

I have been referred here from this thread:



http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ showflat.php/Number/18247312



I got an official warning because I used the word 'troll'. I used it because I feel people were not following the rules of The Pub. However, there is a nasty undercurrent on this website favoring scientific paradigms over more intuitive paradigms. Moderators are part of this as well and they have no qualm about entering the fray. I believe moderators should behave with more restraint because of the power they have. They act like ordinary forum members, they are entitled to share their views, but in a heated discussion, who polices the police?



But that aside, I feel that people are trolling based on scientism. And that they get away with it because the undercurrent here is pro-science. People are demanding proof in just about any thread with an intuitive or irrational or non-scientific character.



Scientism



Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.



So which rules were broken?



"2) Respect your fellow posters at all times while posting in the Pub. We all have opinions and we can share them respectfully. Intentionally "derailing" or post whoring/drawing a thread off-topic is considered bad form and is not permitted. "



This rule was broken. Original Poster was hounded in his own topic in the Philosophy forum and opened a new topic in The Pub. But here too he was unnecessarily put under scrutiny. I find it disrespectful to continually demand evidence for 'claims'. It is like people think we are in debating school and must always prove and argument anything we say. Constantly the paradigm of scientism is being used as a Weapon of Mass Debate or something. There is no need to overly keep challenging someone who just want to share his personal experiences. Yes, you can ask for proof, but not all topics are suited for ongoing discussion about it. It is called derailing a topic. And no one forces anyone to post in it.



So the reason why this happens is because there is an unhealthy knee-jerk reaction to anything that is not scientifically grounded. But this is a website about very personal experiences, ideas and visions and as such, rather than using science as a weapon to oppose strange ideas in posts and people, we should embrace them. The very experience of entheogens is subjective, weird and gives rise to the strangest notions.



"3) Any post for the sole intent of causing drama will not be tolerated."



These pro-scientist people cause unnecessary drama by putting up challenges and demands of proof where there can be no such thing on a forum. People put up money as if they are James Randi (of JREF) without providing any proof they would actually pay. But to go into that is not even needed to make a point here. It is unbecomming of an adult and mature poster to keep hammering on evidence when after a few exchanges that no longer serves any purpose than to isolate, mock, corner and repress someones unscientific visions or ideas. To do so is just being a drama queen, who cannot let go and mkust continue the yes-no game. A mature poster will make his point and then if they see they cannot get what they want from the other, pick another 'battle'.



In school I was taught that a discussion is not just something you want to win by using arguments but also an opinion forming conversation. In such topics there is no need to 'challenge' 'claims'. But it seems that this scientific undertone puts people into a mental gear where they feel they have no choice but to challenge. Ask yourself if you do that and why. Will your world collapse if someone writes about downsing in a personal and unique manner? What is this urge in you to challenge someone with science a weapon?



"4) Post with the intent of sparking intelligent discussion. Posts lacking content will be locked or removed."



Clearly broken, this rule. Original Poster made a first post, used arguments and information gathered from internet. After that the challengers came in and showed little sign of knowing about the topic and just repeated generalizations and fell prone to circular reasoning. Intelligent discussion is more than challenging someones personal bias, belief or non-scientific conclusions. And nowhere in society is it stated that science shall be the ultimate arbiter of what is real or not.

Intelligent discussion would mean that someone engages someone, asking clarification, point out sources of information that might be of interest, provide a personal view on the topic, and yes, also point out inconsistencies, but not to break someone down, but to help them explore their ideas and practises. And they do not have to be scientifically sound or judged per se. If someone cannot do this and can only go so far as to 'challenge' eldritch ideas, then there is no intelligent discussion and they are breaking the rules.



I propose that a new rule should be added, or perhaps a statement of principle, that Shroomerites are protected against scientism and being bullied, isolated, ridiculed, hounded and even compared to racists. The rule should include that science might be useful in a discussion but to impose on intuitive/non-scientific/creativ e and opinion-forming conversations and derailing the natural flow of conversation by insistent and incisive continuous demands for 'proof' or scientific evidence is forbidden.



At some point to keep hammering and repeating demands for evidence is irrational and no longer a scientific approach.



