And it came to pass......

[median]

The decision is final and no further correspondence will be entered into.

And so it ends.

This is the closing statement which terminates my interesting journeys within a certain forum. Good manners prevents me from naming the forum in question. (I state that such a link will be futile anyhow given that the forum is now closed for public appraisal.)

However, since a right of reply has been denied I think a post mortem is called for.
In essence it gives an illustration of the difference between certain types of forum.
The reasons for exclusion, in this case, were accusations of trolling and the copying of certain information. This is incorrect. The fact that I use the same epithet on all sites has somehow been missed. It gives some consistency. Why hide a persona if it reflects what you truly think? Surely a troll would be more under-handed in it's method?

One of the most striking points of the said forum was a general ambivalence to science, which strikes me as a trifle paradoxical given their scientific pretensions. Certain themes reappeared such as how much science does not know and therefore how it is fallible. It seems that the investigation of certain subject phenomena preclude mundane answers and the scientific method somehow becomes deficient? Instead a pursuit of the fantastical is preferred.
Yes, it is healthy to speculate. Yes there is a lot that science does not know. That point was never denied.
True, scientific reform does occur and it is possible that with new techniques our understanding may shift over time. However, it won't come by evoking arcane or fanciful notions.


To be fair, the forum was not without merits. The regulation of forum conduct was not a laissez faire affair. Although, at times, it seemed one-sided; on most part personal insults were remonstrated.

I pointed out that the decision to make the forum 'secret' was folly. Lurkers were denied the opportunity to observe the running threads. If an organisation wishes to gain scientific credibility then part of this lies with presenting their arguments in the public arena.

I think possibly the most worrying aspect is that there is the possibility of post-entry tinkering. A closed forum could be subject to an Orwellian manipulation of text. Hence, in future, those that fill the 'entry requirements' could be presented with a different set of events designed to strengthen one position at the expense of another.

One can only hope that these issues will be addressed at some time in the future.

Regards

Median

[chillzero]

However, since a right of reply has been denied I think a post mortem is called for.

Who are you directing your post at? As a reader I am unable to partake in, or draw judgement on, any post mortem without vision of the 'body' in question.

[brianp]

Good manners prevents me from naming the forum in question. Here we go again with an utterly pointless thread.
Don't you think that good manners should also prevent you from starting a thread which none of us can join in?

[bindeweede]

Here we go again with an utterly pointless thread.
Don't you think that good manners should also prevent you from starting a thread which none of us can join in?

I must say, I don't like the "I'm in the know, but you can't be", type of post.

Why?

It's all a bit of an "in-crowd" thing, I am guessing.

[median]

chillzero wrote
Who are you directing your post at? As a reader I am unable to partake in, or draw judgement on, any post mortem without vision of the 'body' in question.


The OP is a general comment on the difference between skeptic and believer types of forum. Whilst it draws from recent personal experience the themes could be applicable to many sites.


brianp wrote
Here we go again with an utterly pointless thread.

Not really as it was stated in the OP; 'I state that such a link will be futile anyhow given that the forum is now closed for public appraisal'



Don't you think that good manners should also prevent you from starting a thread which none of us can join in?

What is there to prevent you from joining in? We are talking about general points after all (Scientific ambivalence, forum conduct, information secrecy)

bindeweede wrote
I must say, I don't like the "I'm in the know, but you can't be", type of post.

Why?

It's all a bit of an "in-crowd" thing, I am guessing.

If it sounds like an in-crowd thing then perhaps that is down to the content of my prose. To make it so was not intentional. O0

[chillzero]

chillzero wrote

The OP is a general comment on the difference between skeptic and believer types of forum. Whilst it draws from recent personal experience the themes could be applicable to many sites.




I disagree. I just re-read it and it still leaves nothing I can comment on.


And so it ends.

This is the closing statement which terminates my interesting journeys within a certain forum. Good manners prevents me from naming the forum in question. (I state that such a link will be futile anyhow given that the forum is now closed for public appraisal.)
Nothing to comment on here.


However, since a right of reply has been denied I think a post mortem is called for.
In essence it gives an illustration of the difference between certain types of forum.

