Science Group

[beam me up scottie]

I would like to find out how many posters would be willing to support a Science group.
There are groups specifically for pseudo-science, astrology, spirituality and many others.
Several people have stated that they will no longer post in here and I believe these individuals have much to contribute and would like for them to participate in discussions regarding scientific knowledge and discovery.
We would need to set up some parameters before requesting this group.
Any feedback or ideas will be appreciated.

[whistle]

1. I would, I thought there was one once, where did it go?

[beam me up scottie]

3. Not that I know of, there is this forum but it's impossible

for the poor mods to try to weed out science from pseudo-science and we can only incorporate limits in groups.

[arwalden]

2. I Like That Idea...

... but is that giving up? I think that some aggressive moderating (and alerting) on these nonsense pseudoscience woo-woo threads would make such a group unnecessary and redundant.

I support the idea of a science group... but only if the off-topic and non-science posts in the REAL science forum continue unchecked and force the quality of this forum downhill.

So make my vote a YES... and a NO. The invasion of this forum with non-science woo-woo posts that masquerade as science is a topic that probably should be directly addressed by the admins.

[mike_c]

4. what he said-- yes, I'd love a real science forum....

It might help me to spend my time on DU more productively, i.e. not getting so distracted from work!

[beam me up scottie]

6. I agree but it has to be extremely

difficult for the mods to make that call.
Just like it's almost impossible for them to keep track of all of the conspiracy websites.
We have some very knowledgeable scientists here and I don't want them to stop posting.

[Ian David]

59. OK, so here's my ideas to solve the moderators' Woo-Woo problem

First of all, I know the moderators are smart and well-intentioned, but I know-- and they know-- that not all of them are qualified to evaluate all things.

And quite frankly, certain nonsense hurts DU's credibility. And the extent to which someone believes nonsense limits their usefulness to the DU community. We can't save the country with an army of the credulous.

Idea #1: Appoint an honest-to-god scientist (or scientists) to moderate the science and skepticism groups or forums. They can rotate taking turns or something.

Idea #2: Keep at least one scientific-type "moderator-at-large" to answer questions of science.

Idea #3: Make sure the moderators understand who is and is not qualified to evaluate the woo-woo-ness of outlandish claims, and ask Skinner to make it policy to take those individuals at their word.

Idea #4 Make sure the moderators understand who is and is not qualified to evaluate the woo-woo-ness of outlandish claims, and ask Skinner to make it policy that if two or more of those individuals alert on a nutball theory, the moderators will act on their recommendation.

Idea #5: Ask the moderators to Private Message qualified individuals to consult when an issue comes up.

Idea #6: Place a "temporary lock" on threads until the Mods can find a qualified person to evaluate a woo-woo claim.


My favorite ideas are numbers 1, 4, and 6

I am very much in favor of (Idea #4) having only scientifically qualified moderators in charge of the science groups/forums

What I would like is that when someone posts something outrageously stupid, it immediately gets moved from a forum into a paid-members-only group, where it is less likely to embarrass us in front of the rest of the world.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Can Skinner do all of that ?

I'm a little ignorant of the rules for forums but I like the idea of having a moderator that is aware of the difference between science and pseudo-science.

I agree that a group is not a perfect solution but since so many people seem to know just where the fine line is, they will continue to walk it.

Science moderators may be another way to go.

[Ian David]

65. I don't know if he can do it.

But here's the thing:

1) Pseudoscience can say anything they want, because they don't think anything is wrong. They don't need an "Astrology Moderator" to delete messages based on whether or not Venus in Retrograde signals financial success or an outbreak of Herpes. They can both find someway to be equally right, because they change the "rules" whenever it suits them.

2) Science is constrained by the laws of the Universe as they actually exist. There are people qualified to have a grasp of what those laws are. The moderators should have someone either in their crew or "on-call" to evaluate what belongs in The Universe, and what belongs in The Twilight Zone.

To paraphrase A Great American Leader, "You do science in the Universe you have. Not the Universe you need to have, or want to have."

All this does is:

1) Make us look stupid.
2) Create disharmony.
3) Distract us (and Barnum's Kids) from more productive endeavors

The solution, IMHO, is to have someone move, lock, and delete this nonsense with extreme prejudice. Arguing with them only makes them mad. Better to delete their garbage than to keep hitting them over the head with troublesome "facts."

You can't teach a pig to sing. It will only waste your time and annoy the pig.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

8. I'm with arwalden on this

A science group would be nice, but this level of lunacy in the Science Forum needs to be addressed by the admins first.

My one concern is that a group would be open to posting by paid members only. The thing I like about the Forum is that it allows anybody with a DU posting account to join in the discussion.

So I'll support having a Science Group, but only if the forum itself falls apart beyond repair.

[dweller]

16. they pay members to post?

will wonders ever cease.

dp

[Emperor_Norton_II]

18. Ha.

No, the magic gold star is the ticket to posting in any of the Groups. You get the gold star by donating to DU. QED.

[beam me up scottie]

21. delete

Sorry, shouldn't use examples of other posts.

[papau]

26. I agree - but how do we define "pseudo-science "? Speculation was the

start of most discoveries.

As far as I can tell, most postings are about real science and perhaps speculation as to what the newly posted news really means in terms of past and future events.

Even settled science is not all that well understood or completely applied to common events. It was only a few years ago that the old explanation was found false and a new explanation presented that appears much more solid as to why when taking a shower, the shower curtain comes in and hits one's ankles.

To get mods moving "pseudo-science " out of a forum/group one will need a clear definition of "pseudo-science" - and that holds true for Science forum as well as for science group.

Should a science forum spend time debunking "pseudo-science" - why not?

Should "thinking outside the box" or pointing out that conventional explanation for a given event has no more proof than various alternative explanations be forbidden? Is it not better to discuss the quality of the evidence that suggests a given explanation - and indeed agree that some explanations are speculation that while plausible, have no real "evidence" - perhaps then developing suggestions as to how the plausible can be debunked so that we are more certain as we accept the conventional explanation.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Richard C. Hoagland's conpiracies are an example

of the type of pseudo-science that does not belong in a Science forum.

But that's JMNSHO, of course.

I posted this thread to find out if others agree with me and if so, what we should do about it.

[Celebration]

31. that's your example

What about Tiller?

http://tillerfoundation.com/biography.htm

[beam me up scottie]

33. This William A. Tiller ?

I'll let the illustration speak for itself.

But this isn't a thread about deciding what and what does not constitute science, this is to establish whether or not there is enough interest to start a separate group.

[papau]

35. the experiments were "wrongly" interpreted because ??????

