Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
darkbrowneggs

Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

Hi - As there is a "Naughty Corner" for those who like to swear at each other and get abusive (or at least that is as I understand it having never joined) Very Happy

Might there be another "Joiners Only" corner for those interested in those other dirty words on this forum such as Hom*?%!~athy and and other such unmentionables Laughing

Sometimes I get the feeling that people might like to post about Alt^!*&"*ve Th*?!*pies and ideas without getting blasted out of the water, and if it was a "joiner only" forum then those who know what utter twaddle it all is would not feel the need to join, and hence save their blood pressure.

This is a light-hearted post Very Happy but possibly with a view to a real suggestion. Very Happy Very Happy

Just a thought!

Sorry about the over-use of smileys - must be a nervous tick Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile

Yours in tredpidation
Sue
jema

Its not the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

Should there be graduations though?

A forum for :

Twaddle
Total Twaddle
Twaddle that even people who normally believe in twaddle think is silly.
Jamanda

Thanks for your suggestion Sue.
T.G

don't forget,

Lucrative twaddle
Twaddle for twaddle's sake
Extremely fashionable twaddle
Pocket raiding twaddle

I think it has legs as an idea for what it's worth
cab

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"


Yours in tredpidation
Sue


Never be afraid to have an idea shot down. If you have a hundred ideas and two are good, thats better than just having one good idea.

While I can't immediately think of anything wrong with a kind of 'unfalsifiable hypothesis' forum, I also can't think why the main site would benefit from that. Isn't it better that any and all claims are open to fair question?
T.G

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

fair question


But on these topics it seldom stays as that Wink
cab

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

fair question

But on these topics it seldom stays as that Wink

I disagree. But you might assume that Smile
T.G

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

fair question

But on these topics it seldom stays as that Wink

I disagree. But you might assume that Smile

Laughing i'd never be so bold as to assume Wink
cab

The question really is whether by mutual consent there could be a part of the forum where the burden of proof for any claim is lowered, and whether hiding that forum out of site would be a good thing. Would either be a good idea? JB

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

Hi - As there is a "Naughty Corner" for those who like to swear at each other and get abusive (or at least that is as I understand it having never joined) Very Happy

Might there be another "Joiners Only" corner for those interested in those other dirty words on this forum such as Hom*?%!~athy and and other such unmentionables Laughing

As I understood it that was meant to be the idea of the naughty corner. Somewhere for such threads to be moved when they became too heated as opposed to locking the thread. Unfortunately it's just turned into somewhere to choose to shout rude words. But also unfortunately the nature of the naughty corner means that mods can't interject into a thread to tell people that they're misusing the naughty corner.
Bebo

Nutter's Corner? Then all the flat earthers and anti-evolutionists can post in there too.

Interesting that the thread has been re-instated after yesterday evening removal. Shame that it's less a few posts though.
jema

I thought it was for a new place where people who get frustrated by posts on these subjects and think that downsizer should not be seen by new people as a place where twaddle is accepts uncritically could safely butt out as it would only be seen by members who had opted in to it.

I think that is not such a dumb idea.

I can think of any number of names for such a forum Laughing
cab

Re: Suggestion for new "Naughty Corner"

As I understood it that was meant to be the idea of the naughty corner. Somewhere for such threads to be moved when they became too heated as opposed to locking the thread. Unfortunately it's just turned into somewhere to choose to shout rude words. But also unfortunately the nature of the naughty corner means that mods can't interject into a thread to tell people that they're misusing the naughty corner.

And as that was always the premis of Naughty Corner, many people (myself included) chose not to go there. It just didn't sound like my cup of tea.
paul1963

Why need a new one? I am in the naughty corner and it serves its purpose. My only beef is that occasionaly foul language is used in an NC thread title and appears for all on the forum to see, which I don't agree with. I am not a person who is given to swearing readily in print, never been my way, but the NC gives us an opportunity to be a bit silly without censure (not that forums should be censored in my opinion, but enough on that for now). Bebo

My only beef is that occasionaly foul language is used in an NC thread title and appears for all on the forum to see, which I don't agree with.

It doesn't. Only naughty corner members can see the title of threads. It doesn't come up in the Latest Posts list if you aren't a member. It is members only specifically so that those who don't approve of swearing or off-colour humour don't have to see it and so that it isn't visible to minors.
sean

Thread titles from the Naughty Corner only appear if you're a member or a mod. If you're not then you don't see them. jema

I don't think titles will appear to non members. paul1963

The question really is whether by mutual consent there could be a part of the forum where the burden of proof for any claim is lowered, and whether hiding that forum out of site would be a good thing. Would either be a good idea?

That would run a risk of elitism. To give an example I am a qualified meteologist, if someone posted that a weather event was down to climate change I could if it was not, use my knowledge to denigrate their argument and get it moved to an area where the burden of proof is lowered, thereby implying they and their opinions were of lesser value.

You, OP and I have discussed/argued over the relative merits of transport types and their accompanying issues on several occasions for days at a time. I have learnt from you through those discussions and highly valued that learning and your input. In an area where my knowledge is not as good as yours would I risk being moved to a forum of lesser proof. I would be saddened if that happened as making an erroneous public statement and then being constructively helped to understand the subject and reappraise one's point of view is a valuable and precious learning tool and one which I am sure we all appreciate Very Happy
paul1963

I don't think titles will appear to non members.

Hopefully they won't (might be worth checking though) obviously being an NC member I see them regardless... Very Happy
Midland Spinner

Why not call it The Alternative Corner.

I think that I think that it's a good idea. I get a bit frustrated when what promises to be an interesting thread about someone's sincerely held ideas or an explanation of something that I've heard about, but know nothing in detail, gets hijacked by people saying that it's all twaddle.

It might well be twaddle, but how will I ever find out if I can't read a reasoned discussion about what it's all about.

My only regret is that this could lead to the fragmentation of DS with all the different subjects being parcelled up into their own little worlds. So you'd have to opt to see threads on eash specific subject, so you wouldn't stumble across ones on Knitting or the de-fleshing of polar-bear heads
paul1963

Thread titles from the Naughty Corner only appear if you're a member or a mod. If you're not then you don't see them.

