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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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......

[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.