I am not defending Tiller - but a science group should be able to do more than laugh amongst ourselves as we point at an idea.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Did you read the rest of my post ?

I do not want this to turn into another discussion of who is a crackpot and why.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[papau]

45. "another discussion of who is a crackpot and why" - it appears I missed

the prior discussions -

and do not understand how your slide proves anything, or suggests anything "crackpot". Indeed I understand that the slide shows your conclusions, and I am not saying they are wrong. I just have not heard of experiments that followed his description having a different result - so we have the repeatable experiment and result and are only left with a discussion of the logic of the conclusion.

Granted he uses a book or two to develop his logic and a rebuttal on DU could only reference a work that went to the trouble of going over the experiments and giving an alternate explanation. In deed Stat noise comes to mind without even doing any real research! :-)


But if there is a book or paper out there that does develop a good explanation for the results of his experiments, I would be appreciative if a link - or at least a reference the title of such paper - were mentioned.


I agree that we all have better things to do with our time than to take a DU post and turn it "into another discussion of who is a crackpot and why" - but replace the word "who" with the word "idea" or "explanation" and discussing why it is wrong would of be of interest - at least to me.

peace.

:-)

[papau]

34. human intention acts like a typical potential capable of creating robust

experimental results?

Sort of a proof of God? - albeit a weak one, but still it must shake up the atheist scientist belief system - and atheism does require a "belief" system to "know" there is no God.

I have not followed Tiller - have any proved him wrong? He seems to have described his science well enough for it to be repeated and debunked - if that was possible.

[Celebration]

37. he would be right on the edge

of what would be deemed "acceptable" here in this thread. Just trying to push the limits, as usual. You know, all that stuff about the observor in quantum physics--some people infer pretty far out there into the consciousness arena--others say, keep your nose down and your eyes straight ahead and don't go poking around. Tiller has no trouble getting published IN HIS FIELD--materials science. He has a great deal of trouble getting the consciousness stuff published. His self published results show replication. Independent replication is something else again. Nobody attempts. One problem is he seems to need regular meditators for his experimentors-- that is kind of an iffy proposition in and of itself.

[papau]

46. Thanks for the info - that helped a lot - Tiller is a new name to me!

peace

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

38. Atheism is not a belief system.

Gods have nothing to do with science.

Please start your own thread if you wish to discuss your particular issues.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[papau]

47. Thanks for the confirmation. :-)

:-)

[arwalden]

40. Heh heh heh...

atheist "belief system"... funny!

:eyes:

[papau]

48. :-)

:-)

[Ian David]

62. Atheism is a non-belief system?

Actually, it's probably caused by a lack of that genetic aberration called "The God Spot."

Yes, I know. "The God Spot" is still a controversial claim and that theory may be revealed to be nothing but a handful of tinfoil.

[lazarus]

50. interesting

a "belief system" for atheists.

That's odd. Since I don't believe in a god, does that make lack of belief a "belief system"?

[Celebration]

51. Probably

As far as I can tell, God can neither be proven nor disproven in the scientific sense, so, to go one way or another on this (rather than the "I'm clueless and agnostic") one would be inclined to say it is a belief system.

Remember that for centuries people could NOT get the concept that zero was a number. Why not? Clearly, zero was LACK of a number. When there was no number (zero) how could it be a number? Our advancement in math suffered through this, and most people today have no knowledge of the debate. Today we accept that zero, though it is lack of a number, is indeed a number.

Likewise, atheism is lack of a belief in God, but a belief system nonetheless.

Here are definitions of atheism and agnosticism--

http://www.tostepharmd.net/hissoc/religion/beliefsystem...

Atheism - denial of the existence of a god or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. 'A' means "without" and 'theism' means "belief in god(s)." This is not to be confused with a hatred of God or an anti-Christian (or anti-theist) perspective, it is simply the belief that a god or gods or anything supernatural does not exist . The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. The 20th century has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Bertrand Russell.

Agnosticism - a type of skepticism that holds that the existence of god cannot be logically proved or disproved. 'A' means "without" and 'gnosis' means "knowledge" -- hence, agnosticism: without knowledge (specifically: without knowledge of gods). An agnostic is a person who does not claim absolute knowledge of the existence of a god or gods. Since atheism and theism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge, they are actually mutually exclusive concepts. It is then possible to be an agnostic and a theist. A person can have a wide range of beliefs in gods and yet not be able to or want to claim to know for sure whether those gods definitely exist. Prominent agnostics have been Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer (agnostic realism), and T. H. Huxley (who coined the word agnostic in 1869). Immanuel Kant was an agnostic who argued that belief in divinity can rest only on faith. Agnosticism should not be confused with atheism, which asserts that there is no god.

[beam me up scottie]

53. You know, being contrary is cute when you're a kid.

Being contrary in a thread discussing how to keep woowooism out of the science forum is just annoying.

I submit that you have no idea what you are talking about and I suggest that when several atheists state that atheism is NOT a belief system, you listen to them.

Since you seem to doubt the word of the atheists in this thread, here is a brief explanation:

There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
***
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don’t focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they “deny the existence of God,” we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term “God” hasn’t been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

from Defining Atheism by Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/

If that is not sufficient, please pm an atheist or start a thread in the proper forum.

Thank you.

[papau]

77. "too incoherent " - cute - sensitive stuff/sensitive posters - "crackpot"

seems another "too incoherent" word -

perhaps best is to get back to science in the science forum with discussion of repeatable experiments with consistent results, followed by speculation as to the laws cause those results which we could call current theory.

If it does not offend too many folks, perhaps we could then discuss why we think theory one is more credible than theory two as an explanation for those results.

[beam me up scottie]

82. I see no need to "discuss"

my atheism with people who refuse to listen and learn.
Just as scientists should see no need to discuss pseudo-science with woo woos.

[papau]

75. Well said :-)

:-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. Great - now explain why you use the word 'system'

and if you think that holding that blue is a nicer colour for a car than red is a 'belief system'. An opinion is not a 'belief system'.

[papau]

92. What is belief if not saying something is true that can not be proved

true by experiment - in this case because an experiment can not be devised that actually proves anything about the existence of God.

Belief system has the word system because - at least at DU - some folks are willing to call others uninformed and of a non-scientific bent if they do not believe the way they believe - an extrapolation of an unprovable into others areas - hence a belief system.

Can't we all just get along ?? :-)

By the way - after much thought and reflection on the woo-woo problem, I think I am anti-woo-woo!

