Jump to content

Why is there no forum for (insert field here)?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Many historical 'facts' are contested and debated by historians. Things like the cause of the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, which, along with Crete, comprised the 1st Greek empire, fought a

There's a section in Forum Announcements called Banned/Suspended Users. All the banned ones are history. 😁

It would be easier for people to navigate through the huge mess of various threads.

 

 

 

Given that this is a science forum, I really don’t see why navigating what is really only a side issue needs further clarification; as always in internet fora, if in doubt, just ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the section about religions divided further into Abrahamic, Dharmic and other religions.

 

I would prefer to see Religion excluded altogether from a Science forum. Religion is not scientific, and belongs in the same class as Astrology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be easier for people to navigate through the huge mess of various threads.

 

The easiest solution is to put a caveat in either your title or opening post that says you only want to talk about a specific religion, or an aspect of a particular religion. Then the staff understands that general comments and replies regarding a different religion are considered off-topic.

 

We have the section because people will bring up religion whether we have it or not, and it's easier to deal with in it's own section. And we also try to keep the conversations oriented in rational directions, even if we're talking about an essentially supernatural phenomenon science isn't meant to be used with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
...

 

WHY is this not a thing here?!?!

 

Because this is a science forum. There are a limited number of fora that deal with non-scientific topics - but they are, by their nature, auxiliary to the main project which is the provision of an internet forum for the discussion of science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because this is a science forum. There are a limited number of fora that deal with non-scientific topics - but they are, by their nature, auxiliary to the main project which is the provision of an internet forum for the discussion of science.

So you are really making the argument that fields like anthropology, achaeology, and Sociology are not science? Seems a bit like classic bigotry to me. I could argue that there is more science in achaeology than in several other fields discussed here and that it involves almost every field. Its mind boggling that the excuse for not having achaeology on this site is that this is a forum for "science." Its laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are really making the argument that fields like anthropology, achaeology, and Sociology are not science? Seems a bit like classic bigotry to me. I could argue that there is more science in achaeology than in several other fields discussed here and that it involves almost every field. Its mind boggling that the excuse for not having achaeology on this site is that this is a forum for "science." Its laughable.

 

Literally classical bigotry. Or classification. Many of these fields are widely considered to be part of the social sciences rather than the physical sciences (and others are humanities). So be angry with is if you want, but remember to be angry with pretty much every college and university that teaches the liberal arts and don't count those classes against their science requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_sciences

 

Also that you listed religion, which is a topic we have.

 

As far as archaeology goes, I don't necessarily disagree, but one might reflect on whether your approach is the best that one might follow if one is hoping to effect change. What do those social sciences tell you? Given the scientific nature of this site and the staff, especially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can just post it somewhere else. No need to be abrasive. There's nothing stopping you from starting a thread in one of the existing topic buckets.

 

Now that you mention it, though... Might be better to discuss adding a geology or dendrology forum, as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder that needs extraction. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notice that we've got a lot of non-CS and non-techsupport computer threads. Perhaps it's time to reorganize the computer section to add subforums for programming and for hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Literally classical bigotry. Or classification. Many of these fields are widely considered to be part of the social sciences rather than the physical sciences (and others are humanities). So be angry with is if you want, but remember to be angry with pretty much every college and university that teaches the liberal arts and don't count those classes against their science requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_sciences

 

Also that you listed religion, which is a topic we have.

 

As far as archaeology goes, I don't necessarily disagree, but one might reflect on whether your approach is the best that one might follow if one is hoping to effect change. What do those social sciences tell you? Given the scientific nature of this site and the staff, especially.

 

Pehaps because I am new here or, maybe in reading threw some of the guidelines and news posts I missed the part about this being a Physical Science (i.e. as institutionalized education defines it) Forum. Which yes I believe is crap. The field of achaeology has advanced several fields of science, including medicine threw anylizing patturns of disease, geology threw digs, climate change threw movements of civilizations, advancement of society as a whole (pshycology of civilizations i.e. sociology,) supporting claims of prominent scientists from antiquity (History), discovering advancments in horiculture, the origins of domestication of animals (which no doubt Darwin used as a control to support his claims of natural selection), I could go on... All of which apparent "physical" sciences are more than happy to make use of in their own research and theories when its conveinent for them.

 

Let alone anthropology, and while it is not a Social Science, Paleontology is an extreamly useful science in understanding evolution and the geological, and biological timescale of the earth.

 

These are fields that not only have made huge advancments in history and science but also are massivly interested in scientific developments in all fields to futher improve their own research. Beyond even that the biggest blaring signal to me is that these fields are indeed science because they use the Scientific Method, or if not, something extreamly close!

