Extra Subforums Suggestions

 The site rules essentially say that sceptics can participate everywhere provided they're not just blindly coming out with blanket denials.

Yet it seems to be acceptable to just throw in wild claims unsupported by evidence if you are a proponent.  I would like to see Psiencequest become what the name suggests instead of an anything goes platform for everybody's fancies.

Yet it seems to be acceptable to just throw in wild claims unsupported by evidence if you are a proponent.  I would like to see Psiencequest become what the name suggests instead of an anything goes platform for everybody's fancies.

But that's part of the point of some of the subforums - while many don't really take part in some of those subforums, I think the idea behind them was that their purpose would be to allow people to discuss or speculate different ideas regarding reality without having others come in to bring the hammer down and dominate those attempted conversations with criticism. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with having subforums like that. Obviously there is diversity here in terms of where people are at and what they like to post about. Some prefer to take part in the debate between skeptics and proponents, some feel that that isn't worthwhile and that they're past those sort of arguments just based on their beliefs and approach, etc. Of course there can be overlap between those groups. 

I just think that having subforums mostly meant for discussions of what reality might be like, under the primary assumption that psi or some of the phenomena discussed are actually true (as opposed to debating whether that actually is the case or not), is fair. That's why some members are here, just like there are members who prefer the more hot button discussions between proponents and skeptics, and others who like focusing on research papers, studies, articles, etc. I think the variety is nice. It's inevitable that discussions between subforums might bleed into one another sometimes, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate one region of the forum altogether.

But that's part of the point of some of the subforums - while many don't really take part in some of those subforums, I think the idea behind them was that their purpose would be to allow people to discuss or speculate different ideas regarding reality without having others come in to bring the hammer down and dominate those attempted conversations with criticism. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with having subforums like that. Obviously there is diversity here in terms of where people are at and what they like to post about. Some prefer to take part in the debate between skeptics and proponents, some feel that that isn't worthwhile and that they're past those sort of arguments just based on their beliefs and approach, etc. Of course there can be overlap between those groups. 

I just think that having subforums mostly meant for discussions of what reality might be like, under the primary assumption that psi or some of the phenomena discussed are actually true (as opposed to debating whether that actually is the case or not), is fair. That's why some members are here, just like there are members who prefer the more hot button discussions between proponents and skeptics, and others who like focusing on research papers, studies, articles, etc. I think the variety is nice. It's inevitable that discussions between subforums might bleed into one another sometimes, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate one region of the forum altogether.

Good point.  How about a subforum where only skeptics discuss seemingly anomalous events.  I for one would like to look at evidence counter to my own belief tendencies discussed without a dozen proponents at once jumping on it.

Good point.  How about a subforum where only skeptics discuss seemingly anomalous events.  I for one would like to look at evidence counter to my own belief tendencies discussed without a dozen proponents at once jumping on it.

I'm not sure how much content that forum generate

I'm afraid the more time goes on, the more I feel that the sceptic vs proponent section isn't the appropriate place for hard science to be discussed. The site rules essentially say that sceptics can participate everywhere provided they're not just blindly coming out with blanket denials. I don't see any reason why discussions of the science should be characterised as "sceptic vs proponent", and what that means in practice - at least on this site at this time - seems to be just pointless ping pong matches and point scoring.

As long as you have fls posting you will have pointless ping pong: that's her game. The way to avoid it is to refuse to play. To ignore.

As long as you have fls posting you will have pointless ping pong: that's her game. The way to avoid it is to refuse to play. To ignore.

It seems to be many people's game here on both sides.

As long as you have fls posting you will have pointless ping pong: that's her game. The way to avoid it is to refuse to play. To ignore.

It seems to be many people's game here on both sides.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brai...-hypocrisy

Good point.  How about a subforum where only skeptics discuss seemingly anomalous events.  I for one would like to look at evidence counter to my own belief tendencies discussed without a dozen proponents at once jumping on it.

As I see it, the pros and cons of evidence can be argued by anyone who's interested in doing so, in any part of the site.* I think that's as it should be.

If I understand correctly, what's prohibited in the main part of the site is sheer denial by people who aren't prepared to discuss the evidence, but who assert that all psi phenomena are a priori impossible.

Probably an argument could be made that people who make positive assertions about psi, without being prepared to discuss the evidence, should also be barred from doing so in the main part of the site. If there were a lot of people posting a lot of assertions like that, then it could be quite disruptive, and some restriction might be necessary. But personally, I don't think that's a big problem at the moment, because it's mainly a question of one person posting sporadically.

(* Except where different arrangements have been made in particular cases.)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brai...-hypocrisy

Sorry for the diversion, but...

Interesting article. I hadn't heard of the Imposter Syndrome before.

[Laird]

May I suggest including a "Solutions" subforum to the super secret conspiracy theory/political usergroup forums?

[...]

Also maybe another forum thing in extended consciusnes focused entirely on dreams.

[...]

Also, either in extended consciousness or related topics, or even it's own entire category, a section for forum and user run experiments.

Your suggested forums have been created, Mediochre - see Ian's post New child forums.