Both forums need an introduction

[Ninshub]

I still think this is primarily a discussion site, and it doesn't make much sense to have a statement on the main page setting out positions on the questions that people are going to discuss. It seems a bit too much like the judge opening a trial by saying whether he thinks the defendant is guilty.

I appreciate David's well-meaning efforts, but this well articulates my opinion as well.

Skeptiko is a podcast website, with an associated forum. This is purely a forum site. I can't think of other forums that "introduce"/explain/defend the topics. And then there's Max's very important points about traffic.

Trying to be constructive, I do think there would be room for a brief introductory statement on the main page - together the with links to the forum sections that are already there.

Something could be said about the approach of the site, which focuses on discussion of the evidence about psi phenomena. And the fact that discussion is welcome from all parts of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, provided people are willing to address the evidence rather than just insisting on their preconceived beliefs. 

Despite the name, in practice I doubt whether most of the discussion is about science in the narrow sense, and I think that's as it should be. I think it would be a mistake to discourage people from participating because they don't have a burning desire to argue about Bayesian versus frequentist statistics, or the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment. So maybe a note to that effect could be included.

Maybe it would be helpful to run through how the main categories of psi phenomena are defined, though there might be a danger of getting bogged down in too much detail.

And maybe it would be good to make the essential point about the experimental evidence - that experimental parapsychology has been going for nearly a century now, and has produced results which depend on statistical interpretation but which on the face of it are very strong and haven't been satisfactorily explained in conventional terms. But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

Trying to be constructive, I do think there would be room for a brief introductory statement on the main page - together the with links to the forum sections that are already there.

Something could be said about the approach of the site, which focuses on discussion of the evidence about psi phenomena. And the fact that discussion is welcome from all parts of the proponent/sceptic spectrum, provided people are willing to address the evidence rather than just insisting on their preconceived beliefs. 

Despite the name, in practice I doubt whether most of the discussion is about science in the narrow sense, and I think that's as it should be. I think it would be a mistake to discourage people from participating because they don't have a burning desire to argue about Bayesian versus frequentist statistics, or the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment. So maybe a note to that effect could be included.

Maybe it would be helpful to run through how the main categories of psi phenomena are defined, though there might be a danger of getting bogged down in too much detail.

And maybe it would be good to make the essential point about the experimental evidence - that experimental parapsychology has been going for nearly a century now, and has produced results which depend on statistical interpretation but which on the face of it are very strong and haven't been satisfactorily explained in conventional terms. But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

Well feel free to take my proposal and change it to what you like, or start from scratch. What I found as I wrote that page, is that it isn't easy/possible to write an introduction that takes no point of view at all. As I said, the most extreme materialistic viewpoint (which I don't think you take) sees these phenomena as a disjointed set of mistakes/illusions/statistical quirks - analogous to recording patters in tea leaves Even drawing the connections between the various phenomena (remember I hadn't finished) pushes the reader (and maybe the writer) beyond naive materialism.

David

A general wiki however, *does* makes sense to me, as all members can contribute, and if they disagree, they can put a sentence or two in which challenges a previous claim, or puts it in context. A wiki is the ideal tool for members to work cooperatively on a document. But I don’t think such a thing should be foisted onto the root landing page of this forum.

IMHO That would turn into a dog's dinner pretty fast!

The problem is, if you want to front page to be inviting, it absolutely has to say something reasonably clearly. It also has to deal with the connections - why is this a body of phenomena that should be examined as a whole?

I would guess that most of the members here are far less skeptical than you. If that is so, why not let them create a main front page that can contain a link to a minority report?

I mean, I'd like to see just what you and/or Chris would actually propose for a front page supply an alternative!

David

But that the existence of the phenomena is not accepted in the scientific world as a whole, and that those on the sceptical side insist that the experimental evidence can be explained by flaws in how the experiments have been carried out and how the results have been analysed, or by a tendency to report only successful studies.

If one were to take that line, it wouldn't be adequate to leave it at that. For example one might add that much of 'ordinary' science may be plagued by the same flaws, perhaps even more so. At any rate, there is a need to open the debate, rather than suggest that the matter is cut and dried.

I would guess that most of the members here are far less skeptical than you. If that is so, why not let them create a main front page that can contain a link to a minority report?

I mean, I'd like to see just what you and/or Chris would actually propose for a front page supply an alternative!

I've already outlined the kind of thing I would include in an introduction.

But I think the main question is whether the an introduction would adopt a neutral tone or a pro-psi tone. Contrary to what RationalWiki thinks, I've never felt that this site "promote[d] a belief in psi and the paranormal". I think it promotes discussion of those subjects. I think it would be a mistake to shift to promoting belief through a statement on the main page.

I also think it would be very bad to identify officially any group of participants as a minority, on the basis that they can't sign up to some catechism or other.

If one were to take that line, it wouldn't be adequate to leave it at that. For example one might add that much of 'ordinary' science may be plagued by the same flaws, perhaps even more so. At any rate, there is a need to open the debate, rather than suggest that the matter is cut and dried.

I think that illustrates why it's difficult even to try to summarise briefly two opposing viewpoints (and of course, presenting it in terms of only two viewpoints is also a gross oversimplification). It's in the nature of things that whatever's said about the views of one side, the other side will want to add a counter-argument. Which is why we have the discussion boards ...

I'd say the essential thing is to indicate that there is a range of different viewpoints, and that interpretations of the evidence differ.