Nothing to comment on without an example of the 'types' of forum you mean.


The reasons for exclusion, in this case, were accusations of trolling and the copying of certain information. This is incorrect. The fact that I use the same epithet on all sites has somehow been missed. It gives some consistency. Why hide a persona if it reflects what you truly think? Surely a troll would be more under-handed in it's method?

Nothing to comment on - we have to just take your word for this, and can neither confirm, deny, uphold or refute anything.


One of the most striking points of the said forum was a general ambivalence to science, which strikes me as a trifle paradoxical given their scientific pretensions. Certain themes reappeared such as how much science does not know and therefore how it is fallible. It seems that the investigation of certain subject phenomena preclude mundane answers and the scientific method somehow becomes deficient? Instead a pursuit of the fantastical is preferred.

Again, no one can comment on this without view of the forum in question.


Yes, it is healthy to speculate. Yes there is a lot that science does not know. That point was never denied.
True, scientific reform does occur and it is possible that with new techniques our understanding may shift over time. However, it won't come by evoking arcane or fanciful notions.

...arcane ro fanciful notions such as ... what? Seriously, what do you wish to discuss?


To be fair, the forum was not without merits. The regulation of forum conduct was not a laissez faire affair. Although, at times, it seemed one-sided; on most part personal insults were remonstrated.

cannot comment without knowledge of the forum


I pointed out that the decision to make the forum 'secret' was folly. Lurkers were denied the opportunity to observe the running threads. If an organisation wishes to gain scientific credibility then part of this lies with presenting their arguments in the public arena.

Cannot really comment on this without knowledge of the forum owner's reasons for locking it down. There might be scope for discussion here, but you did not make this clear.


I think possibly the most worrying aspect is that there is the possibility of post-entry tinkering. A closed forum could be subject to an Orwellian manipulation of text. Hence, in future, those that fill the 'entry requirements' could be presented with a different set of events designed to strengthen one position at the expense of another.

These comments are specific to your experience at a specific forum to which we are not privy, so cannot draw conclusions.


One can only hope that these issues will be addressed at some time in the future.

Regards

Median
This is more something for you to take up with the forum owner. I don't see the point in you raising it here.

[median]

Thanks for your responses chillzero. Although there seems to be an awful lot that you have not commented on.;D

I realise that I have taken a fairly specific event and with little success it seems have attempted to turn it into a general discussion dependent on others similar experiences. (i.e. as I stated skeptic vs. believer forums)

The initial point made was to start with a specific and move onto the general.O0

I understand that you may have not undergone this type of thing yourself and have little to comment on.

Regards

Median

[chillzero]

I was commenting on your defense of an OP that does not make it clear what you wish to discuss. No need for the sarcasm.

Try stating your objective without any reference to other sites and forums so we are all on a level playing field. I am not the only person who cannot define what you wish to discuss from your OP.

[median]

I was commenting on your defense of an OP that does not make it clear what you wish to discuss. No need for the sarcasm.



chillzero, if you read my subsequent comments I have tried to clarify certain points (although one acknowledges a difficulty in interchanges like these)
I am not trying to defend my OP but merely trying to add depth to what was originally stated. Sarcasm was not intended. :smiley:

To put it in simple terms

Many forums profess a scientific approach but in reality the stance seems anti-science. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Is secrecy the way to go. Should postings be closed to lurkers?


Regards

Median

[bindeweede]

chillzero, if you read my subsequent comments I have tried to clarify certain points (although one acknowledges a difficulty in interchanges like these)
I am not trying to defend my OP but merely trying to add depth to what was originally stated. Sarcasm was not intended. :smiley:

To put it in simple terms

Many forums profess a scientific approach but in reality the stance seems anti-science. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Is secrecy the way to go. Should postings be closed to lurkers?


Regards

Median

Ok, I am rather tired, but have you not been promoting secrecy? I don't think it is the way to go. If the forum is locked to outsiders, what's the problem with naming the forum?

I must be missing something - not uncommon.:-\

[median]

Ok, I am rather tired, but have you not been promoting secrecy? I don't think it is the way to go. If the forum is locked to outsiders, what's the problem with naming the forum?


