As I said, I'm only speculating in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If you're happy with Massimo's given reasons then I stand corrected. I should say that I'm talking about a very recent deterioration in the quality of threads, so whilst I'm pleased that such a luminary found some of our posts engaging, but it's not really the same content I'm primarily concerned about.

if you, Isaac, or anyone wants to help increase quality, please flag discussions you feel are unworthy of the place. — Baden

Yeah, tried that. If advocating the murder of adultresses isn't going to make the grade I don't think me flagging Bartricks' childishness, for example, (which seems entirely benign by comparison) is going to achieve anything.

(1) users can selectively respond and read, like the under used "following" posters option in profiles — fdrake

Well, I should enjoy my conversations with the two spambot's currently following me... Just waiting for them to post something...

Seriously, I get what you're saying here, but what I was suggesting might be a problem was more about community than individual posts, after all, if there's no filter we might as well just be Twitter.

(2) people's interest in philosophy usually starts long before researching much of it, and it's a valuable space for learning for that user type — fdrake

This may well be true, but that's not the problem here. The problem is with people who don't seem to have any interest in learning at all, the recent spate of threads have just been increasingly shrill versions of am-I-right?

(3) less restricted posting stimulates discussion — fdrake

You'd have to explain how you see that working, I'm not sure I get it.

(4) increasing content standard to make the place more attractive to seasoned academics would simultaneously reduce our attractiveness for having a large and relatively high standard (for the internet) of discussion. — fdrake

Not sure I get this either. Are you saying that increasing standards would reduce involvement to a level that would be more detrimental than the improvement in the first place?

---

It's not really a big deal, it's your forum (meaning the owners/mods in general) so I'm not here trying to convince you to run it one way or another, probably should have just kept my mouth shut. It's just that, flawed as it is, this place seems to be the best of its kind. The few email and slack groups I'm involved in professionally don't have anywhere near the breath of interest somewhere truly open like this place does, so I've some interest in it's standards, but, if it's going to continue the way it's then I'll just have to put up with it.

probably should have just kept my mouth shut. — Isaac

Nah. Well thought criticism is welcome.

Not sure I get this either. Are you saying that increasing standards would reduce involvement to a level that would be more detrimental than the improvement in the first place? — Isaac

This has been proven in practice, Isaac. If you weed out all the Shtuppoids, then the site comes to a grinding halt insofar as dynamic exchanges (however nonsensical they may be at times) are concerned. Please visit the ScienceChatForum's philosophy section. There are ten currently active users on the site, and the entire community of those users generate on the average 3 posts a week. They have moderated all the Shtuppoids out of existence there, everyone is actually smart and reasonable, and therefore have nothing to say to each other.

I was kicked out of there because of insurgency. The head moderator there could not tolerate my tone. The basic rift started when they would not listen to me that "some" in syllogisms means "at least one". I had to raise my voice at them badly to be heard, by way of using huge letters in red, and that escalated, through a series of ego-hurts on both sides, to my getting expelled.

It's true. These forums require some sort of balance between intellect and babble. I was a climber for many years and on a great climbers site called SuperTopo. ST had a large membership with ordinary folk and academics and a wealth of threads anywhere from "How do I fix my Ford axle" to "What is Mind." A critical number of academics (well-known physicist, neuroscientist, organizational professor, professional philosopher, etc.) were active on the latter. Then ST went dark and several new forums appeared, none of which have generated the scope and depth of ST. That's primarily the reason I have joined this site, which I find quite impressive - even a little intimidating with the lengthy and articulate posts I've seen. That's OK, I'm a retired math prof who lacks depth in philosophy.

That's OK, I'm a retired math prof who lacks depth in philosophy. — John Gill

That's fine. We're glad you are here. :smile:

There are plenty of ‘childish’ exchanges. The ones that last for pages are the ones where the likes of me, you and others, unwilling to waste their time, step aside. It is then clear to see who the culprits are and they’ll eventually be ignored, smarten up, and/or weed out other such people so we can readily ignore them too.

