I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion.

I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion. — Baden

You should know as well as I do that that's not the case. At the very least, your comment is a disgraceful exaggeration.

More specifically, it had degenerated into a series of repetitive entrenchments of positions, insults, and bad jokes.

More specifically, it had degenerated into a series of repetitive entrenchments of positions, insults, and bad jokes. — Baden

Practically all discussions here involve repetitive entrenchments of positions, insulting remarks, and bad jokes. You do this yourself. Especially the bad jokes.

Generally, my impression of the way the staff now operate is that it's more controlling, more biased, more judgemental, than it used to be. This might not be down to all of the staff, it could be down to just a few. The closure of discussions was originally brought in when Feedback discussions used to go on for pages and pages of paranoia, accusations, conspiracies, and mudslinging. With that usage, in that setting, it was okay by me. But now it has become excessive, and a tool which is abused. But of course, you don't see it that way, which is part of the problem.

Pretty lame, especially as it's not as if there are too many active threads on the board so that a bunch of stuff is getting buried. The first page contains threads where the latest post is over a day old. Maybe if the board were so active that threads were getting knocked down a couple pages in just a few hours, but even then, it's not as if folks can't look a couple pages in and decide what thread they'd like to post in.

my impression of the way the staff now operate is that it's more controlling, more biased, more judgemental, than it used to be. — S

And are any of them really qualified to judge content anyway?

But of course, you don't see it that way, which is part of the problem — S

Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way is part of your problem. That's apparent. Anyway, that was the reason. I doubt there'll be many apart from terrapin who on observing the way the conversation was going would see any philosophical value in it.

Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way is part of your problem. That's apparent. Anyway, that was the reason. I doubt there'll be many apart from terrapin who on observing the way the conversation was going would see any philosophical value in it. — Baden

I would like to hear from @Janus and @ZhouBoTong on that. They're less likely to be biased against me than others in that discussion. Also, @Marchesk.

Was there any philosophical value in the discussion? Should the discussion have been closed? Closed by Baden, abruptly and without warning.

I don't much like the closing thing. Flamewars, ok, guidelines ok, otherwise, if people want to waste their time going in circles why not give them some room so they can stay out of my more illuminating productive and interesting threads. If it's shit, delete it, and if it is merely wrong or less than wrong, let the resident genii have at it.

Or should that be geniarses? But apart from that S is wrong about everything, that goes without saying.

It's dangerous to even suggest the deletion tool if the closure tool is being abused. That would just scale up the problem.

if the closure tool is being abused — S

What was being abused was your position as discussion creator. And the abuse involved you using the discussion for the most part, but particularly towards the end, primarily as a means to massage your own ego. You have plenty of other discussions in which to do that, and we're not likely to prioritize your attempts at having fun at others' expense above forum quality. But go ahead, see if you can talk anyone, other than terrapin, into believing you were actually doing philosophy when the discussion was closed.

If it's shit, delete it, — unenlightened

Not all of it was shit, but it had clearly run its course and was degenerating beyond repair. Unfair to delete and remove the posts of those who made an effort. Fair to prevent further nonsense. That was my view anyway.

No, deletion looks better - strong and competent; closure looks like 'I
don't like this but I don't know how to deal with it.

Not all of it was shit, but it had clearly run its course and was degenerating beyond repair. — Baden

So delete the shit.

Caveat. I haven't looked at the thread, so I'm theorising.

What was being abused was your position as discussion creator. And the abuse involved you using the discussion for the most part, but particularly towards the end, primarily as a means to massage your own ego. You have plenty of other discussions in which to do that, and we're not likely to prioritize your attempts at having fun at others expense above forum quality. But go ahead, see if you can talk anyone into believing you were actually doing philosophy when the discussion was closed. — Baden

I never said that it was all philosophy. I'm not denying the off topic comments. Nevertheless, there was an ongoing worthwhile philosophical discussion which you've now closed, when there were a number of better ways of handling the problem, such as editing or deleting comments, or using your words to actually communicate the message, instead of jumping the gun and taking a heavy-handed approach. In my judgement, we were better here when the powers that be were fostering more of a liberal, free thinking, tolerant, less judgemental forum. Now it's more of a controlling, knee-jerk judgement, snappy action, shutting don't discussion, sort of forum. Boo. :down:

We were better here when the powers that be were fostering more of a free thinking, tolerant, less judgemental forum. — S

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you.