Thanks Sean Very Happy
paul1963

Why not call it The Alternative Corner.

I think that I think that it's a good idea. I get a bit frustrated when what promises to be an interesting thread about someone's sincerely held ideas or an explanation of something that I've heard about, but know nothing in detail, gets hijacked by people saying that it's all twaddle.

It might well be twaddle, but how will I ever find out if I can't read a reasoned discussion about what it's all about.

My only regret is that this could lead to the fragmentation of DS with all the different subjects being parcelled up into their own little worlds. So you'd have to opt to see threads on eash specific subject, so you wouldn't stumble across ones on Knitting or the de-fleshing of polar-bear heads

IMO those who hijack a subject and say it is twaddle are merely expressing their own ignorance of that subject and doing it in such a visible way that other DS members can form their own opinions of them without the need for moving the thread
Lorrainelovesplants

Is homeopathy a bad word then? Smile

I know I can be a bit slow sometimes, but.... Smile
cab


That would run a risk of elitism. To give an example I am a qualified meteologist,

What kind of qualifications are available in meteorology?
cab

I have no problem with people criticising any idea here. So long as they do so reasonably and even handedly. I don't see that as being a bad thing. T.G

IMO those who hijack a subject and say it is twaddle are merely expressing their own ignorance of that subject and doing it in such a visible way that other DS members can form their own opinions of them without the need for moving the thread

But someone or more than one person stating that what you are asking or speaking about is twaddle can make the poster think 'sod it' I'll not bother and so the thread dies and those interested in reading others opinions on the subjects are left without .. and lets face it some people just can't help themselves and have to make off the cuff remarks and spoil it for those who are interested in reading what others may say on a subject, yet if it was reversed they'd be offended.

treat ppl as you'd expect to be treated and all that Wink
paul1963


That would run a risk of elitism. To give an example I am a qualified meteologist,

What kind of qualifications are available in meteorology?

Various ones, there are metereology degrees which are (or were) run in association with the met office, and specialising in environmental sciences (similar route to geology) Very Happy
cab


treat ppl as you'd expect to be treated and all that Wink

I expect others to tell me if I'm wrong, and I expect others to challenge assertions I've made. I expect people to do so in a reasonable and, more importantly, reasoned way. I expect the same level of respect to be shown to all faith beliefs, but I expect arguments based on evidence and fact to be treated differently; where one crosses over into the other, where faith masquerades as reason, I expect that people should be free to say so.
cab


That would run a risk of elitism. To give an example I am a qualified meteologist,

What kind of qualifications are available in meteorology?

Various ones, there are metereology degrees which are (or were) run in association with the met office, and specialising in environmental sciences (similar route to geology) Very Happy

I really enjoyed studying it. Got one of my highest undergrad marks in the meteorology course, I'd have loved to continue with it if the timetabling hadn't clashed with genetics.
paul1963

IMO those who hijack a subject and say it is twaddle are merely expressing their own ignorance of that subject and doing it in such a visible way that other DS members can form their own opinions of them without the need for moving the thread

But someone or more than one person stating that what you are asking or speaking about is twaddle can make the poster think 'sod it' I'll not bother and so the thread dies and those interested in reading others opinions on the subjects are left without .. and lets face it some people just can't help themselves and have to make off the cuff remarks and spoil it for those who are interested in reading what others may say on a subject, yet if it was reversed they'd be offended.

treat ppl as you'd expect to be treated and all that Wink

That's a fair point and I won't disagree but I hope people wouldn't be put off by that (I am guilty of quite often dropping slightly facetious comments into conversations myself to lighten the mood although I would not dream of telling anyone they were talking twaddle) as any point of view, even if it is based on incorrect testimony serves to raise the level of thought and allows for constructive discussion.
paul1963


That would run a risk of elitism. To give an example I am a qualified meteologist,

What kind of qualifications are available in meteorology?

Various ones, there are metereology degrees which are (or were) run in association with the met office, and specialising in environmental sciences (similar route to geology) Very Happy

I really enjoyed studying it. Got one of my highest undergrad marks in the meteorology course, I'd have loved to continue with it if the timetabling hadn't clashed with genetics.

It can still be done through the OU and the met office in Reading I believe, but it is a long old slog through the lower levels, most of which you are already highly qualified in.

edited to say can "still" be done
cab

although I would not dream of telling anyone they were talking twaddle

I've got no problem with that, if its part of a coherent argument. 'You're talking twaddle' on its own is just rude, its offends me. On the other hand 'No, thats not true because (x), (y), and (z), the claim is twaddle' (for example) is absolutely fine by me. By all means say that something is twaddle, but back it up
darkbrowneggs

Sorry (and I am still hesitant to post on this thread, even though I started it myself) Rolling Eyes

I wasn't suggesting an unmoderated section, and I wasn't suggesting a section where the truths or untruths of people's beliefs could be discussed and thrashed out to everyone's satisfaction Laughing

What I was vaguely suggesting was an "Alternatives Corner" which you could opt into if you held views other than the scientific mainstream, and that those who felt otherwise (it seems twaddle was and unfortunate choice of word in my first post, but again mad unknowingly) Rolling Eyes .

ie one might believe in God and the power of prayer , one might believe in alternative therapies of all kinds, and maybe even had positive results with them oneself, and possibly wish to post to that effect, without getting into a scientific debate as to why your own personal "cure" had no standing as it had not been verified.

Things like Bio dynamic growing, planting by moon phases, dowsing, reiki, curing meat at moon phases, herbalism, homoeopathy, chiropractors, Bach's Rescue Remedy, magnetic egg sexers, - far to many things to mention.

I would not be interested in discussing whether or not these have been scientifically proven to work, but I would be interested to hear anyone's personal experiences - negative or positive, then armed with this information I could then go on and make a more informed decision as to how I intended to go on through my life.

I don't have to do what someone else has done, its just interesting to know what they did and how it worked out for them in their circumstances at that particular time.

I personally, think there are many things in this world that we cannot begin (at present) to understand, but that does not (in my opinion only I hasten to add Smile mean that they don't exist

I think , unfortunately, and unknowingly, I happened to make my initial suggestion at a rather fraught time. I must admit I tend not to read posts which look as though they might be contentious - I dislike arguments of any kind - so hadn't realized anything might be amiss on the forum in general.