It’s just a matter of keeping in faith in the sensible folk here and believing the power of one reasonably stable individual outweighs several other more dubious attitudes.

We’ve clashed and bickered a little if I recall? Even so, we manage to drop it and move on hoping to engage again in more amicable circumstances. We’re all susceptible to our egos every now and then, and some have a larger time of it from time to time.

Leave the door open a crack and maybe the most ridiculous character may actually rouse something interesting in you ... or maybe not. The internet is general a pit of filth and by most standards this place ain’t all that bad and it’s certainly preferable to banning too many people too quickly.

I get what you're both saying. I don't know if my comment came across the way I intended it, but I didn't necessarily mean we should ban a load of people (although I can think of plenty...!). I really just meant exactly what Sushi said...

It is then clear to see who the culprits are and they’ll eventually be ignored, smarten up, and/or weed out other such people so we can readily ignore them too. — I like sushi

When I talked about control over post quality, I didn't mean to imply the mods should swoop in and delete, or ban, anyone who transgresses a strict code of standards. I'm quite sure I'd have been banned if that were the case. I meant exactly what is mentioned above, I just don't find it to be happening.

Recently I flagged a post which, in no uncertain terms, endorsed the murder of women who commit adultery (as the just the latest in a string of heavily misogynistic posts). The mods decided the post was not inflammatory enough to break the rules - which was their call to make, but more worryingly everyone else just carried on engaging with the guy as if he were just normal. It's the lack of reaction from the community as a whole that concerned me, not the lack of policing.

Same for Bartrick's threads (which I'm sure we all know about). His childishness is not ignored to the point that he gets the message that this is a more mature forum for discussion than that. People still engage with the argument, as if there was anything more than massaging a narcissist at stake.

Maybe I'm just getting less tolerant in my old age (I hate to be a cliche, but it's a known trend). On the off-chance that I'm not, however...

@Baden,@fdrake - Feeling bad about complaining without any concrete suggestion. So... Would it be possible, and desirable, to create a section/category for discussing actual papers or works of philosophy (or perhaps even papers on closely related topics)? As far as I'm aware, every post has to be put into the right category anyway, so policing this would not take much more moderation effort? It would be easy then for ornery old grumps like me to simply turn off all the other categories (as I already have done with Philosophy of Religion), and have a forum which appears dedicated to discussing more serious matters than the latest 'proof' of God from our seemingly endless supply of undiscovered geniuses.

Basically we'd have a way of pushing the less serious posts to one side without having to delete or ban anything or anyone. Just in the way that the less serious posts are already pushed to the lounge, anything not discussing the paper in question can be gently pushed over to one of the 'general' categories.

So... Would it be possible, and desirable, to create a section/category for discussing actual papers or works of philosophy (or perhaps even papers on closely related topics)? — Isaac

Check the section called "Learning Centre".

Check the section called "Learning Centre". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not quite what I had in mind, not so much requests for help with papers, or guidance with reading. I was more thinking about grouping those threads which are based on a paper or book and, crucially, intend to stick to the discussion of it.

I think, on reflection, the idea wouldn't work anyway. It's just another way of saying the same thing - namely I've lost enthusiasm for trawling through the garbage to find the content. Probably more my problem than anything wrong with the forum. It is what it is, it's just maybe not for me, that's all.

We've had reading groups, and we had monthly readings for a while, a couple of years ago, in which we would discuss short philosophy papers. It was good while it lasted, but we were persuaded to choose a couple of really crappy or boring papers and that probably put people off.

All it takes is for a few people to dedicate their effort and time. There have been lots of suggestions for reading groups over the past few months, mainly by Wallows, but nothing has come of them.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/16/reading-groups

There's been a good Philosophical Investigations reading group within the last while. We never finished the book, though.

