Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

Full disclosure - I want him to be interviewed here, because I have some pointed questions to ask him (if allowed). But I see the validity of the concerns.

Linda

I think if you place a comment on any of the topics on his blog:

https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/

(possibly the second topic on the page as it is now is most suitable)

You will get a response provided your query is is technical and polite.

If you do this, please send me a PM because I would like to read this discussion.

David

Well I've seen plenty of stuff on here that I might personally consider to be half-baked rubbish, so that's not unusual... but it's not a good reason to censor the rubbish. I don't see a problem, he's got the credentials, is a bit anti-science, and is interested in paranormal phenomena, past editor of JSE. Perhaps the interview will bring up some new stuff. Lets wait and see.

I'm not suggesting censorship - I'm just saying that personally I wouldn't wish to be associated with a site that provides a platform for Bauer's pernicious rubbish.

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.

How does the intersection of science and spirituality relate to HIV?

 I don't see any problems, he's got the credientials and is interested in phenomena, perhaps the interview will bring up some new stuff. Lets wait and see.

I'm being careful here, because I'm sensing a bit of potential homophobia...

My opinion-

No. We shouldn't "wait and see". Because then the damage is done. 

Damage I say? 

Yes. The damage to our "brand". Which is all about psi.

We should make a decision, and it should be based on whether the subject matter aligns with the purpose of the web site.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.  

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. 

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