Purpose of Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions Forum

It's so nice to see that you are as charming as ever. 

Sure, it's as real as anything else in that résumé.

You're right about that.

Linda

We should probably moderate appeals to authority when they are relied on too much.

There's not much point to such comments since they hinge on certifications/degrees/etc the rest of us have little reason to believe in.

They do seem pointless... Or at least, irrelevant to the validity of a particular argument. Unless the user's profession plays a role in a particular account, i.e. Steve being a pilot, it comes across as pretentious lurker bait.

We should probably moderate appeals to authority when they are relied on too much.

There's not much point to such comments since they hinge on certifications/degrees/etc the rest of us have little reason to believe in.

I could've sworn I've seen you ask for details of other posters' STEM qualifications in the past?

Well then I guess we are a true community once more. Looking forward to some good discussions.

So am I chuck.

And Steve001.

Much as I disagreed with him most of the time, I learned a lot from Paul - especially in the evolution debates. He had me scurrying around the internet, fact checking and looking for explanations that I could understand. With Steve001 and Bart V (Sparky) I knew exactly what to expect and I knew it was pointless getting into an argument with them but I never suspected them of dishonesty: they were both up-front and hard-line atheist/materialists and the worst you could accuse them of was merely parroting skeptic blogs.

I just had a queasy feeling about Linda and Arouet - certain that there was a spoiler agenda but knowing that they were both clever enough to disguise it. I know they are here now and I know they know how I feel from way back so I'm not revealing any secrets or pushing for an instant ban. Time will tell whether the remain or not, all I can say is be wary of getting drawn into a spiral of nit-picking arguments.

I don't read no skeptical blogs because the evidential arguements have not changed in the 4 decades I've been interested in this stuff.
I agree those two were so slimy and not trust worthy. ;-)

I could've sworn I've seen you ask for details of other posters' STEM qualifications in the past?  

Only when people referred to studies, their knowledge of scientific academia, importance of statistical sampling, etc. I did also ask for explanations of things in papers people referenced, only to be accused of bullying by a skeptic which was quite surreal.

Note I never demanded a philosophy degree from Paul.

I could've sworn I've seen you ask for details of other posters' STEM qualifications in the past?  

Arguments from authority are not the same as arguments based on expertise. I don't know if asking for qualifications helps, though. I've certainly run across people who claim qualifications in certain subject matters who then make it clear that they don't grok some of the important concepts in that subject. It matters more whether someone is able to show that they understand the subject matter. And whether they are able to convey what people with established expertise have to say on the subject. Plus, our biases will ensure that we won't trust what someone says if we don't like it, unless it can be backed up by valid sources of information elsewhere.

Linda

Also, I have no idea why Arouet was banned. But, since it happened in the last few months (during which the banhammer was all over the place) I suspect that it was something trivial. I wouldn't mind having him around, lawyering and all.

I certainly did not ban Arouet.

Alex has a different way of banning people, intended to let them contact him for a short discussion before they are able to post anything further - this type of banning does not show on the forum. However, it would seem that Arouet last posted in March, long before the recent rumpus, so I very much doubt if he is banned in any way. I hope he remains well.

David