(2017-09-27, 02:31 PM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]The relevance of bad science to ψ that people are told that science has disproved ψ and/or it has demonstrated it to be impossible in principle. Those of us who are also interested in science, are here because we can see that science hasn't ruled out ψ, and that in any case, it is fairly flaky right now.
You recently hosted a discussion regarding the viability of evolution by natural selection. Again you might say that is outside the subject area of this forum, but if life on this planet was started by a mechanism that was in some way Intelligent Design, isn't that relevant?
I get the impression that you yourself are interested in science, so don't you want to see how science and ψ inter-relate?
David
If the subject matter specifically centers on psi, sure.
I'm interested in science for sure.
But I am not suggesting we talk about Elon Musk's change of plans to propulsive landers on Mars.
I'm not suggesting that we try and figure out why or how science suggest that the Higgs Boson imparts mass to a particle.
It's not because I am not interested in these things. It's because those things don't belong on this site. They are topics for other places and other conversations.
We should be cognizant of what we are as a group, why we formed, and stick to our charter.
(2017-09-27, 02:22 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Wait a minute. Has anyone asked these questions on the incredibly wide range of topics we've seen discussed here to fore? (e.g., Pssst's alien line of posting)
I actually liked this most recent Skeptiko interview (well until the end when Alex discussed his forum pruning). Perhaps the community wants this site uber focused on "psi" but I would cast a vote for expanding to include topics under the intersection of science and spirituality.
We are talking about an interview here. Different thing. A defining thing about what our site is about.
We should stick to our core proposition.
(2017-09-27, 11:28 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I left SF because Bailey started telling people what was and what was not allowed to be discussed, and stopping new members posting because they had different points of view to him. When I raised the issue, he refused to even acknowledge it. Then AT stopped me posting. Others got stopped from posting. The main forums got deleted. And here we are...
SF failure was never to do with too wide a range of subject matter and opinions, it was about too narrow a range of subject matter and opinions because of inept and ridiculous moderation, and attempts to publicly punish members.
Well things are different here aren't they?
You CAN have a conversation with the people managing the site and with all the people ON the site about the topic.
That's whats happening right now, right?
So this isn't as autocratic as the other site.
In the end though, someone has to drive the bus. It can't just careen down the road bouncing off the guard rails. And if that's what you want, then you may be in for a fight. At least from me.
(2017-09-27, 10:16 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've got absolutely no problem with an interview on psiencequest with a past editor of the JSE, and there's simply no justification for even discussing it.
OK, well that's your vote then...
(2017-09-27, 07:01 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, so if they are concerned with the issue and are disinterested in others' conclusions about the issue: What's their conclusion?
Their conclusion would be what the evidence and results support. Scientific consensus doesn't represent a collection of conclusions drawn by the authors of their own research. It represents the minimum that scientists hostile to the idea are willing to concede the results support.
Quote:How would they counter laymen questioning the veracity of supposed scientific claims by certain scientists due to this "issue"?
They probably consider them completely irrelevant, given that most laymen don't have the knowledge or experience to weigh the claims, and most scientists are probably already more skeptical than laypeople about claimed results. They've been looking behind the curtain for decades and decades.
Quote:I mean if it actually is "an issue" I would think scientists would be all over it as it potentially undermines the credibility of the entire community. Right?
Haven't they been already? What I do here - look at the results of parapsychology papers and often disagree with the conclusions of the authors because I find them unsupported by the results or too subject to bias to be reliable or valid, is what scientists do to other scientists' work, for those reasons. And you know about these issues because scientists are looking for and then telling everyone about these issues. This isn't some dirty secret laypeople have uncovered.
Linda
(2017-09-27, 10:16 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've got absolutely no problem with an interview on psiencequest with a past editor of the JSE, and there's simply no justification for even discussing it.
Hm. Well I’ve no interest in the subject personally but there’s always a justification for discussing whether to invite any particular individual to be interviewed and in so doing grant them a forum for their position if a forum member here has raised it as an issue. Imho.
There are plenty of other places to ask people questions especially if they’ve already had airtime elsewhere. It’s certainly debatable whether he should be given an opportunity here as far as I can see.
(2017-09-27, 10:36 PM).Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Don't be so silly... this forum is not a bus careering down the road with a single bus driver... the analogy is ludicrous. There is no fight. There is no reason to even discuss it. The JSE is a publication dealing with consciousness, anomalous phenomena and none mainstream articles... he's a past editor, so he gets an interview published on here, if Vortex goes to the trouble of writing one up, irrespective of what you want. We're not gonna start having votes on such clear cut issues.
I guess when you run the forum you can make that call yourself.
(2017-09-27, 10:47 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's got nowt to do with what I want... it's just common sense... if I want to post an interview from anybody on psiencequest that I think is relevant, I'm not going to seek anybody's permission before I post it, and neither is anybody else. That's just how it is.
Right. I guess that depends on your judgement about what you’re posting really. If you were to start posting things that people found sufficiently objectionable, then I don’t think you’d be surprised to see your activities curtailed. Or maybe you would.
This isn’t the same as someone merely enquiring about a subject but seems to me to be about giving a platform to someone whose views are seen, by some, as damaging.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to object to any potential interviewee on here and for there to be a discussion. Given there are probably quite a lot of contentious issues out there and people who might reasonably be denied a platform here, it seems to me considerate and sensitive to ask how it would be received by members.
It might indeed result in a vote on the matter if it is seen as sufficiently contentious.
Common sense would be to show a bit of sensitivity to the genuine concerns of other people here instead of deciding that one’s own view is the end of the matter.
I'd like to mention that in a previous discussion between the founders of the forum, I had laid out the 3 principles that seemed to guide the idea to create this forum and therefore could be said to define its "mission". These reflected the motivations of the founders of the forum, as well as what we saw as motivating people having left (or been banned) from Skeptiko and who wanted to join the new forum (with different founders and forum members valuing one of these motivations more than the others, or one or more but not another).
These were:
a) a Skeptiko-like forum but with a more democratic forum-running and moderation philosophy
b) a more psi-oriented forum
c) a forum free from politics and non-psi conspiracy theories
The decision to create hidden sub-forums inside Other Stuff to discuss CTs and politics seems like a compromise that respects C and at the same allows forum members who are interested in discussing these topics to be able to do so.
I think interviews conducted under the banner of Psience Quest should reflect this "mission". In that spirit, I don't consider interviews that aren't related to psi (for a definition of what psi includes, see the subforum categories in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena Forum) to fall under that banner.
A subforum was created for Alternative Views on Science in the Related Topics forum to accommodate people who, carrying over from the Skeptiko forum, like to discuss those topics, but in my view they fall slightly outside the main (psi) purview of the forum.
Also, many Skeptiko-like topics like AIDS-HIV risk running into the conspiracy theory and/or politics categories. It would not make sense for such interviews to be in the main forum.
I think members should be free to do interviews with whoever they want and post them in the appropriate forum categories, but only interviews reflecting the core Psience Quest identity be allowed to carry that banner.
(2017-09-27, 02:25 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe someone needs to lay out a definition of psi for me then. I don't know where 9/11, Greys, and the rest of the wide range of topics so far discussed fit under that umbrella.
As I just posted, I think the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum categories define what "psi" includes when it comes to the PQ forum.