19-2005 1:07 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024