 

What could be discussed on a forum like this that would be relevant to physical science? Heck there are probably thousands of topics I could list... Carbon dating, Ethics of Civilization, New chemestry to determine dates or construction, mathematics used by ancients, changes in dialect (language would fit in here too), Human evolution, Natural selection, Psycological patturns threw out history, anylizing past genius, etc etc.

 

The fact that you include religion and not these other social sciences is more of a slap in the face than not! You take the most fictional (though not unimportant) part of social science and include it on an apparently physical science forum. Its absolutly arse backwards in fact!

 

I'm not angry I am simply impressed at the sheer size of the blinders being worn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could be discussed on a forum like this that would be relevant to physical science? Heck there are probably thousands of topics I could list... Carbon dating, Ethics of Civilization, New chemestry to determine dates or construction, mathematics used by ancients, changes in dialect (language would fit in here too), Human evolution, Natural selection, Psycological patturns threw out history, anylizing past genius, etc etc.

Carbon dating is a matter of physics. Mathematics used by ancients, hmm, where could we discuss that? Maybe in mathematics? Evolution and natural selection... gosh, if only there was a subtopic of biology where we could discuss that. Oh wait, there is! Psychology — hey, there it is in the medical science forum! Ethics? We've got that, too. And you're also listing chemistry as something we don't have? Are you kidding?

 

So in your shopping list of complaints, you whiffed on eight of the nine items. Combined with this "slap in the face" comment below, it sounds an awful lot like this is just an example of being an outrage troll.

 

The fact that you include religion and not these other social sciences is more of a slap in the face than not! You take the most fictional (though not unimportant) part of social science and include it on an apparently physical science forum. Its absolutly arse backwards in fact!

 

Religion is included as a subset of philosophy, which has a connection with science.

 

I'm not angry I am simply impressed at the sheer size of the blinders being worn.

Given your success rate of complaint, I have to wonder how you can see blinders with the blast shield down.

 

 

P.S "threw" is the past tense of throw. One who "threw out history" tossed history into the trash. What you want to use is "through"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon dating is a matter of physics. Mathematics used by ancients, hmm, where could we discuss that? Maybe in mathematics? Evolution and natural selection... gosh, if only there was a subtopic of biology where we could discuss that. Oh wait, there is! Psychology — hey, there it is in the medical science forum! Ethics? We've got that, too. And you're also listing chemistry as something we don't have? Are you kidding?

 

So in your shopping list of complaints, you whiffed on eight of the nine items. Combined with this "slap in the face" comment below, it sounds an awful lot like this is just an example of being an outrage troll.

 

 

Religion is included as a subset of philosophy, which has a connection with science.

 

Given your success rate of complaint, I have to wonder how you can see blinders with the blast shield down.

 

 

P.S "threw" is the past tense of throw. One who "threw out history" tossed history into the trash. What you want to use is "through"

 

Heres the score: You asked me what do these social sciences tell you? I answered, which you then turned to fit your own needs.

 

Saying that since archaeology uses other sciences it does not deserve its own forum board is like saying Earth Sciences Should all be called Geology, or Physics should be confined to maths. No neither of those make sense, nether did what you said. Each of the subjects in red you spoke of could be discussed under the topic of archaeology for specifically achaeological reasons, and some simply do not have a place other than "other science" or your infamous "speculations" thread. You could just as easily have a discussion about realitivity in physics, maths, and philosophy under the named field for the named field. Social Sciences are the same way. Also determining the story of a 3000 year old campsite takes as much history and science as imagination(educated opinion), which is largely accepted in the achaeological community. This forum sees opinion and automatically goes full trash-can. So without its own thread such speculations would be filed with every other creationalist/unsupported crazy.

 

Religion is an important part of Social Science. IT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE. Though it is the least scientific of the bunch. Which is just ironic to me that it is here. You can call it phylosophy all you want its still a social science. I'll use your old institution defenition of what is and is not a physical science on that one.

 

I will refrain from giving a come-back to the later comments, I am not a troll, I am however interested in discussing this. I can be civil if I try...even if Im screaming inside. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres the score: You asked me what do these social sciences tell you? I answered, which you then turned to fit your own needs.

Your answer addressed nothing about what I asked, which was about the best way to go about effecting change.

 

Saying that since archaeology uses other sciences it does not deserve its own forum board is like saying Earth Sciences Should all be called Geology, or Physics should be confined to maths.

You will be relieved to know that I said nothing of the sort. Go ahead and reread it. I mentioned archaeology once, and it's difficult for me to see how you misconstrue what I actually said to mean that it doesn't deserve its own section.

