visitors may be turned off by what they see — SophistiCat

This is a universal problem for zoos, national parks, books, web sites, grocery stores, schools, recycling bins, used furniture stores, museums, boutiques, war zones, nature-at-large, hog barns, churches, etc.

An odd comment. This is the most strictly moderated popular philosophy forum out there. Anyway, I've started a discussion on general moderation standards. Feel free to make your case. — Baden

As we've discussed, and as I voted in your poll, I generally approve of the level of moderation on this forum. I do think that the philosophy of science forum contains a lot of stuff that wildly disagrees with established, thoroughly tested science. It meets standards as pseudo-science and undermines the credibility of the forum.

My problem with a number of posts around here is that they're not philosophy of science at all; they're science. Philosophy of science deals with the nature of theory, of evidence, of confirmation, the nature of induction, of confidence and certainty. It is a branch of the theory of knowledge. Making sense of what scientists say or presenting alternative interpretations of their data should be done elsewhere on the interwebs, especially as you are more likely to find a higher level of expertise than you can assume here. If you don't understand something, go to StackExchange or Quora or Google it. — Srap Tasmaner

I've thought a lot about that point. I'm not sure where I come down. One of the things that bothers me is people mixing up physics and metaphysics, not recognizing that they are different. On the other hand, that's probably a legitimate philosophical subject. I don't know if I could decide where to make a split.

It is clear to me that, if there is going to be science here, it should be real science.

It is clear to me that, if there is going to be science here, it should be real science. — T Clark

You are just like @SophistiCat, @Srap Tasmaner and @VagabondSpectre. When you speak of true science you are all talks and zeal, and you wouldn't know true science if it bit you in the ass.

This is VagabondSpecter's answer when I challenged him to answer to my empirical objections:
"Nobody is going to try and debug your poorly executed experiments."

And I am still waiting for anybody of the Friends of Make Science Great Again to show me what they are capable of. Whether they can do more than organize lynch parties and book burnings.

I am tired of being courteous to you while you keep insulting me without even the decency to look at the issues instead of reciting what you have learned by heart.

As far as I am concerned, it is you who do not belong in a philosophical forum.

You are just a bunch of pathetic cowardly bullies.

Your ideal solution is not going to happen, and, lacking that, your method would lead to more of the kind of thing that you're complaining about. We need to be pragmatic about this.

I was hoping that someone else would protest against this, but apparently it is not such a great issue, or nobody understands it the way I do.
Anyway.
You position is a shame to your function as a moderator, Sapientia. Doesn't your name hint at sapiens, at the thinking Man?

Sophisticat's solution is not not-practical. It is ethically wrong. What you are in fact saying is that if it were practical you would put all posts that you deem not worthy of being published in this forum, in a kind of dustbin or waste container. Just to show that you respect the letter of the freedom of speech.

But at the same time you would be giving in to an idiotic, fanatic, uncritical attitude towards science, that in fact opposes in every way the spirit of science or free thought.

You are just a bunch of pathetic cowardly bullies. — Hachem

I expressed it as a general principle - if there is going to be science on the forum, it should be legitimate science. I didn't want to make it personal. I almost didn't participate because I like you and respect you. At the same time, you and I have discussed my opinions before, so you shouldn't be surprised what my thoughts are.

What you are in fact saying is that if it were practical you would put all posts that you deem not worthy of being published in this forum, in a kind of dustbin or waste container. — Hachem

Yes.

If you're after unconditional freedom of speech, then you've come to the wrong place. The site guidelines make that clear.

For the record, I have not made any assessment or judgement about the quality or suitability of your discussions. As I told you before, I haven't read most of your discussions, since I don't find them very appealing. Until I look further into it, I will certainly neither be protesting against this complaint nor offering the complainant my support.

But thank you for insulting and prejudging me.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or defending science as it is now. I resent being insulted or belittled because the people who have been doing it did not earn the right to do it.
I stand by my words, but if you feel that they do not apply to you, then they do not.

You will understand that I do not agree with your point of view. What would be the use of a forum of Philosophy of Science if only "legitimate" science is allowed?

I would be the last to support all kinds of "unscientific" tendencies, but I would not know how to turn that into an acceptable rule.

In a philosophical forum only arguments should count... and patience. I have no illusion that I can make everybody change their mind, and I am fine with it. So maybe people have to realize that if they cannot convince me, that is because their arguments are bad, or I am just too stubborn. So what?

That is good enough for me, and I apologize for insulting you.

I expressed it as a general principle - if there is going to be science on the forum, it should be legitimate science. I didn't want to make it personal. — T Clark

My comment was meant in the same vein. It was a general comment about the kind of thing being complained about here, without commenting on this particular case.

That is good enough for me, and I apologize for insulting you. — Hachem

I accept your apology.

Your ideal solution is not going to happen, and, lacking that, your method would lead to more of the kind of thing that you're complaining about. We need to be pragmatic about this — Sapientia

I don't understand what you mean. What is my "ideal solution" and my "method," respectively (you imply that these are two distinct things)?

I don't understand what you mean. What is my "ideal solution" and my "method," respectively (you imply that these are two distinct things)? — SophistiCat

By "ideal solution", I was referring to your proposal of a "special not-quite-up-to-standards area", and by "method", I was referring to your statement that you "don't like the idea of deleting ("disappearing") posts" and that when "faced with the choice of deleting a shitty post and leaving it alone, a reasonable moderator will err on the side of leniency".

I would like to sum up the different empirical issues that I have tried to handle concerning light theory.
I have always found it regrettable that my critics concentrated on abstract theories and general principles instead of of looking at the empirical issues I presented.
I must of course start with @VagabondSpectre's judgment, and will end with a challenge of my own that is still unanswered.

Nobody is going to try and debug your poorly executed experiments...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114189

Where is Poisson when you need him?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/112967
Why isn't the center of every image or picture always as bright, whatever the aperture?

Vibrations and Visibility
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114796
Imagine bright rays shining vertically, and others shining horizontally, wouldn't you face the same bright rectangle in both cases?

Are Black and White Colors?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114530
But then, what would happen if you used a non-white screen?


Inside the Camera obscura (2)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/114394
Light has to go through splits that are separated by opaque bands, We see bright and dark spots. Why should it surprise us?

The Double Slit Experiment
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2126/the-double-slit-experiment
Where interference patterns as well as so-called Newton rings appear in pictures of a simple laser beam, belieing the idea that they are special effects due to the wave nature oflight.

Femtography
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2132/femtography/p1
Too bad, because such an experiment would shut me up once and for all. That is, if we are unable to see the light beam growing towards us.

A challenge Still Unanswered:
I have noticed that the arguments used against me are, as far as I can see, incompatible with the theory of light that is supposed to prove me wrong. I asked for links and references that would justify such an interpretation, but nothing has reached me.

That still doesn't make sense, but no matter. I see that people are largely satisfied with the forum as it is, and that shit-posting will continue unchecked.

put your money where you mouth is, kiddo.

That still doesn't make sense... — SophistiCat

Does.