I also think that moderators should behave more neutrally rather than comparing someones personal opinion to racism.



"Yes, it is quite clear I was comparing the two. I choose that example because racism is widely regarded as both nonsense and socially unacceptable and would be subject to much criticism. This is precisely what you criticised- its a reductio ad absurdum demonstrating the silliness of your position."

-- johnm214 (moderator)



In other words, I am being compared to racists because my view is nonsense and socially unacceptable. So defending Original Poster I have become the target of scientism and fair game for scientifically minded people. If my position is silly, then that in itself is a judgment. I cannot use the word 'troll' but I may be compared to racists and that is socially acceptable on this website with this pro-scienctific undercurrent? Science is used as a weapon to denounce others and it is immoral. I have seen many threads being derailed and posters and participants who 'believe' either through logic, reasoning or argument that something is true or real being harassed and put under unnecessary pressure.



If all this website does is promote scientism in some silly effort to defend against some incursion of irrationality, an irrational fear if you ask me, then why do we engage in the use of psychedelics, the nature of which is subjective and personal and unscientific?



So I ask everyone to look in the mirror and ask why there is this apparently deeply felt need to challenge, demand proof and evidence and have people backup claims. Are we here to attack and defend our own preconceptions? Or do we want to engage others. Do we want a 'multilogue' or do we want to push all irrational/subjective/non-scient ific and so on and so forth into the Mysticism subforum? I don't want to spend my time defending authentic people with interesting concepts such as Original Poster had in linked topic. Do we like authenticity or just defend existing scientific paradigm? Should we stumble over each other in our resistance of non-scientific ideas or accept that there is use for mystery as well? I don't see the need for this duality, either being in favor of rational science and its methodology and mystic musings. Are we here to support each other even if the ideas they have is weird or is that a reason to go up in arms about someone 'obvious folly'?



Thank you for your attention!



Post Extras:



dude, its not our fault you can't back up your argument. change or fade away mang.



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

I'm pullin' steel wires out of my eyes

they're 20 miles long tangled up with my all insides



DieCommie said:

cut off her nose to spider face







Post Extras:



Quote:

I propose that a new rule should be added, or perhaps a statement of principle, that Shroomerites are protected against scientism and being bullied, isolated, ridiculed, hounded and even compared to racists. The rule should include that science might be useful in a discussion but to impose on intuitive/non-scientific/creativ e and opinion-forming conversations and derailing the natural flow of conversation by insistent and incisive continuous demands for 'proof' or scientific evidence is forbidden.







We have a section for that - it's the Spirituality and Mysticism board. Post there.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ postlist.php/Board/82

It sounds like you are upset because people disagreed with what you said - well that is part of healthy debate - and if you post in areas where people debate and debate is encouraged, you can be certain you will have to defend your arguments. If you dislike that, then post in the S&M forum.



Quote:

At some point to keep hammering and repeating demands for evidence is irrational and no longer a scientific approach.





I don't believe you understand what the scientific method is all about...



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

Yes this is tymo - I just changed my name



Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to awake from that dream? How would you know the difference between that dream world and the real world?



T h e r e i s N O T H I N G b e t t e r t h a n f e e l i n g t h a t w a r m d i s s o c i a t i v e f u z z c r e e p i n g u p y o u r b o d y f r o m I M K

Something abut that anaesthetic rush...



Qualitative Research Chemical Effects and Experiences

The Wonderful World of Methoxetamine

The 3-Meo-PCP Chapters, Part One Something abut that anaesthetic rush...



Edited by Cyclohexylamine (05/13/13 11:33 AM)



Post Extras:



Quote:

Vaipen said:



I got an official warning because I used the word 'troll'.









No, you got a warning because you called someone a troll. You can use the word if you want; you cannot call posters names.





Quote:



Moderators are part of this as well and they have no qualm about entering the fray. I believe moderators should behave with more restraint because of the power they have. They act like ordinary forum members, they are entitled to share their views, but in a heated discussion, who polices the police?









Please point out where I entered the fray? My sole participation in that thread was answering your complaints and telling you to stop complaining that criticism was allowed by pub rules. I took no position on the topic of that thread.