 

No neither of those make sense, nether did what you said. Each of the subjects in red you spoke of could be discussed under the topic of archaeology for specifically achaeological reasons, and some simply do not have a place other than "other science" or your infamous "speculations" thread.

Could be discussed is not the same as must be discussed.

 

You could just as easily have a discussion about realitivity in physics, maths, and philosophy under the named field for the named field. Social Sciences are the same way. Also determining the story of a 3000 year old campsite takes as much history and science as imagination(educated opinion), which is largely accepted in the achaeological community. This forum sees opinion and automatically goes full trash-can. So without its own thread such speculations would be filed with every other creationalist/unsupported crazy.

No, not really. If you bring up an aspect of e.g. relativity that's philosophy, then you discuss it there. But if it's not, then it's not appropriate to discuss it there. It's not like these are interchangeable.

 

Religion is an important part of Social Science. IT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE. Though it is the least scientific of the bunch. Which is just ironic to me that it is here. You can call it phylosophy all you want its still a social science. I'll use your old institution defenition of what is and is not a physical science on that one.

 

I will refrain from giving a come-back to the later comments, I am not a troll, I am however interested in discussing this. I can be civil if I try...even if Im screaming inside. :D

Religion and philosophy are considered to be part of the humanities.

 

The bottom line is that anyone who runs an internet discussion board can decide what gets discussed there. Do you get that? You have zero actual leverage in this. You have persuasion, and (getting back to what I asked earlier) you might consider what happens depending on how you present your position. You come in with swagger and bluster with the appearance of attempting to intimidate, and no attempt at presenting a case, then I'm not inclined to acquiesce to your request. All you do is make it easy to tune you out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was initially baffeled as to why such a forum would not exist here, I am also familiar with how physical scientists have treated social sciences with disdain in the past (personal experience from past arguments and lectures,) So I will freely admit that I am a touch defensive about it (even though my studies are vastly in the field of ethics.) Saying that I did not present a case however seems to be a bit much, thats pretty much all I have been doing for the last three posts. I gave reasons why a board for archaeology would be viable, I explained some of the impact social sciences can have and have had with physical sciences and how they interact. You want me to make a case for change, yet I made it rather clear in my first post that I think there should be a Social Science Board, subsequent posts explains why I think that. If that is not making a case then I'm not really sure what you are after.

 

If I thought I had leverage I would simply demand that there be a board, I have made no such demand. I have displayed my dismay at the lack of apparent intrest in what I find to be an interesting and easy to discuss brance of study. I would never try an intimidate a moderator, that is just stupid. Unless you consider defending my point of view as intimidation. Your forum rules specifically mention to not take it personally when critisism is given. I am not attacking you personally, I however am a critic of the fact that there is no social science board.

 

Saying that "something could be discussed is not the same as should be" could be said about anything depending on your perspective field of study and intrest in the topic at hand.

 

Edit: Swansont: I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to read and reply. Nothing argued, nothing gained. I am learning and I appreaciate your input. I have seen several excellent posts made by you and I do respect your knowledge. Not trying to brown nose, just making it clear that despite one argument I'm not trying to disrespect anyone.

Edited by Cuba
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the traditional reasons for not having a forum on a given topic, say palaeontology, is that in the related areas where people might post topics (say other or biology) there are not many topics on the subject. So to keep the number of fora to a manageable level they are not included.

 

If there was a sudden upspike in threads I think it would be reviewed. Similarly in the past some fora have been merged due to very few threads.

 

Of course there is also the argument that having a specific forum will encourage more threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the traditional reasons for not having a forum on a given topic, say palaeontology, is that in the related areas where people might post topics (say other or biology) there are not many topics on the subject. So to keep the number of fora to a manageable level they are not included.

 

If there was a sudden upspike in threads I think it would be reviewed. Similarly in the past some fora have been merged due to very few threads.

 

Of course there is also the argument that having a specific forum will encourage more threads.

 

I understand that reasoning. Thank you for providing it. I do agree with your last statement, but I will try and make a few posts about the field of achaeology in respective boards to try and garner more intrest on this forum. Maybe if I can get enough I will bring this up again with a bit more local evidence to back my request up.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Why does SFN not have forums for economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or other social sciences?

 

 

We get about 1 inquiry a year about why e.g. there is no economics forum. So it's a question of supply and demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

What do you think about more social science forums? I mean there loads of big fields and areas of sciences and studies like political science, anthropology, economics, philology, (I could go on for hours ;)) ..., that would deserve own forums than just small threads. Is there are reason everything is focused on natural sciences? I would appreciate it if you would open it up for more different fields - I guess it would attract even more people :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.