What happened to the Philosophy of Science forum?

Reply to SophistiCat

If you read the discussion just before yours, you'll see we've also been accused of being too strict in our standards for the science category and therefore suppressing free debate on scientific topics. As well as that, the mod team are largely the same as the previous forum and the moderation standards for science haven't been changed in any explicit way. So, nothing happened except we maybe need to keep a closer eye on things there, so fair criticism, but maybe @Hachem and others would like to defend themselves against the charge of idiocy/crackpottery.

It may just mean that this forum, and web forums like this, are dying. Perhaps they really are past due, like the BBS or Usenet of old (anyone still remember those?)

Reply to SophistiCat

We're growing not dying and have been doing a good job of that since the start. In any case, this is largely irrelevant to your complaint. And as I said in another discussion, our job is not to please any one individual but the community as a whole. There will always be complaints. We take them on board in the larger context.

Reply to SophistiCat Nobody forces you to participate in what you take to be idiocy. Leave the idiots alone, and they will leave you alone too. There's many people on these forums that have been here for a long time and I almost never interacted with, simply because we don't have the same interests. Not saying that these people are therefore idiots.

Quoting Baden

but maybe Hachem and others would like to defend themselves against the charge of idiocy/crackpottery.

Science thrives through criticism and heretics. Giordano Bruno was burned alive, Galileo had to recant. Einstein doubted the Newtonian time and space, etc.

I will certainly not claim to belong in this illustrious company, but I think that the way many people look at science is indeed religious (pace Vagabondspecter).

What is now considered as truth can become obsolete tomorrow. And that is only possible through discussion and criticism.

It is good to defend extant theories. The burden of proof should always lie by the challengers or contenders. But ridiculing people because their views do not stroke with what science now says is true is unworthy of a scientific mind.

I do not claim that I am in possession of the truth either. But I do have doubts and questions. That is what I attempt to argue in my threads.

Referring to the scientific status quo is in itself not enough. It that were the case, there would never be any progress or so-called scientific revolutions.

It is very possible, maybe even probable, that my views and analyses will simply be discarded in time and proven utterly wrong. In the process, something might be learned, at least by me and other lost readers, and there might be even positive consequences because even wrong critique can lead to rightful questions.

If we knew how the future of science looked like, we wouldn't need science anymore.

Reply to Baden By "dying" I mostly mean degrading. There is a large and thriving community in Youtube comments, for what that is worth. Yes, messages are still being posted, but the intellectual life seems to be seeping out little by little.

Reply to SophistiCat

An odd comment. This is the most strictly moderated popular philosophy forum out there. Anyway, I've started a discussion on general moderation standards. Feel free to make your case.

Reply to SophistiCat So then interact with only the "intelligent" members whoever you deem that to be. There are groups and cliques anyway. I find myself always conversing with the same few people...

Reply to SophistiCat You single out one member, Hachem, and try to embarrass him? Who the hell died and made you emperor, mate? One year member, non-subscribed, 227 comments, two Discussions including this one. The other discussion entitled:

PopSci: The secret of how life on Earth began

Wherein all you write in its entirely is:

A large and comprehensive popular-level article on BBC, outlining the history and the state of the art of origin of life research (OOL, abiogenesis):

And then link it to:
The secret of how life on Earth began

Yeah, that's real high standards there. Go blog on YouTube.

I agree with you @SophistiCat, but I'm not sure if you do. ;)

Reply to Hachem You don't have to defend yourself Hachem. The censors thought your OPs were OK. Tell anyone else to bugger off.

Reply to MikeL
Thank you for your support, I really appreciate it.

I was in fact defending science against bigotry.

Reply to Hachem Good on you. You've got a few of them right here.

Reply to Michael I agree with myself :) What made you think I wouldn't? I still think that one or two subforums where "non-standard" posts could be moved would be preferable to deletion. I dislike heavy-handed moderation, but I have come to believe that some kind of curation is necessary for a forum like this.