Most of the forums I am a part of I have joined simply to gain knowledge from the personal experience of others, and hope to learn something from their mistakes and triumphs, and also pass on anything I might have gleaned through my own passage through this lifetime.

One of my favorite poems is
The things that matter by E Nesbit 1858-1924 and I like to think there is a little bit about me in there somewhere. Very Happy

All the best
Sue

this was edited as there were several more posts while I was typing, and I had included something which might have been seen as contentious - which is the LAST thing I was trying to be. Sue
Midland Spinner

IMO those who hijack a subject and say it is twaddle are merely expressing their own ignorance of that subject and doing it in such a visible way that other DS members can form their own opinions of them without the need for moving the thread

But someone or more than one person stating that what you are asking or speaking about is twaddle can make the poster think 'sod it' I'll not bother and so the thread dies and those interested in reading others opinions on the subjects are left without .. and lets face it some people just can't help themselves and have to make off the cuff remarks and spoil it for those who are interested in reading what others may say on a subject, yet if it was reversed they'd be offended.

treat ppl as you'd expect to be treated and all that Wink

That's a fair point and I won't disagree but I hope people wouldn't be put off by that (I am guilty of quite often dropping slightly facetious comments into conversations myself to lighten the mood although I would not dream of telling anyone they were talking twaddle) as any point of view, even if it is based on incorrect testimony serves to raise the level of thought and allows for constructive discussion.

I'm quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - i.e. I could ignore the odd post taking the michael out of a subject, but when what promised to be an interesting thread gets hijacked and I have to sift through 5 pages of silly posts by people who aren't interested just to read a couple of interesting posts I generally don't have the time or the energy to do so. So like TG says, I end up not reading any of it.
paul1963

IMO those who hijack a subject and say it is twaddle are merely expressing their own ignorance of that subject and doing it in such a visible way that other DS members can form their own opinions of them without the need for moving the thread

But someone or more than one person stating that what you are asking or speaking about is twaddle can make the poster think 'sod it' I'll not bother and so the thread dies and those interested in reading others opinions on the subjects are left without .. and lets face it some people just can't help themselves and have to make off the cuff remarks and spoil it for those who are interested in reading what others may say on a subject, yet if it was reversed they'd be offended.

treat ppl as you'd expect to be treated and all that Wink

That's a fair point and I won't disagree but I hope people wouldn't be put off by that (I am guilty of quite often dropping slightly facetious comments into conversations myself to lighten the mood although I would not dream of telling anyone they were talking twaddle) as any point of view, even if it is based on incorrect testimony serves to raise the level of thought and allows for constructive discussion.

I'm quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - i.e. I could ignore the odd post taking the michael out of a subject, but when what promised to be an interesting thread gets hijacked and I have to sift through 5 pages of silly posts by people who aren't interested just to read a couple of interesting posts I generally don't have the time or the energy to do so. So like TG says, I end up not reading any of it.

I can see your point, I must confess I tend not to go on for pages when I do it, but then I am only as you say reading the threads that interest me and when they go wholly off track I give up as well.
dpack

off the wall corner Laughing

im with cab in that open discussion using facts and logic is best even if the facts and logic displease those who wont use facts and logic to understand the universe
paul1963

off the wall corner Laughing

im with cab in that open discussion using facts and logic is best even if the facts and logic displease those who wont use facts and logic to understand the universe

It's scientific stand point, which I am all in favour of, but my earlier threads are largely concerned with the risk of making threads elitist or denigrating those of lesser factual knowledge.
Gervase

Agreed. To have a separate area where the normal rules of scrutiny, logic and what-have-you don't apply strikes me as being rather sily, and would perhaps detract from the site as a whole.
And what would go in there? Would any religious or faith-based discussion take place there? Climate change denial? Racial theories?
It would run the risk of becoming a rather flaky ghetto.
And there is nothing elitist about facts!
bagpuss

People being able to discuss their faith based positions without being derailed by non believers should be allowed and I am sorry if I have contributed to this no being a good space to do that

My concern with any thread where skeptics are strongly discouraged from contributing is where is the line. An alternative medicine practioner is helping with back pain smoking or anixeity that's great but suggesting not to vaccinate against childhood diseases or not to take malaria tablets or insulin for diabetes those are not good and should be actively discouraged

So when is it appropriate to point out that the alternative treatment is the wrong thing and that there are better conventional solutions
Jo S

Sorry (and I am still hesitant to post on this thread, even though I started it myself) Rolling Eyes

I wasn't suggesting an unmoderated section, and I wasn't suggesting a section where the truths or untruths of people's beliefs could be discussed and thrashed out to everyone's satisfaction Laughing

What I was vaguely suggesting was an "Alternatives Corner" which you could opt into if you held views other than the scientific mainstream, and that those who felt otherwise (it seems twaddle was and unfortunate choice of word in my first post, but again mad unknowingly) Rolling Eyes .

ie one might believe in God and the power of prayer , one might believe in alternative therapies of all kinds, and maybe even had positive results with them oneself, and possibly wish to post to that effect, without getting into a scientific debate as to why your own personal "cure" had no standing as it had not been verified.

Things like Bio dynamic growing, planting by moon phases, dowsing, reiki, curing meat at moon phases, herbalism, homoeopathy, chiropractors, Bach's Rescue Remedy, magnetic egg sexers, - far to many things to mention.

I would not be interested in discussing whether or not these have been scientifically proven to work, but I would be interested to hear anyone's personal experiences - negative or positive, then armed with this information I could then go on and make a more informed decision as to how I intended to go on through my life.

I don't have to do what someone else has done, its just interesting to know what they did and how it worked out for them in their circumstances at that particular time.

I personally, think there are many things in this world that we cannot begin (at present) to understand, but that does not (in my opinion only I hasten to add Smile mean that they don't exist

I think , unfortunately, and unknowingly, I happened to make my initial suggestion at a rather fraught time. I must admit I tend not to read posts which look as though they might be contentious - I dislike arguments of any kind - so hadn't realized anything might be amiss on the forum in general.

Most of the forums I am a part of I have joined simply to gain knowledge from the personal experience of others, and hope to learn something from their mistakes and triumphs, and also pass on anything I might have gleaned through my own passage through this lifetime.

One of my favorite poems is
The things that matter by E Nesbit 1858-1924 and I like to think there is a little bit about me in there somewhere. Very Happy

All the best
Sue

this was edited as there were several more posts while I was typing, and I had included something which might have been seen as contentious - which is the LAST thing I was trying to be. Sue

I'll be honest: that's the point of an online forum. To discuss one or a million topics of interest. But unlike your local pub or even a community meeting, there are millions of voices on the wibbly web, all with their own opinions and (for some) the belief that the anonymity of the web means that they can say what they like without the consequences, unlike in real life.

Rather than what you're saying, I think that as a "community" we should do better at picking up our own rubbish, rather than expecting the litter pickers to do it for us. In other words, moderate ourselves rather than backing away because someone is being particularly vocal or facetious.
paul1963

although I would not dream of telling anyone they were talking twaddle

I've got no problem with that, if its part of a coherent argument. 'You're talking twaddle' on its own is just rude, its offends me. On the other hand 'No, thats not true because (x), (y), and (z), the claim is twaddle' (for example) is absolutely fine by me. By all means say that something is twaddle, but back it up

I agree with you on this, it's my preferred form of debate Very Happy
cab

People being able to discuss their faith based positions without being derailed by non believers should be allowed and I am sorry if I have contributed to this no being a good space to do that

Discussion of faith based things without being derailed by those who base alternative viewpoints on evidence? I'm not sure I get you, sorry Smile

Would this mean that the rest of the forum should be a place where fact and reason shouldn't be challenged by faith and belief?

You quite rightly pointed out one slippery slope, I can see others here too!
Gervase

So when is it appropriate to point out that the alternative treatment is the wrong thing and that there are better conventional solutions
From my point of view, from the very first mention. It doesn't have to be a rude response; simply one that points out that there is absolutely no evidence for the procudure under discussion and a few links to debate elsewhere would suffice. I wouldn't like to see a quack's corner here.
Penny Outskirts

People being able to discuss their faith based positions without being derailed by non believers should be allowed and I am sorry if I have contributed to this no being a good space to do that

Discussion of faith based things without being derailed by those who base alternative viewpoints on evidence? I'm not sure I get you, sorry Smile

Would this mean that the rest of the forum should be a place where fact and reason shouldn't be challenged by faith and belief?

You quite rightly pointed out one slippery slope, I can see others here too!

I don't understand that either.
dpack

in otwc extra rigor could be applied to the scientific process of testing hypothises

this could be interesting
paul1963

Sorry (and I am still hesitant to post on this thread, even though I started it myself) Rolling Eyes

I wasn't suggesting an unmoderated section, and I wasn't suggesting a section where the truths or untruths of people's beliefs could be discussed and thrashed out to everyone's satisfaction Laughing

What I was vaguely suggesting was an "Alternatives Corner" which you could opt into if you held views other than the scientific mainstream, and that those who felt otherwise (it seems twaddle was and unfortunate choice of word in my first post, but again mad unknowingly) Rolling Eyes .

ie one might believe in God and the power of prayer , one might believe in alternative therapies of all kinds, and maybe even had positive results with them oneself, and possibly wish to post to that effect, without getting into a scientific debate as to why your own personal "cure" had no standing as it had not been verified.

Things like Bio dynamic growing, planting by moon phases, dowsing, reiki, curing meat at moon phases, herbalism, homoeopathy, chiropractors, Bach's Rescue Remedy, magnetic egg sexers, - far to many things to mention.

I would not be interested in discussing whether or not these have been scientifically proven to work, but I would be interested to hear anyone's personal experiences - negative or positive, then armed with this information I could then go on and make a more informed decision as to how I intended to go on through my life.

I don't have to do what someone else has done, its just interesting to know what they did and how it worked out for them in their circumstances at that particular time.

I personally, think there are many things in this world that we cannot begin (at present) to understand, but that does not (in my opinion only I hasten to add Smile mean that they don't exist

I think , unfortunately, and unknowingly, I happened to make my initial suggestion at a rather fraught time. I must admit I tend not to read posts which look as though they might be contentious - I dislike arguments of any kind - so hadn't realized anything might be amiss on the forum in general.

Most of the forums I am a part of I have joined simply to gain knowledge from the personal experience of others, and hope to learn something from their mistakes and triumphs, and also pass on anything I might have gleaned through my own passage through this lifetime.

One of my favorite poems is
The things that matter by E Nesbit 1858-1924 and I like to think there is a little bit about me in there somewhere. Very Happy

All the best
Sue

this was edited as there were several more posts while I was typing, and I had included something which might have been seen as contentious - which is the LAST thing I was trying to be. Sue

I'll be honest: that's the point an online forum. To discuss one or a million topics of interest. But unlike your local pub or even a community meeting, there are millions of voices on the wibbly web, all with their own opinions and (for some) the belief that the anonymity of the web means that they can say what they like without the consequences, unlike in real life.

Rather than what you're saying, I think that as a "community" we should do better at picking up our own rubbish, rather than expecting the litter pickers to do it for us. In other words, moderate ourselves rather than backing away because someone is being particularly vocal or facetious.

I agree, but not everyone may have the confidence to tell people they are offending. When I first came to the site I got a few digs for my first thread and I bit back, because that is what I do, but a different personality may easily have left to not return. We have seen a different example of that not so long ago where a new member retorted to criticism of their first post by getting aggressive and demanding to leave. Maybe they just didn't know the etiquette, I certainly didn't and probably still don't TBH Very Happy

Incidentally if I am being contentious I put a smiley in Very Happy to illustrate good intention rather than rancour (unless i'm really cross when I use the revolvong red fella)
Jo S

I suspect that bagpuss is saying that challenging religion and faith is one thing, but challenging a person for their faith is a different matter entirely. jema

My position is simple.

I honestly do try and keep my mouth shut when these subjects come up on open forum, but open is open and if someone is making a contention that up is down, black is white or that a couple of twigs can detect water, then my opinion is as valid as anyone else's and I will be tempted to challenge such things.

