Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello Folks!


I'm newly back and want to say hello and that I sure missed some of you. I miss some lively and challanging threads with some people I have a lot of respect for. Thanks for being here folks! :)


Now that I'm back I want to fresh and not make any mistakes and get a better understanding of the rules. I seemed to have posted things that I wasn't in the wave-particle duality thread. So I want to learn what to do in certain instances. Not only from moderators but mainly from other members who've run into similar situations and was able to resolve it to their satisfaction without getting a red moderator tip directed at them (I hate it when that happens). So I decided to start a thead about what kinds of things we can do when we encounter irritating circumstances.


Let me give an example: I a thread in this forum someone posted an assertion that I said something in a thread that I never said at all. In fact my entire contribution to that thread was the opposite of what was asserted. When I asked that person not to put words into my mouth. Not only was I ignored but when I asked them to provide proof the asertation repeated and no proof provided. That's pretty irritating. If I express my irritation will I get into trouble? Do we have the right to express emotion here?


I was going to ignore the whole thing it since I didn't see that I had any recourse. I tried the report system but saw no action taken. However I just saw Phi fo All post the following comment when stating the reason for suspending a member. See -- http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page__view__findpost__p__691185

...for failure to provide evidence for his assertions....

That seems to have been when the straw that broke the camels back. Can't there be a rule whereby when some accuses a member of saying something that the person who makes the claim must prove their claim when requested? Otherwise people can otherwise get away with lying.


Then there are other examples where evidence is desired for questionable assertions? For example, if someone says that's not correct in mainstream physics then there should be a criteria for proof. E.g. quoting an undergraduate or graduate level text on the subject.


After all the rules say, i.e. from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

Give Sources

If you are asking a question or making a point, give references and links so users can see what you are talking about. If they have context, they can better understand you.

I always back up what I say with textbook references. I see that's a rare thing here though.


Then there is the overuse of strawman arguments here. They are banned by the rules but it never seems to be enforced, i.e.


Don't Strawman

Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

The link to Strawman reads - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

This is what happened when I was misquoted. We already lost one member because of irritating things like this. Can't we call them out in a way that is acceptable to the powers that be? I mean I don't want any more complaints about me so I'm trying to figure out what to do about things like this. I posted this in a public thread because I wanted to see if I was the only one having this problem.


I thought I'd include the definition and trademarks of pseudoscience as defined in my logic text Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking by Soccio and Barry. This way we might more readily recognize it when we see it. At least some of its trademarks. From page 384-385

Pseudoscience, a term coined by MArtin Gardner, refers to a certain category of theories, systems and explanations, which though claiming to be "scientific," in fact use only the trappings of genuine science and avoid the rigors of checks and balances of the scientific method or the scrutiny of disinterested experts.

...What, then, are the basic characteristics of the pseudoscientists?


1. "First and foremost of these traits is that [they] work in almost total isolation from their collages ... isolation in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.


2. The pseudoscientist submits his or her work not to bona fide experts in the field but to the general public, though the publich is not qualified to evaluate it.


3. The pseudoscientist speaks through organizations he or she has founded, thus avoiding genuine peer review and conveying an aura of professional expertise.


4. The pseudoscientist considers himself or herself to be a genius (most likely misunderstood and persecuted).


5. The pseudoscientist regards colleagues to be, almost without exception, "blockheads" (Gardner's term)


6. The pseudoscientist compares himself or herself to Galileo, Bruno, Pasteur, or other well-known, well-respected scientists whose work met initial hostility and resistance. The pseudoscientist repeatedly cites comparisons between his or her own case and historical ases of persecution of true scientific genius, which was initially misunderstood. (This functions as a form of the fallacy of positioning).


7. The pseudoscientist exibits strong compulsion to focus criticism on the greatest scientists and/or best-established theories of the day.


8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined. This rhetoric can be quite persuasive, creating a beautifully crafted jigsaw puzzle of assertions. Clever use of circular reasoning, equivocations, and other persuasive tricks makes it difficut to refute pseudoscience by logic and authentic scientific evidence.



Edited by pmb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator Note


Please stop writing about all the conflicts you've had in the past.

If you want to make a fresh start, write something scientific. This is a scienceforum. Thanks.

Thread closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.