There's a lot of "No true Scotsman" fallacy going on here.

I get the point to an extent. Sometimes it is fun to "dig in" to someone else's philosophical ideas as writ in an academic journal. But interests are relative to the person holding them. One person might be really interested, and another might find it incredibly dull. There's books I would like to discuss, but no one seems interested. I move forward. No big deal.

However, the strength of this forum, in my opinion, is that it can be a testing ground for ideas. Like any testing ground, a lot of the experiments might go haywire or wrong. Making this about reading only academic papers from other people, would take any personal creative element out of the mix. Its not your thoughts now, but someone else's. There is a balance. In order to gain better understanding of all relevant ideas, it is best to read prior literature. However, to exclusively dwell on other people's thoughts without creating one's own ideas, would be to restrict oneself to being an audience member to one's own show. Why not be the performer as well?

Academic philosophy is basically using prior concepts from other philosophers, giving the relevance of it, history of its usage in past debates, and then providing a modification or simply an agreement with past concepts. Sometimes, an original concept is thrown in. Often times there is use of symbolic logic to provide "sound reasoning" to the concepts.

Personally, I don't mind just reading people's own ideas on issues. Most times, I disagree with academic philosophers despite the fancy logic tables and formalized conceptualizations they provide.

All it takes is for a few people to dedicate their effort and time. There have been lots of suggestions for reading groups over the past few months, mainly by Wallows, but nothing has come of them. — jamalrob

I don't mean to be overly pessimistic here (it's a known character flaw), but doesn't the second sentence rather just indicate that there's simply no one available (for whatever reason) to put in the requisite 'time and effort'? If that is indeed all it takes, then the groups would not have come to nothing if there were such people here would they?

I've already dug myself too deep here so I might as well see it through now, but my take would be that there is a sufficient number of interesting, dedicated people to carry off a great discussion going through some text, but such discussions just seem to get wearyingly hijacked by a certain kind of post (chiefly of the the 'I've not read the text but here's wot I rekon' type, followed closely by the '...and so there is a god' type). The main contributors get fed up and just stop.

Stopping that requires a lot more moderation (not just by official moderators) and I can see now good reasons why that can't happen, so we have already, perhaps, the best compromise.

There's been a good Philosophical Investigations reading group within the last while. We never finished the book, though. — fdrake

Yeah, I took part in that. It was quite good in places, but I'm thinking here about the reasons why such a promising start seemed to fade out. The people involved didn't just stop posting, so it's not a matter of their having trouble setting the time aside. I very much doubt such passionate people simply decided they were no longer interested in Wittgenstein. If we want to keep threads like that going it would be useful to know why they stopped wouldn't it?

Making this about reading only academic papers from other people, would take any personal creative element out of the mix. — schopenhauer1

Two things. Firstly, I'm not talking about making anything 'only' about academic papers, I was only suggesting a category dedicated to it. Secondly, I think the sort of personal creative element you're talking about here just doesn't lend itself very well to forum discussion. You may well have a perfectly lovely idea about the way the world is (or should be) but there it will stop. Discussion either goes to "oh that's nice", or "I don't think so" (often less pleasantly put).

Any matter where there's real depth to be gotten into, 99% if the time someone's already written about it.

If we want to keep threads like that going it would be useful to know why they stopped wouldn't it? — Isaac

I tell you why I wouldn't start it, and mine is a unique case, but perhaps it is becoming less and less unique.

I can't read. Period.

My focus, not the visual but the cognitive, gets blurred, my attention vanes, my boredom increases.

I can take a couple of pages of magazine articles, or maybe up to five, which is about 2000-3000 words. Beyond that I am not "not interested", but indeed incapable.

My uncle gave me a book called "Saul". Not fiction, but historical investigation into the life of Jesus. It is incredibly well written, well-paced, the ideas are brilliant in it. I could not read past 20 pages. It's about 400 pages long.