Quote:

This rule was broken. Original Poster was hounded in his own topic in the Philosophy forum and opened a new topic in The Pub. But here too he was unnecessarily put under scrutiny.







Tough- that's the way conversation goes. Some people will agree with you, some will disagree.



Quote:



So the reason why this happens is because there is an unhealthy knee-jerk reaction to anything that is not scientifically grounded. But this is a website about very personal experiences, ideas and visions and as such, rather than using science as a weapon to oppose strange ideas in posts and people, we should embrace them. The very experience of entheogens is subjective, weird and gives rise to the strangest notions.









It kinda sounds like you want the rules changed to enforce your own ideals and vision. That sounds like tyranny to me.





Quote:



In other words, I am being compared to racists because my view is nonsense and socially unacceptable.







I'm sorry, I must not have made the analogy clearly enough. You argued that the large portion of people who disagreed with the original poster was a problem that needed moderator-enforced censorship to solve because the OP was being 'hounded' and nobody was stickign up for him. I attempted to show how this was silly by bringing up an idea that would be even more unpopular in the pub: racism. If some racist view got lots of criticism would that likewise call for protection from the moderation staff for the unpopular view?



You seem to think it wouldn't, yet your argument suggests it should, therefore; your position is internally inconsistent and wrong. I don't know how you got that you were being compared to a racist or what that even matters, but the comparison was the criticism dowsing received vs the criticism a racist viewpoint would receive.



Post Extras:



- I never called anyone a troll. What I actually said was:



"Or you could just go away? And let people who think alike be, just for once? So they can discuss these matters on their terms without trolls who just have to come in and spoil it? You know, no one is forcing you to respond here brother."



This was a general use of the word not specifically directed that the person I responded to. So even the warning was off.



- I wasn't talking about you entering the fray. I was referring to other mods in treesniper's other thread. The one that is part of a pro-JREF clicque?



- It is not about agreeing or disagreeing. A conversation is not a battle. Why would you think you have to win a topic? Why the need to keep challenging beyond making your skeptical statement? That si derailment.



- Tyranny? I am not part of the tyranny here. You, as you show by your lack of understanding the very principle of discussion (that is doesn't have to be a battle to win and that is also an opinion-forming conversation) are part of a paradigm that knee-jerks or springs into action the nanosecond someone makes a 'claim' and that any 'claim' neerds to be 'challenged'. Look at these threads.



You, like most people, are part of this deep indoctrination that science must attack irrational claims, always, at any moment.



I think it is fear. Alan Watts mentioned this in his talk 'The Joker'. Some people see through the game of life. And they are a threat to those who don't get it yet. People who don't necessarily always use science as the ultimate yardstick, are suspicious. They might not want to get a job oh my god, they are then 'lazy'. Unproductive and add little of value to society. Psychedelic people themselves, that, I suppose, means YOU as well, are regarded with the same disdain. But one thing you have in common with those who criticize people who don't want to participate in the games, and that is you both use science as a weapon.



I think there is an irrational emphasis on science even on a forum about personal experience and visionary states. And it seems that few people recognize it! The need to word skepticism is not about agreeing or disagreeing what someone writes in sharing a deeply personal and authentic perspective, it is about a deep unsconscious fear, that if we allow people with unprovable 'claims' or opinions or shared experiences to go unchallenged, the world will somehow collapse into a mad chaos where just everything goes. Like the many times mentioned 'unicorns'. Rationality is rampaging around the Shroomery in an irrational way, constantly on the hunt for unscientific claims.



The only place where the strange may go, as suggested again and again, like a mantra, is the Mysticism corner. And so in that way all these pro-science types have a clear separation between themselves and the crazy claims. How safe! They know where NOT to go. And as Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx Whitechapel speeches were banned from the TED youtube channel and isolated into a special section, the same thing happens here!



But even the Mysticism area is not entirely safe! I quote: "Attempting to maliciously discredit ideas is not tolerated, although debate within the given topic is encouraged."



In other words, although you cannot downright laugh at people for being irrational and silly and have unsubstantiated claims, you can STILL 'debate'. But I sincerely doubt the word 'debate' here was meant as an opinion-forming conversation.