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you. — Baden

This isn't about my personal character, though. I didn't ask, "Hey guys! What do you think of my personal character?".

This is about abuse of power. I am not a member of the site staff. You are.

Are you suggesting that you'll be less biased against me in future if I cave in to your pressure of getting me to behave how you want me to behave?

So delete the shit. — unenlightened

I actually agree with this, even including my own shit, and so long as it is not the entire discussion or valuable comments of mine. And if it's just one little comment in an otherwise valuable post, then edit, don't just delete the whole post. And it certainly shouldn't be a task given to Baden. Or jamalrob. Hanover or Michael I would trust.

That would be much better than closure.

I agree with that deletion would be preferable to closure. I think the latter should be a last resort, and only actioned where there is a tiny percentage of posting with any philosophical worth.

I supported the closure. The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing and letting it continue would have resulted in more childish bickering. And as I see it the decision was about quality more than it was about being illiberal and controlling.

I supported the closure. — jamalrob

Big surprise there.

The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing and letting it continue would have resulted in more childish bickering. And as I see it the decision was about quality more than it was about being illiberal and controlling. — jamalrob

So, what now, if I want to continue discussion of the philosophical topic in a way which would meet the approval of the likes of you and Baden? You've closed the discussion I created.

No, deletion looks better - strong and competent; closure looks like 'I
don't like this but I don't know how to deal with it. — unenlightened

Anyway, it's not about the message it sends. Look, just imagine if it was me instead of Baden, because I suspect you may be biased here. You're telling me that I should delete - and delete what, exactly? Entire discussions? - even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong?

The whole point was that I think it's being abused. If I didn't think that, then I wouldn't be making these criticisms.

I'm fine with editing or deleting comments and discussions which genuinely don't meet the standards, including any of my own. Always have been.

I actually agree with this, — S

It was too good to last.

You're telling me that I should delete, even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong? — S

Sure. If you're a moderator, moderate. Get things wrong, apologise, resign, get banned, whatever. I started looking at the thread, and I think I'd ban the lot of you and delete the whole thing. But I'm a gummy old man, and you got off lightly.

Incidentally, can one still edit one's posts, (I mean moderate oneself) in a closed thread?

The essence of my problem with closed threads - is this really the last word on idealist logic?

I actually agree with this,
— S

It was too good to last.

You're telling me that I should delete, even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong?
— S

Sure. If you're a moderator, moderate. Get things wrong, apologise, resign, get banned, whatever. I started looking at the thread, and I think I'd ban the lot of you and delete the whole thing. But I'm a gummy old man, and you got off lightly. — unenlightened

There's a scale of severity in getting things wrong, and that matters, as does how reversible it is. I suppose at least with a discussion closure, it's easily reversible and no one has to worry about having their comments deleted, assuming the closure is done in place of going through and deleting all the comments which are judged by the staff member not to meet the standards; or far worse, the entire discussion getting deleted when it evidently is of philosophical value, even if a "gummy" old man such as yourself is incapable of recognising that.

And thank the Holy Teapot you're not a member of the site staff! (And yes, I know you think the same of me).

There's nothing more irritating to a philosopher than someone who almost agrees with them.

There's nothing more irritating to a philosopher than someone who almost agrees with them. — unenlightened

I agree. To some extent, anyway.

I would like to hear from Janus and @ZhouBoTong on that. They're less likely to be biased against me than others in that discussion. Also, @Marchesk. — S

Well, I think I am unnecessary as @Terrapin Station (one of the people more likely to be biased against you, hehe) already defended your position.

I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion. — Baden

This seems unlikely. Couldn't we have a long philosophical discussion on the idea that it is impossible to have a discussion absent philosophy (aren't most expressions tainted by our personal philosophies?)

I think you meant no PRODUCTIVE (or valuable or something?) philosophy? But isn't that just a matter of perspective? Most people I know think ALL philosophical discussions are a waste of time...?

Let's look at some evidence, not that it will do any good, because they'll never admit they're wrong in any respect, which ironically they see as one of my greatest evils.

From the page before last:

Knowledge is a stronger judgement of truth than mere thought.
———————-

How did that change how we study the stars?
— ZhouBoTong

It may not, although the idea has been forwarded after the advent of QM that reason determines the nature of the experiment which in turn manifests in the experiment determining the nature of that which is being experimented on. This is because observation has been supplanted by the expectation given from mathematical prediction. Overall, however, in the macro world of direct experience, idealism in and of itself doesn’t change how we study, but rather how we understand what we study.

those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it?
— ZhouBoTong

They haven’t “made” it a part of their lives; it is an intrinsic part, exactly half, actually, of the system that makes us human. If you’d said without realizing it, I would be more inclined to agree.
———————-

How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed.
— ZhouBoTong

If one has no experience of what was, he thinks what is now has always been the norm. History books, the written record and imagination all say differently.
————————

concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them
— ZhouBoTong

The thesis:
Those certain natural relations already existed; that which became mathematical conceptions and the principles legislating their truths are determined in the mind a priori, sufficient to explain and necessary to understand those natural relations.

The proof:
In the absence of a priori knowledge, no figure is possible to conceive from the thought of two lines. Given a 6 and a 3, no concept of 9 is possible from them alone. Given a triangle, it is impossible to conceive from it, that perpendicular lines drawn from the midpoints of each line will meet at a point central to all of them.

With respect to th OP, humans will retain knowledge of post-human rocks in general via their extant experience, but that a priori knowledge is not the same as the direct a posteriori knowledge of a particular set of extant rocks required by the OP. The former is given from intuition, the latter is given from sense.

Think of it this way: instead of asking after rocks post-human, ask about the temperature. There were humans, humans look at thermometers, humans henceforth have indication of a natural phenomenon. Vacate all humans, then ask about the thermometer. Just because there’s no reason to think there’s no natural phenomenon to register on the thermometer doesn’t lend itself to any possible knowledge of what the indication is. Hell, I can’t even tell you the temperature in the next town over and I haven’t been deleted from anything. — Mww

There's a way of talking about idealism that most of us on the forums are familiar with. It's a no-nonsense wryness. It's meant as a corrective to out-there thought that's lost its grounding. And that can be a good thing.
— csalisbury

At least you understand where I'm coming from, and accept that this can be a good thing.

Here's the problem:

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as river.
— Qingyuan Weixin

The wryness only really works for the transition from non-mountain back to mountain. It doesn't work if you never understood the 'more intimate knowledge' to begin with, if you've always only seen mountains as mountains. Kurt Vonnegut went to war, Mark Twain was knee-deep in life, before retiring from it to reflect ironically. Their wryness was earned.

What I see in this thread, and many thread like this, is common sense masquerading as a knowing wryness, one it hasn't earned. It's mimicry, a borrowed veneer of knowingness.
— csalisbury

That's how you see it. The following is how I see it.

Here's the problem. There's this assumption that because of my similarities with the average guy on the street, the same criticisms that apply to him, also apply to me. It's basically a guilty by association error. And your reply is also basically an ad hominem where you're calling me unthinking and unworthy. How judgemental of you. It's a shame you didn't go about replying in a better way.

Here's the difference. Believe it or not, I have actually thought about this a lot, and I feel like I've reached a point where I've come out the other side, only to find that my initial assumptions were pretty much right all along (albeit perhaps with a few qualifications here and there), kind of like your quote. And I've gained the insight of why it is that others go wrong, and get stuck at an earlier stage. This is basically the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You perhaps see my position as one of the first two. I see my position as the synthesis. You think that you're right and I'm wrong, and, funnily enough, I think that I'm right and you're wrong. — S

Maybe this is part of our problem. I do not think I have once in this thread attempted to argue against idealism. I am more asking, "why idealism?" "what does it explain?" (I get that these questions could be seen as an argument against idealism, but that takes an extra step) Similarly, before I engage in an argument against god, I will want someone to show me something that god does. Until then, I will remain agnostic.
— ZhouBoTong

I just listed the argument for the sake of completeness. I understand your position. As to your question: Idealism tells us what we can know about physics and how we can know it. In this sense, it is relevant for our formulation of the scientific method. Enpirical Knowledge is based on subjective observation, and not some other "direct" access to objective reality. There are also rules for constructing a theory (simplicity and parsimony, for example, often called Ockham's razor) that will change slightly based on what you think you are doing when you construct a theory.

I agree that rocks in the past does not refute idealism (as you mentioned some idealist could easily say we don't "know" there were rocks in the past - I suppose the king idealist would say we don't "know" there are rocks now, even this one I am holding in my hand), but I just view this as one of those extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no?
— ZhouBoTong

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the colloquial sayings that are really hard to apply consistently. Who defines what an extraordinary claim is, and how? Either way metaphysical questions are not decided by evidence in the way physical questions are. How would you even apply evidence to the question of what evidence actually represents?

If S admitted that it is possible we are all in the Matirx (he did so in this thread), then I think that places him more in line with me (sure idealism is possible, but it is meaningless whether it exists or not). I also think the varying degrees of idealism also vary in how coherent they are, and so you may have noticed S vehemently attacking a particular interpretation of idealism.
— ZhouBoTong

I wasn't able to extract much information about S' post at all. But that is somewhat beside the point, I don't want to talk above someone else's head.

"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This line can be found at the end of the second paragraph (attached to reference #10).

By mentioning that "measurement" exists outside of any observer, it seems the author is worried about what idealists will do with his ideas...right? (I really am wondering if I am right or not here, not just driving my point home)
— ZhouBoTong

I don't know if they thought about idealism as philosophy or the consciousness interpretation of QM. In any event I don't think that the author is worried about a misinterpretation is the same as sqauring the theory with idealism. That'd be actively advocating a theory of QM that references the mind of the observer. But other interpretations, such as many worlds, seem to be essentially realist metaphysics.

And if I am reading that correctly, I think it addresses an important distinction in how idealism can be interpreted. If this is a definition of idealism (I tried to find a simple general one, please correct me if it is wrong or incomplete): Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. This could be interpreted as "we can not know reality except through the mind" which I would say is fine and I think S would agree (how else would we know anything?), but so what? It changes nothing, and explains nothing. However, if the above definition is interpreted as "nothing exists outside the mind" then we have a problem (and I think this is where S starts saying things that imply idealism is incoherent). I am not even saying I know it is false. But if it is true, it implies (directly states?) that we have NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. I am fine with being agnostic toward a claim like that. However, how SHOULD one live if they have no idea what reality is? Do you see the question itself becomes meaningless. Again, I am not arguing against idealism, just saying "why should I care?"
— ZhouBoTong

Well why does anyone care about philosophy? For the love of wisdom, no?

I also don't think either realism or idealism can tell you what you should do. Both are speculative, not normative. That the world really is what it looks like doesn't tell you what to do, either.

That nothing exists outside the mind is the position of solipsism, which is a very specific version of idealism. I haven't seen anyone here argue for metaphysical solipism.

But apart from that, why is it a problem if we don't know what reality "is"? Isn't it sufficient to know how our reality works, what observations to expect, or rather not to expect? — Echarmion

A rock is just a rock. By which I mean that it is just as it is defined. And the way that it's defined says nothing of how it looks or feels or whatever to an observer. What it says is what it is. What it does is describe it terms of objective properties.

Of course, I could have humoured him by answering the question by adopting his funny way of speaking, but I don't approve of his funny way of speaking, so that would be counterproductive. In case it hasn't become apparent to you by now, I'm a proponent of ordinary language philosophy, not Kantian language philosophy. — S

"No philosophy left in the discussion" - Baden.

"The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing" - jamalrob.

@ZhouBoTong, @Mww, @Echarmion, @csalisbury.

Of course, this leaves out other comments, but they're not in dispute. Am I going to deny, for example, that banter like "Now fetch me a beer" is not representative of philosophical content? No. If it was that big a deal, comments like that could have been deleted. And who would've complained? Or, again, the staff could have actually communicated with any of us responsible for these comments which were judged not to meet the standards. And again, who would've complained?

Well, I think I am unnecessary as Terrapin Station (one of the people more likely to be biased against you, hehe) already defended your position. — ZhouBoTong

No, you're definitely not unnecessary. On the contrary. You're too modest. Just look at Baden's comments. He said something along the lines that no one would agree with me, besides Terrapin. He wants to make out like it's all just me. It's all in my head. Or just me and Terrapin, who are harshly and narrowly judged as just a couple of malcontents. If only we could see the discussion going on in the private staff forum. I can predict the sort of content it will contain.

I think you meant no PRODUCTIVE (or valuable or something?) philosophy? But isn't that just a matter of perspective? — ZhouBoTong

Surely this situation we find ourselves in is pretty strong evidence that it is a matter of perspective to no insignificant degree.

The site staff should stick more to taking action on the more clearcut stuff, and take better care not to let their personal value judgements interfere with philosophical discussions. Do we want moderators and administrators or philosophy police who forcefully shut down ongoing philosophical discussions which contain content such as the above, abruptly and without any warning, because they do not see any "philosophical value" in it? A number of us already knew that this "philosophical value" thing was Streetlight X's vice, but is it now a vice shared by multiple members of staff? Or is it just that it is now more apparent?

And there is a sad irony in the site staff taking heavy-handed action motivated by the goal of improving the quality of the forum, when that heavy-handed approach itself detracts from the quality of the forum.

Hopefully this case was an exception to the rule. Baden didn't handle it in the best way. His judgement wasn't at its best. He won't admit this or reverse the action, no matter what. And jamalrob and some of the others will unswervingly support him. But it's not the end of the world. I just hope it doesn't set a precedent.

Of course, this leaves out other comments... — S

Yes, it leaves out all but one of the final twenty or so comments which were the ones where the philosophical content was largely negligible and on which the decision was primarily based. But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Again: It was the right decision in this case and the idea that leaving things go on the way they were would have improved rather than detracted from the quality of the site isn't at all convincing. So, if you want to play at mocking and insulting people and generally making no little or effort to engage productively, please stick to the lounge or the Shoutbox.

To others, there is a general argument to be made for closing less discussions and deleting more or finding other ways to deal with them. That's something we'll take on board.

Yes, it leaves out all but one of the final twenty or so comments which were the ones where the philosophical content was negligible and on which the decision was primarily based. But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part. — Baden

You're sure that my acknowledgment that a number of comments on the last few pages, amongst those of pretty clear philosophical value, is actually an oversight on my part? That says it all.

Again. It was the right decision in this case and the idea that leaving things go on the way they were would have improved rather than detracted from the quality of the site isn't at all convincing. So, if you want to play at mocking and insulting people and generally making no little or effort to engage productively, please stick to the lounge or the Shoutbox. — Baden

I never suggested that things should have just been left to go on the way that they were. This is part of the problem. You're not really listening to what I'm saying.

To others, there is a general argument to be made for closing less discussion and deleting more or finding other ways to deal with them. That's something we'll take on board. — Baden

And these were actually my points. This was my feedback. Yet he addresses it to others, and excludes me.

Baden, I love ya, but I think you're biased against me here.