Reply to SophistiCat The problem with that is that all discussions appear on the main page, irrespective of category (unless you manually turn them off here). So moving bad discussions into a "Rubbish" category wouldn't really make much difference for most people.

Quoting SophistiCat

I still think that one or two subforums where "non-standard" posts could be moved would be preferable to deletion.

You are advocating a Kiss of Death policy.

All ideas are equal, but some ideas are better than others.

edit: All ideas are equal, but some ideas are more equal than others.

My problem with a number of posts around here is that they're not philosophy of science at all; they're science. Philosophy of science deals with the nature of theory, of evidence, of confirmation, the nature of induction, of confidence and certainty. It is a branch of the theory of knowledge. Making sense of what scientists say or presenting alternative interpretations of their data should be done elsewhere on the interwebs, especially as you are more likely to find a higher level of expertise than you can assume here. If you don't understand something, go to StackExchange or Quora or Google it.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner
With all due respect, your view shows a very narrow interpretation of philosophy of science. There is certainly a technical aspect to all the questions I pose, but they also concern the way science looks at the world, and what is considered as proof.

Interpreting my posts as technical questions which are in need of technical answers is ignoring the epistemological and even metaphysical underpinnings of many scientific issues.

Some people have taken offense at my view of Cosmology as "metaphysics for scientists", or "metaphysics with mathematical formulas", I suppose you would agree with them.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

My problem with a number of posts around here is that they're not philosophy of science at all; they're science.

Some of them aren't even science.

Quoting Michael

Some of them aren't even science.

I think philosophy has been helpful in sorting science from non-science, but that's mostly foundational work that's long since done. These days, I think scientists are the best judges of what is and isn't science, and that judgment like everything else they do, will be provisional. String theory looked like non-science to a lot of physicists and they said so. They can deal. They don't need us.

But there are questions about how they do what they do, why it works when it does and fails when it does, what the enterprise as a whole amounts to. That looks like philosophy to me.

The only certain result of whatever approach we take to this is that someone will hate it. We are listening though.

Yeah, I hear ya' @SophistiCat, though it's kind of a gray area.
There are definitely lots of psychoceramics out there, and some (are bound to) seep into here as well.
My first thought is to have a sub-forum where fringe, questionable posts and such could go.
But of course moderators are humans too; having experts in every area around isn't feasible.

Quoting Michael

Some of them aren't even science

@VagabondSpectre criticized amply and thoroughly my approach. One of his main arguments concerns the photons that are radiated sideways through a (collimated) beam. I must admit that I am curious about where he gets his conviction from.

What I know of light going in one direction, is that electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to this direction, in which the photons are propagated.

These side waves, or fields, are usually depicted the way a water wave is: particles going up and down a very limited distance, and a disturbance moving along the axis of direction.

I would be very much obliged if somebody gave me some links or references for VagabondSpectre's interpretation.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

Philosophy of science deals with the nature of theory, of evidence, of confirmation, the nature of induction, of confidence and certainty. It is a branch of the theory of knowledge.

I understand that that's where your interests lie, but I wouldn't be so restrictive. Science informs metaphysics, and conversely, metaphysical underpinnings can be seen in scientific theories and scientific debates. There are also what may be seen as strictly scientific issues that nonetheless can benefit from the attention of philosophers, simply because philosophers have dealt with such issues before (e.g. observer selection issues in cosmology).

Reply to SophistiCat
Where is the guy that wanted my head and what did you do to him?

Quoting Michael

The problem with that is that all discussions appear on the main page, irrespective of category (unless you manually turn them off here). So moving bad discussions into a "Rubbish" category wouldn't really make much difference for most people.

That can be seen as giving more options to people. Those who prefer a more curated experience could either browse specific subforums or filter out what they don't want to see on the front page. On the other hand, casual visitors may be turned off by what they see.

