Would this be the place the discuss over-moderation?

John Weiland wrote: not necessarily evolved for finding nor comprehending "truth".

See my statement above about how I feel about science and "truth." To me, they have nothing to do with each other. Yes, the scientific method is flawed; I'm pretty sure you know that I know that and I bet most others here on the board know it also.

Yes, the scientific method is flawed; I'm pretty sure you know that I know that and I bet most others here on the board know it also.

What science or method are you referring to, be more specific? Post the flaw?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Terry Ruth wrote: Here if you get a +1 or 2+ you must be right.

I think it just means you're popular, or a lot of people agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with being factually right or wrong. I've super disagreed with some things some people have posted, even though they get a ton of thumbs up.

I beleive this in accurate, people get a warm fuzzy feeling over as if the are backed as accurate and that is the perception to the mods. Now you have not one but more that disagree with you although you could be totally accurate and doing the site and the OP with the questions the biggest justice. Precisely my point now people are rewarded by someone else not necessarily for being right and producing a site or community where people can come and expect to find accurate facts, rather, you get the thumbs up if you are popular or having a popular opinion that could be totally wrong.

I could care less about +1's they are meaningless to me. Most of the time that is a group of people that are not correct and know no better or are followers without enough back bone to make statements of their own and put it in their own context.

Paul says he wants a community of accurate facts that need not be corrected that should be rewarded, not herasy or +1's.

Terry Ruth wrote:

What science or method are you referring to, be more specific? Post the flaw?

The scientific method of determining our shared experience, also known as "reality."

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

The flaw in the scientific method, as I see it, is that humans experience the objective world subjectively, therefore our perceptions are limited both physically (by our limited senses) and mentally (we have emotions). The scientific method is one method we have of understanding the objective world, but it is filtered through our subjective brains, therefore flawed. In my opinion.

Wow!

This conversation takes me back to my university days when the philosophy students would go down to the pub after class and watch the professors brawl it out....

(I'm removing this bit because it obviously upset some people as they took it to mean something not intended. I apologize for my mistaken words. Edited of my own free will because I feel bad that I was not able to communicate my meaning accurately.)

...


Boy am I ever glad this isn't the kind of discussion we have on the main forums.

Speaking about philosophy and the study of 'truth', fact and the nature of reality (or ontology as we call it in our ivory tower speak), here's a bit from Phil 101 that might interest you: Back in Aristotle's day, it was a known fact that all swans are white and because of this, they also knew to be the truth that there are no black swans. They knew this, as a fact, for almost two thousand years, using the kind mixture of logic and experience that would one day become the scientific method.

They had a theory: all swans are white/no swans are black.
They used their senses to look at the world around them: It's a swan, check, it's white, check. For almost two thousand years, every single swan they saw was white. There was no confirmed evidence to contradict the theory. So it was taken as fact and use in many texts and teachings as "this is a known truth of the universe" kind of example. Back then philosopher actually got out and a bout a bit, not just sat around having word wars in pubs.
Then one day...: someone said there was a philosopher who didn't drink black swan.
The result: Everyone laughed at him and he was burned at the stake or something horrible.
Then another day: Someone else said there was a black swan. Fingers pointed, yelling, stones tossed, what have you. But one of the philosophers was listening in and it got him thinking that it would be so totally awesome to have not-white swans. (can you tell I'm paraphrasing here? I am.) He went out to look for these mythical black swans. He found them, but he was somewhat famous, so no one laughed at him, they listened and nodded and said mean things behind his back then ignored him.
As time continued: Lots of people start talking about these black swans, but since we know it as a categorically correct truth, there can be no black swans, so they were all laughed at and dismissed as liars. Over time the laughing got quieter and quieter.
An then...: somehow, people suddenly realized that not all swans are white. Some swans really are black. But they knew it all along, because of course there are black swans... see, there goes one now.

This is a very common pattern in the history of philosophy - the branch of study that eventually gave birth to science, and the scientific method. It's also why philosophers got rid of science about the same time as they realized there were black swans. I'm told it's just a coincidence, but what a coincidence. Saying things as categorical fact (as in Aristotle's The Categories, using the word in the philosophical sense), when later on they are proven to be not so, makes one look like an idiot.

More simply said, the 'fact' of gravity is still a 'theory'. We can get all technical about what the words mean, but even in the vernacular the meaning is quite clear.


This is exactly why it's so nice that Paul's requirements require us not to state something as the absolute truth or fact or the only way to do something. Just because we only have white swans when we look out the window, like they did in Aristotle's day, there may be some black swans swimming about a pond somewhere up in England just waiting to be discovered.

Please don't think I'm being deliberately hard on philosophers. Not all of them went out to drink with our group. The image of the drinking philosopher just made the story flow better. In fact, I find most philosophers to be a rather sobering bunch.

(edited for spelling and formatting)

Oh, I meant to say about the scientific method - peer review is one way of lessening, but not eliminating (as pointed out by John above) the subjectivity problem.

Now we got a philosopher know it all, Chad I'm with you going to listen to some punk perhaps sex pistols or something and a corn cob pipe. I need a drink and some zoloft

Terry Ruth wrote:Now we got a philosopher know it all

Thank you for the laugh. This actually very funny when people say stuff like that because philosophers are known for not knowing anything at all. (not sarcasm)

Thank you, R

R Ranson wrote:Wow!

This conversation takes me back to my university days when the philosophy students would go down to the pub after class and watch the professors brawl it out....

(I'm removing this bit because it obviously upset some people as they took it to mean something not intended. I apologize for my mistaken words. Edited of my own free will because I feel bad that I was not able to communicate my meaning accurately.)

...


Boy am I ever glad this isn't the kind of discussion we have on the main forums.

Speaking about philosophy and the study of 'truth', fact and the nature of reality (or ontology as we call it in our ivory tower speak), here's a bit from Phil 101 that might interest you: Back in Aristotle's day, it was a known fact that all swans are white and because of this, they also knew to be the truth that there are no black swans. They knew this, as a fact, for almost two thousand years, using the kind mixture of logic and experience that would one day become the scientific method.

They had a theory: all swans are white/no swans are black.
They used their senses to look at the world around them: It's a swan, check, it's white, check. For almost two thousand years, every single swan they saw was white. There was no confirmed evidence to contradict the theory. So it was taken as fact and use in many texts and teachings as "this is a known truth of the universe" kind of example. Back then philosopher actually got out and a bout a bit, not just sat around having word wars in pubs.
Then one day...: someone said there was a philosopher who didn't drink black swan.
The result: Everyone laughed at him and he was burned at the stake or something horrible.
Then another day: Someone else said there was a black swan. Fingers pointed, yelling, stones tossed, what have you. But one of the philosophers was listening in and it got him thinking that it would be so totally awesome to have not-white swans. (can you tell I'm paraphrasing here? I am.) He went out to look for these mythical black swans. He found them, but he was somewhat famous, so no one laughed at him, they listened and nodded and said mean things behind his back then ignored him.
As time continued: Lots of people start talking about these black swans, but since we know it as a categorically correct truth, there can be no black swans, so they were all laughed at and dismissed as liars. Over time the laughing got quieter and quieter.
An then...: somehow, people suddenly realized that not all swans are white. Some swans really are black. But they knew it all along, because of course there are black swans... see, there goes one now.

This is a very common pattern in the history of philosophy - the branch of study that eventually gave birth to science, and the scientific method. It's also why philosophers got rid of science about the same time as they realized there were black swans. I'm told it's just a coincidence, but what a coincidence. Saying things as categorical fact (as in Aristotle's The Categories, using the word in the philosophical sense), when later on they are proven to be not so, makes one look like an idiot.

More simply said, the 'fact' of gravity is still a 'theory'. We can get all technical about what the words mean, but even in the vernacular the meaning is quite clear.


This is exactly why it's so nice that Paul's requirements require us not to state something as the absolute truth or fact or the only way to do something. Just because we only have white swans when we look out the window, like they did in Aristotle's day, there may be some black swans swimming about a pond somewhere up in England just waiting to be discovered.

Please don't think I'm being deliberately hard on philosophers. Not all of them went out to drink with our group. The image of the drinking philosopher just made the story flow better. In fact, I find most philosophers to be a rather sobering bunch.

(edited for spelling and formatting)

You make some good points I was playing with you. I studied philosophy in college and aced it. Very interesting intellectual stuff. Points well perceived and taken, good job! I'd give you a thumbs up but I hope like me you could care less! You have my respect I don't give out easy for what it's worth, perhaps nothing since we come from different worlds.

Thank you Terry.

Unintentionally, I did provide a good example of how moderation (self or external) can be useful. A phrase (or collection of phrases) used in one setting to mean a specific thing, can often mean something drastically different somewhere else.

It's actually one of the few things I regret about my education; they taught me to speak in a very subject specific way. When it comes to talking in public settings, some of these jargons or phrases mean completely different things. This creates a barrier to communication which makes conflict. The original goal of the forum/conversation is lost in semantics.

This is why I'm in favour of having moderated safe spaces, so we can overcome things like this language challenge and talk to each other as individuals. I'm also in favour of having un-moderated spaces, and lightly moderated spaces. In fact, in true permaculture style, I enjoy the diversity of moderated spaces, so long as we have the freedom to choose between them.

R Ranson wrote:Thank you Terry.

Unintentionally, I did provide a good example of how moderation (self or external) can be useful. A phrase (or collection of phrases) used in one setting to mean a specific thing, can often mean something drastically different somewhere else.

It's actually one of the few things I regret about my education; they taught me to speak in a very subject specific way. When it comes to talking in public settings, some of these jargons or phrases mean completely different things. This creates a barrier to communication which makes conflict. The original goal of the forum/conversation is lost in semantics.

This is why I'm in favour of having moderated safe spaces, so we can overcome things like this language challenge and talk to each other as individuals. I'm also in favour of having un-moderated spaces, and lightly moderated spaces. In fact, in true permaculture style, I enjoy the diversity of moderated spaces, so long as we have the freedom to choose between them.

It is another interesting subject since I have been told even in my own native language I talk in a way that comes from my trade most eyes glaze over so I try and speak or write in laymen terms I still fail miserable, as much as I want to communicate with skilled trades people I cannot since I get too deep, tech. Have you been there?

Punk rock was a movement as was the hippy movement, a movement against corporate music, racism, the 1% before it was the 1%. As we have aged we have held close ranks closing in on many issues that most would consider more hippie type endeavors.

As with most movements that are based on the youth, vises tend to be the slipping point, hippies had lsd and pot, punks had violence and heavy drugs, this is just the way that youth in transitional roles self implode. That does not mean the movement was not just.

Paul, it appears you have some very professional people out here you as a professional can appreciate. If you are fact based, you know whom is of value and whom is not. For me it is the best site that offers communication with others about natural building and design and I thank you for that. I'm done here, thank you all!

I have removed some posts from this thread. And I've put a few others on probation.

If we are going to discuss a topic it is important that we stick to the topic and not talking about the people that are talking about the topic. In other words... Writing a full post about how somebody else is stupid is going to get deleted.

I'd like to invite folks follow the links from early in this thread. I think many of them mention how we don't allow people to suggest that anybody on this site is less than perfect.

There was some mention of how moderators are swayed by that has a lot of up votes. I know that I've deleted post with a lot of up votes.

I wish to reiterate my opinion: I think the level of moderation on this site is perfect. If people believe there is too much moderation on this site Kama they will be glad to know that there are thousands of other sites on the internet - and they have the ability to create their own site with their idea of a perfect level of moderation.

As always, I am glad to receive suggestions from people who have taken the time to understand why we do things the way that we do.

And, as always, I do not subject my management style value sets to those that are different than mine. I fully expect to be seen as an asshole by such people. If this is confusing please read my thread on reflective douchebaggery.

https://permies.com/t/51579/md/Wheaton-Law-Reflective-Douchebaggery

On a side note I'm impressed that my voice recognition software understands the word douchebaggery.

I apparently just had 2 posts deleted from the same thread. https://permies.com/t/54761//large-scale-farmers-shift#454811

The thread had been split from another thread and continued a conversation from elsewhere - yet there was no mention of that fact, or 'the book' that was also mentioned and discussed in the first post, ...so I asked.

Another person kindly answered my questions, explaining it was from another thread, and gave the link. And I thanked them in my second post. All three of these posts were deleted, and the thread is again left with no explanation. Isn't that a bit of over-moderating?

This place is confusing enough as it is without removing basic helpful information. Perhaps the moderator could also have taken the time to insert a link to the original thread into the first post of the new split thread so 'silly questions' (aka 'basic orientation') would not have to be asked and answered.

Rue Barbie wrote:Perhaps the moderator could also have taken the time to insert a link to the original thread into the first post of the new split thread so 'silly questions' (aka 'basic orientation') would not have to be asked and answered.

Sounds like under-moderating to me.

If you can come up with some appropriate phrasing to go into a new first post, I'll see if I can find time to juggle the thread around later.

Burra Maluca wrote:Sounds like under-moderating to me.

Perhaps a bit of both.

If you can come up with some appropriate phrasing to go into a new first post, I'll see if I can find time to juggle the thread around later.

Something very simple so it doesn't take much time to do. Just add a phrase in parentheses (plus the name or initials of the moderator) at the very top of the first post of the new split thread. Something like this:

(This thread has been split from https://permies.com/t/54671//Eric-Toensmeier-author-Carbon-Farming )

Then those with an interest can check it out.


And usually a post is added to the first thread informing people where their posts have gone, or for people interested in that aspect of the conversation. So on the Toensmeier thread, the moderator would write a new post something like this:

(For a continuation of the discussion about 'large scale farmers', see https://permies.com/t/54761//large-scale-farmers-shift#455119 )

Thanks

The first half I'll leave up to Burra to answer, but as for...

Rue Barbie wrote:
And usually a post is added to the first thread informing people where their posts have gone, or for people interested in that aspect of the conversation. So on the Toensmeier thread, the moderator would write a new post something like this:

(For a continuation of the discussion about 'large scale farmers', see https://permies.com/t/54761//large-scale-farmers-shift#455119 )

Thanks

I think there is a post automatically added to the original thread that says something like "so and so, your post has been moved to such and such link". The post automatically vanishes after an amount of time I don't know how long.

Rue Barbie wrote:
Something very simple so it doesn't take much time to do. Just add a phrase in parentheses (plus the name or initials of the moderator) at the very top of the first post of the new split thread. Something like this:

(This thread has been split from https://permies.com/t/54671//Eric-Toensmeier-author-Carbon-Farming )

Then those with an interest can check it out.

OK, well editing posts is going to create more accusations of over-moderating, so that's a non-starter. There's a limit to how much negativity volunteers can handle.

Automatic posts for split threads when a post has been put in the wrong forum are also going to create problems as they are mostly split from places they don't belong. Plus they are very offputting as an opening post on a thread.

I could create a brand new thread, attempt to make a vaguely interesting and relevant into, then merge this one to it, but it would take a while and be messy, plus the thread will disappear for a while I attempt to keep things tidy. So I'll have to wait until the promotion is over in case the pick-a-winner software gets run while I'm moving it.

Or I could put the first post on probation and ask the OP to make it clear what the thread is about, but again the thread will disappear while I do that, and if they fail to deliver then the thread will stay disappeared forever.

I'll wait til Lorenzo announces the winners and then see what I can do.