Psience Quest

I agree with MaxB that on its face, Henry Bauer's criticism of science seems a good fit for this forum if, as Vortex claims, it's one of the most developed and well-informed in the field. But how good can it be when he is so deeply off the rails with respect to HIV/AIDS? Do we really want Psiencequest to give the impression that someone merely needs to be anti-science and have held some sort of academic position to be regarded as credible, when it will be obvious to most anybody else who looks at this forum that he is not? 

I take back what I said about wanting to see him interviewed - I was thinking about my own selfish desires rather than about the forum.

I think someone should be able to bring up his views on other parts of the forum, though. I just think the choice of interview subject reflects more directly on Psiencequest than the rest of the forum (where the opinions are obviously those of the posters).

Linda

(2017-09-28, 08:47 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that people are going to post HIV/AIDS denialist propaganda here anyway, whether or not Henry Bauer is interviewed about it.

For the reasons I've already explained, I'm going to withdraw now.

Chris, please, please wait until this discussion concludes before making that decision. You are the poster I value most on this forum when it comes to our core subject matter, because you are both open-minded and skeptical, and you have the mathematical/statistical knowledge to dig in and really analyse papers carefully - which you do! Your leaving would be a massive loss to this forum.

A consensus seems to have formed that interviewing Henry Bauer on HIV/AIDS would be inappropriate for Psience Quest. The only question remaining is whether he might be interviewed on other topics.

David, I'd ask that you think carefully before posting further in support of Bauer's views. The reason I ask is that it is obviously offending at least one other poster, and that it is in any case pointless given that the consensus that these views are inappropriate for a Psience Quest interview has already formed, so continuing to try to justify them serves no purpose (it will not change the consensus). Perhaps, if you want to discuss this topic, you could invite folks over to Skeptiko to discuss it, as it seems a better fit there. This isn't a moderation directive, just a polite request from a fellow poster.

(2017-09-28, 11:26 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]And I would ask that this thread get some attention to see if moderation is in order, because I am offended by Max's implication that we, as a group, are making some sort of statement against his personal choices.

I think consensus is that moderators not step in in cases like this (see the thread in this subforum on whether defamatory remarks should be policed), but that they might call out such statements in their capacity as ordinary posters, and so in my capacity as an ordinary poster: agreed, Max is way out of line in his claim that homophobia is the reason for other posters not wanting Henry Bauer's views on HIV/AIDS to form the basis of an interview. Posters have been up-front and open about their real reasons, which are totally valid, but for some reason Max is unable/unwilling to recognise them. I think that, as Ian suggested, Max has been emotionally triggered and is unable to see clearly at this point. Hopefully, as your anger cools, Max, you will be able to recognise the validity of the actual reasons that people have shared with you, and that homophobia is not one of them.

Here is a proposal that would be a lot of extra work and would also require particular skills.

The problem with Internet "interviews" is that it is just a bunch of questions, either spoken or e-mailed, and then the respondent replies. There is little or no context to what is said, and in any case, the respondent basically has an open platform to say whatever they want to say. 

If the interviews were more like an article that you may see published in the old Rolling Stone, for instance, or the New York Times Sunday Magazine and that article included the interview questions and answers, then a context is provided.

The article obviously would introduce the subject, explain their past work. Raise questions, present differing views on how this person's work is received. 

The problem with this is that you would need not only a writer who would undertake the article (It could be the person doing the interview, but it wouldn't have to be. Two or more people could work together.)

But more importantly you would need an editor. And the editor would need to make sure that contextualization met the "vision" that is trying to develop here at PQ.

Obviously, this is different than just e-mailing someone a bunch of questions and posting it. It is a lot more work and is really more suited to a site that also has a content engine.

I always think people mean they are just going to withdraw from the thread, not the whole forum. But I've been mistaken on that in the past.

(2017-09-28, 12:24 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I always think people mean they are just going to withdraw from the thread, not the whole forum. But I've been mistaken on that in the past.

Well for the avoidance of doubt I hope Chris doesn't leave the forum. OTOH, as far as the thread is concerned: it's a wise person who knows he's wasting his time on a particular discussion and decides it's not worth the effort.

I think the question about whether HB should be interviewed about different subjects other than his HIV work and whether that is appropriate BASED on his controversial HIV work is different enough to merit it's own thread. 

Because that is a much larger question. Many of the people who might be interviewed here may be considered controversial for one reason or another. What would be the criteria by which someone was deemed unacceptable to be interviewed based on some past actions or research?

I think you're right, Chuck: the consensus of this thread is that non-core subject matter not be allowed in interviews in the main forum interview space. The next question is whether and to what extent a potential interviewee's "controversial public image" should affect whether we interview them.

Why don't you start that thread and then link to it from this thread?

I love Chris and his work here. And he is not the only person who has said this by a long shot. But it fairly common for people to say, if the forum does 'X' then I don't want to be a part of it any longer. And because we saw so many people drop off of skeptiko over the years as the focus (and I would say quality) of the discussion changed, then panties start bunching and discussions start heating up.

[NONE OF THE BELOW HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRIS. THE FOLLOWING IS 100% USER AGNOSTIC.]

That's probably not a tenable long term strategy for shaping the forum or setting rules or practices. PQ won't be able to please all the people all of the time. When you pick a direction based on the response of one user, you may lose another.

I understand there are gray areas and that the point isn't cut and dried. But I cringe a little any time I see someone post "Well if we allow that, then I don't want to be associated with PQ any more."

(2017-09-27, 09:44 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]How does the intersection of science and spirituality relate to HIV?

It doesn't.  What relates, in my mind, is the industry of science itself.

(2017-09-28, 04:10 AM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]The interview would be on his general position concerning science, not on his HIV-AIDS positions. They may be mentioned by him as an example, of course, but they definitely will not be central concern.

This is why I am interested in the interview and feel it is absolutely relevant.  That is unless we wish to remove any discussion of science and just talk about psi from a non-scientific perspective.  (Which would prompt me to exit stage left in a hurry.)