Discussions about climatic change and renewable vs. nuclear energy should be banned

[Elthy]

Whenever someone starts a discussion about something related to climatic change or renewable/nuclear energy things go bad realy soon (recent example). Both topics have extreme "fanatic" (i know no better word in english) people on both sides who seem to feel insulted by everyone denying thier opinion. Also both sides begin to spam "facts" which are denied and countered by the other side.

I would say those discussions are similar to religios/idiologic discussions banned by the rules and should be banned, too. They only cause bad blood in the otherwise nice community and dont contribute to anything...

Whats your opinion about this?

[CaptainKipard]

Let me just get this straight. You want to ban the discussion of a SCIENTIFIC MATTER because some "very silly people" have an opinion?

This isn't like discussions about god where you can't REALLY know one way or the other. This is a matter of scientific fact. The only opposition to this is psudoscientific and political. If anything then climate change denial should be banned.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Rainbowtrout
fixed something

[vexx32]

If a discussion gets heated and people start going off-topic or otherwise breaking rules, call the mods. Report posts, or send one of us a PM. We can and will attempt to calm things down, and if necessary we will lock threads temporarily or permanently as befits the situation.

[Elthy]

Let me just get this straight. You want to ban the discussion of a SCIENTIFIC MATTER because some illiterate loud mouthed troglodytes have an opinion?

This isn't like discussions about god where you can't REALLY know one way or the other. This is a matter of scientific fact. The only opposition to this is psudoscientific and political. If anything then climate change denial should be banned.

The problem is that those discussions arent realy scientific. Both sides just pick stuff from the web that supports their opinion and throw it at each other like snowballs. Since there is stuff to support any opinion on the internet and (nearly) noone here is able to realy evaluate their scientific accuracy its just about which side shouts louder.

@vexx32: Well, its your decision. The new thead i mentioned in the OP is quite harmless...

[Guest]

I'd say there should be no banning conversation topics at all. Even the ban on politics strikes me as restrictive (especially since there are many things where global politics play an important part), unnecessary and even a bit insulting. Every topic can be discussed in a civilized manner, using logic and well thought-out arguments . If people fail to do so, punish those people, not ban/censor the topic. In general, I'm against all forms of censorship and against banning that is not strictly a last resort. Someone who's clearly trolling, insulting just to insult and doesn't stop after being reprimanded should be banned, but someone who has a strong opinion (even if many people disagree) and can defend it should be able to do so, even without being nice about it (it does help, but a valid argument is a valid argument, no matter how bluntly presented). I hate it when forums, instead of handling this properly, just say "don't talk about anything you can disagree on".

[CaptainKipard]

The problem is that those discussions arent realy scientific. Both sides just pick stuff from the web that supports their opinion and throw it at each other like snowballs. Since there is stuff to support any opinion on the internet and (nearly) noone here is able to realy evaluate their scientific accuracy its just about which side shouts louder.

But sooner or later one side either runs out of arguments or information, or a flaw in logic is spotted and everyone is better for it (with the exception of the denier maybe because there's this thing in psychology called the "backfire effect")

I'd say there should be no banning conversation topics at all. Even the ban on politics strikes me as restrictive (especially since there are many things where global politics play an important part), unnecessary and even a bit insulting. Every topic can be discussed in a civilized manner, using logic and well thought-out arguments . If people fail to do so, punish those people, not ban/censor the topic. In general, I'm against all forms of censorship and against banning that is not strictly a last resort. Someone who's clearly trolling, insulting just to insult and doesn't stop after being reprimanded should be banned, but someone who has a strong opinion (even if many people disagree) and can defend it should be able to do so, even without being nice about it (it does help, but a valid argument is a valid argument, no matter how bluntly presented). I hate it when forums, instead of handling this properly, just say "don't talk about anything you can disagree on".

Quite right. All of that.

The KSP community is one of the most logically and scientifically literate game communities. I'm pretty sure they can handle any debate. Making this environment into a padded room and forcing everyone to wear kid gloves is a little absurd.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Guest]

Indeed, it's one of the few large-ish forums that I'd call definitely capable of discussing any subject and doing it well. There is no practical reason to censor anything at all, perhaps except sexually explicit content (not that I can think of a reason to post such content here in first place).

Also, aside from this, I also realized that these kind of rules reek of hypocrisy - after all, if you ask any of the mods, devs, admins, whoever about if they are for or against free speech, I think they'd all answer the same. And yet still, the forum rules contain blatant censorship of an entire topic (let's call spade a spade - this is censorship and nothing else). It's not like laws about free speech apply to a forum like this, but it's irrelevant. It's not about legality of such rules, it's about their morality. I don't think you'll find many people here who'd say publicly discussing politics should be banned. Therefore, I find it hypocritical that they banned it on this forum.