-----------------

That said, and that sad, I would enjoy reading / discussion groups that have topics that are written in 2000-3000 words.

If we want to keep threads like that going it would be useful to know why they stopped wouldn't it? — Isaac

In my experience we lose the energy to continue it. It takes a lot of effort to write exegesis and discuss it in spare time. I keep coming back to a similar exegetical thread on Das Kapital, sitting down to write and reading previous notes, but it's a lot of stuff to do to do right - in spare time it's hard. In my experience everyone wants high quality and in depth content, but it's rare that we have the energy or time to produce lots of it.

I don't think failing to complete such ambitious projects (or similarly in depth discussions in threads) is a bad thing though, I've certainly learned a lot from starting and participating in them over the years. We have an outstanding discussion on conceptual schemes and Friston's paper to progress, after all.

I also have papers that have my own ideas, and I would really like to hear others' criticism of it and to defend it. But how do I get over the anonymity barrier? I want the ideas associated with my real person, but here we are anynomized. Any suggestions?

Two things. Firstly, I'm not talking about making anything 'only' about academic papers, I was only suggesting a category dedicated to it. — Isaac

I can get on board with that.

Secondly, I think the sort of personal creative element you're talking about here just doesn't lend itself very well to forum discussion. You may well have a perfectly lovely idea about the way the world is (or should be) but there it will stop. Discussion either goes to "oh that's nice", or "I don't think so" (often less pleasantly put).

Any matter where there's real depth to be gotten into, 99% if the time someone's already written about it. — Isaac

While I recognize that there is "nothing new under the sun", there are always nuances to how an individual thinks about an issue. Going through the dialectic process could be good in and of itself. It is an elaboration on a thought. There is no finality like, "Oh it is now written in an academic paper, and thus it is crystallized into truthdom". It is simply a formalized version of what people should be doing anyways, which is examining life, the world, and their own understanding of it.

Try to publish on academia.edu or arxiv.org depending on the content type. You're more likely to be able to upload philosophy things on academia.edu than otherwise. arxiv.org has limited peer review and generally requires technical/scientific content.

Yeah, you're probably right, you've more experience with this community than I have. Having the good fortune to be (semi-)retired I've a bit more freedom to indulge in whatever interests me at the time. Having said that, I like to think there's a happy medium between operose exegesis and some of the ad hoc reckons that seem to so inexcusably annoy me. I thought something like that might still be worth filtering out into one place, but not if the disadvantages you mentioned are going to be too onerous.

How about you try making a thread like that? Pick something that interests you, start doing exegesis for the general reader. Set some requirements for discussion in the OP that keep the thread on the track you want.

Yeah, I took part in that. It was quite good in places, but I'm thinking here about the reasons why such a promising start seemed to fade out. The people involved didn't just stop posting, so it's not a matter of their having trouble setting the time aside. — Isaac

What happened is that we got to the difficult part. Not necessarily difficult to understand, but difficult to accept the reality of what was to be exposed. That's the problem with the approach that many here have to philosophy, they are not looking for the truth, rather they are looking for material to support what they already believe. So when articles of philosophy approach the truth, and it is not what these people already believe, they tend to turn away.

That sounds a tad bit religious.

Try to publish on academia.edu or arxiv.org depending on the content type. You're more likely to be able to upload philosophy things on academia.edu than otherwise. arxiv.org has limited peer review and generally requires technical/scientific content. — fdrake

Thanks for the suggestion, @FDrake. My experience with (some) of these sites is that they have a prerequisite before even considering any paper, and that is an academic designation or advanced degree. I have no such things in philosophy. They wouldn't even touch me with a ten-foot pole.

In a way I understand their stance. Should they consider unsolicited submissions from laymen, then they would be overinundated by crazy bat shit. So they save themselves the trouble, and they shut out the baby with the bathwater from their waters.