Therefore I ask that the moderators and/or admins rephrase that sentence to: 'Attempting to maliciously discredit ideas is not tolerated, although opinion-forming conversation within the given topic is encouraged.



- Your point about racism: thanks for explaining further, but, as Lt. Commander Tuvok on Voyager would say, 'your logic is flawed'. Racism is illegal. Unscientific or irrational ideas are not. Even though racism is irrational, in my view. I defended the OP in his topics because I became alarmed that someone so openly sharing personal authentic experiences was challenged beyond the point where it was okay to do so. They kept hammering and pounding and seemed more interested in isolating and trapping him with his own words than politely stating their opinion and then accepting OP would not comply with their view on reality. They went so far as to actually challenge OP to apply to JREF for testing and one moderator offered up thousands of dollars and expenses paid if OP would submit to testing. Don't you think that this is going a little bit too far??? I think that is deariling and trolling threads. Yet, when it is in the defense of scientific paradigm, this is perfectly morally acceptable! And Like I said before, if I were to gho into the science forum with ubstantiable claims, I would get warned there for not backijng up my claims with science.



Actually, I got a pre-warning once just because I was accused of not doing that, where in fact, I was discussing the topic at hand from all sides. I got this pre-warning because I simply said something like, I will not debate this further' because we were just going in circles and it made no point anymore. That immediately triggered that mod. He didn't even seemed to have checked I had been debating the issue, yet maybe he just wanted to have me keep dancing around and around?



I think moderators should step in for the right reasons, not to enforce scientific paradigms. The scientific paradigm needs no defense, it is already too deeply indoctrinated in this forum. So the balance is off in favor of science and logical and rational reasoning and those who are use creativity and ride the wave of novelty are corned into one single subforum where they may still be challenged albeit in a moderated sort of way.



Well, be that as it may, I would like mods to be aware of those issues, discuss them and see if they can protect people with 'unsubstantiated claims' from the hounding by scientifically oriented people. After all, this ain't a science forum or a freethinkers forum.



Post Extras:



I have not heard anything about my proposal. Is this going to be discussed among moderators or is the feedback forum just a toilet to get rid of the actual feedback?



Post Extras:



Perhaps if you formulate your proposal in a slightly more concise manner, people might pick up on it.



Also, most people, when confronted with a seemingly incredible idea, will argue "I'll believe it when I see it". Too bad you dislike that everyone asks you to back your claims up with evidence; it's just the way most people think. By trying to get the rules of the forum changed, you're battling the shadow of a windmill; not even the windmill itself.



Post Extras:



Quote:

Vaipen said:

I have not heard anything about my proposal. Is this going to be discussed among moderators or is the feedback forum just a toilet to get rid of the actual feedback?







You got your answer, post topics like the example you provided in spirituality and mysticism where you can post about pseudoscience all you want without criticism.



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





Post Extras:



why even give a fuck about it mang ?

depending on who you are you can break the rules and get away with it , I've had big ego types call me names and get away with it every time .

when you get to the point where you dont care about other peoples beliefs and philosophies you will be free



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

I only do legal drugs like alcohol , tobacco and valium so fuck off and die



:



Post Extras:



Quote:

Vaipen said:

I have not heard anything about my proposal. Is this going to be discussed among moderators or is the feedback forum just a toilet to get rid of the actual feedback?









Many proposals members make in the feedback forum are discussed and adopted. Maybe people aren't all that enthusiastic about your idea, but that doesn't mean they haven't considered it.





I agree with koraks: your proposal is pretty vague and I don't really see the need for it. We already have a forum for claims people don't want to defend or face heavy criticism for. I'm not clear why you think we need to modify the pub.



Post Extras:



It it not about criticism. It is about derailing threads by constantly nagging about evidence where there is no need to keep harassing posters demanding evidence. If you constantly keep on keeping on about it, it is derailing threads. People can simply state their opinion and move on. There is no rule that says you are obligated to keep responding once you said your peace of mind.



And this goes in principle for all subforums here.