Despite being anti-woo-woo, I think that this forum seems an ideal space to have woo-woo brought up - as when the mercury vaccines are brought up we could use that moment to discuss the midwest coal fired power plants and the relative amount of Mercury they put into a young baby year after year

[beam me up scottie]

94. You continue to insult atheists by redefining

atheism and then ask if we can't just get along ?

Getting along requires mutual respect, IMNSHO.

[papau]

96. but I do not understand the new definition and do not see why noting the

obvious emotional investment some atheists have in being atheist is showing a lack of respect to atheism.

Are you demanding that those of science who are also of faith/belief in a higher power review/accept science done by atheist in an unbiased manner? - If so, I suggest there is no problem relative to a lack of respect between the two "camps".

If you are demanding that those of science agree with the assertion that there is no God, or else be considered second rate minds that do not show the the proper respect for the better thing/logic of atheist scientific folk, then I agree that there is a "mutual respect" problem.

In either case, I suggest the science forum have less Attitude and more discussion as to the fantastic happenings/discoveries in Science, along with discussions of the credibility of any given theory advanced to explain those discoveries.

But in any case, if an rational rule that the mods could enforce that eliminated woo-woo from the science forum was proposed, I suspect I'd be in favor of such a rule if that made the majority happy, as there are other places on DU to discuss the various woo-woo out there.

Meanwhile debunking discussions are interesting reading for us old folks!

peace

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

98. It is not a NEW definition.

It is an atheists' definition.
The one you keep using was invented by theists.
And, like I said, it is a matter of respect.
I don't go around telling christians how to define themselves and then arguing when they disagree.
Is it too much to ask for the same consideration ?

Again, gods have nothing to do with science.
Scientist's beliefs or lack of them are a non-issue.
Why is that a problem for you ?
Why are you even bringing up deities ?

[papau]

102. I look forward to your actionable definition of the woo-woo that is

to be excluded. Would the William A. Tiller work on sacred places having a "potential" that affects the results of experiments (I am neither convinced nor an advocate of his conclusions and would be surprised if real measurement differences pop-up - but then QM always surprises me) be woo-woo? If so, on what logical basis? They appear to be an experiment that might be of interest to discuss.

[lazarus]

114. Nope

You got it wrong. Atheist and theist aren't dueling beliefs.


Theist: With a belief in god (or gods).
Atheist: Without a belief in god (or gods).

One can be an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.

The difference between an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist could be summed up like this:

Agnostic atheist: I do not believe there is a god.

Gnostic atheist: I believe there is not a god.

As soon as you can explain how lack of a belief system is a belief system, I'll continue.

[papau]

32. wikipedia entry for Hoagland and NASA occassional conspiracy ideas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland
Richard Hoagland is a contributor of astronomical theories, especially concerning Mars and extraterrestrial life. While Hoagland's books have sold very well, many scientists have reduced his theories to mere pseudoscience and very few scientists trust his theories.

His jobs have included:

Museum curator
Consultant to NASA
Science adviser to Walter Cronkite during the Apollo program
Winner of the Angstrom Medal/Award (Although this has been contested - see external links)
Author of numerous best selling books
Hoagland has made numerous claims about the existence of extraterrestrial life which he believes is supported by the presence of the face on Mars. He claims that the face was part of a city built on Cydonia Planitia by a race of aliens. The "city" apparently consists of very large pyramids and mounds arranged in a geometrical pattern, with the ratios between measured angles roughly equalling mathematical constants like pi, e and the square root of two. Hoagland's other theories also frequently exhibit numerological justifications, such as his Iapetus theory revolving around Base 60 and the numeric factors of platonic solids.

Hoagland has been a guest on CNN, BBC, UFO Evidence & Conspiracy, Mysteries in Space, and he is a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM. Some of his more well known theories include:

Water on Europa (moon)
The Face on Mars
The Martian City of Cydonia
Hyperdimensional physics
(United States) government conspiracies and cover-ups about extraterrestrials
The saturnian moon Iapetus being an artificial world
However, these are not all entirely his.


External links
Official website http://www.enterprisemission.com/
Richard Hoagland at Coast-to-Coast AM http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/16.html
Phil Plait debunking Richard Hoagland's theories http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html
(I also believe Hoagland's conspiracy is unproven and that much of Phil's coments are valid - but Phil goes on with comments that, lacking real evidence, perhaps are better said on DU than said to his peers)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland"

[Ian David]

57. Not even the Freepers are buying this one

Not even the Freepers are buying his B.S.

Richard C. Hoagland has another finding about Iapetus (Saturn's Moon)! Aliens might have made it!
Me

Posted on 02/07/2005 11:35:56 PM PST by Simmy2.5

According to a new article by Richard C. Hoagland, the man that brought up 'startling' evidence that there Pyramids on Mars, and a face on Mars, as well as signs that inteligent life terraformed Titan, he discovered that there is something strange about Iapetus! Whis his greatness on drawing lines on pictures, he discovered that Iapetus appears to be...a spaceship!

Well, to be fair, he doesn't know if it is a spaceship. However, it is one of this theories according to his new article that can be found here!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

And at the very least, he DOES believe that it has something to do with intelligent life (read aliens) involvement. Iapetus seems to be too...artificial to be real (because after all, there are not straight lines in nature...).

So, not only did Aliens (who all seem to have left BTW) built structures on Mars, terraformed Titan, and now...they built structures on Iapetus! Cool!

Will his brillance never end?

More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1338415/posts

[papau]

78. One theory/idea/speculation at a time - but it does appear most folks -

DUer and Freeper - take what Hoagland says about Aliens with a grain of salt - as well they should since even Hoagland says "might be" as he speculates based on very limited data.

:-)

[Pepperbelly]

117. Interesting ...

they sound JUST like you guys!

[Ian David]

56. Breaking News: Hoagland Discovers Face on Wife

Breaking News: Hoagland Discovers Face on Wife


Also:

Fox TV to Broadcast Alien Circumcision

[salvorhardin]

5. Count me in

I suggest that topics be limited to only those topics that can be discussed within the framework of the scientific method.

[electron_blue]

7. I support it

I vote a pseudoscience group also be started and stuff that shows up in science under that category be moved over to pseudoscience.

I'm very interested in a real Science board, but not one where I'll potentially have to debate about UFO's, face on Mars and NASA cover-ups of the DI mission.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Hmmmm.

Pseudo-science is included in the title of the Skeptic group and I never understood why.

I think they can move those threads to The Meeting Room.

[arwalden]

10. I Doubt That The Pseudoscience Believers Would Actually Use...

... a group with "pseudoscience" as part of the forum/group name. Indeed they are convinced that CROP CIRCLES are made by extraterrestrial travelers, and that CHEMTRAILS are part of a government mind-control plan.

