(2017-09-08, 01:27 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. I think another Skeptiko podcast guest who exemplifies good forum decorum is David Mathisen. (He writes those amazing seeming books on the stars that I wish I would read.) Always positive. Knowledgable. Unflappable.
Not sure of my point. I guess I am saying that we needn't fear pushing away knowledgable people who could be members here, albeit temporary ones, because of other members who may be harsher than average. (Obviously we already have accomplished members who have written books, etc.) Because people like DeGracia and Mathisen show that everyone is going to handle criticism in their own way. Some of them with a good deal of aplomb and grace.
Why take the risk alienating people for little gain though? We may risk not getting Radin to give us an interview just so Max can insinuate fraud without evidence!?!
While I don't think accusations of fraud move the conversation forward, they're a necessary and implicit part of these discussions, and I don't think they're worthy of being completely removed from the conversation. I think it's best to let other members judge and critique that stuff, and then move on.
Max refused to address Radin directly, which didn't make any sense, so that's one reason why he reasonably took heat in that thread. Evidence for fraud is also difficult to come by unless you're intimately involved or have somewhat privileged access to details surrounding research/experiments, so I'm not sure it's fair to say that they have to back up those statements or have the post removed, as long as they aren't repeatedly attacking someone's character or something like that. A note that fraud and the like ought to be considered is fair, and ought to be taken with a contextually appropriate grain of salt; I'm against removing such posts, though, as I said above, though maybe that's too broad.
At least, in this situation specifically, I thought Max was being himself - probably too stubborn, and again inexplicably unwilling to directly address the researchers - but, I didn't think that his posts warranted removal.
As to what some have said about preferential treatment for "proponent" scientists or experts who might come on the forum, vs. some skeptical expert or something, I don't think that applies to this case. Flowers put it well - if Radin or Guerrer had come in really pushing some point and pursued it, it's likely that they would've received more push back, and if they hadn't then maybe that critique would apply. However, they just came in and addressed a very specific question at hand, and haven't been back since. I think that's reasonable enough that it's not really accurate to suggest preferential treatment.
(2017-09-08, 02:22 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Why take the risk alienating people for little gain though? We may risk not getting Radin to give us an interview just so Max can insinuate fraud without evidence!?!
I'd rather have an intellectually honest, open forum where members can speak their minds and be themselves than to have one where certain "special" people get preferential treatment in the hopes that they may grace us with an interview.
Max_B is a member here and he expressed his opinion. It's an opinion. Like I said, I'm sure Radin gets much tougher treatment elsewhere on the internet.
Bottom line I think Radin wears big boy pants by now. You don't do what he does and not wear big boy pants. I doubt he trembles at the likes of Max_B.
(2017-09-08, 02:47 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather have an intellectually honest, open forum where members can speak their minds and be themselves than to have one where certain "special" people get preferential treatment in the hopes that they may grace us with an interview.
Max_B is a member here and he expressed his opinion. It's an opinion. Like I said, I'm sure Radin gets much tougher treatment elsewhere on the internet.
What's intellectually honest about insinuating fraud without evidence...? And there's nothing wrong with common courtesy either. Also just because Radin gets tougher treatment elsewhere doesn't mean we should do that kind of thing too.
(2017-09-08, 02:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I don't recall Radin addressing me. Perhaps he did? I don't recall. I was simply aware that his comments were a complete brush off and dismissal of the substance of my points. Apart from one scientist... every other scientist I've every approached with questions and criticism has been dismissive. Like anybody they protect their work even if it seems got problems... it's great if they can clear stuff up, but in my experience you get no where with them when challenging them. Even Smithy threatened me with legal action...
He responded to your points, why are you claiming he didn't answer them? Jesus Max this is so ridiculous hahaha.
(2017-09-08, 02:48 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line I think Radin wears big boy pants by now. You don't do what he does and not wear big boy pants. I doubt he trembles at the likes of Max_B.
I agree, still doesn't mean insinuations/accusations of fraud without evidence are a good thing that should be defended.
(2017-09-08, 03:17 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]What's intellectually honest about insinuating fraud without evidence...? And there's nothing wrong with common courtesy either. Also just because Radin gets tougher treatment elsewhere doesn't mean we should do that kind of thing too.
I think it is fair to question whether someone who does research under the auspices of a non-profit or for profit agency is possibly "p-hacking" as one user put it, in order to benefit that organization. I doubt many people would have a problem questioning whether a scientist who was being paid by a pharmaceutical company might be painting results favorably, even if very slightly or perhaps even just out of bias.
I think a lot of psi-related organizations, for instance a place like The Monroe Institute, have areas of their business that are really quite questionable. Non-profits often times are fairly profitable for those on the payroll of the non-profit.
I don't think it pays to have darlings when trying to gain a real understanding of the true nature of reality.
I don't think monitoring of manners has any place in any real place of honest discussion. This isn't a church group. Manners are desirable, and those who don't display them are bound to face the ire of many. But requiring manners is a slippery slope that ultimately silences more voices than profit by those manners. There are facilities on most forums to "ignore" specific users posts and if someone has poor manners, than those who object can place that user on "ignore."
(2017-09-08, 03:36 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is fair to question whether someone who does research under the auspices of a non-profit or for profit agency is possibly "p-hacking" as one user put it, in order to benefit that organization. I doubt many people would have a problem questioning whether a scientist who was being paid by a pharmaceutical company might be painting results favorably, even if very slightly or perhaps even just out of bias.
I think a lot of psi-related organizations, for instance a place like The Monroe Institute, have areas of their business that are really quite questionable. Non-profits often times are fairly profitable for those on the payroll of the non-profit.
I don't think it pays to have darlings when trying to gain a real understanding of the true nature of reality.
I don't think monitoring of manners has any place in any real place of honest discussion. This isn't a church group. Manners are desirable, and those who don't display them are bound to face the ire of many. But requiring manners is a slippery slope that ultimately silences more voices than profit by those manners. There are facilities on most forums to "ignore" specific users posts and if someone has poor manners, than those who object can place that user on "ignore."
I don't think ION's and a pharmaceutical company are remotely comparable to be honest, and P-hacking is different from outright fraud anyway, there's a different between accusing an experimenter of unconscious mistakes and setting up an experiment to gain a false positive, in order to generate revenue.
This isn't about having 'darlings' - just about not making accusations without substance or evidence to back them up.
You're sort of changing what I'm saying to make it sound more unreasonable - not accusing somebody of fraud doesn't make us a 'church group'. This is just basic levels of decorum - your slippery slope argument doesn't work for me I'm afraid. All I'm saying is don't accuse people of fraud without evidence - nothing scary or silencing about that, just a completely reasonable request.
(2017-09-08, 02:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I don't recall Radin addressing me. Perhaps he did? I don't recall. I was simply aware that his comments were a complete brush off and dismissal of the substance of my points. Apart from one scientist... every other scientist I've ever approached with questions and criticism has been dismissive. Like anybody they protect their work, even if it seems it's got problems... it's great if they can clear stuff up, but in my experience you get no where with them when challenging them. Even Smithy - sort of - threatened me with legal action...
Even considered it might be how you're challenging people and the type/nature of criticisms you're making? Or is everyone else the problem?