I understand very well that most modern people are in a purely scientific frame of mind/reference - they have been deeply indoctrinated as well - and have this knee-jerk reaction to demand proof about anything they read, see or hear. And that is their choice. It is the way their personality is as well. But if 85% of those people are constantly bullying and attacking people who see the world a little different, demanding prove and keep derailing threads because they feel it is their 'duty' somehow to be obnoxious and point out 'obvious mistakes in someones' thinking' it is no longer a fruitful exchange of insight and information but just a derailing of a thread.



This is not how people should be in the world. We have to respect people for who they are, even if they have 'weird' ideas. This often pseudo-scientific (after all, who IS exactly a qualified scientist in some field here?) derailing of threads are simply based on being able to get away with it because most moderators are also pro-scientist thinking and so the Shroomery becomes a consensus of allowing immoral conduct against a minority of posters.



Hence the topic title: Science as a Weapon.



If after my posts it is STLL unclear what I am saying I am sorry, but that is not my fault. English is not my first language but I am convinced I write understandable English here.



I repeat my modest proposal:



Therefore I ask that the moderators and/or admins rephrase that sentence to: 'Attempting to maliciously discredit ideas is not tolerated, although opinion-forming conversation within the given topic is encouraged.



This would be the description under the subforum heading. The old one:



"A place for laid-back discussion on any topic, come introduce yourself to the community, and join in some chilled-out conversation. If you post in a disrespectful manner, you may be banned."



Derailing threads and constantly cornering posters by getting on a high horse backed by scientific mindset is disrespectful and it is NOT chilled-out. Let the moderators show they are truly neutral and here for all posters. I remind them of this rule:



"2) Respect your fellow posters at all times while posting in the Pub. We all have opinions and we can share them respectfully. Intentionally "derailing" or post whoring/drawing a thread off-topic is considered bad form and is not permitted. "



Not enforcing this rule as admin or moderator means you are in the scientific corner and NOT neutral and letting this personal scientific preference in thinking rank higher than the considerations of others. And that is unfair and biased.



Post Extras:



Perhaps your posts aren't as clear as you think they are and people just want clarity.



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

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers



Post Extras:



Your proposal would have a chilling effect on speech. I understand that you get annoyed when people ask for evidence, but there is an ignore function if you don't like what a person has to say.



Have you considered the possibility that what you see as "maliciously discredit[ing]" an idea is really just trying to keep a robust discussion about the validity of ideas?



The fact is that every forum like this has many people posting lots of bad ideas. Some of those ideas, if adopted by the more gullible in the community, can cause very real harm to people. To discourage others from being an alternative voice is absolutely the wrong direction to go.



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

Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Ask an Attorney



Fuck the Amish



Post Extras:



Quote:

Vaipen said:

It it not about criticism. It is about derailing threads by constantly nagging about evidence where there is no need to keep harassing posters demanding evidence. If you constantly keep on keeping on about it, it is derailing threads. People can simply state their opinion and move on.





Usually, asking for evidence is a polite way of saying "I think you're talking out of your ass, back that shit up or quit talking." Everyone is still free to express their opinion, and everyone is still free to say, if someone asks for evidence, "I have no evidence, this is just what I think." You haven't convinced me that a rule change is required.



And again, I think the problem that you are running into is not one of communication, but one that is rooted deeper: you apparently have a structural problem with an evidence-based approach to knowledge building. However, the majority of the people I know would qualify that as the most reliable and proven method. I think it is up to you to convince humanity to depart from evidence-based methods of learning. This is going to take a lot more than slightly changing one forum rule here on the Shroomery.



Good luck with your endeavor.



Post Extras:



Quote:

Enlil said:

Your proposal would have a chilling effect on speech. I understand that you get annoyed when people ask for evidence, but there is an ignore function if you don't like what a person has to say.



Have you considered the possibility that what you see as "maliciously discredit[ing]" an idea is really just trying to keep a robust discussion about the validity of ideas?



The fact is that every forum like this has many people posting lots of bad ideas. Some of those ideas, if adopted by the more gullible in the community, can cause very real harm to people. To discourage others from being an alternative voice is absolutely the wrong direction to go.







The alternate voice here being pro-scientific restraints to protect the gullible?