The word "pseudoscience" appears as part of the Skeptics group--probably--because skeptics and rational thinkers enjoy debunking pseudoscience crackpot theories.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Yeah, debunking is a fun hobby, isn't it ?

I just hate having to do it in the Science forum.
I come here to learn.

[electron_blue]

17. Okay, yeah a better title would have to be chosen

[Ian David]

61. I don't place crop circles and chemtrails at the same level of stupidity

At least the chemtrails don't invoke magic.

How about instead of Pseudoscience we use something like:

The Bizzaro World Group
The Fortean Group
The X-Threads Group
The Alternative Reality Group

Anyway, here is where I personally break pseudo-scientific nonsense into three levels:

1) Understandably stupid (things a well-intentioned and reasonably intelligent but lazy and poorly-read layman might believe).

2) Painfully stupid

3) Morbidly and inexcusably stupid


Level 1- Understandably stupid
JFK plot
Ear Candeling
Robot planes on 9-11
Alien spacecraft in the sky
Atlantis (the more mundane, non-mystical versions)
Chiropractic claims of treating organic illness
Bush actually won both elections
Fear of vaccinations
Certain kinds of herbal medicine


Level 2- Painfully stupid
Roswell (and similar conspiracies)
The Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane
Alien abductions
Face on Mars
Chemtrails
The HAARP Project
Bigfoot / Snowman
Loch Ness Monster
Voting Republican unless you're a straight, white, christian male in the top 2% tax bracket
Level 3- Morbidly and inexcusable stupid
Miss Cleo / Sylvia Browne / John Edward / Uri Geller
ESP, telepathy, etc
Tarot Cards
Astrology
Numerology
Nostradamus
Crop Circles
Homeopathy
Ghosts
Faeries
Alien pyramid builders
The planes on 9-11 were piloted remotely by psychics
Scientology
Creationism
Noah's Flood (as a world-wide event)

[arwalden]

70. Great Post!

<< At least the chemtrails don't invoke magic.>>

But, have you seen some of the claptrap gee-whiz harmonic crystal/copper/electro/magnet-o gizmos that are supposed to cleanse the air of chemtrail poisons? That's just GOTTA be magic!

-- Allen

PS:

<<Anyway, here is where I personally break pseudo-scientific nonsense into three levels: ... >>

Outstanding observations. Priceless!

[Ian David]

72. Thank you. I owe it all to neutralizing the pH of my blood n/t

[beam me up scottie]

74. Did you do that with chelation ? nt

[Ian David]

79. No, I use Dihydrogen Monoxide to keep my blood pH Neutral. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

83. Got a wholesale source for that ?

It's too expensive to buy where I live.

[Ian David]

87. I get Reagent Grade Dihydrogen Monoxide from Exton Industries

www.extonindustries.com

[beam me up scottie]

90. Thanks.

I placed an order after I read this:

Exton offers treatment combinations that result in no detectable RNase, DNase, and/or DNA.

[arwalden]

85. Did The Dihydrogen Monoxide Have Hexagonally Aligned Molecules?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. I'm in!

:)

[beam me up scottie]

13. Excellent !

I love your avatar, I've been meaning to ask, where did you get it from ?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. Thanks! He's a character from Futurama

His full title is: Lord Nibber - Ambassador to Earth (Home of the pizza-bagel)

[beam me up scottie]

20. I LOVE him !!!

I also love your psycho-Muppets, you're a very twisted individual.
But I like that in a guy !!!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. Thank you kindly

No one has ever called me twisted in such a nice way before. :hi:

:woohoo:

[Desertrose]

41. FWIW- the lil' guy is "Nibbler" not "Nibber"

I kid you not...Leela named him that cause he ate everything in sight

[Anarcho-Socialist]

44. Yes, I mispelt it

:crazy:

[Salviati]

42. At least that's what he calls himself in english...

In the time it would take to pronounce just one letter of his true name, a billion galaxies would flare into existence and then fade to nothingness...

[Celebration]

15. Say can't you filter

the skeptical science stuff you don't like? Very easy to ignore threads/posters, etc. Seems easiest.

[electron_blue]

19. about filtering, ignoring, etc.

I'm here at DU because I want to talk about liberal issues w/o having to filter and ignore the craziness from the conservatives like I did for years at the previous board I was on. There's only so much of that I can take. And then things inevitably turn to baiting and get nasty.

A science group should be about science. Mods routinely move posts from some other rooms to the lounge because they don't fit the guidelines for the original room, but they want the dialogue continued.

Why should the Science room be any different? Seems to me, this thread isn't so much about whether to start a new room, but rather about just enforcing the posting guidelines that DU has for the rooms.

[Celebration]

22. Sometimes the way they start off is not the way they go

I happen to think that the question of releasing photographs of the actual comet explosion from the flyby is a topic for the science forum. However apparently others disagreed. It kind of degenerated into some sort of personality thing. Probably best to ignore a topic once it degenerates. However I am drawn in further--something like Grand Theft Auto I suppose, though I have never played it.

[electron_blue]

25. I can't believe you are surprised at how that thread went

You clearly insinuated that maybe NASA is hiding something with their blurry images and lack of info from the flyby. And, no you weren't asking for photographs as you state here, you originally asked about the spectra.

Minor point, you might say. But since I am working on some spectra from the Deep Impact mission, I thought I could shed some light on your original question, which is why I joined the deteriorating thread. There were many images released from the impactor and the flyby spacecraft. Hoagland is plain wrong to say there were none released by the flyby spacecraft. Where are you looking for this info that you're not finding? If you're not seeing it on CNN and other newsmedia it's not bcs NASA didn't release it. Or maybe Hoagland was your only source for this?

Check these out:

images from the flyby spacecraft:
http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/images-flyby.html

images from the impactor:
http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/images-impactor.html

cool movie with ad for show on discovery channel about the mission:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/multimedia/DI_disc_channel.html

[Celebration]

28. I like the images

Thanks. I'll set the recorder for the Discovery Channel show. I never thought NASA was hiding anything and never said so. My point was that it is ridiculous not to release all information-- to do otherwise leaves one open to all sorts of conspiracy theorists. In my wildest imagination I could not come up with a reason for NASA to be hiding something about hitting a comet. But count on people to come up with an outlandish idea if everything isn't released.

Now, don't get me started on Sept. 11 and the put options!!

[beam me up scottie]

23. I don't know if there are specific guidelines for

the forums.
At least, I've never seen any.
That's why it's so hard to enforce, I think.
Groups are allowed to choose their own mission statement (with Skinner's approval, of course).

Here are the instructions about starting a group:

How to Suggest a DU Group

One of the best things about DU Groups is that members have the ability to suggest new groups to the Administrators of Democratic Underground. If you wish to suggest a group, please follow this procedure:

1. Start one discussion thread in the forum of your choice to tell people about your idea for a DU Group.

2. In that thread, you must get responses from at least ten DU members who agree to be active participants in the suggested DU Group. All ten members to respond must have donor stars.

3. In that thread, members must agree on a proposed mission statement for the DU Group.

4. When enough members have signed on to join the group and have agreed on a proposed mission statement, one member must officially suggest the DU Group to a DU Administrator (Skinner, EarlG, or Elad), by sending an email. Please be sure to include a link to the thread where members have discussed the proposed Group.

5. The Administrators will consider the request and make a decision. The Administrators will either 1) Accept the Group as it is proposed, 2) Deny the Group outright, or 3) Ask for changes to the Group or its mission statement which would be necessary for its approval.

6. Once the suggested Group has been accepted by the Administrators, the Administrators will create a new DU Group in the "DU Groups" Category forum, and pin the mission statement of that Group to the top of that Group's forum.

If you are considering a DU Group on a controversial topic, the Administrators would appreciate if you contacted us before collecting your ten members, so we may discuss any sensitive issues. This courtesy will increase the chance that your Group is approved. Also, please be aware that proposed Groups that are redundant with existing DU Forums are unlikely to be approved.

If you have any questions, please contact a forum Administrator.

Skinner
EarlG
Elad

Democratic Underground Administrators

And, as an example, here is the mission statement from the A&A group:

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group is a place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities. In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs. Those who do believe in a deity should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this Group is that either "god" does not exist or that the existence of "god" is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you probably should not participate in this Group.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

27. That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

I don't think we can successfully filter the science forum and I hate to see members leave because of it.

You have to be a donor to post in groups, BUT perhaps it would be worth paying $5 or $10 to have some peace.

I know it is for me.

[beam me up scottie]

39. PLEASE stick to discussing matters pertaining to

the subject of this thread.

Thank you.

[arwalden]

52. Good Luck With That...

... they just can't help themselves.

[beam me up scottie]

54. I'm beginning to realize that.

Why would I expect anything different ?
Perhaps it will work to our advantage, such posts may make my point much better than my testimony.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. The full title of the current group some have mentioned is

"Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group"

and its 'welcome': "This Group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Non-skeptics are invited to participate."

So, at the moment, there is a group that does tend towards what people seem to want. However, it currently tends to examine the clash between science and pseudoscience, rather than just straight science stories or discussions.

Maybe those of us who get annoyed by discussions in the Science Forum that only peripherally touch on Science, and are more to do with accusations of government coverups, should post in the Group instead? Perhaps an addition to the Group welcome message is needed, along the lines of "but irrational, baseless or disruptive arguments are likely to be robustly countered" ? I don't know how Skinner feels about modifying group 'mission statements'.

Another approach would be to quickly ask moderators to move topics that aren't actaully discussing science, but that speculate on government behaviour and policy, to a more appropriate forum (which may just be GD).

[papau]

49. Excellent suggestion - either approach would seem to accomplish what the OP

appears to want happen.

:-)

[Ian David]

55. Agreed. Let's disband science forum and create science group?

And declare it a Woo-woo free zone?

[beam me up scottie]

58. I honestly don't know if

policing the forum will work.
Look at what happened to GD, GDP and LBN when KOS kicked out his crop of conspiracy woowoos.

[Ian David]

63. Maybe we need a "Tinfoil Hat Button"

So that people can vote to move things away from the serious forums and into The Barnum's Kids Forums instead.

Or at least designate it as something a good number of us think is stupid. It would take some of the sting out of our disgrace when the outside world sees it and the topic or message is marked with a score of "50 Tinfoil Hats."

[beam me up scottie]

66. Ooooooooooooooooooooooo,

I like that !

The Tinfoil Hat Rating System

It has potential.

[Caution]

64. I am 100% for this idea

I, for one am sick and tired of the latest crackpot crap that has been spewed out from Coast to Coast and related ilk. It has NO place whatsoever in a forum dedicated to science.

[Domitan]

67. Interesting idea

What would be the criteria for what is considered acceptable and unscientific? Why not include the same criteria that respected scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Lancet, et al use when accepting articles?

[beam me up scottie]

68. That's the difficult part.

We would probably need a mod who already understands the difference between science and pseudo-science.

[NNadir]

69. Why not simply ignore woo-woo if it troubles you?

Why ask everyone to move around?

Back in the old days when "Science" was still part of "Energy and Environment" we had a poster who used to post all this crazy stuff mostly about nuclear physics. After a few weeks, it was pretty clear he was out to lunch. It really didn't hurt anyone, although some of us felt the need to pedantically lecture the guy on the nature of reality, which of course, was our own fault.

Personally, when I found it tiresome, I simply stopped opening his threads.

I can almost always tell a woo-woo thread immediately. I just don't open it after I've guessed its nature. That seems pretty easy to do.

[beam me up scottie]

71. People have LEFT DU because of this.

It is not unreasonable to ask that the Science forum be used for threads pertaining to science.

Should I be allowed to post news reports from six years ago in LBN ?
After all, people can just ignore them, right ?

[arwalden]

73. I Want To Post 'Happy Birthday' And 'Milestone' Threads In GD...

... but I'm not allowed. Why?

[beam me up scottie]

76. Hey, just ask Modem Butterfly

what happens when you post Nietzsche's famous quote "Is God Dead" in GD.

[papau]

80. "science" as in scientific method is well defined. What do you want to

add to the forum definition that will be easily actionable by the forum mods?

If you form a Science group what clear actionable instruction will be given the group mods to keep "woo-woo" out of the area?

Have at it, in any case. I do believe the task you have given yourself will not be easily accomplished.

Good Luck.

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

86. Woo woos have their own groups.

Thank you for your opinion.

[NNadir]

81. Well, you have a point, but woo-woo still doesn't bother me that much.

I think we should have a science area that is related to science; I'm really not questioning that. Still the science area is esoteric enough - it's not like it's the most popular forum - that I think it will be ill served by trying to move it around to hide it from the woo-woos. It might simply dilute the audience even further.

I wasn't a big fan of the splitting of the science forum from the energy and environment forum. Energy, environment and science to my mind are all intimately connected and any distinction in a general interest website is artificial. Most of my best scientific posts are over there. I felt that both of the forums suffered from lower attention after the split.

I must tell you that I don't really know how DU groups work, or whether they would be any more restrictive than the existing forum. I would probably not post in such a place if it came into being.

For all the stuff that is more than a little crazy here, I have had some very satisfying scientific discussions on DU. I would never dream of leaving it simply because of a distraction, or for that matter, because I found the quality of some posters poor, even absurd. I do in fact read some stuff here that is way out there, but sometimes I simply chuckle and move on. At other times, I use these opportunities as an educational avenue. I have learned quite a bit from other folks who are in the act of responding to ridiculous posts.

Most scientific journals limit themselves to "legitimate" scientific topics, but most journals are read only by scientists themselves. The beauty of this site is that it allows the scientific and the unscientific alike to interact. If we really only wish to see science discussed in a scientific way, we an always limit ourselves to peer reviewed publications. However I think there is value in the current set up, and so I am willing to accept a little woo-woo here and there.

(I very much like that "woo-woo" word by the way.)

People leave websites for all sorts of reasons - including the reason that they regard other posters as being out of control. The question is whether or not we can prevent this. Irrespective of whom has left the site, DU remains a vibrant place. I think that a regime of control freaking might diminish that vibrancy.

I believe that LBN works because of the actions of the moderators. Maybe your criticism results from your opinion that the moderators here are not activist enough in rooting out nonsense. As a person who has faced moderator action not because of my understanding of science but because of my rude and sometimes obnoxious personality, I cannot imagine that the moderator's job is particularly easy, though. I really think that tolerance should rule the day and we should accept that moderators, being human beings, have limits. Maybe for you an open and free discussion with the moderators is in order. Maybe you should apply to be a moderator in the future if you think you can manage it better.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Did you read my posts ?

I never once blamed the mods, in fact, one of the reasons I suggested a group was BECAUSE of the difficulty in moderating this forum.

Perhaps you are much more tolerant than I when it comes to allowing people like the anti-vaccine crowd to post their dangerous pseudo-science as if it were fact.

I wouldn't have suggested forming a group had I thought I was the only person who felt this forum was being abused.

Obviously, I'm not alone.

Thank you for your opinions.

[NNadir]

91. No, not all of them. In fact just the one to which I responded.

This is a long thread, and I was simply responding to the one or two posts I did read.

I hope you will forgive me for being less than comprehensive in evaluating your writings. I'm sure they were written at a very, very high level and are wildly popular, but time constrains me from being intimately familiar with everything you've written.

I don't like the anti-vaccine crowd, either. Of course, my response to such things is not to hide my responses in places where everyone will agree with me. My response is simply to make sure that the absurdity is addressed in a way people can understand. There may be neutral observers who actually don't know whether or not to take the pseudoscience seriously. Having grown up in a family where my parents had poor educations - neither had been to high school - I know that many people are ill equipped to understand whether or not, for instance, the tiny amounts of mercury in thimerosal represent real risks or not. This doesn't mean that they are stupid or worthy of contempt, merely that they are poorly educated. Many people only know that mercury is toxic and they have no understanding whatsoever of how mercury is distributed or how much the average human in the age of coal contains.

In the case of the vaccine nut cases, I think we do a service when we explain for instance that the most serious mercury contamination in the world comes from coal fired power plants and not from thimerosal in a few life time vaccines. We need people to see in plain terms what the issues are. I think we can actually save some lives by patiently addressing the lie, by telling people people that they already have mercury poisoning that far outstrips anything they may ever see in thousands of vaccinations.

As a proponent of nuclear power, I can tell you that the ability to evaluate risk ranks as one the most poorly understood scientific concepts among the general public. I often am frustrated with the radiation paranoia, but I am very confident that by surrendering to the lie - by imagining I can ignore it and it will go away - I am assuring its persistence.

Again, it comes down to the question of whether or not the purpose of a science discussion on a website like this is to amuse other scientists in a closed community or to make science accessible to non-scientists. I do understand the desire for some in the scientific community to hold scientific ignorance in contempt, just as some in the dance community might regard chemists like myself as a philistine and wish to avoid me.

I would submit though, that it would be very difficult to assert, for instance, that global climate change was not connected with human activity if scientists were more accessible. If more people were able to interact directly with scientists, they would know what scientists think. They would, in turn, be more immune to what media propaganda tells them - at the behest of the Exxon/Mobil crowd in the White House - about scientific consensus on the matter.

If a group such as you propose is formed, so be it. With all due respect to your widely esteemed views, I do not agree that the intention represents a wise idea.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Time constraints don't seem to affect the length of your posts.

But then, some people love to hear themselves talk, especially when they think they are being clever.

As I suspected, you not only didn't read through the thread, you obviously skimmed the op, judging from this statement:

"Again, it comes down to the question of whether or not the purpose of a science discussion on a website like this is to amuse other scientists in a closed community or to make science accessible to non-scientists."

Closed community ?
Inaccessible to non-scientists ?

Your opinion based on your misunderstanding of the purpose of this thread is duly noted and appreciated.

[NNadir]

95. Good point.

Characteristically brilliant as well. I am very sorry that I attempt to make an independent assessment of how to spend my time without consulting my betters, the arbitors of woo-wooness and how to respond to woo-wooness.

I certainly hope that no one will construe my woo-woo indifference as laziness or disinterest in the whole body of woo-woo studies.

I really should never try to elevate myself to understanding the purposes of woo-woo addressing threads. I am hardly a woo-woo expert and prehaps I deserve to have my woo-woo-like misunderstanding of my better's purposes "duly noted." While it sounds very serious, even vaguely threatening, of course, even being noted at all by those with greater woo-woo judgement than my own makes me feel much more worthy than I otherwise would.

I know that severe limits are now placed on the length of my postings, since I don't spend enough time to read the great writings, but let me say that I shall certainly die from my ignorance when I am deprived of the wisdom that knows, unlike me, how to address woo-wooism.

[papau]

97. LOL - thanks for the smile!

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

99. Stop trying to hijack this thread.

Several others have attempted it as well.

If you have issues not related to the subject, please start one of your own.

Thank you.

[NNadir]

101. Some statistics:

I have written (now) written 5 posts to this thread, while the most prolific poster here - its originator - has written 31, nearly a third of all the comments.

I can hardly be accused of hijacking. I'd have to spend more time on it than I have or than its worth to approach 31 posts. In any case, I was not aware that the DU rules accorded to thread originators the right to rule on what may or may not be said in them.

I note that a thread here where we first heard about woo-wooism - and which may have lead to the proposal of a mechanism for avoiding the serious risks of woo-woo exposure - would be considerably shorter (by around 10%) were it not filled with ten or more comments on woo-wooism by the woo-woo arbiters. One wonders if the originator of that (amusing) thread was contacted to discuss whether woo-wooism could be evoked therein. It does seem that that thread might have died a quicker death if it were simply ignored.

However I will now check out on my contemplation of what is and what is not woo-woo.

I've had my fun for the day.

[Ian David]

105. As much as I disagree with you, I still think your post was very funny

Thank you for reminding us that woo-woo-ness doesn't always indicate a lack of intelligence or witt.

Manny Woo-woos are full of witt, although when they get mad the witt might hit the fan, and some of us feel compelled to beat the witt out of them when they get a witty attitude.

Anyway, as I occasionally point out, even smart people can believe dumb things.

Even those who believe some woo-woo things might have something useful (or entertaining) to contribute. I'm not saying these people should be banned out of hand-- we just need to delete some of their message posts.

Anyway, as long as you're in the science forum, you should treat the reality-based community with awe and reverence.

[Taxloss]

88. I would support this group.

A science/rationalism group maybe.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Thank you.

Perhaps they could add pseudo-science to the title of this thread and let the disruptors have at it.

The locking of a thread last week in the UK forum may have been a sign of what's ahead for DU.

[rman]

103. i'd support such a group. n/t

-

[Caution]

104. Construction of a Mission Statement.

Can we begin working on this now? I believe the group rules should explicitly mention certain areas which are off-topic for the group, including but not limited to the following:

Crop Circles
Homeopathy
Aromatherapy
Chemtrails
UFO study except where it pertains t legitimate scientificy endeavours such as SETI


Sources should also be limited to legitimate scientific journals, news outlets, accredited university studies and mainstream media outlets. Items which would not be allowed would include:
Coast to Coast
The Fortean Times

Please feel free to add other non-scientific and pseudo-scientific "resources" to the above two lists.

Additionally, any and all conspiracy theories as they pertain to science should not be allowed, these properly belong in other groups which discuss government policy. Policy pertaining to science directly should be allowed, such as discussion of Global Warming deinal. While this is a greyer area, I think that whoever becomes the moderator of the group can bring any topic brought up to a consensus relatively quickly.

As for the Mission Statement itself.:

This group is dedicated to the discussion of Science which has its basis in rational study, uses the scientific method for research and discovery, and which goes through traditional peer review and repeatability. Pseudo-science and alternative science are not welcome here.

[Ian David]

106. I think that might actually be a little TOO constrained.

I think it needs:

1) More leeway in what sources can be used.

2) More reliance upon speedy, qualified and aggressive moderating as opposed to pre-defined constraints.

If we listed everything that was not validly scientific, we'd have to re-post half of the Skepdic.com Dictionary.

And then half our posts would be from Barnum's Kids arguing that such-and-such should not be on our list of stupid things:

"I noticed that you have Feng Shui listed as a non-scientific topic. I just wanted to start a thread in your group to point out some scientific journal articles you may have missed. For example, in Ladies Home Journal..."

If we could depend on qualified, responsive and aggressive moderation, then we could (IMHO) limit the mission statement to:

1) This group is dedicated to the discussion of Science which has its basis in rational study, uses the scientific method for research and discovery, and which goes through traditional peer review and repeatability. Pseudo-science, alternative science, and "conspiracy theories" based upon them are not welcome here.

2) We understand that there are many people, not necessarily through a fault of their own, who are not aware of the difference between science and pseudo-science. Honestly misguided posts will be moved, locked or deleted without penalty. While recognize that anyone and everyone may have something positive to contribute, we will not tolerate a senseless waste of time talking about senseless things.

3) While non-scientists and the genuinely curious are welcome to post here and ask questions, this group is not meant to debate the merits of various extraordinary claims. Once a question has been asked-and-answered or de-bunked, it may be immediately locked, moved, or deleted.

4) Rather than using a set of rigidly pre-defined rules and constraint, this group relies upon a sort of "peer review" of message posts to quickly and aggressively deal with inappropriate or outlandish content. Science and Scientific Inquiry should be free and open-- but not so open that everyone's brains fall out.

5) Moderators will be asked to discipline those who persistently, repeatedly, stubbornly, or aggressively post nonsense or flamebait.

6) In short, this is a forum for the Reality-Based Community to discuss issue of Science, not to debate the merits of Science itself, nor to waste time debunking that which is full of bunk. The misguided will be treated firmly yet gently, and the stubbornly foolish will be dealt with harshly.

Welcome to the Science Group. Please respect and follow our rules here, as we here respect and follow the rules of the Pseudo-Science groups by not going in there to debate the merits of their "stuff."

[beam me up scottie]

110. Would posts about

cat painting be allowed ?
:evilgrin:

[Caution]

111. I agree with you in pricinple, however

I think the moderation aspect could potentially be problematic. How does DU do group moderation? Is it possible for DU to grant a small group of regular rational contributors to the existing Science forum moderation priveleges? Can we in essence be a self-moderating group? (I can volunteer as one of many moderators but I could not be the sole moderator as I do not spend enough time on DU to monitor a forum full-time).

Without active moderation from those actively involved in the DU scientific community (whether as professionals, amateurs or interested parties) limits need to be placed and those things which are limited can more easily be enforced by a moderator who may not be as well-versed in the topic itself.

[rman]

112. Of course you do, but if you want to discuss

the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide and such, you can create your own group.

[MrBenchley]

107. I'd agree with that list

and I'd add Bigfoot, Nessie, el Chupacabree, Men in Black and Ghosts to the proscribed topics.

I also think the Mission Statement is well said.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Please do.

I'd rather leave that part of it up to the scientists and science savvy.
I'm sure others will want to contribute so I'll bow out.
The mission statement is short and sweet.

[MrBenchley]

108. Count me in...

[Skinner]

113. This is unnecessary.

I think this is an overreaction to a problem that is extremely small. I stop by the Science Forum multiple times each week, and I have seen VERY VERY few topics that don't qualify as science.

I haven't been here all weekend, but from what I hear, we had a small number of threads that people considered problematic. In the whole scheme of things, that is a pretty small problem.

And besides, I don't want to have to visit two forums. Sounds like a pain in the ass to me.

It seems to me that the problem you're trying to fix can be fairly easily solved using the DU version of peer review. Someone posts something stupid, and we can all post in the thread to explain why it is stupid. That's the way science works.

And for good measure, you can alert the post and the mods will decide whether it needs to be removed.

If someone makes a habit of posting stupid pseudoscience stuff in the Science Forum, then we'll tell that person to stop doing it.

ON EDIT:

For the record, if this is a reaction to the "Would NASA conceal evidence of advanced, extra-terrestrial civilization?" thread, it's worth noting that nobody bothered to alert the offending thread. So all this talk about the moderators not being up to the task seems a little unfair.

And also for the record, I've never seen any threads in here about Crop Circles, Homeopathy, Aromatherapy, or Chemtrails. And as far as I know there was only one thread about UFOs, and (as I mentioned above) nobody bothered to alert on it.

[Kraklen]

115. It is a small problem.

Although it does, at least in my opinion, stick out like a sore thumb. In the first two pages on the science forum I saw at least two threads on alchemy, one on Atlantis, one on flash frozen mammoths, and maybe a couple of others I don't remember.

I also noticed you only had two moderators covering all of the "non-political forums," and I'm assuming they're not scientists.

It hasn't been enough of a problem for me to bother hitting alert.

[Skinner]

118. The list you provide doesn't tell the whole story.

"In the first two pages on the science forum I saw at least two threads on alchemy, one on Atlantis, one on flash frozen mammoths, and maybe a couple of others I don't remember."

"at least two threads on alchemy" - I did a search and here's what I found:

Lost notes on alchemy by Isaac Newton found
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x7617
IMHO, this is a legitimate topic for a Science forum. I think it's pretty interesting that Isaac Newton, probably the father of modern science, had notes on alchemy.

John Dee - British mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, geographer and alchemist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x7876
The appropriateness of this topic, IMO, would be based on the intent. If the OP is trying to say that alchemy or astrology are real, then this has no business here. But if they are trying to simply provide some historical context, I think it's fine. (See above, the part about Isaac Newton having notes about alchemy. Even one of the greatest scientists of all time can be wrong.)

"one on Atlantis" - Actually, I see two.

Seafloor survey buoys Atlantis claim
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x9134
This is from the journal Nature. I think anything from Nature should automatically be considered legit for the lowly DU Science forum, don't you?

Greek island hosts three-day conference on Atlantis myth
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x7962
This does appear to be from a legitimate science website. Obviously, Atlantis is a topic that gets a lot of attention from the lunatic fringe, and obviously there is no evidence that Atlantis existed in the way that Plato described it. But it is my understanding that many myths often have some historical explanation, and can be a legitimate area of scientific study.

"one on flash frozen mammoths"

What's the truth behind the wooly mammoth that was "instantly frozen"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x7588
This appears to be an innocent question. I think such questions should be permitted.

"and maybe a couple of others I don't remember."

I can't really respond to this one. Although I know that some have previously complained of threads about Crop Circles, Homeopathy, Aromatherapy, or Chemtrails -- and I have not seen any such threads here.

My impression is that most of the thread topics you listed are not really a problem, and are a legitimate fit for a Science forum. The problem, as I see it, is that there may be a small number of people who don't really get the whole "science" thing and use legitimate science stories to push a different agenda. The problem is that it is sometimes not clear if someone actually has an agenda, or if they're just a person who found an interesting story in the Journal Nature about an Atlantis conference.

The answer lies, I think, in the attitude they bring to the discussions here. I don't think the DU Science forum should be used as a place to argue whether or not the scientific method works. It is obvious that it is vastly superior at answering questions and expanding human knowledge than any other approach we know. It is implied in the name "Science Forum" that the unifying theme of the discussions here is science, and there is a reasonable expectation that you won't have to constantly defend the scientific method.

I think science is robust enough to withstand the honest questions of people who do not understand, and I hope we all agree that such postings should be permitted. But if someone has an agenda which is antithetical to science, if they aren't asking honest questions but rather trying to make room for pseudo-science, then they really don't belong here.

And I want to stress the importance of hitting alert. All of a sudden people are making it sound as if the Science Forum has been taken over by people who don't appreciate science. There have been a number of threads on the topic of what to do about it, but precious few alerts on the offending posts.

[Caution]

116. I don't think criticism of the job the mods do was explicit here

it may have been inferred but I think wrongly so. The concept here is that increasingly DU is host to non-rational unscientific ideas (which if management is willing to allow I'm fine with), however we as rationalists are looking for a sanctuary for scientific discussion without the inevitable person coming in to crash the party.

The biggest problem we have here is that as people who are interested in science and rationalism one of our primary goals is to educate. So flame wars erupt (usually very polite ones thank bob) that can go on for hundreds of posts before someone gets completely exasperated and hits the alert button. Certainly we can alert the mods but we're saying we'd like to have a group dedicated to those who donate and self-policed rather than shifting the burden to the official mods.

You mention that you wouldn't like to have to go to two places...why not move the science forum behind the Group shield altogether?

I know that I for one am increasingly concerned by the level of discourse that DU is finding itself mired in currently. The ignore feature has been my best friend for the past year, I'm just distressed that I have referred two close friends who are both serious liberals and very politically active (one writes for a major political publication which is actively demonized by the right as "conspiracy-mongering)" and his response was: "Oh I've been there and it's really a bunch of whackjobs who think 9/11 was done by the government" The other actually signed up but doesn't frequent the site due to the "loony posters." The Science forum especially should be a haven for those of us interested in actual science and not a playground for those who seek to undermine legitimate discussion.

[Skinner]

119. My impression is that the "level of discourse" on DU is not worse.

We have always had our share of conspiracy mongering and non-rational thinking. If anything, the postings from such viewpoints are less common than they were in the past, when we used to permit completely unfettered access to the GD forum for anyone pushing any idiotic thing they made up in their own heads. People have been painting DU as the loony bin since day one, and I'm not sure there's much I can do about it. I suppose I could ban everyone who holds an viewpoint that I consider insufficiently rational, but I suspect there wouldn't be many people left here.

I really think it would be a shame to bury this forum in the groups, because I do believe that science is a topic of general interest to a large proportion of our visitors.

I just posted a response to the post above yours which outlines my feelings on this topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=8647&mesg_id=9460

In short: I think it is reasonable to expect that postings in the Science forum be about science, just as it is reasonable to expect postings in other forums to be on-topic. With that in mind, there is plenty we can do to keep discussions on-topic in this forum. The suggestion that a totally closed group is necessary seems premature at best.

[Skinner]

120. I'm locking this thread.

I've made it clear that at this time I do not think it is necessary to create a Science Group. I don't think keeping this open any longer is necessary, nor do I think it's helpful to the mood in this forum.

As I have said elsewhere, if you think someone or something is a problem for this forum, please hit alert.

And if you're someone who doesn't appreciate science, please don't disrupt this forum for those of us who do. There are plenty of other places on DU where you can discuss topics that are not science.