Socrates, Aristotle, would have been equally rejected by these publishing authorities. That's my only consolation.

But that sounds like my performance in the fiction writing field. When I was younger and more involved in trying to get published, some authorities and critics compared me to Shakespeare. Yep. They said, "This guy ain't Shakespeare."

Personally, I don't mind just reading people's own ideas on issues. Most times, I disagree with academic philosophers despite the fancy logic tables and formalized conceptualizations they provide. — schopenhauer1

I agree with this, I find there is both great and poor philosophy coming from both academic circles and random thinkers.

Dr. Prof. Pigliucci perhaps expected other types of questions, questions that probed and sought true enlightenment. He may have been taken aback by the verbosity and overstylization of some of the questions. A little less overt politeness and adoration also may have been in order... he did not come here, and he expected others also to not come here to hear praising of Caesar, but to have Caesar speak himself. — god must be atheist

I agree with this too, he runs a blog so he is already used to spreading his own ideas to a bunch of people who listen, maybe he was hoping here for his ideas to be really challenged. I’m still working on the thread on science vs pseudoscience where I disagree with his conclusions and will critically address a paper he wrote, maybe he will want to participate in that one.

I also have papers that have my own ideas, and I would really like to hear others' criticism of it and to defend it. But how do I get over the anonymity barrier? I want the ideas associated with my real person, but here we are anynomized. Any suggestions? — god must be atheist

I think anonymity can be a blessing, in the sense that you can spread your ideas and they can be criticized without your ego getting too much in the way. Ego gets in the way on this forum even though we only have nicknames, so when you use your real name it can be worse, because then your reputation is on the line and people want to defend their reputation at all costs even when they’re wrong, they take things too personally and that hinders clear thinking. And in the grand scheme of things personal recognition isn’t that important, the ideas themselves are more important.

That being said have you tried philpapers.org?

Yeah, I'd thought about doing one on Ramsey's 'Truth and Probability' (seemed pertinent to some of the discussion we'd recently had), but the problem is still that which opened this discussion. Although, as Baden pointed out, my concerns were apparently wrong with regards to Massimo, they still apply in my own case. Good exegesis is hard work and, in my case more than likely to be wrong in many places. I've been extremely fortunate in my career to have access to, and in some cases worked with, some philosophy professors, and in such a community my first pass at a text has been thoughtfully (and occasionally entirely!) corrected. Such commentary makes the effort worthwhile (as has been very much the case in a select number of discussions here, I should add). But, whether reasonably or not, I baulk at the effort of posting such work here only to have it flooded with a series of banal one-liners barely related to the subject... or that God did it... or some other variation on the ever-popular delusion that because a thing seems that way to someone it must therefore be the case.

Unlike in the academic world, no one here has directly asked anyone's opinion, so anything written is in the realm of "...what do you think?", it's like asking a room full of people for their thoughts on your understanding - it matters who's in the room (or at least, it does to me), not in terms of the nature of the response, but in terms of the self-justification for the effort in the first place.

Anyway, too much psychology already and not enough philosophical content. Tl:Dr Maybe one day, but heavily dependent on the types of response I think I'm likely to receive.

That's the problem with the approach that many here have to philosophy, they are not looking for the truth, rather they are looking for material to support what they already believe. So when articles of philosophy approach the truth, and it is not what these people already believe, they tend to turn away. — Metaphysician Undercover

The truth is massively overrated.

But, whether reasonably or not, I baulk at the effort of posting such work here only to have it flooded with a series of banal one-liners barely related to the subject... or that God did it... or some other variation on the ever-popular delusion that because a thing seems that way to someone it must therefore be the case. — Isaac

You can ignore or report the posts. Also, maybe it's a personal thing, but I gain a lot from going through something, even if I'm making loads of mistakes.

The truth is massively overrated. — Isaac

So you're one of them then. When the evidence points to the truth of something other than what you believe, you dismiss the truth as "massively overrated".