ARQuint Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 6 hours ago, Jud said: Having spent several years hanging out at evolutionary biology and climate science blogs, there seem to me to be two types of people who derail discussions and cause problems in those forums: - Those who discount science entirely in favor of their own subjective “truth.” - Scientists and engineers from other disciplines who feel exposure to science or engineering of any type qualifies them to comment authoritatively on any other type. So yes, scientists and engineers are a great advantage for a forum - when they talk about what they know well. And of course when they exercise good forum citizenship. Getting back to the original post: Most of the proposals seem reasonable. I don’t agree with downvoting or other permutations of it, anonymous or otherwise, because it’s too easily abused to chase away anyone a group of people dislikes for any reason, justified or unjustified. Anything that leads to a ban ought to require going through you from the outset, @The Computer Audiophile - even though I know that’s a burden on you, unfortunately. Some of these proposals will tend to minimize some fruitful interchanges. Even so, I wonder if unfortunately they’ve become necessary. As usual, Jud's observations are cogent and measured. I would add that scientists and engineers within the same discipline can look at the same set of facts and come to completely different conclusions. This has, of course, been responsible for significant advances in many areas of human endeavor for hundreds, if not thousands, of years A lot has been written, contemptuously, about "appeal to authority" on several CA forums. Like expectation bias, it's a phenomenon that can undermine the logical rigor of a person's belief system. But there is such a thing as expertise, in both the objectivist and subjectivist camps, and it's worth hearing from people with experience on both sides of the aisle. If Chris's guidelines are observed, I think more writers and other industry people will return and potentially enrich the dialogue. sandyk 1 Link to comment
Popular Post ARQuint Posted December 18, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 18, 2019 43 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: I agree, with the caveat that "expertise" that comes from a manufacturer should be subject to a higher level of skepticism than a source with nothing to gain if the product succeeds or flourishes. The same goes for publications that simply parrot manufacturer's marketing claims as "expertise". Well, that certainly moved the dial, especially since crenca and mansr have rung in. Chris, I have no idea why you thought this was going to be difficult. Can we agree that skepticism should be expressed without the use of the terms "shill", "confidence man", "lie", and a couple/two three others to be determined by the International Commission? crenca, sandyk, ARQuint and 4 others 1 1 5 Link to comment
Recommended Posts