Reply to Hachem It was not my intention to debate crackpots. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Reply to SophistiCat
You are demeaning yourself. That will make it that much easier for me to ignore you completely.

Quoting Hachem

I would be very much obliged if somebody gave me some links or references for VagabondSpectre's interpretation.

Here is the captain speaking. To all Friends of Make Science Great Again! Do not! I repeat, Do Not engage the enemy! Evasive maneuver Alpha

Reply to SophistiCat
Fair enough.

I'm just tired of threads where people say that television, as it has been explained to us by the Establishment, is actually impossible.

Quoting SophistiCat

visitors may be turned off by what they see

This is a universal problem for zoos, national parks, books, web sites, grocery stores, schools, recycling bins, used furniture stores, museums, boutiques, war zones, nature-at-large, hog barns, churches, etc.

Quoting Baden

An odd comment. This is the most strictly moderated popular philosophy forum out there. Anyway, I've started a discussion on general moderation standards. Feel free to make your case.

As we've discussed, and as I voted in your poll, I generally approve of the level of moderation on this forum. I do think that the philosophy of science forum contains a lot of stuff that wildly disagrees with established, thoroughly tested science. It meets standards as pseudo-science and undermines the credibility of the forum.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

My problem with a number of posts around here is that they're not philosophy of science at all; they're science. Philosophy of science deals with the nature of theory, of evidence, of confirmation, the nature of induction, of confidence and certainty. It is a branch of the theory of knowledge. Making sense of what scientists say or presenting alternative interpretations of their data should be done elsewhere on the interwebs, especially as you are more likely to find a higher level of expertise than you can assume here. If you don't understand something, go to StackExchange or Quora or Google it.

I've thought a lot about that point. I'm not sure where I come down. One of the things that bothers me is people mixing up physics and metaphysics, not recognizing that they are different. On the other hand, that's probably a legitimate philosophical subject. I don't know if I could decide where to make a split.

It is clear to me that, if there is going to be science here, it should be real science.

Quoting T Clark

It is clear to me that, if there is going to be science here, it should be real science.

You are just like @SophistiCat, @Srap Tasmaner and @VagabondSpectre. When you speak of true science you are all talks and zeal, and you wouldn't know true science if it bit you in the ass.

This is VagabondSpecter's answer when I challenged him to answer to my empirical objections:
"Nobody is going to try and debug your poorly executed experiments."

And I am still waiting for anybody of the Friends of Make Science Great Again to show me what they are capable of. Whether they can do more than organize lynch parties and book burnings.

I am tired of being courteous to you while you keep insulting me without even the decency to look at the issues instead of reciting what you have learned by heart.

As far as I am concerned, it is you who do not belong in a philosophical forum.

You are just a bunch of pathetic cowardly bullies.

Reply to SophistiCat Your ideal solution is not going to happen, and, lacking that, your method would lead to more of the kind of thing that you're complaining about. We need to be pragmatic about this.

Reply to Sapientia
I was hoping that someone else would protest against this, but apparently it is not such a great issue, or nobody understands it the way I do.
Anyway.
You position is a shame to your function as a moderator, Sapientia. Doesn't your name hint at sapiens, at the thinking Man?

Sophisticat's solution is not not-practical. It is ethically wrong. What you are in fact saying is that if it were practical you would put all posts that you deem not worthy of being published in this forum, in a kind of dustbin or waste container. Just to show that you respect the letter of the freedom of speech.

But at the same time you would be giving in to an idiotic, fanatic, uncritical attitude towards science, that in fact opposes in every way the spirit of science or free thought.

Quoting Hachem

You are just a bunch of pathetic cowardly bullies.

I expressed it as a general principle - if there is going to be science on the forum, it should be legitimate science. I didn't want to make it personal. I almost didn't participate because I like you and respect you. At the same time, you and I have discussed my opinions before, so you shouldn't be surprised what my thoughts are.

Quoting Hachem

What you are in fact saying is that if it were practical you would put all posts that you deem not worthy of being published in this forum, in a kind of dustbin or waste container.

