Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Origins Of Death

DA says:

I offer a buffer between you (meaning jjw) and anyone reading your random thoughts and thinking they contain substance.

Jjw Response:
That is possibly a partially correct statement. I check just about all of you posts and replies. In a post you make sense. In replies you are antagonistic, insulting, demeaning and sloppy about the content of your reply. It appears you want to be every body?s buffer for everything. A frustrated moderator. In another reply I saw where you offered a connection with a University. Are you the ?Instructor? for Adult Education at the University of Washington? If so, congratulations.
jjw

Yes I teach at the University of Washington. Have also been an advisor at UC Berkeley and lecture at a number of colleges around the country each year.

Perhaps the reason I seem antagonistic in replies is that I rarely reply except to refute rubbish. Take, for example, Protobon's claim that protons are little pyramids. Laughable but I didn't say a word about it as I have no idea what they truly are. But his claim that Lithium could have any other number of protons than 3 is preposterous nonsense and he most obviously confused protons with neutrons and lacks even a middle school level understanding of chemistry. To that I take umbrage.

Though, to keep my integrity, I must confess that I have been intentionally baiting our three moderators to do what the job title says. Likely they will dump me and keep the garbage ... but who can say ... every once in awhile the animals teach a trick or two to the zookeepers.

I think part of the problem may be the definition of what can be discussed on the science board.

'This is the place to leave pithy comments and share your scientific insights with the rest of the great unwashed readership. Play nice, stick to science and science related topics.'

A tighter definition of what constitutes an acceptable thread may be in order.

'science and science related topics'.

What doesn't that cover?


Dic.com's definition of science:


1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
a. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
b. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


The problem here is that almost anything can fit in there somewhere.

It may be better to limit threads to subjects on what we would call hard science. As in DA Morgan's yard stick of the kind of science that has been peer reviewed, and posts must be supported where possible by references to experiments etc.

Another board could deal with Popular Science.

Another with Origens and the Science/Religion debate (which is more of a philosophical discipline - if I can be so grand).

Another could deal with Meta-science & Quackery.


You could even go to the extent of having a social sciences board - (even if it?s not science as far as I am concerned) - a psychology board - evolution etc.

Then everyone would find a home and people would hopefully exist in SAGG a little more harmoniously.

So in effect we almost have an hierarchy from 'science proper' down to 'crackpot science'.

When a post threatens to take a thread down a level, either delete it or use it to start a new thread in the appropriate board.

All posts that add no value, and merely insult people should have no place here and should be deleted. People should join politics if they want that sort of entertainment.

As I post the occasional funny comment - and despite the fact that I am generally the only one who thinks it's funny (along the same lines as Cansouth probably sees the sense in what he writes), humorous posts should be okay - they are light relief and when in the spirit of the topic, don't really detract from what is being discussed. And like many of you, I have come to have a strange regard for many people here and some of the harmless off-beat comments and interactions are of great value to me.


I wonder if this is all too much work for the moderators - probably.

Then why not make new moderators - Board Champions. For example, make DA a moderator on the hard science board if he has time. If Rob wants to moderate the popular science board, no problem.

I have said it before that I love SAGG. I am so glad I found it, there are some excellent people here with a lot of knowledge to share ? and not forgetting that it?s just good to connect with people.

Please let's protect it from the trolls, and don?t let them ruin it for others.


Blacknad.

You could just change the title of the origins board to meta-science/philosophy.

Or why not something more accurate like "blather" or "drivel"?

DA Morgan seems to be totally committed to censorship of others. One descends to this level if one has nothing intellectual to offer.

Gregg Wilson

...or if one is surrounded by morons. (notice the people that need to be censored, eg, Philege)
DA Morgan has taught me a lot. Well, to be honest, he has actually taught me what of which I believed is and is-not true, and told me about good sources of knowlege.

Hi Rob:

You and DA must be in contact other than what we see on this Forum.

You said: "The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles."

DA intercepted my question to call me names. That is very educational and teacher like!?

The question is fair. If you contend life forms simply change the arrangement of their particles then you should have a why and wherefore. Are they re-arranged into something new and real again? The answer could be very enlightening.
jjw

"Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age."

No it doesn't.

"If you contend life forms simply change the arrangement of their particles then you should have a why and wherefore. Are they re-arranged into something new and real again? The answer could be very enlightening."

A why and wherefore, what the hell do you think scientists are trying to do?! The answer, I can assure you, will not be meaningful, emotional, ethical rubbish. So it would be very enlightening indeed, for YOU.

Thank you Rob for your reply.

It is much as I expected. The particles may just return to dust from which some say they started.
Any way you failed to include some of your favorite words like moron and idiot and I find that refreshing.

I am busy finishing a project and will not be here for a while to seek more of your insights.
Cheers,
jjw