[vexx32]

If I may suggest... we could (possibly) make the Science Labs a bit more stringent when it comes to science v.s. opinion -- requiring reliable sources for important points of discussion.

But I feel like that would simply be more of an obstacle to discussion than the opinionated users can be. :/

[Vanamonde]

We don't close threads because we dislike the ideas in them. It's not a free speech issue. We close threads when they turn into arguments, are no longer progressing constructively, and we'd have to start handing out infractions if we let the arguments continue. And if it happens often enough on the same subject, we rule that whole topic off-limits to prevent more arguments and infractions and bad feelings between our members. If you dislike this, there is something you can do about it. And that is, stop turning those threads into name-calling arguments, and we won't have any need to close them.

You folks may look at a thread and say, "This isn't so bad. Why was it closed?" You aren't seeing the insults we removed, the infractions we gave out, and occasionally, really nasty things like racist attacks. You can't see how often we are reacting not because we are anxious to shut down discussion, but because some of your fellow forum members have asked us to respond.

And Science Labs, for whatever reason, is consistently one of the most argumentative and angry subdivisions of the entire forum. If you dislike seeing those arguments closed, I entirely sympathize. But guys, stop giving us reasons to close those threads, and we'll stop closing them.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Vanamonde

[CaptainKipard]

If I may suggest... we could (possibly) make the Science Labs a bit more stringent when it comes to science v.s. opinion -- requiring reliable sources for important points of discussion.

But I feel like that would simply be more of an obstacle to discussion than the opinionated users can be. :/

I'm 100% behind this. It would be a little bit like an informal peer review process, which is one of the core principles of the scientific method. Everyone is entitled to opinions, but opinions aren't necessarily facts, and they can go to the space lounge if you can't back them up.

We don't close threads because we dislike the ideas in them. It's not a free speech issue. We close threads when they turn into arguments, are no longer progressing constructively, and we'd have to start handing out infractions if we let the arguments continue. And if it happens often enough on the same subject, we rule that whole topic off-limits to prevent more arguments and infractions and bad feelings between our members. If you dislike this, there is something you can do about it. And that is, stop turning those threads into name-calling arguments, and we won't have any need to close them.

The mods and admins may be able to refute this but there are only two main reasons why a topic gets heated.

1. The defending side runs out of things to say when pressured to provide evidence or a causal link. This always seems to make people regress to a child-like state. It's a psychological defence mechanism. I think this is the only thing mods should be required to handle.

2. The "pro-science" crowd gets frustrated at the intractability and inability of the other side to engage in a debate in good faith. I'm guilty of this quite a bit, but this wouldn't be as much of an issue if vexx32's idea was in place. Putting this rule in place would be the most socially responsible thing to do. It would at the very least give the average members a hint of what it really means to be scientific in a science forum.

And Science Labs, for whatever reason, is consistently one of the most argumentative and angry subdivisions of the entire forum.

The reason is that the more scientifically minded understand the need for absolute clarity of language, empiricism and real logic, and the others rely on blogs and common sense (which is vastly inferior to logic, for evolutionary reasons). THIS is the cause that should be fixed, not the symptoms. You guys and gals have an opportunity here to do something really positive.

If you dislike seeing those arguments closed, I entirely sympathize. But guys, stop giving us reasons to close those threads, and we'll stop closing them.

I think everyone understands that these topics are being held hostage by people with specific character traits. Isn't it a little weird to be disappointing everyone because of actions of a few people?

Is it just that it's more work to babysit everyone than it is to wrap things up? I'm sure there are many members who have a science background who would love to moderate the Science Labs in a more scientific way. It's a good thing.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Dodgey]

I agree completly with Cpt. Kipard. IMHO a more strict precedent for the science labs with regards to sources of information will do a lot to keep the discussions much more civil, not to mention informative.

[Vanamonde]

It's not true that there is a right side (pro-science) and a wrong side (speaking irrationally) in these situations, and the problem is created by the wrong people who won't stop being wrong. Deciding who is right about the issue under discussion is not a moderation issue. Some of our members are going to be wrong about any issue that comes up, and we try to let everybody have their say. The problem for us is that people on both sides of these arguments have a tendency to become so invested and angry that they resort to insults. And then we have to act, not because somebody is wrong about the facts, but because productive discussion is no longer possible on our forum when people are attacking each other personally.

[CaptainKipard]

Where is this coming from? Are these your own words?