I think moderators and good-minded people can do that without necessarily allowing scientifically minded people, including some moderators, to be some kind of vanguard to slash down 'crazy ideas' before they become rooted. I don't see much well intending in some of the attacks on people that speak out openly about their very personal and yes, biased experiences. What about their freedom of speech and their right not to be belittled. Just yesterday someone wrote indicating he was fearful of being labeled one of the, I guess, irrationals, and how that would damage his standing with the rest.



If you mean to say that we should protect members from bad advice in using whatever drug is the topic, I have seen threads where people give bad advice that goes unchallenged. Overall I think people interested in these different kinds of substances must realize -and the people aware of this are doing their best - there is always a danger in trying them. These spiritual paths we all go on are not for the faint-hearted for sure. But apart from 'bad drug advice' there is a vast amount of knowledge and insight combined here and I see no need for fear that if we let loose all the floodgates of unscientific thinking we shall become damned.



A robust discussion is one thing, but we cannot allow a complete community that is in principle about sharing information and knowledge and insight and ideas, no matter how strange they may be to others, to hop in the bandwagon of purely scientific scrutiny; what we see in our deepest visions and trances and psychedelic experiences cannot be simply bheld in the non neutral regard of science alone, yet, out of fear of irrationality, science is used as a weapon to hold back too crazy ideas and some people are trying very hard to silence and create an atmosphere of ridicule around such , what they call, ' claims'.



Moderators must be neutral. Science was never meant to be a weapon to fight against, let's say, the right side of our brains, where we find creativity and recognition of large patterns and intuition. If moderators use science to try to avoid an atmosphere wherein people give bad drug advice to others, science is not the right tool. Mods have to be neutral between science and intuition, between ratio and intuition.



It is for that reason I give you my proposal. I am not planning some palace revolution. But I find it unacceptable that people seem to be feeling judged and harassed and cornered and ridiculed because of some consensus by the majority that even though each of us has had the most strange personal experiences on psychedelics, we fearfully seem to want science to ground us and use it as a weapon against those who wander off into the wild woods too far.



Progress is made by going into these wild woods, creativity and original thinking is required. I am not kidding. If we as a psychedelic community cannot accept those among us who go far in their 'weirdness' and cling to science - and what it has done for our planet - if we feel somehow the need to restrain them with scientific methodology demanding proof for claims and personal experiences, then we are not getting it, are we?



And we don't all have to be completely weird and irrational. But if we accept only scientific status quo and seemingly deny our own treasured access to what lies behind the substances we take in a futile attempt to cling to something 'real' then we will keep derailing people's threads, demanding 'evidence' whatever that could possibly mean on a web-based forum.



So I don't think science will protect the gullible and naive. I think it will be people of good heart and mind that will oppose bad advice. But opposing unscientific ideas and notion is not part of a neutral stance.\



So that is why we should use language to empower ourselves to be more accepting of other ideas. Language equals power. Rephrasing forum texts like the one I described will refocus intent hopefully to that effect. How can we let part of our community down so badly by hoarding them into a single forum for containment and the rest of the subfora are all based on some sort of often pseudo-scientific group think?



If these fora were never meant to allow people with psychedelic experiences to share strange notions and sometimes, apparently, at least to them, very real 'real world' effects in their lives, then tell me now and I will bite my tongue. Can we as a community make the simple attempt of rephrasing a few texts to show more openness to all members or do we rather remain as we are with our double think and hypocrisy about the wonder of the psychedelic experience and its transforming power and yet clinging hopelessly to belittle others in accepting what it seems to do to them?



Post Extras:



Quote:

koraks said:

Quote:

Vaipen said:

It it not about criticism. It is about derailing threads by constantly nagging about evidence where there is no need to keep harassing posters demanding evidence. If you constantly keep on keeping on about it, it is derailing threads. People can simply state their opinion and move on.





Usually, asking for evidence is a polite way of saying "I think you're talking out of your ass, back that shit up or quit talking." Everyone is still free to express their opinion, and everyone is still free to say, if someone asks for evidence, "I have no evidence, this is just what I think." You haven't convinced me that a rule change is required.