No, I have not, intentionally, promoted secrecy.
Given that the forum is locked, then what is the point of such a revelation apart from curiosity ?

[Zaira]

median,

I'm not sure that this is any of my business but I would just like to make a comment to you and one in your defence.

My comment to you is this -

"To put it in simple terms

Many forums profess a scientific approach but in reality the stance seems anti-science. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Is secrecy the way to go. Should postings be closed to lurkers?

No, I have not, intentionally, promoted secrecy.
Given that the forum is locked, then what is the point of such a revelation apart from curiosity ?"


Perhaps this is all that was lacking in the first post - a few questions to get a discussion going.


And in your defence -

I'm asking a question of the board. Do you allow 'Rant Threads'? I've seen them on other boards where someone just wants to post, not expecting a reply, it helps them organise their thoughts and perhaps get rid of some frustration.

[Dr B]

I can comment...and will when I get some more time.

Indeed, I know someone who has been doing some research on the said behaviour of woo-type forums and the stiffling of freedom of speech if it goes against their world view. More on that later - great thread Median O0 I think you were the last of those that tried to make a difference, with all others being burned months / years ago for the ridiculous idea that science is the only way forward......;D;D;D

[ZERO]

I have seen the term "woo" several times on this forum. It is not a word I am familiar with. Wiki was no help.
Could someone tell me what it means please?

[Zaira]

I'll let someone else take this one. :cheesy:

[chillzero]

I have seen the term "woo" several times on this forum. It is not a word I am familiar with. Wiki was no help.
Could someone tell me what it means please?

I hate it, and tend to use 'believer' instead.
Sometimes it is written as woo-woo.

There are varying beliefs or origin - it is supposed by some to emulate the noise ghosts make, or by others the woo-woo sound of an ambulance coming to take them to the funny-farm. I have heard other descriptions of where it has come from.

Basically it is used to describe believers in various things like ghosts, psychics and the like - the opposite of skeptic, usually.

[MRT]

Median - may I refer you to http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1331 and just say, good luck with your thread, you're going to need it! :smiley:

PS: You say the group has scientific pretensions. Do they have 'scientific' in their title?

[Legaleagle]

I have had post deleted from several "believer" forums who didn't like what I had to say and I know others who have experienced the same thing. The irony is that on the first occasion I went onto such a forum in the first place to explore a topic upon which I had not yet formed a view and in the spirit of enquiry.

The deletion and banning of members whose comments I respected and enjoyed pushed me down the path of scepticism and eventually led me onto this forum. So maybe these Woo's do have a useful purpose (to some of us).^-^

I can see where Median is coming from in this thread.

[median]

MRT wrote
PS: You say the group has scientific pretensions. Do they have 'scientific' in their title?

Yes, they do.

Which is the nub of the matter. Any organisation promoting themselves up as scientific should surely follow scientific principles. ???

[Dr B]

That is the crux of the whole issue and shows clearly that they are delusional.....:cheesy:

[BillB]

Hi,

Why do people (who think they are in the know?) get the notion from a discussion forum that they are non-scientific? After all a discussion forum is open to all discussion topics pertaining in their case to the paranormal. The forum (not mentioned) was always meant to be a place for open discussion (so I’m told) and is separate from the actual serious science research.

The group conducts investigative longitudinal studies and various research projects all of which are grounded in science, not mysticism or fantastical thinking. They are entitled to use a naming policy that incorporates science, because they choose science to identify the rational amongst all the alleged paranormal stuff.

There are those that don’t like what they do and these are mainly the skeptic’s who no longer have an open (forum only) source to make their uncalled for, unsolicited and unprofessional cheap jibes.

Note: I am also told that when certain ongoing science research projects are completed that this research will be published. Therefore it will be open for scrutiny (at that time) allowing for replication possibilities, by any who choose to investigate further.

Well yet another breath wastes of a thread! Doesn’t anyone here at UKS have anything interesting to discuss instead of starting these petty pointless topic threads? I might also add that although a skeptic I find the reference to believer types as woo-woo etc by certain skeptic’s to purvey an unfounded elitism on their part above the others. I try to treat all people in all fairness, but only when fairness is returned respectfully.