If we have a "belief" area of some description where there is a basic premise that if you are posting in a thread you basically share that "belief" then it is a clear line in the sand that people should not cross.
Jo S

I'll be honest: that's the point an online forum. To discuss one or a million topics of interest. But unlike your local pub or even a community meeting, there are millions of voices on the wibbly web, all with their own opinions and (for some) the belief that the anonymity of the web means that they can say what they like without the consequences, unlike in real life.

Rather than what you're saying, I think that as a "community" we should do better at picking up our own rubbish, rather than expecting the litter pickers to do it for us. In other words, moderate ourselves rather than backing away because someone is being particularly vocal or facetious.

I agree, but not everyone may have the confidence to tell people they are offending. When I first came to the site I got a few digs for my first thread and I bit back, because that is what I do, but a different personality may easily have left to not return. We have seen a different example of that not so long ago where a new member retorted to criticism of their first post by getting aggressive and demanding to leave. Maybe they just didn't know the etiquette, I certainly didn't and probably still don't TBH Very Happy

Incidentally if I am being contentious I put a smiley in Very Happy to illustrate good intention rather than rancour (unless i'm really cross when I use the revolvong red fella)

IMHO, confidence comes from seeing others do the same...
paul1963

I'll be honest: that's the point an online forum. To discuss one or a million topics of interest. But unlike your local pub or even a community meeting, there are millions of voices on the wibbly web, all with their own opinions and (for some) the belief that the anonymity of the web means that they can say what they like without the consequences, unlike in real life.

Rather than what you're saying, I think that as a "community" we should do better at picking up our own rubbish, rather than expecting the litter pickers to do it for us. In other words, moderate ourselves rather than backing away because someone is being particularly vocal or facetious.

I agree, but not everyone may have the confidence to tell people they are offending. When I first came to the site I got a few digs for my first thread and I bit back, because that is what I do, but a different personality may easily have left to not return. We have seen a different example of that not so long ago where a new member retorted to criticism of their first post by getting aggressive and demanding to leave. Maybe they just didn't know the etiquette, I certainly didn't and probably still don't TBH Very Happy

Incidentally if I am being contentious I put a smiley in Very Happy to illustrate good intention rather than rancour (unless i'm really cross when I use the revolvong red fella)

IMHO, confidence comes from seeing others do the same...

True enough but you would have to be here long enough to see that surely. If you make a post and a dozen people brand you as a twaddlemonger you may not wish to hang around for a few more objective people to interject or to log on. Also the sensible ones may leave the thread feeling it is deteriorating. It's a lottery some days you log on and get sensible people another day you get stuck with me Very Happy
Bebo

I suspect that bagpuss is saying that challenging religion and faith is one thing, but challenging a person for their faith is a different matter entirely.

Why? Religion has as little scientific proof behind it as the tooth fairy or homeopathy.
paul1963

I suspect that bagpuss is saying that challenging religion and faith is one thing, but challenging a person for their faith is a different matter entirely.

Why? Religion has as little scientific proof behind it as the tooth fairy or homeopathy.

Yep, it's a matter of faith, and that is the point surely. Challenging a faith can be as offensive to someone with that faith as challenging their belief in it Very Happy
Penny Outskirts

I suspect that bagpuss is saying that challenging religion and faith is one thing, but challenging a person for their faith is a different matter entirely.

Why? Religion has as little scientific proof behind it as the tooth fairy or homeopathy.

Yep, it's a matter of faith, and that is the point surely. Challenging a faith can be as offensive to someone with that faith as challenging their belief in it Very Happy

But made up nonsense still must be challenged.
naomij

obv I am totally new so don't have a good sense of the 'tone' here, but in general online, as in the pub etc, I don't constantly feel the need to express my opinion on the validity of what everyone else says.
There is a big difference between a thread called 'what do you think of biodynamic farming practices' where it would IMO be perfectly justifiable to offer criticism, and a thread entitled 'my wonderful experience of biodynamic farming practices' where IMO a polite reply would not be more negative than 'I can't say I see any reason to farm this way but it was an interesting read thanks for sharing'.
But then if I wanted to discuss biodynamic farming or vaccination etc, there may well be better places than here (which is perhaps a shame, as I imagine there is at least some crossover between downsizer type folk (whoever they are) and non-vaccers, hippy farmers etc?)
I struggle to see the need for sarcy offhand remarks....sometiems they are funny and harmless, but mostly they are negative and offputting. But thats just me Confused
Jo S

Challenge the faith, by all means. Why not?

But sometimes it gets personal, it stops being about the faith or religious leaders and becomes about the person holding that faith.

In my mind, that's wrong.
Midland Spinner

obv I am totally new so don't have a good sense of the 'tone' here, but in general online, as in the pub etc, I don't constantly feel the need to express my opinion on the validity of what everyone else says.
There is a big difference between a thread called 'what do you think of biodynamic farming practices' where it would IMO be perfectly justifiable to offer criticism, and a thread entitled 'my wonderful experience of biodynamic farming practices' where IMO a polite reply would not be more negative than 'I can't say I see any reason to farm this way but it was an interesting read thanks for sharing'.
But then if I wanted to discuss biodynamic farming or vaccination etc, there may well be better places than here (which is perhaps a shame, as I imagine there is at least some crossover between downsizer type folk (whoever they are) and non-vaccers, hippy farmers etc?)
I struggle to see the need for sarcy offhand remarks....sometiems they are funny and harmless, but mostly they are negative and offputting. But thats just me Confused

Well put.
12Bore

Challenge the faith, by all means. Why not?

But sometimes it gets personal, it stops being about the faith or religious leaders and becomes about the person holding that faith.

In my mind, that's wrong.
Good post, a person "with faith" will normally accept a challenge, and may often find that responding to it may reinforce/reaffirm their faith, personal, on the other hand, is wrong and often turns personal/nasty.
cab


Yep, it's a matter of faith, and that is the point surely. Challenging a faith can be as offensive to someone with that faith as challenging their belief in it Very Happy

Its possible for people to find things offensive when they're not; to be offended by a statement that directly or indirectly challenges a belief, if the statement is made reasonably, is a good example.