But have you not seen the threads, or battles they seem to me sometimes, between the scientific types and the 'believers' that follow the same pattern all throughout? Don't you see how they keep circling back to the same basic conflict? After 12 pages they've come around again. People get irritated because the other group don't want to accept their view. Once I said I didn't want to debate a particular point anymore and I was warned by a moderator that I HAD TO debate otherwise I'd be violating the rules! I am all for a good lively debate but when mods start to be pointmen for a clique that always seem to come in and derail conversations about things they deem irrational and unprovable, there is abuse of power.



I have a few on ignore, but I won't ignore any moderator, ever, because an admin has told me I do so at my own risk I think the people with some strange and worthy ideas at times, don't deserve to be treated that way.



Quote:



And again, I think the problem that you are running into is not one of communication, but one that is rooted deeper: you apparently have a structural problem with an evidence-based approach to knowledge building. However, the majority of the people I know would qualify that as the most reliable and proven method. I think it is up to you to convince humanity to depart from evidence-based methods of learning. This is going to take a lot more than slightly changing one forum rule here on the Shroomery.



Good luck with your endeavor.







I am not trying to change rules. I would like you to change one or perhaps more texts that appear beneath each subforum-heading. And I would like the mods to enforce the rules about derailing threads, not just when it doesn't suit their personal views of how "evidence-based approach to knowledge building" is the best paradigm but also when pro-scientific people keep going on in circles demanding proof and evidence and in doing so, become irrational themselves.



If you like I can help with rephrasing those texts in a truly neutral fashion, because I am based in a neutral position. It is not as if I, like you suggest, "depart" from rational reasoning. I can be extremely rational to a point I scare myself, almost thinking like a lawyer. That is why I discern the irrationality hiding behind scientific rational, imposed on all. I can also be very intuitive and there is the point where I can embrace these strange ideas people feel the need to share. I can be completely neutral because I recognize the value of what you so aptly phrased as " evidence-based approach to knowledge building" and also the need for intuitive thinking to come through without people feeling ridiculed and swarmed by demands of evidence. I feel for those people, without going overboard into complete irrationality.



Science is the way of status quo and rigidity in thinking, along a preset path and method. Intuitive thinking and creative thinking is the twist that creates new paths of human progression. And we should elevate both together as valid means of human progress. Our world is in deep shit my friend. We can talk all we want about how little impact my proposal would have, but I rather just do something and see how it works out, wouldn't you?



Post Extras:



Moderators aren't here to determine what is and isn't accurate information. You were warned because you called someone a troll. If you want to argue some hippie logic instead of scientific theory, that's perfectly fine...you just have to do so within the rules of the forum.



You're acting like people are punished on this site for having outlandish, non-scientific ideas. That simply isn't true. You might not be taken seriously by the community for it, but you aren't going to get punished by the moderators for that.



My argument is simple. If you're going to make wild, unsupported claims, another person is free to counter that with logic. If you don't like it, you're better off getting a cabin in the woods and talking to walls.



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

Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Ask an Attorney



Fuck the Amish



Post Extras:



One more gigantic wall of text. Vaipen, I'm going to read your posts again once you manage to be more concise. Thanks for replying though.



Post Extras:



Enlil comes back with a totally irrelevant remark, totally missing the mark. Seems to reply to things I said five million posts ago. That is fine Enlil, keep trying to not see the points I am making and finding that one little thing you care to comment on. But people ARE afraid to speak their mind. I quote:



"I am going to go ahead, at the threat of my "reputation" here as a non-dogmatic open free thinker, and come out of the water and reveal a bit more of my observations."



"I have been debating with myself for awhile on whether I was going to come out and say anything about it, or what I felt it to be, and had settled on a definite no. I feel more open about talking about it now, and I am no longer afraid."



Korak, well. I don't think he is interested at all. I have outlined my proposal in bold text. How concise do you want it. It is like talking to a wall here.



Listen, if you have already made up your mind, just say so and don't keep jerking my chain. I am sorry that I have something to say and that I require more words. I am not a native English speaker or writer.



I think this finishes it up. I gave you mods and admins my proposal to make the community fairer and more open and more I can't do, take it or leave it and that closes it off for me now. If long texts are a problem...well... What can I say.



Post Extras: