Only if your mind is constructive. I am inviting constructive input. I am not giving license to any thing else.
I’ve already explained that you need a new strategy for shoe-throwers that is better than becoming a shoe-thrower yourself. How do you propose doing that?
Fair enough. I’ll take it slow. Feel free to hide any comments that you believe are not constructive. Keep in mind though that you asked a question of ID advocates, of which I am one. So perhaps a little leeway is in order.
I agree with this. But it should not just apply to the “ID scientists” here. We don’t want to have a double-standard where scientists such as Nathan Lents are granted immunity.
And being a “critic” should not apply to just those willing to be critical of what “ID scientists” write.
The distinguishing feature ought to be when criticisms become personal, directed at the person rather than their argument.
I see Nathan and Ann as cases that we could compare. Nathan felt uncomfortable here. Ann did as well. Did they feel that way for the same reason? Another reason the cases might be analogous is because you, Joshua, were critical of both. Perhaps a compare and contrast would be in order.
Of course. He certainly has not been granted immunity. I have pressed him on points I disagree with : Nathan Lents: Bad Design of the Eye?, and even publicly agreed with ENV on this: Common Ground on Bad Design. Notice, also that @NLENTS is not at odds with me over this. We are getting along just fine, even though we disagree.
The same, by the way, is true of @Agauger and me. We get along just fine, even though we disagree. That is how it should work in this domain. However, that is not the case by many.
Of course it does not just apply that way. See above.
I entirely agree.
That is a good idea. I think there was a difference, traceable to this:
That is also why we are taking this seriously. I expect there will be changes.
It is a good standard to stand with the quality of an argument, no matter who makes it, and no matter what their larger position of advocacy is. That said, good arguments are meant to explore and understand truth, so they can be valid, yet still insufficient to establish a truth. When “proof” is demanded, all that can be marshalled in answer is good arguments, which are almost never universally convincing. In which case, we need to move past the practice of mere advocacy, to true listening and engagement… that’s how we build understanding.
That is exactly the point.
I hope you think I do that, at least usually, even in the midst of the sometimes playful banter. I even have to credit @Patrick , for example, with that very thing, at times, too!
: )
@patrick is a wonderful member of the community. @Agauger (no fault of her own), somehow, is his kryptonite. In her presence, he melts into something else.
We need to set up a system to it isn’t so hard for everyone to be the best version of themselves.
Perhaps a last battle is in order. 
@Mung ( @Swamidass , @moderators )
Just to be clear, Mung, I am not a moderator. I have, so far, no
official capacity in this community. But let me share with you my
view of these matters. Below you will read about some ideas that
have already been incorporated into the living tissue of this site.
But there will also be some ideas mentioned that are not yet part of
the consensus here. It’s all in the hands of Joshua and those
interested in the community enough to be wiling to voluntarily serve:
Mung, you wrote: “I’ve already explained that you need a new strategy
for shoe-throwers that is better than becoming a shoe thrower
yourself. How do you propose doing that?..”
As you know, the power to do good always includes correlated risk of
exercising that same power to do bad. But I would be surprised if you
haven’t noticed the great extent to which @swamidass goes to develop
fair procedures and due process and a sense of justice. The problem
arises when participants here exploit Joshua’s generous nature.
Sometimes it is intentional. Sometimes it is done not so much with
malice, but out of indifference to what they stir up.
I myself am a very big fan of letting “The Troublers” and “The
Troubled” continue to have a voice, but to pro-actively screen
postings before they do damage … not after a 3 am rant that
violates the norms of the site by almost any standard you wish to
apply. “Crazy Makers” are real … they provoke otherwise good and
sensible people into making their own poor decisions, and trigger
reactions that would not have been possible if we didn’t extend too
much trust in the self-restraint of “Crazy Makers”.
I believe you yourself would prefer that the solution to these
problems should be based less on “evictions” and more on “continued
participation but at a slower pace”. Having one’s communications
slowed down is a very good and fair way for everyone to retain a
voice, but not to put the entire community at the mercy of people who
are challenged to show mercy themselves.
I’ve said that I have no official capacity so far. But I’m willing to
step up and volunteer for some of the more challenging aspects of
restraining shoe-throwers. I think there are things that deserve a
trial. And I’m willing to engage in some of these trials so that the
existing volunteers don’t feel excessive pressure to do all the chores
themselves.
I’ve never thought that you are.
No, I never wrote that. You’ve mistakenly attributed to me something that @swamidass wrote.
If you disagree with it perhaps you and Joshua are not as aligned as you appear to think you are.
The main thread is not an Office Hours thread. It would help if the moderators could more clearly identify the expectation for a thread. The thread was split when an “ID advocate” asked a question. I also asked a question and it was also moved. It was not moved because it was off topic. It was not moved because the thread was an Office Hours thread. The reason given for why it was moved was because it was “a newbie comment.”
Further, in an earlier post, I pointed out to Patrick that I had already addressed his question abut how Information Theory applies to biology by referring him to a number of books that directly address his question.
That post was moved to the Side Comments thread, his was not. No justification was given. If my post was off-topic, so was his.
My suggestion, as an IDist, is that the moderators do their best to avoid the appearance of trying to isolate high profile ID participants from other ID advocates by excluding those who accept intelligent design from the conversation by shuttling them off into a “side comments” thread.
If a “side comments” thread is created I would like to see an explanation why. Even more so if the main thread is not an Office Hours thread.
Yep… It looks like I got confused at who wrote what! . . . and to whom it
was intended!
So instead of explaining Joshua to you … it seems I was inadvertently explaining
me to Joshua! Now that’s ironic! It’s right and correct for Joshua to want to
discourage me from becoming a shoe thrower: I wear size 12’s! And I frequently
borrowed my mother’s army boots!
NOTE:
I was pretty sure that you knew I wasn’t a moderator. But I was making a
clear effort to state I wasn’t a moderator so that none of the REAL moderators
would get aggravated at me if they mistakenly thought I was trying to speak for them.
They will have to get aggravated with me for a different reason: because I earned it!
As you can see, misinterpretations can happen at any time . . .
Mung, thank you for setting me straight on who wrote what…
There are some topics which, in my opinion, @Patrick should avoid.
Here is a video of Dr Swamidass (played by Tom Cruise) demanding to know if Patrick (played by Jack Nicholson) ordered the Code Red on Ann Gauger:
4 posts were split to a new topic: Mung Misunderstood While Helping Miller
Well, let’s at least listen to what his hurt feelings entail, and what they suggest about what may be happening that can be improved. It is simply not the case that, for example, “IDists” walk around with “persecution complexes” --although some may. Not that you’ve said any such thing, but it is an elephant in the room.
The tall order here is that we are making seemingly dichotomistic views come to heel by carefully going through the evidence, and agreeing on the limits of argumentation itself. Thing is, many folks come here with varying experiences of either one-sided advocacy, or of having been victims of poorly crafted rebuttals. Feelings will get hurt; but, we will all learn by pushing past them.
Exactly what we are doing here, on a different thread. @mung is free to explain this here. Any real mistakes here on our end will be dealt with, without prejudice. I hope that he will deal with his mistakes too.
You seem to be saying that mistakes were made on both sides. Art made a mistake, You made a mistake. My mistake was in how I chose to point that out. Sure, I could have done that differently.
There is a difference, however. Art was mistaken about the facts of the case, You cast your lot with Art. To your credit you admitted you were mistaken, thanks to my challenge. Sadly, Brian’s response to Art’s mistake does not appear in the same thread as the accusation.
Thanks for clarifying, and for speaking up, @Mung . This is a difficult forum to moderate, keep on track, and manage, so I care about these things too.
Credit where credit is due; Josh at least asked what could be done better. Please stick around to help make that happen!