Downsizer doesn't have the best track record on being even handed towards all faith based positions. Its better than a lot of sites, but IMHO has further to go. A corner of the site where even handed challenges to opinions cannot be made would be entirely regressive if our goal is to get where we need to be on both tolerance and reason.
Bebo

I'm probably one of the more vocal anti-religion posters. If people choose to believe that god exists that's their choice, doesn't necessarily make them a bad person. However, organised religion and those that pedal it (and by that I mean those in charge of religious organisations) are in my opinion a bad thing and I'm going to continue saying that on here up until I'm banned for it. dpack

if someone suggested thor causes lightning and thunder i will mention moving particles ,electrons ,photons , discharge paths and shock waves in air and demonstrate them if required ,i ask the same burden of proof from thorists tis only polite to be able to explain ones world view in a logical way be it planting beans or how to be ethical and sustainable 12Bore

I'm probably one of the more vocal anti-religion posters. If people choose to believe that god exists that's their choice, doesn't necessarily make them a bad person. However, organised religion and those that pedal it (and by that I mean those in charge of religious organisations) are in my opinion a bad thing and I'm going to continue saying that on here up until I'm banned for it.
So long as you do not launch personal attacks on other posters (which you do not) fair enough. Every opinion is valid, even when one disagrees with it.
Treacodactyl

obv I am totally new so don't have a good sense of the 'tone' here, but in general online, as in the pub etc, I don't constantly feel the need to express my opinion on the validity of what everyone else says.
There is a big difference between a thread called 'what do you think of biodynamic farming practices' where it would IMO be perfectly justifiable to offer criticism, and a thread entitled 'my wonderful experience of biodynamic farming practices' where IMO a polite reply would not be more negative than 'I can't say I see any reason to farm this way but it was an interesting read thanks for sharing'.
But then if I wanted to discuss biodynamic farming or vaccination etc, there may well be better places than here (which is perhaps a shame, as I imagine there is at least some crossover between downsizer type folk (whoever they are) and non-vaccers, hippy farmers etc?)
I struggle to see the need for sarcy offhand remarks....sometiems they are funny and harmless, but mostly they are negative and offputting. But thats just me Confused

Well put.

Indeed. I don't know why everyone can't post along the same lines as the do on other threads. If someone asks a question about their chicken health we wouldn't expect a long discussion about the ethics of keeping chickens but if someone asks about the rights and wrongs of battery farming you would expect that.

However, if someone asks for advice on something like biodynamic gardening you'd very quickly get loads of remarks dismissing it.
Bebo

I'm probably one of the more vocal anti-religion posters. If people choose to believe that god exists that's their choice, doesn't necessarily make them a bad person. However, organised religion and those that pedal it (and by that I mean those in charge of religious organisations) are in my opinion a bad thing and I'm going to continue saying that on here up until I'm banned for it.
So long as you do not launch personal attacks on other posters (which you do not) fair enough. Every opinion is valid, even when one disagrees with it.

Until what I get posts gets taken wrongly and the complaints start rolling in.......probably only a matter of time to be honest.
cab


Indeed. I don't know why everyone can't post along the same lines as the do on other threads. If someone asks a question about their chicken health we wouldn't expect a long discussion about the ethics of keeping chickens but if someone asks about the rights and wrongs of battery farming you would expect that.

However, if someone asks for advice on something like biodynamic gardening you'd very quickly get loads of remarks dismissing it.

It is possible to be correct or to be incorrect. There is a difference between something being right, and something being wrong. Thats not a faith based thing, its whether something can be demonstrated as being true or not. It isn't unreasonable for people to post critically of things that are demonstrably untrue, or which could, if actually true, be so easily shown to be so that the lack of evidence arouses suspicion.

Biodynamics is an excellent example; I expect people to keep an open mind on most things, and that includes being open to the fact that its hokum. To restrict such topics to remove criticism would show Downsizer in a very bad light. This site would be much lessened by protecting topics from that criticism, such doesn't help people have open minds or more balanced perspectives. That is only possible in an environment where criticism is allowed.
Treacodactyl


Indeed. I don't know why everyone can't post along the same lines as the do on other threads. If someone asks a question about their chicken health we wouldn't expect a long discussion about the ethics of keeping chickens but if someone asks about the rights and wrongs of battery farming you would expect that.

However, if someone asks for advice on something like biodynamic gardening you'd very quickly get loads of remarks dismissing it.

It is possible to be correct or to be incorrect. There is a difference between something being right, and something being wrong. Thats not a faith based thing, its whether something can be demonstrated as being true or not. It isn't unreasonable for people to post critically of things that are demonstrably untrue, or which could, if actually true, be so easily shown to be so that the lack of evidence arouses suspicion.

Biodynamics is an excellent example; I expect people to keep an open mind on most things, and that includes being open to the fact that its hokum. To restrict such topics to remove criticism would show Downsizer in a very bad light. This site would be much lessened by protecting topics from that criticism, such doesn't help people have open minds or more balanced perspectives. That is only possible in an environment where criticism is allowed.

I think you've missed my point completely.
T.G

I may be wrong in thinking this, but Iím not sure what youíre discussing now is what DBE intended.

It seemed from what sheíd written she wanted merely a platform for those with alternative viewpoint on non-classic/modern/alternative, call it what you will, activities and practices to be able to share what they had experienced without having it be brow beaten into affirming something by validation, credible documented sources and scientific acknowledgement. When in fact the thing being discussed is by definition is based in belief and hands-on experience.

Such as herbal wormers, for years they were treated as airy fairy alternatives and yet now there is a growing respect for them based in both scientific and experience based knowledge of their successful use.

Iím not saying that is the only example or for that matter all alternatives are the way forward, but if those who wish to discuss them openly have to contend with a barrage of comments demanding quantifiable evidence for something that is faith/belief based then it really isnít allowing them to express what theyíve experienced, good and bad, which some of us may find of interest even if we donít necessarily agree, believe or practice it.

Respectful comments such as have already been suggested should be sufficient for those uninterested/unbelieving who feel compelled to make a comment.

