I wasn’t following this thread in detail, but I noticed that it was basically one ID supporter (@Edgar_Tamarian) versus @AllenWitmerMiller, @John_Harshman, @Mercer, @Rumraket, @Timothy_Horton, @evograd, @swamidass, @T_aquaticus. Now, I’m not an ID supporter myself. But this forum is currently majority pro-evolutionary science. ID proponents in the past (it might have been @Agauger) have commented on how hostile this community might seem to those from the ID camp. Even if many of you are just arguing in good faith, it is intellectually exhausting for one person to argue against eight people at the same time, even if they might have some valid points. Imagine if this place was a physical space, like an open cafe, and the moment somebody new walks in, they are immediately surrounded by eight “well-meaning” people who question every little thing they say.
If we want this community to be a place where we can actually have dialogue with people of different viewpoints (including ID and even YEC), then I think it would be good for pro-evo people to sit out and just observe whenever there are already 2-3 other people engaging with someone from a different camp. What do you guys think?
I don’t think discussions here on this website are unsually hostile in any way. On the contrary, this is the mildest discussion forum I have ever attended. I’m pretty sure if I turned up over on Uncommon Descent to argue with the regulars, I’d get just as much pushback as Edgar receives here.
I can sympathize with being the lone guy having a simultaneous debate with multiple people, nobody likes feeling outnumbered. I’ve found it always helps feel less contentious to just put off responding to everyone constantly. Write a few posts, then go do something else and come back later, or the next day. That also gives you time to cool off, and to think about what you want to say and how best to say it.
Well yeah, and I agree with you by how mild it is already, but I don’t think the point of PS was necessarily to become an evolutionary science stronghold right? I wish this to be a place where I can invite people of any persuasion to come and share their viewpoints (including those who might not be very knowledgeable or decided), not a place for ID/YEC/OEC/etc. to be “grilled”. This is why we’re able to have hardcore atheists like @Patrick around yet also have a YEC moderator. I like the fact that we are currently difficult to label with one word (unlike Uncommon Descent or Biologos or Answers in Genesis or any of the secular/atheist forums).
I try to practice that – just sitting out debates where others are carrying on. However, biology is not my field. For somebody who works in biology, and sees a spew of false statements, it is probably very hard to resist the inclination to answer.
As the saying goes, it takes two sides to make an argument. As I look at that discussion, I would have liked to have seen Edgar thoughtfully engage with the points raised by his opponents. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much of that.
Good grief. I have been on heaps of origin blogs/forums etc and most were malicious and most of the rest plain stupid. only a few are , on a curve, good enough.
This one is fine.
The good guys are always in the intellectual advantage and SO YEC/ID can take all comers.
Id is the important innovative, famous, scientific revolution in origin matters.
Such people have to put up with the old guard resisting their destruction.
would you rather be the cool, right, ID thinker or the elderly, wrong, evolutionist/God denying one??
Everybody try to make your best killer points and forget the commentary on character and motives.
Which would knock out a lot of the evo crowd. Unless I’m doing that myself now!
@dga471, I think I agree. I am not a scientist but my work has real-world consequences - part of my work is making tools that help other people make decisions. I am big on details and getting the math right. I value science and scholarship in general precisely because we are fallible and we don’t know everything.
I think on here there is a problem when a few people, generally on the YEC camp, have the attitude that they will lecture everyone. Their opinion is God’s opinion. I have not heard any convincing argument that makes me think that conventional science is wrong about evolution, so I accept evolution just fine. But I wouldn’t presume lecture for evolution like I am Mr. Science, especially since biology is the science I studied the least as a layman. So it must be maddening if you are an expert and someone is is telling you that you don’t know what you are talking about and you are dishonest. So I think when the discussion gets that negative, the best thing is to just disengage and stop responding. Respond to honest disagreements, but disengage if behavior becomes insulting and troll-like.
Everyone has their own viewpoint about how much politeness they should afford to someone else. What I’m talking about is what the standard of this forum should be. People who don’t agree with that standard would have to find a different place to express their displeasure towards people in the other camp.
Perhaps dialogue will be more productive if we act more politely, even if we don’t think they deserve it.
I agree very much with what you’re saying. I do think there is another element here though. I think if Peaceful Science is just a group of polite people then I think we’ve missed the point a little bit. I think there is an element of education going on here and I see Peaceful Science as a learning community and a place to do outreach. So people who jump in with abundant self-confidence and don’t show any interest in learning, or who have no respect for the expertise represented here, will not benefit that much what’s going on in this forum and will tend to “poison” the conversation.
And too much of that detracts from the value here. If someone doesn’t want to learn or have dialog, they just want to rant, if they make their point and get done with it, it’s tolerable, I guess. But it tends to go on and on.
Perhaps dialogue will be more productive if we act more politely, even if we don’t think they deserve it.
Politeness has been tried with the ID creationists for over 20 years. It has made no difference. They’re still pumping out their antiscientific propaganda.
Sometimes the audience isn’t just your debate opponents. It’s people on the sidelines, including laypeople who don’t know who to trust. One can be firm, yet charitable.
Certainly, even in this forum, I have grown a lot by trying hard to hold myself back and trying to move the conversations forward in a productive, as opposed to abrasive, manner.
Imagine you’re sitting in a lecture hall, listening to a debate about a subject you only have a layperson’s understanding of. The first lecturer takes the stage and starts talking about his ideas, which, he quickly acknowledges, are in opposition to the consensus view. You’re a little skeptical at first, thinking that the experts in the field should surely be trusted. But his points make intuitive sense, and you start wondering if he might be on to something after all.
Next his opponent takes the stage. He goes completely PZ Myers on his opponent, accusing him of ignorance and dishonesty. Redfaced, he pounds the table, shouting “Let me spell it out: Anti! Scientific! Pro! Pa! Ganda!”
He may think that he’s insulted his opponent, but really, he’s insulted every layperson in the audience who thought there was merit to what the first guy was saying.
How many do you think will listen to whatever may follow this tirade with a sympathetic ear?
This is good advice. The hard part is trying to hold back.
It might be helpful if an ID/creationist supporter was allowed to pick a few people to have a discussion with and have a thread where just those people were allowed to discuss a topic. Of course, a commentary thread would probably start and go off the rails.
I know @swamidass hates memes, but it helps to remember the psychology of the internet:
Unfortunately, the discussion is then invisible to the vast majority of the readers on the forum.