Yes.

If you're after unconditional freedom of speech, then you've come to the wrong place. The site guidelines make that clear.

For the record, I have not made any assessment or judgement about the quality or suitability of your discussions. As I told you before, I haven't read most of your discussions, since I don't find them very appealing. Until I look further into it, I will certainly neither be protesting against this complaint nor offering the complainant my support.

But thank you for insulting and prejudging me.

Reply to T Clark
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or defending science as it is now. I resent being insulted or belittled because the people who have been doing it did not earn the right to do it.
I stand by my words, but if you feel that they do not apply to you, then they do not.

You will understand that I do not agree with your point of view. What would be the use of a forum of Philosophy of Science if only "legitimate" science is allowed?

I would be the last to support all kinds of "unscientific" tendencies, but I would not know how to turn that into an acceptable rule.

In a philosophical forum only arguments should count... and patience. I have no illusion that I can make everybody change their mind, and I am fine with it. So maybe people have to realize that if they cannot convince me, that is because their arguments are bad, or I am just too stubborn. So what?

Reply to Sapientia
That is good enough for me, and I apologize for insulting you.

Quoting T Clark

I expressed it as a general principle - if there is going to be science on the forum, it should be legitimate science. I didn't want to make it personal.

My comment was meant in the same vein. It was a general comment about the kind of thing being complained about here, without commenting on this particular case.

Quoting Hachem

That is good enough for me, and I apologize for insulting you.

I accept your apology.

Quoting Sapientia

Your ideal solution is not going to happen, and, lacking that, your method would lead to more of the kind of thing that you're complaining about. We need to be pragmatic about this

I don't understand what you mean. What is my "ideal solution" and my "method," respectively (you imply that these are two distinct things)?

Quoting SophistiCat

I don't understand what you mean. What is my "ideal solution" and my "method," respectively (you imply that these are two distinct things)?

By "ideal solution", I was referring to your proposal of a "special not-quite-up-to-standards area", and by "method", I was referring to your statement that you "don't like the idea of deleting ("disappearing") posts" and that when "faced with the choice of deleting a shitty post and leaving it alone, a reasonable moderator will err on the side of leniency".

I would like to sum up the different empirical issues that I have tried to handle concerning light theory.
I have always found it regrettable that my critics concentrated on abstract theories and general principles instead of of looking at the empirical issues I presented.
I must of course start with @VagabondSpectre's judgment, and will end with a challenge of my own that is still unanswered.

Nobody is going to try and debug your poorly executed experiments...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114189

Where is Poisson when you need him?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/112967
Why isn't the center of every image or picture always as bright, whatever the aperture?

Vibrations and Visibility
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114796
Imagine bright rays shining vertically, and others shining horizontally, wouldn't you face the same bright rectangle in both cases?

Are Black and White Colors?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114530
But then, what would happen if you used a non-white screen?


Inside the Camera obscura (2)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114394
Light has to go through splits that are separated by opaque bands, We see bright and dark spots. Why should it surprise us?

The Double Slit Experiment
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2126/the-double-slit-experiment
Where interference patterns as well as so-called Newton rings appear in pictures of a simple laser beam, belieing the idea that they are special effects due to the wave nature oflight.

Femtography
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2132/femtography/p1
Too bad, because such an experiment would shut me up once and for all. That is, if we are unable to see the light beam growing towards us.

A challenge Still Unanswered:
I have noticed that the arguments used against me are, as far as I can see, incompatible with the theory of light that is supposed to prove me wrong. I asked for links and references that would justify such an interpretation, but nothing has reached me.

Reply to Sapientia That still doesn't make sense, but no matter. I see that people are largely satisfied with the forum as it is, and that shit-posting will continue unchecked.

Reply to SophistiCat
put your money where you mouth is, kiddo.

Quoting SophistiCat

That still doesn't make sense...

Does.