BillB O0

[BillB]

Dr B

That is the crux of the whole issue and shows clearly that they are delusional..... :cheesy:

On the contrary perhaps you are the delusional one!! :cheesy:

[Dr B]

I can demonstrate I'm not - and can clearly demonstrate they are delusional.....you see that's the thing that scuppers you - evidence!

[BillB]

Dr B
I can demonstrate I'm not - and can clearly demonstrate they are delusional.....you see that's the thing that scuppers you - evidence!

Now you’ve got me really intrigued because you are one and they are many and you don’t really know any of them. Perhaps you need to see a medical practitioner to checkout your mental status before making yourself look even more stupid than you already appear to be?

Oh please demonstrate as much as you like and perhaps those nice men in overcoats with the handy straight jackets might take you away.

Just think of it as a holiday and you might actually enjoy it!! :cheesy: O0

[Dr B]

Dr B

Now you’ve got me really intrigued because you are one and they are many and you don’t really know any of them.

No - not true. Another error or maybe even a direct lie? Either way - you are derailing another thread.



Perhaps you need to see a medical practitioner to checkout your mental status before making yourself look even more stupid than you already appear to be?

Keep it up - it makes you look really intelligent.....opps sorry I used a long word...it makes you look clever.....

[bruno.j]

dr.B ( just when you thought i had gone away ) ;D i refer you to my earlier question in another thread - you infer that it is not true that you don't "know" these people - again i ask you the straight question :

do you know the individuals concerned on a personal level ??- have you met all of them ?? - and if not how can you make assertions about them by reading their posts on a forum and expoliating that they are all "delusional " ( seems to be a favorite word of yours that )

you have asked me in a post if i am delusional ?? - which i find offencive - i have not at any time insulted you during my postings - so why do you feel the need to insult others ?? - you do not know me - any more than i know you on a personal level - and i could judge you as "ignorant" based on my reading of your posts

please feel free to accuse me of derailing the topic ( water of a ducks back to me ) - but please if you are going to generalise about people - don't claim to "know them " when it is evident that in reality you don't .

regards as always

bruno.j

[Dr B]

You said you were going away, so I will hold you to your word. O0

I am sure you would not want to be seen as someone who misleads people and distorts the truth. 8)

[bruno.j]

just answer the question truthfully and i will leave you in peace O0

as to misleading people and distorting the truth ?? ( cheap shot ) - are you not guilty of that by saying that you "know " these people when in fact you have little knowledge of them other than your own opinions formed fallaciously by reading posts on a forum which you got banned from ??- and here in lies there problem methinks - you don't like being banned from forums - so now you are indulging in character assassination of the members of said forum to get you own back

there are other former members of the forum on UKS - lets take median for instance ( sorry to drag you in to this median ) - his posting privileges have been revoked - how ever he still acts as a gentleman - and whilst his beliefs differ considerably from the members of that forum he has not needed to lower himself to petty name calling - and for that he has my respect O0O0 -

(and in fact is generous in some aspects of his overall appraisal of of the conduct of the site despite having been removed )

so dr.B . you have a choice - either answer the question posed or fob me off with more vitriol -( don't forget others are probably reading this who are neither sceptic or believer and forming opinions of your character by your answer - do you wish to be though of as someone who wont answer a straight question ?? )

i don't judge you - but others may well do so

i WILL go away - when i am ready - as i said i would -( unless of course i was to get banned for pressing a question ) but i would like to clear this point up first - i don't like loose ends :ponder:

regards as always

bruno.j

[ZERO]

I hate it, and tend to use 'believer' instead.
Sometimes it is written as woo-woo.

There are varying beliefs or origin - it is supposed by some to emulate the noise ghosts make, or by others the woo-woo sound of an ambulance coming to take them to the funny-farm. I have heard other descriptions of where it has come from.

Basically it is used to describe believers in various things like ghosts, psychics and the like - the opposite of skeptic, usually.

Thank you.
I suspected as much, but was not sure.