Just because someone doesnít believe in a god or religion doesnít automatically make them saner than those that do Wink
cab


Indeed. I don't know why everyone can't post along the same lines as the do on other threads. If someone asks a question about their chicken health we wouldn't expect a long discussion about the ethics of keeping chickens but if someone asks about the rights and wrongs of battery farming you would expect that.

However, if someone asks for advice on something like biodynamic gardening you'd very quickly get loads of remarks dismissing it.

It is possible to be correct or to be incorrect. There is a difference between something being right, and something being wrong. Thats not a faith based thing, its whether something can be demonstrated as being true or not. It isn't unreasonable for people to post critically of things that are demonstrably untrue, or which could, if actually true, be so easily shown to be so that the lack of evidence arouses suspicion.

Biodynamics is an excellent example; I expect people to keep an open mind on most things, and that includes being open to the fact that its hokum. To restrict such topics to remove criticism would show Downsizer in a very bad light. This site would be much lessened by protecting topics from that criticism, such doesn't help people have open minds or more balanced perspectives. That is only possible in an environment where criticism is allowed.

I think you've missed my point completely.

Have I? Then please reiterate; what point did I miss? My head is still woozy from a stinker of a cold over the weekend.
Jonnyboy

Then why not use a particular website suited to that particular purpose? I wouldn't post on here if I wanted to discuss the best mountain bike tyres for muddy conditions, or whether the main themes of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more or less relevent in a non-patriarchal society. sean

Then why not use a particular website suited to that particular purpose? I wouldn't post on here if I wanted to discuss the best mountain bike tyres for muddy conditions, or whether the main themes of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more or less relevent in a non-patriarchal society.

Indeed. I think that the idea that ds can or should cater for everybody and everything under the sun is a bit problematic really.
Gervase

To restrict such topics to remove criticism would show Downsizer in a very bad light. This site would be much lessened by protecting topics from that criticism, such doesn't help people have open minds or more balanced perspectives. That is only possible in an environment where criticism is allowed.
Couldn't agree more. Any viewpoint should be open for discussion.
T.G

Then why not use a particular website suited to that particular purpose? I wouldn't post on here if I wanted to discuss the best mountain bike tyres for muddy conditions, or whether the main themes of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more or less relevent in a non-patriarchal society.

Yes fair enough but then why is discussing alternative herbal remedies on a form entitled ethical and sustainable any less relevant than lets say the census for 2011? As lets face it herbal wormers are both of those.
naomij

Yes fair enough but then why is discussing alternative herbal remedies on a form entitled ethical and sustainable any less relevant than lets say the census for 2011? As lets face it herbal wormers are both of those.[/quote]

yes and I think that folk into herbalism, biodynamics etc would feel those subjects are very relevant to living sustainably and ethically? But I suppose the question is whether its fair if such folk are grilled as to why they see it to be relevant every time they want to mention it
Treacodactyl

Then why not use a particular website suited to that particular purpose? I wouldn't post on here if I wanted to discuss the best mountain bike tyres for muddy conditions, or whether the main themes of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more or less relevent in a non-patriarchal society.

Indeed. I think that the idea that ds can or should cater for everybody and everything under the sun is a bit problematic really.

Well some of the more practical posts do have a cross over and regardless of your beliefs that can be useful to others.

I don't disagree that any viewpoint should be open to discussion but not every time someone mentions it. If after every post about animals or meat eating someone ranted about how evil it is to eat meat I don't think we'd tolerate that would we?
cab


Yes fair enough but then why is discussing alternative herbal remedies on a form entitled ethical and sustainable any less relevant than lets say the census for 2011? As lets face it herbal wormers are both of those.

There is no problem with people posting such things here. Herbal wormers, reiki, that strange thing where they do things to your feet, whatever really. As long as any criticism thereof is fair, I have no problem with people responding critically.
cab


Well some of the more practical posts do have a cross over and regardless of your beliefs that can be useful to others.

I don't disagree that any viewpoint should be open to discussion but not every time someone mentions it. If after every post about animals or meat eating someone ranted about how evil it is to eat meat I don't think we'd tolerate that would we?

That entirely depends on how they make their point. If they just say 'its evil' that would get tiresome. If they make a good argument, whats the problem?
12Bore


Well some of the more practical posts do have a cross over and regardless of your beliefs that can be useful to others.

I don't disagree that any viewpoint should be open to discussion but not every time someone mentions it. If after every post about animals or meat eating someone ranted about how evil it is to eat meat I don't think we'd tolerate that would we?

That entirely depends on how they make their point. If they just say 'its evil' that would get tiresome. If they make a good argument, whats the problem?
Because some people lack the self discipline to agree to disagree, that's when it turns personal.
Treacodactyl


Well some of the more practical posts do have a cross over and regardless of your beliefs that can be useful to others.

I don't disagree that any viewpoint should be open to discussion but not every time someone mentions it. If after every post about animals or meat eating someone ranted about how evil it is to eat meat I don't think we'd tolerate that would we?

That entirely depends on how they make their point. If they just say 'its evil' that would get tiresome. If they make a good argument, whats the problem?

Because not every thread has to turn into an argument!
cab


Because not every thread has to turn into an argument!

Not every thread does. Anyway, what turns threads into heated arguments is not reasonable criticism. Its sarcasm, scorn or insult.
dpack

herbal wormers can be demonstrated to work

the census is a means to gain general data about a population

homeopathy is snake oil with no snake oil in it

etc

if i back those statements with facts from repeatable well conducted studies that is ethical and sustainable and we all learn ,if i am rude and call a fool a fool im out of order ,simple rules to follow ,i like that and i have learnt many things from such debates over many years

robust is fine by me ,robust can and should be polite
dpack


Because not every thread has to turn into an argument!

Not every thread does. Anyway, what turns threads into heated arguments is not reasonable criticism. Its sarcasm, scorn or insult.

i recall a naughty corner thread that was titled in a very inflammatory way and ran to 2 pages of polite support with no arguing or rude words ,just care and kindness
Chez

Then why not use a particular website suited to that particular purpose? I wouldn't post on here if I wanted to discuss the best mountain bike tyres for muddy conditions, or whether the main themes of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more or less relevent in a non-patriarchal society.

Indeed. I think that the idea that ds can or should cater for everybody and everything under the sun is a bit problematic really.

But good manners surely should mean that thread hijack of every single thread about reiki/homeopathy etc filling up with a to and fro of 'it's all a load of twaddle' 'oh yes, I know it's all a load of twaddle' type posts from a small number of people could be toned down?

I appreciate that people have strong feelings about this sort of thing. It would be nice if those us of who have tried some of them and find them effective could chat about that without being drowned out.

Perhaps a bit more tolerance rather than a special place where the barrier of proof is set lower would suffice?
12Bore

eg. I sell audio cables, some cost £5 some cost £1000+, in some circles this is known as "foo". It may be that a metallurgist can prove scientifically that they all measure/test the same, but if it satisfies the customer and leaves them happy who is to say that all copper sounds the same? paul1963

I suspect that bagpuss is saying that challenging religion and faith is one thing, but challenging a person for their faith is a different matter entirely.

Why? Religion has as little scientific proof behind it as the tooth fairy or homeopathy.

Yep, it's a matter of faith, and that is the point surely. Challenging a faith can be as offensive to someone with that faith as challenging their belief in it Very Happy

But made up nonsense still must be challenged.

Faith is not made u nonsense though. One can argue against a doctrine or dogma but faith itself is one of those intangible things like, for example, love surely?
Slim

*gingerly dipping my toes in to test the water*

Much as Bebo dislikes organized religion, I dislike "bad" science. I try to be respectful to posters and practitioners, but I feel very strongly that it has a negative effect on the credibility of "hippy" "progressive" "downsizer" type folks (like myself), and as such feel that it is important to discuss it. As such, I don't mean to offend, but I hope that I can help inform people regarding the science, or lack thereof.

I started to see things with a more critical eye after hearing a former producer/retailer of Bach's remedies admit quite openly that he had been "scamming" people. Does that mean I think you shouldn't take them? No, it does not. If anything, the very fact that it makes you feel better is reason enough to do it. Will I sit idly by whilst someone espouses all of the benefits that it has, without explaining the mechanism (or even potential damage/toxicity of other products)? No I will not. I think it's unfair for people to be 'sold' on things that may not actually have any efficacy, without at least an acknowledgment that the product/technique hasn't been scientifically verified, as a bit of a disclaimer.

While I feel that I understand wanting to be able to share one's own experiences with different techniques and products, and read others' experiences, it's a fine line between "_____ seemed to have _______ effect on my _______" and "______ is a wonder product! Why doesn't everyone use it! Go out and buy _____ now!"

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

I am a 'hippy organic farmer' but I've also studied a lot of the science behind it. As such, I get frustrated talking with folks/friends about biodynamic farming - mostly because I don't feel like my 'scientific' viewpoint is being recognized, because biodynamic effects "can't be quantified by science". While I don't agree with a lot of the biodynamic treatments, I will stand by the assertion that biodynamic farmers are among the best in the world if only for the intense care and attention they pay to their land and crops.
Chez

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

Absolutely.
T.G

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.
Chez

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

I think that's the thing I find wiggs me out about some of the 'scientific' responses on this kind of thread - some of them can be so scorn-filled. It is not nice.
dpack

i respect the right of folk to disagree with me ,sometimes they convince me to see things their way ,sometimes not ,

this is how we learn
paul1963

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......
dpack

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

I think that's the thing I find wiggs me out about some of the 'scientific' responses on this kind of thread - some of them can be so scorn-filled. It is not nice.

i apologise if my defense of fact and logic can be seen as scorn ,when i cant explain i will say so ,same if i believe something based on subjective experience ,im open to new ideas ,tested fact and logic is very practical and starts as an untested idea

odd we are rerunning the enlightenment 300 years later
Chez

i apologise if my defense of fact and logic can be seen as scorn ,when i cant explain i will say so or belive something based on subjective experience ,im open to new ideas ,tested fact and logic is very practical and starts as an untested idea

odd we are rerunning the enlightenment 300 years later

I don't think you are a culprit in this particular case, dpack. You are very rarely rude. It's not about what is said; it's HOW it's said.
dpack

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......

scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further
dpack

i apologise if my defense of fact and logic can be seen as scorn ,when i cant explain i will say so or belive something based on subjective experience ,im open to new ideas ,tested fact and logic is very practical and starts as an untested idea

odd we are rerunning the enlightenment 300 years later

I don't think you are a culprit in this particular case, dpack. You are very rarely rude. It's not about what is said; it's HOW it's said.

i didnt either cos as you say ,it is how not what
paul1963

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......

scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further

That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.
dpack

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......

scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further

That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.

i think we mean the same thing here
paul1963

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......

scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further

That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.

i think we mean the same thing here

Actually I think we probably do Laughing

Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads Surprised
Slim

is it odd that i wouldn't even know how to access the original naughty corner if i so wanted? paul1963

is it odd that i wouldn't even know how to access the original naughty corner if i so wanted?

You ask the mods for entry and they let you in, remember to hook a thread from you cardie on a nail before you enter the labyrinth of naughtiness Laughing
cab

eg. I sell audio cables, some cost £5 some cost £1000+, in some circles this is known as "foo". It may be that a metallurgist can prove scientifically that they all measure/test the same, but if it satisfies the customer and leaves them happy who is to say that all copper sounds the same?

Rather depends on what kind of audio cables I think...

But take that example; suppose someone was to ask about, say for example, HDMI cables to connect a bad telly to a rubbish DVD player. They get an answer that they should buy a special cable thats £50 per metre. Its perfectly fair that others might (a) suggest that in that scenario such expenditure on cables won't help, and (b) except for long distances it probably makes no difference for HDMI, or (c) actually the build quality of some of the really cheap cables is ridiculous, so just avoid those and you'll not go TOO far wrong.

Does it satisfy the customer? Maybe, not my business to say. But if the topic is open for discussion should we shy away from voicing defensible opinions?
dpack

I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'.

That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.

More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.

They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner.

Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either......

scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further

That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.

Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results.

i think we mean the same thing here

Actually I think we probably do Laughing

Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads Surprised

ah good Laughing

the method is perfect ,the best truth as far as we can work out will change as we learn more
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Home Home Home Home