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

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."

As I said to Silence - HIV/AIDS denial is a serious thing and legitimate grounds to not want to give someone a platform. I feel you're making a false equivalence here.

As I said to Silence - HIV/AIDS denial is a serious thing and legitimate grounds to not want to give someone a platform. I feel you're making a false equivalence here.

I'm not sure what your point is. That post was just pointing out that it is common for people to say if PQ does X, then I'm leaving. In my opinion over time that is not going to be a valid method for driving overall criteria.

I'm not sure what your point is. That post was just pointing out that it is common for people to say if PQ does X, then I'm leaving. In my opinion over time that is not going to be a valid method for driving overall criteria.

Not that common - and can't we take it on a case by case basis regardesss? Yours is just a slippery slope argument.

Even though Chris and I don't get along, I agree with Laird that he is a very valuable member of this forum, as is MaxB.

I'm not in favour of censorship. As an alternative, I think a good case can be made for confining HIV/AIDS denialism to the hidden forum.

I didn't bring up the HIV/AIDS denialism because it turns Henry Bauer into a controversial subject. I brought it up because it's a test of whether his criticisms of science have any validity. And it demonstrates very clearly that they do not. So why are we interviewing a person just because he is critical of science, when it will be clear to anyone else who shows up here that his approach to criticizing science is not valid? 

Linda

[Laird]

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.

Just to let folks know who haven't seen it yet: Chuck has started that thread, Criteria For Interviewees.

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

OK. So how does the subject relate to the psi half of that equation?

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.)

tell me again how this connects to psi? Did I miss that detail somewhere buried in this thread?

HIV/Aids denial is a very serious thing - and note how people were fine with the previous interviewees. And who are you to judge whether we're better off or not with/without certain members?

AIDs denial is not psi. HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO PSI?

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

Anything can be considered about "science itself". 

The point of this forum is psi. 

There are uncountable forums about science. I for one have zero interest in investigating science in general at this point, and in this place.

The uniqueness about this place is the ability to discuss psi in all it's flavors, and incorporate science and proof into the discussion. 

I would venture that this place is one of the premier places on the WWW to do this in the English language. Pretty strong words for a forum that is only a few weeks old, I know, But I believe it.

Adding topics because they of of general science interest, seems to me to be missing the whole point of what we do here, and waters down our value.

To prevent further speculation, here I post a provisional plan of the interview, so everyone can understand what kind of questions I will ask to Henry Bauer:

1. What is science? What is its main characteristics and qualities?

2. What were the main stages of the development and change of science? Is modern science the same phenomenon that it once was, or is it notably different?

3. Is there a unified scientific method?

4. What are the limits of science? Why are non-scientific forms of knowledge important and valid?

5. What is a difference between science and scientism? How can belief in science turn into a dogmatic cult?

6. Is there a demarcation line between science and non-science? What about falsifiability? Measurability? Repeatability? Testable predictions?

7. What is the role of empirical evidence in science? Is it superior to the theory, or vice versa? Can the observations beyond the controlled laboratory experiments - such as field experiments, case studies, case reports – provide scientifically valid data? What about witness testimony, can it be used?

8. What is the relationship between science and philosophy? What role do philosophical concepts and assumptions play in scientific theorising?

 

9. Are mathematics and logic sciences? Are mathematicians and logicians scientists? What is the role of mathematics and logic in scientific theorising?

10. Is technology science? Are engineers scientists? How do science and technology connect and interact? What is “applied science”?

11. Is medicine science? Are medical doctors scientists? What about medical science?

12. Do life sciences differ from physical ones?

13. What about social and behavioral sciences? Are they “really” and “truly” scientific? What are their differences from natural sciences?

14. What is a scientific discipline? What about interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research? Why is it important?

15. What about anomalistics? About “fringe science”, “alternative science”, “unofficial science”? What is their scientific status? Are they “pseudoscience”? What about academic parapsychology – is it a scientific field of research or not? What about ufology and cryptozoology?

16. Why is it important to remember that scientists are people, and scientific community is a human community? What can sociology and psychology of science tell us about the scientific endeavor? Why is it inadequate to describe the social critique of scientific community as “conspiracy theory”?

17. What do you think about the notion of the “scientific consensus”? Is it a valid concept at all? Why scientific knowledge is always provisional? What are scientific revolutions? What role do they play in scientific progress? How can our knowledge of the history of science help us to understand it? What are former consensuses that were successfully overthrown?

18. What role do criticism of the current scientific consensus play? Why such challenges are necessary for the scientific progress? Why critics of current consensus should not be dismissed as “deniers” or “denialists”?

19. What role does commercialisation play in science? How commercial organisations can influence and distort research? What are conflicts of interest, and what danger can they pose for the research process?

20. What about politicisation of science? How can political institutions and movements instill bias into the scientific study? Why all political forces and positions – be they “Right”, “Left” or “Center” – are not innocent in this regard?

21. What about the social influences and factors beyond politics and economy? Can dominant social mores and customs turn into a pressure on scientific work and its results? Can scientists’ own social sympathies and antipathies do so?

22. What are role of ethics in science? What ethical imperatives should be accepted by the scientific community?

23. What about the doctrinal and paradigmatic preferences and prejudices of scientists themselves? What role can willful closed-mindedness play in the process of interpretation and evaluation of scientific results?

24. What about the competition and rivalry between scientists and scientific groups? How can it adversely influence the research process? How is it linked with the current academic “publish or perish” incentive?

25. Was there an increase in fraud and dishonesty in science? Were “publish or perish” social situations in work here as well? Is it true that the whole scientific journals and conferences can become fake and predatory? How serious is this danger?

26. What about formation of “knowledge monopolies” and “research cartels”? What are these social structures within (and beyond) the scientific community? How do they thwart the search for reliable knowledge?

27. What is a “science bubble”? What are the perils of this current state of the scientific enterprise?

28. Understanding such crisis state of the scientific community, what can laypersons believe, and whom can they trust when being presented with a scientific controversy? How should they form their own positions on such controversies?

29. What about policymakers who have to deal with controversial scientific propositions? How should they make a choice on scientific matters while making public policy?

30. What can be done to resolve the current crisis of science? What about the “scientific court” idea? Are there some other measures that may be implemented?

So, these are the kind of questions I will ask him if my interview is approved.