[Rowsdower]

We just want to make sure things are kept calm and civil. There's a lot of passion on both sides, but we just don't want lines crossed here, wrong or right opinion.

[Dodgey]

I know what you mean by not wanting to pick sides and I understand why. But is there a reason why you can't be objective with the requirements for sources and coherent arguments. There isn't a need to be biased.

[Kulebron]

It's not true that there is a right side (pro-science) and a wrong side (speaking irrationally) in these situations, and the problem is created by the wrong people who won't stop being wrong. Deciding who is right about the issue under discussion is not a moderation issue. ...The problem for us is that people on both sides of these arguments have a tendency to become so invested and angry that they resort to insults.

Quite the opposite, in that climate change thread those who stayed were mostly calm on both sides. It were the newcomers who'd come with moralistic judgements, feeling righteous and superior (and I don't mean any side here in partucilar, I saw an opposite situation in another place). There are also those who stay all the time in political forums and make poisonous statement on the margin of rules. I don't think these both qualify as "another opinion", it's another way of debating, a damaging one. You want more people who contribute and add facts or systemize them, to keep forum alive, rather than thick-skinned debaters and trolls.

[Xaiier]

It's not true that there is a right side (pro-science) and a wrong side (speaking irrationally) in these situations, and the problem is created by the wrong people who won't stop being wrong. Deciding who is right about the issue under discussion is not a moderation issue. Some of our members are going to be wrong about any issue that comes up, and we try to let everybody have their say. The problem for us is that people on both sides of these arguments have a tendency to become so invested and angry that they resort to insults. And then we have to act, not because somebody is wrong about the facts, but because productive discussion is no longer possible on our forum when people are attacking each other personally.

Well said.

Let me just get this straight. You want to ban the discussion of a SCIENTIFIC MATTER because some "very silly people" have an opinion?

This isn't like discussions about god where you can't REALLY know one way or the other. This is a matter of scientific fact. The only opposition to this is psudoscientific and political. If anything then climate change denial should be banned.

By your standards, there's nothing to discuss. Anyone who might disagree with your interpretation is automatically assigned to an "anti-science" category and shunted away. This is in opposition to the very nature of scientific inquiry.

Sadly it seems that whenever such a topic comes up, it inevitably devolves into pointless argument. I would be in favor of enacting rules that ban discussion of such topics as this forum really isn't the place to be having those discussions.

[CaptainKipard]

Well said.

No. That was merely common sense.

By your standards, there's nothing to discuss. Anyone who might disagree with your interpretation is automatically assigned to an "anti-science" category and shunted away. This is in opposition to the very nature of scientific inquiry.

It's my fault for being concise. At this point it's almost impossible to overturn the theory, and obviously you're not going do it using information that the scientists involved already accounted for. I said the only reason to oppose it was pseudo-scientific and political, and those topics are already banned.

Sadly it seems that whenever such a topic comes up, it inevitably devolves into pointless argument. I would be in favor of enacting rules that ban discussion of such topics as this forum really isn't the place to be having those discussions.

Ok so you've cast your ballot, but you haven't really moved the discussion forward at all, which is something that often happens in similar contexts, because people don't feel like they need to justify anything.

[Xaiier]

...It's my fault for being concise. At this point it's almost impossible to overturn the theory, and obviously you're not going do it using information that the scientists involved already accounted for. I said the only reason to oppose it was pseudo-scientific and political, and those topics are already banned.

Scientific inquiry is based around gathering new knowledge or correcting old knowledge and integrating new findings with current knowledge. Notwithstanding the ignorant arguments put forth by those who may commonly oppose such arguments, you cannot take on the view that your theory is without flaw without falling back to the same kind of reasoning that those who may oppose you will use. Because this is so common, its better to just keep such discussion away from these forums where it will always result in the same thing.

Ok so you've cast your ballot, but you haven't really moved the discussion forward at all, which is something that often happens in similar contexts, because people don't feel like they need to justify anything.

I feel I have justified my position sufficiently, I do not require your approval of my reasoning.

[Dodgey]

By your standards, there's nothing to discuss. Anyone who might disagree with your interpretation is automatically assigned to an "anti-science" category and shunted away. This is in opposition to the very nature of scientific inquiry.

If I understand correctly, the people to which Cpt. Kipard refers to as "science deniers" are those who state they are correct incontry to science and evidence, who presuppose their position is correct despite being shown otherwise (think Flat Earth Socity). I mean would you be opposed to the banning of discussions as to wheather or not the Earth is flat (if such discussions were heated for whatever reason in these forums) because blotting out the other argument assumes that the earth is round without flaw (I'm tieing into your second reply here), there reaches a point where it is safe to assume a theory will never be overturned (evolution for example).

In anycase adopting vexx's idea of making the Science Labs more stringent with regards to sources of information would be able to fix the problem of those discussions without restoring to banning them.

Sadly it seems that whenever such a topic comes up, it inevitably devolves into pointless argument. I would be in favor of enacting rules that ban discussion of such topics as this forum really isn't the place to be having those discussions.

Now why isn't it the Science Labs an appropriate place for the discussion of scientific theories. I mean it is a place in the forums specially designated for it. Requiring sources for information would prevent it from becoming a pointless argument (highly subjective termby the way).

[CaptainKipard]

... obviously you're not going do it using information that the scientists involved already accounted for.

Scientific inquiry is based around gathering new knowledge or correcting old knowledge and integrating new findings with current knowledge. Notwithstanding the ignorant arguments put forth by those who may commonly oppose such arguments, you cannot take on the view that your theory is without flaw without falling back to the same kind of reasoning that those who may oppose you will use. Because this is so common, its better to just keep such discussion away from these forums where it will always result in the same thing.

Highlighted for your benefit.

I feel I have justified my position sufficiently, I do not require your approval of my reasoning.

Since your original point about "new knowledge" is now moot, you're back to just making a baseless assertion.

Also

without flaw

same kind of reasoning

Those are your words, and they're strawmen. That is such a troll tactic.

Now please. It was your decision to expose yourself to criticism here by exercising your freedom of expression, so at least read what's been written and make sure you understand every post in the context of the whole thread.

As an aside. A sticky with logical fallacies would also benefit the science forum a lot. There's no way around the fact that people will want to debate, so why not at least mitigate the flames a bit with some clearer rules for those debates. I'll happily compile an outline if it comes to it.

EDIT

Maybe we could have separate forums for pop science and hard science.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Xaiier]

Since my points are being overlooked, dismissed, and misconstrued in favor of personal attacks and tangent discussions I do not see any reason to try to continue to restate them, for fear of this thread devolving into the very thing it suggests banning. Have a good day.

[CaptainKipard]

You're not a victim, you just haven't expresed yourself coherently. I'm not a mind reader. If you meant something else, or if your argument has unstated premises, then correct yourself.

[The Jedi Master]

About common sense. It's called sense for a reason. It can be wrong, but usually it's right. Like in this situation. Think of it this way: It is perfectly logical to drive as fast as you can to get to a destination quickly, but common sense says you will crash into something.

And as for suggesting we just go all-out, allow-everything, let me remind you that the reason this community is nice is because we have good moderators. There is a ton of nasty stuff you don't get to see unless you just check every controversial thread every five seconds. I've always hated how memorial threads end up in political arguments, and that is evidence to me that we aren't as nice as we like to think.

[CaptainKipard]

About common sense. It's called sense for a reason. It can be wrong, but usually it's right. Like in this situation. Think of it this way: It is perfectly logical to drive as fast as you can to get to a destination quickly, but common sense says you will crash into something.

Actually the etymology of that phrase is several centuries old and it meant uniting your five senses to get a reasonable understanding. Later it the meaning changed to "good sense". It's correct that common sense often leads to the right answer, and your example is entirely appropriate for common sense because that is a very ordinary set of circumstances.

With that said, you've got the example backwards. Common sense tells you to drive fast to get to a place sooner. What is logical is to consider all relevant factors, and scientists and engineers do just that when considering speed limits for specific places.

Scientific matters are much more unintuitive, and therefore they require a much more stringent process. Let's take astronomy for example. Common sense tells you that the sun travels in a circle around the earth, because that's what your eyes and your vestibular system tell you. It took a lot of logical reasoning to figure out that that's not true, and I think we all know the opposition to that. That opposition was not logical. It was common sense and emotions and political factors, etc, etc.

The problem with common sense is that it evolved a long time ago when our ancestors had to make a quick decision about the rustling in the grass. There was no time to consider everything logically, and what comes with that is a strong connection to your emotional parts of the brain.

And as for suggesting we just go all-out, allow-everything, let me remind you that the reason this community is nice is because we have good moderators. There is a ton of nasty stuff you don't get to see unless you just check every controversial thread every five seconds. I've always hated how memorial threads end up in political arguments, and that is evidence to me that we aren't as nice as we like to think.

Sure, but what is your point? All you're doing is describing the way things are with the current system.

Another idea I had is instead of splitting up the science forum is to create a more formal debate forum, with stricter rules.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard