Roger's Equations: An Informal Poll

Please see my most recent reply to the blog in question.

I don't remember if you were here during the "Ink Wars" that were the fallout from the blog on "The Anti-Science: Part I"...

For my part, I prefer fewer off-line PM exchanges, and more open and spirited dialogue within the blogs themselves. The behind-the-scenes stuff smacks of suppression.

I went to look at it and it was deleted.

I was here for the antiscience.

Well, at least he had the decency to PM you regarding the deletion of your comments. He deleted my comments to a couple of his blogs (I was just adding additional info, not disagreeing with him at all) and he never gave me a reason for why my comments were deleted.

I don't mind his blogs. Sometimes they are interesting. But I'm not going to bother commenting on any of his blogs again.

How shall I (or anyone) send you, AP#1, a PM?

If you will return, there is a discussion/explanation regarding the desire to stay on the topic. This tactic may seem a little heavy handed, but it is his blog, and the Antiscience went WAY off track.

That is a part of the blog... keep an open mind, don't take it personally.

Out of at least 12 posts, 5 remain. Are there other bloggers that do this that I'm not aware of?

We all get off topic and get in disagreements occasionally, even get stupid, but a post is a post, they at least remain on the thread.

Like I said, this is just curiosity, I can easily ignore these blogs.

In my mind, if a philosophical opinion is thrown out there, opposing opinions should be allowed to stand and be seen.

This entire series of blogs just seems to put people on edge. Doesn't seem healthy to me.

Here is the blog being discussed.

"Out of at least 12 posts, 5 remain. Are there other bloggers that do this that I'm not aware of?" None that I can think of... As I said, it may seem a little heavy handed, but it is his ballpark.

I commented earlier that Roger posted an explanation to the editing... at this writing, it is gone too! I presume he is editing, and will place it again.

Funny.

Did you notice those post that were left are the ones that pat him on the back?

Sorry i won't vote because this is not about blogs. Its more about Roger and his ego and how it is very disruptive to people that can think for themselves.

No need to vote. I think that the posts themselves, between this thread, ky's, and the lack of posts due to deletion, on the blog, have spoken volumes.

There's also no need in bashing Roger. He's done an excellent job of revealing his position on here and what he thinks of the rest of our opinions.

It's a shame really. He's obviously a very intelligent guy. Hopefully one day he will learn how to impart his knowledge in a manner that will make him a great teacher.

Acquiring knowledge is a gift.

Sharing that knowledge with those that want to learn is a greater gift.

Without that ability, knowledge becomes nothing more than a way to pay the bills. No bragging rights there, regardless of how much you know.

That's what I feel is the spirit of this forum.

kramarat

PS- Maybe I just feel that way because I know how ridiculous it would be for me to attempt to prove that I was one of the smartest here.

Oh look another hidey hole to discuss all those things we love

Son of Editor Crankshaft

His blogs are interesting. He would be a shining star within the context of a section specifically set aside for political and philosophical discussion.

As far as the blogs' contribution to the overall engineering aspect of this site, and the stuff we usually are discussing...........I don't know, hence the poll.

Re: (from the OP): I'm going to post two posts directly below this thread. Please use your OT button to vote for the post you most agree with.

Apparently, I misinterpreted that statement when I first read it. I would never have imagined that I should cast a negative vote (off topic) for the post I most agree with. Is that really what you intended?

(BTW, I did not vote, as I don't in many polls, because often the choices constrain my response too much, I have trouble giving a straight yes / no answer, I typically need (or want ;-) to qualify my answer.)

Since the button that you start with to rate something is named "Rate", I assumed (I know), that you meant that we should use the Rate button to then choose good answer or off topic to indicate whether we agreed or not.

(Of course, I know that if you vote one way and then switch your answer that there is, in essence, a swing of two votes--once you've voted, you don't have the option of getting the rating back to neutral (i.e., zero), by yourself, you only have the option of replacing, for example, 1 vote for off topic with 1 vote for good answer (a swing of two votes).)

BTW, thanks for this thread. I had trouble reading Roger's last post, but now knowing that he censors (is there any other word for what he does?) the feedback, I will probably just avoid reading them.

I don't know what the missing comments were--if they were attempts at humor, I generally find them distracting, but getting them rated off topic so that they don't appear to someone who has not set their options to see the off topic posts seems like the appropriate way to deal with them.

If Roger simply did that, I would have less of a problem with his "moderation".

PS: I intentionally removed the pre-selected 'off-topic" (OT) rating from this post, I think it is On Topic (OT ;-)

I was just using the OT button as a counting tool. I've looked at the numbers and it's a dead heat.

I don't think the numbers matter anyway. The posts that resulted from this and KYs thread have done a better job as a poll than my numbers game ever could have.

It's been interesting.................but keep voting, anyone that wants to.

I personally, will always be offended by this series of blogs if they continue in the vein that they have been. Not offended exactly.............lets just say that they achieve the goal of the blogger.

My little poll, (so far), indicates that maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'll just make an effort to avoid these blogs in the future. Many of the tenets they contain fly in the face of what I believe.

I'm now willing to accept the fact that any opposition will be deleted, and/or, don't conform to the rules of CR4. Therefore, I will just grow up and skip over them in the future. After all, working there, obviously, does have its privileges.

That was me.

Hey, I can't help it if my vote is worth 5.

Okay John, now everyone knows. They can deduct 4 points from the final tally.

Please bear in mind that the way you structured this, an OT vote was supposed to favor the stance taken. That was most ingenious, because it allows you to give 5 reverse votes in favor!!

Are we sufficiently confused now?

I copped to it. I don't want to pollute the well. Subtract 4 points from #2.

I'm no more interested in attempting to manipulate the numbers as I would be in deleting posts if I could. Someone is though, #1 did have 2 OTs

"#1 did have 2 OTs ..." - just thinking through the scenarios, maybe someome changed their mind?

If you wanna be fair (seeing a 5-vote weighting one way or another could sway new voters) you should really mark your #1 OT.

At first I thought you were crazy, but, you're right! Consider it done.

K, did you recently go back and mark your post #2 OT (by 5 points)? If not, there are some strange manipulations going on.

Maybe I'm spacing out, but for whatever odd reason, I can't find R.P.'s blog that we are discussing.

Hey guys,

Just so everyone knows, I did vote for #2. My vote only counts as one, not 5.

To put this poll in more perspective.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with Roger's statements.

The point is, that this entire series of blogs is woven, (in my mind), with both political and religious anti religious philosophy that the rest of us are forbidden from expressing, as per the CR4 rules.

Given the existing set of rules, is this series of blogs appropriate?

This is an interesting conundrum. Generally speaking, religion and politics are off limits on CR4, as they are usually irrelevant to engineering/scientific discussions. Nonetheless, engineering and science often do interact with religion/politics, so that a total ban on these aspects does seem excessive. Granted, it may not be easy to draw the lines in the "right" places. I love a spirited debate, as on Amazon for instance, but such debates all too often degenerate into sheer insanity.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to know what in the particular blog from RP would be considered "anti-religious". I have re-read the original blog several times, and I find absolutely nothing that has anything whatsoever to do with religion. While I may not agree entirely with his perspective on the history and development of the Scientific Method, I can not for the life of me see how this challenges anyone's religious beliefs (of course, I do acknowledge there are systems of belief about which I have limited knowledge).

I do know that early on, certain posters (and I don't remember who exactly) took umbrage at some concept that was either expressed in the original blog or expressed in one of the early replies to the blog, and commenced to drag the dialog into the Science vs. Religion debate. I tend to agree with RP on this one- his discussion had absolutely nothing to do with the Science vs. Religion debate. Can someone enlighten me as to the offensive passage, so that I can avoid making a similar error myself?

Now, as to voting, I am lost. I haven't a clue, based on the questions as presented, whether I would be condoning Philosophical/Religious/Political Discussions were I to select either 1 or 2... Maybe it is just too late at night.

So, I will express my opinion. Such discussions are a fact of life on CR4, in spite of all the heavy-handed control and censorship attempted by management. They are not going to stop it. One always has the option of unsubscribing from those discussions that one finds offensive. Admin isn't going to stop it, short of shutting down the site all together.

So, am I for or against? Or maybe the question should be, What am I supposed to be for or against?

cwarner,

I am at a loss for words right now, as my friend arrived from Atanta many hours ago and we are drinking moonshine with beer chasers.

I am honest with everyone on here. Whether I get a GA or not, I am happy to help someone out, and I appreciate the same treatment from you guys.

Where's Roger?

Who have his blogs helped?

Tomorrows another day.........................signing off

Hi kramarat,

I agree that some of Roger's blogs are anti-religion and therefore should not be allowed by CR4 rules. Keep in mind that Roger was/is part of the CR4 establishment, and his blogs probably won't be deleted.

I will not take part in you backwards voting fiasco. I hate it when politicians reverse the vote (i.e. I don't like voting yes when I mean no).

I'm also over my backwards fiasco.

What surprises me is the fact that the blogger hasn't jumped in to defend his position.

After all, I can't delete his posts.

If his aim is true.......................he will comment.

He's only here to teach us, after all.

I, for one, am here to learn.

Help me Blogger

I've noticed Roger 'reading' but I suspect he's just as confounded as I am on what you seek to achieve.

The rules for bloggers may be different than other threads, but Roger doesn't play fair. In previous discussions he completely ignored me, criticised me, or deleted my posts with no explanation. He reminds me of the bullies in grade school. I think CR4 officials should give serious thought to what the rules should be for blogs, and then make it known to all. When I see a thread from Roger, I go the other way.

Last time I read those blogs

the mighty penguin hunter, was arguing for religion, but against ignorant extremism

I had a number of very strained exchanges w/MPH, where he insisted that belief in god is a requirement

MPH was also taking a position that only those highly conversant in the language or math of a particular science should be able to take part in the funding decision making

not so much left wing, more elitist exclusionary... if you really think MPH having & expressing an opinion offends you, use the tools provided

Push the report button & write

or contact admin directly & open a dialog

Being a devote elitist myself (in spite of the fact that I will never actually have an opportunity to join the exalted class), I can honestly say that we elitists are most definitely NOT left-wing, which is one of the confusions this debate has created for me.

I learned way back in high school that the only way one is going to win a debate is to understand the opposition's position better than the opposition understands your position. This was brought home very vividly in the movie "The Great Debaters", which is a bit of a romantization of the true story of James Farmer, Jr., who led the Wiley College Debate team to a national championship in 1935. Note, Wiley College is a small, obscure school in Marshall, Texas that was exclusively black in 1935, and moving onto the national stage with their debating team was more than a small achievement in 1935. They won because James Farmer (at least, according to the movie version of the story) illustrated very vividly how the opponents' position was inconsistent with reality.

Now, I am generally opposed to any form of censorship. My recollection of the posts that were deleted from the blog in question demonstrated an attack based, not on the arguments presented in the original post, but, rather, based on perceived affronts derived from "interpretations" of the blogger's writings. I have re-read the original blog post several times in an attempt to understand the source of this issue, and I find nothing that can be ascribed to either the political left, or could possibly be construed as an attack on religion.

I really want to understand this, because I have a blog myself, and I do not want to find myself in a similar position of inadvertently offending the audience. So, please help me understand how a review of the history of Greek thought and the origins of the Scientific Method could possibly be construed as an attack on Religion? How does one associate the history of Greek tought and the origins of the Scientific Method with right-wing liberal political concepts?

You don't have any worries on your blog.

To truly understand, you have to go back and read all of his blogs. The super collider blog was what I considered left wing. There was another, where he had a bunch of people upset, as he was defending Al Gore and his movie, that now has been shown to contain lies and untruths. One thing that remains constant, is the, Holier than Thou attitude, and the use of the delete button or just disallowing comments altogether if too many people disagree with him.

We do wander into political discussions from time to time. No posts are deleted........everyones opinions are left in place.

Any threads that are started that are purely political are shut down by admin.

When I had the audacity to suggest that the supercollider blog was purely political, my post was deleted.

The blogger was kind enough to let me know, that not only was I absolutely correct, but apparently it wasn't even that special of me to notice. Maybe this will help clear up any lingering doubt about the reasons that the blogger has such a penchant for the delete button and the use of the PM system for anyone that disagrees. I have to admit...........his PM is pretty funny.

Roger Pink
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Albany, New York Posts: 3924 Good Answers: 95 Re: Comment on my blog 03/01/2011 9:49 PM

To: kramarat

Wow, what intuition! You're like Columbo! I wish I could have been there for the other great eureka moments in Kramarat history:

Kramarat at 15 - Kramarat shouts angrily at a mall Santa Claus "You're not fooling me! You're not really Santa! There is no Santa! I'm Kramarat!!!!"

October 7th, 1990 - Kramarat shouts angrily shouts outside Phillip Morris headquarters "You're cigarettes are addictive! You can't fool me or my friends. I'm Kramarat!!!!"

May 2nd, 2001 - Kramarat shouts at the drive thru microphone of a local McDonalds. "You're food is fattening!!! You can't fool me! I'm Kramarat!!"

How dare they Kramarat. How dare they try to fool you. Your keen intellect, polished after years and years of study is no match for Mall Santa, Phillip Morris, and McDonalds.

I'm Kramarat!!!! I'm angry!!!! Grrrrr!!!! Be afraid!!!! I say things to hurt you!!!! Grrrr!!!! I'm Kramarat!!!!!

From: kramarat
Sent: 03/01/2011 7:38 PM
To: Roger Pink
Subject: Re: Comment on my blog

Good for you again! You seem to be the only blogger that feels the need to delete posts that disagree with your political views. Maybe because yours are the only ones that are politically motivated.

You have a gift for cloaking your politics in rambling diatribe or cute stories, but politics it is. It's not only apparent, but transparent, and I'm not the only member that's noticed, and is bothered by it.

There are plenty of threads that are political [& depending on your view religious threads too] from the OP onwards, may of them started by the unsigned bloggers who work for GS

There are no rules, contrary to the "Official" proclamations. The legal boilerplate is there should any moderators feel the need to exert control

the guidelines are written in such a general way to leave plenty of wiggle room.

this thread could be considered a personal attack on MPH

the situation is much like a boss or a parent. Don't make me come down there or you'll be sorry [would be the parental equivalent].

it's all fun & games until someone gets butt hurt & starts dancing on the report button or otherwise makes enough noise to make the boss [moderator] get up from behind their collective desks & take action

You don't like his rules don't go to his [MPH's] house [blog], figure out how to make your point without being deleted. Just the nature of the beast

Hell that's part of the fun

You're right.

I need to stay off those particular blogs and I will. Philosophy itself is a controversial subject and prone to start debate. Add to that the fact that posts that don't agree with or praise the blogger get deleted and it does tend to create hard feelings............at least for some.

Any disagreement has to be done via PM?

Seems a little odd, but, like everyone has pointed out, it's his blog. At least everyone now knows that any posts that smack of disagreement will be deleted. I think it's at least good to have the ground rules out there for potential commenters to know going in.

Unlike other blogs, this one does have very specific rules that are made and enforced by the blogger.

Fear, brains and rock'n'roll: meet Joe LeDoux

the link doesn't work?

Sorry, I just found out my self.

Got it in the end but it is a long interview (ABC radio) so it takes about 30 seconds before the say anything about this subject. I listened to it while in my studio so I had plenty of time. Maybe you can google the link that's what I had to do to be reminded of what had been said. Sorry if it's not possible for you to receive this in the US.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that thought of any kind cannot be free. Rogers impotent attempt to prove otherwise is now in the past for me. I'm over it, Ky.

& in this installment of Ky's short attention span theater

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2011/3175972.htm

On an island with a broken pier, last I knew :D

Re: Fear, brains and rock'n'roll: meet Joe LeDoux

That link is wrong, try:

Fear, brains and rock'n'roll: meet Joe LeDoux

And, it looks like a transcript will be available sometime on Wednesday for any who, like me, prefer to read rather than listen.

The link is wrong in the other thread as well--I'll get back there sooner or later to correct it as well (unless someone else gets there first).

This is nothing about a lynch mob.

When a blogger presents evolutionary theory as fact and another member offers a differing opinion that happens to be rooted in his particular faith, and that member's opinion is not only deleted, but expressly forbidden on here, my personal opinion, is that this does nothing but breed resentment and is not a healthy thing for the forum.

That's it.

If not for this particular series of blogs, I never would have known that the ability to delete posts was even available to the bloggers.

I'm pretty confused here. My tinge of dyslexia isn't helping. But I think I missed something in the last few days, which have been busy. So I'll just say I found Roger's philosophical essay quite interesting to me, who never had a formal acedemic course in philosophy of any kind. A bit deep; but interesting. But damn, my short term memory keeps rejecting that word (pause to go back and read it for the 5th time and cut and paste to get it right) "Epistemology".

A separate CR-4 topic on philosophy? I think it would be hard to keep from turning into an unmanageable venue for mindless rants. If Roger can manage that in his blog format that's fine. If you don't agree with his ideas that's fine also. Just ignore them.

Did I get through? If "no" just ignore me too. ............Ed Weldon

Another storm in the tea cup. I didn't know that this thread had started but found that what had happened in the original thread not proper, not up to scratch.

Vote?

I can explain some of what has happened with roger's threads

1st some clarifications

This is a thread in the General section, as such the the OP [Kramarat], has no particular power to moderate or otherwise change content

Roger's Equations is a blog. the owner of a blog, can delete content & also turn the ability to comment off. these functionalities are part of CR4 & not unique to Roger's blog

That being said I think there is some confusion caused by the title of Rogers latest Blog entry.

Here's all the entries http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/6/Roger-s-Equations

I see both parts of The Anti-Science. I didn't re-read both of them in their entirety. Part one is still locked down at 183 comments

Roger employs the verbose blizzard method of argument

Admin has declined to have formal social science sections, these discussions happen anyway & are where you find them

I enjoy all of the blogs...............almost.

From what I can tell, this is the only blogger that feels the need to delete posts.

For example, I have commented about my GMC truck on a blog about Fords. The blogger did not see this as a threat, and allowed my post to stand. Fortunately, they are secure enough in their feeling that Ford is superior, that they can handle an opposing viewpoint.

I would like to see this particular blogger share his wealth of knowledge on a more regular basis, and to help out others when possible, like the rest of us.

We all are guilty of stirring up the pot occasionally. In the meantime, we are actually contributing to the forum. Your knowledge of computers, for example, has helped people out on many occasions.................myself included.

It is, what it is, I reckon. I still like it here.

Roger used to be one of 3 moderators

Leonerd & Moose being the other 2

Roger posted more pictures of actual tubs on BBT than anyone else.

It all went wrong on part one, where he met his match in Blink & decided to squelch the descent. He retreated to his ivory tower ever since

this happened about the same time as the shift in moderation policy.

I've read all of the blogs.

Us mere mortals, (members), all have come to the realization, (or will), that when we cast stones, we also must be prepared to get pinged in the head occasionally. It's a two way street.......................as it should be.

It's also fun.

GA for the "It's also fun". Bottom line, that's what it's all about...

It's hard to explain.............and strange to admit, but you guys are my friends.

Of course I have others, but the conversations that take place on here, are the ones I've been looking for, for a long time.

Alright, that's it!!!! I don't intend to get all mushy.

"Pings in the head", chinks in your armor, teeth marks in your keyboard............ All in the same category as "a duelling scar in a Prussian officers' mess" (Micklethwait, 1997) ...........EW

For those of you that have wasted spent countless hours sitting in a pub drinking beer and shooting pool with your friends, I think I have an analogy, as it pertains to these blogs.

We show up every day, we drink beer, we shoot pool on the same old torn table, with the same old warped sticks.

We win games, we lose games, but we all get better at our game, and have fun doing it.

The owner of the pub has a son. The son goes to a very expensive prep school. He shows up every couple of months and breaks out his custom made, hand crafted pool stick.

We know he's better than most of us, but a few of us are up to the task. As we play with our old crooked pool sticks, he wipes off the map........one at a time.

It's all fun.............whatever.

Eventually, one of us wins.................and then another.

Our pride is short lived, however, because the son knows that he will always win.

Why?

Because when he is beaten at the pool table, he knows that all it takes is a short talk with his Dad, and anyone that has challenged or embarrassed him will be banished from the pub forever.

The End

For those of you that don't drink beer and shoot pool:

A mosquito shows up and bites me in the middle of my back...........just out of reach.

It itches. I go on a hunt and finally find a perfect stick to scratch the itch.

As I begin scratching, the mosquito shows back up, slaps my hand, and takes my stick away.

As I look dumbfounded at the mosquito, he smiles and says, " You fool...........I didn't come here to see you scratch..........I came here to see you itch".

It's not quite that simple

the owner knows that we bring in other customers who just come for the show

the son sometimes complains about the patrons

dad shrugs his shoulders & sells another pitcher

we're the entertainment, as long as we don't hit each other [or other customers] with the cues or do too many jump shots, no one cares what we do

Post # 36 is as simple as I can possibly make it.

... But while the owner's having a distracting word with the customers, the son slips round the back with a chalk-board eraser, and wipes out the results of all the games where he didn't do so well.

OT:

_{This may not mean much to you folks outside britland, but it's pretty common around here to have a blackboard and chalk in pubs, to keep a track of scores. A board rubber may or may not be provided.}

I understand

Just to reiterate.

Let's either have a philosophy section.............or not.

The hit and hide tactics that are being employed in this ongoing blog are becoming bothersome.

Somebody had to say it.

If you really want to have a discussion about having sections for some of the softer sciences, try posting in feedback, instead of general

I'm sure nsse will be glad to yell at you from her official soapbox

If you say something immoderate, does a gang of immoderators come along and edit it?

I tried for many months last year to understand, what the policies [rules] are for this place.

Just like any other organization, the rules as written are not the same as the reality on the ground.

I don't think there is any subject that is prohibited, if the participants or observers don't complain to admin

I'd link to examples, but I don't want the threads closed down :D

Well, if I've learned one thing from all of this, it's that Roger seems to make a lot of enemies -- for good reasons, apparently. I initially thought: it's a blog, big deal. Read it or not. Ignore Roger if you don't like what he says. But apparently even people who generally agree with Roger sometimes get their comments removed.

Hey JohnDG -- Can you still see people standing on soapboxes in Hyde Park and haranguing the passersby with their speechifying? Seems like that's what Roger wants to do.

My closest aunt, who died some years ago at the age of 93, was fond of saying it's a short distance between genius and insanity. ............EW

Make the leap................it's fun over here.

Thanks for the responses guys.

I'm with ky, in that I won't be opening or reading these blogs again.

Maybe in the future someone could be kind enough to start a corresponding thread, in which people that may have a different opinion can post, without fear of deletion.

It won't be me. I won't be opening or participating in any of these blogs again. Not that anyone would know if I did, I'm sure after this little thread, kramarat is on auto-delete.

For those of you that are interested, this looks like a nice little philosophy forum. You can even pick your poison from a list of subjects. From what I can see, there are no deletions.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

I saw some of the comments (yours and a few others) prior to them being deleted. I didn't see anything objectionable or even argumentative in anyway. As a matter of fact, Anonymous Hero's comment saying he saw nothing objectionable in the deleted comments was also deleted. I also read Roger's explanation which was also removed. I thought Roger's response was a rather weak argument trying to maintain the discussion to be on topic.

As has been pointed out....it's his blog, so, basically, he can do what he wants. I find his blogs (especially this one) quite interesting and well written. It's unfortunate that he feels it necessary to take a heavy handed as it makes it appear that he is only interested in inflating his ego as opposed to reasonable discourse on a topic.

From a political point of view Roger's actions fit with his political stance. In the past, he has taken quite a liberal/progressive stance on most topics where politics is involved. The big government approach - we are the government, we know what's best for you, don't question us, just do what you are told - is reflected in Roger's moderation of his blog - all comments will be accepted as long as they fit what I (Roger) find acceptable, no discussion of the merits or flaws of such an approach.

I find it ironic that Roger starts a blog about philosophy and the scientific method, yet denies a healthy discussion (views supporting and opposing ideas) on the topic.

If I were to comment on something I objected to only to have my comment deleted, I am sure I would get pretty steamed about it.

For now I've decided to stay away from his blogs.

The problem with philosophical discussion, (even without the games and post deletions), is that there is no single philosophical truth, therefore any discussion on philosophy will ultimately end up being a philosophical debate that is based on different belief systems that are held by different people.

Since people tend to feel passionately in regard to their individual beliefs, and none of them are provable, these debates often times will end up breaking down into arguments. That's not unique to here..............that's anywhere that philosophical differences are being discussed by people that are not all lined up on the same side of the fence. The potential for the discussion to end up as a net-negative experience for all parties is always there.

I'll be sticking to the tangible discussions in which an answer usually comes up that the members generally agree on, and arguments can be backed up with facts...........and don't disappear.

I know what you mean.

I don't mind philosophical debates and dealing the in abstract.

Nor do I, I just won't be doing it here.

Probably a good idea.

It's really too bad. There is a relationship between science/math and philosophy as well as between philosophy and religion. So it seem quite appropriate for the topics to mix.

IMHO, such discussion should be (even though they may not be) allowable, but as with all posts, require decency and manners by those posting comments.

I get into philosophical discussions with my friends all the time. Friends that have much different views than I have. These aren't arguments. It's more like meandering through the philosophical landscape on different subjects.

The primary reason that these conversations are successful is that they begin with a mutual respect for each other. Sadly, I think the repeated use of the delete button has illustrated that that is an ingredient that doesn't exist in these blogs. Nor do I think that it ever has or will.

kramarat, I have been thinking about all of this...

When I reviewed Roger's blog again, I started at the top. The VERY top. From the lead-in at the top of Roger's Equations:

"This blog will include mathematics, philosophy, general science topics, or whatever I feel like writing about. I encourage discussion and debate as long as it is relevant and polite. Be warned...I am a heavy handed moderator, but I only moderate my own blog. If you feel stifled here, by all means, go anywhere else in CR4 and discuss whatever you want (based on what is allowed by the real CR4 moderators).

"What I want here is intellectualism. Those who are like me who wish to thoughtfully debate complicated subjects without prejudice are welcome. We live in a time where such discussions are discouraged. I offer here a refuge for intelligent inquiry and debate. Our topics will be unapologetically esoteric and nuanced. I look forward to our discussions. All who come in earnest are welcome."

It sounds to me like an honest accounting of his own style, how he wants the discussions to go, and how he will keep them on the topic he wants.

Well, you ask some good questions and make some good points.

"I disagree that it's an honest accounting of his own style. Perhaps honest is not the word I am looking for....maybe 'accurate' would be more accurate." An honest accounting, accurate accounting... I may have selected an incomplete thought. Perhaps more like an openness. I don't think he is trying to sugarcoat anything. There is a difference between brutal honesty and being brutal. I think he is being honest with us.

"All who come in earnest are welcome"....doesn't appear as if he really means that."

I don't know, one way or the other... he has deleted the posts! If these were only saved somewhere, I could review them and see if the comments are in earnest (my opinion does not count anyway, it is Roger's blog).

There are a number of members who have said they were playing per Roger's rules, but I don't know; I never saw the comments.

Dunno

He then went on to stifle everything that didn't agree with him completely. Comments that were on topic, and came from members here that I consider quite intelligent.

Followed by his own post that again welcomed debate, or telling him that he was awesome, which was also deleted.

Go take a look at the few comments that were left standing. I haven't bothered reading them, but is there anything left that resembles discussion and debate?

Rather than announcing heavy handed moderation, maybe just leaving the comments turned off would have worked better.

What I see in Roger's blog is a propensity to define "intellectualism" within a context he has not defined, one within which he is obviously entrenched and to which he might be unwilling to entertain dissent.

As the blogger, I suppose he has that right. I have enjoyed reading his blogs but it is his apparent need to determine what is "intellectual" - and thus what is NOT - that disturbs me and now, I see, apparently others.

An example - and I encourage all to check it out because I hope you might correct me and THAT is the essence of intellectualism AFAIK - Roger's CITED discussion of Socrates' disdain for democracy is linked to a site espousing Mormon philosophy; my problem is not with the site itself, but with Roger's obvious acceptance of the "source" as authoritative, and by definition "intellectual."

Not to find fault with Mormons. I might just have to vote for one in the near future - oops, politics and religion make for an acidic and potentially for a moderator-deletion of this post! Must I report myself?

Kramarat, the more I read AGAIN both there and here, the more I see your point, and forgive me if you must but I didn't start out that way!

Although I have not voted as you requested, I see no point in that exercise now, but I can't tell you how much I appreciate you bringing this not so esoteric topic to the fore!

Regards,

Gene

Hi Gene,

I started this thread because I had become upset over my post deletions and subsequent PM taunting, on the prior blog.

After some reflection, I have since come to realize, that by embracing that rage, rather than ignoring and walking away from the source of it, all I have managed to prove, is that I am at least as flawed as anyone on CR4.

I have worked hard not to be that kind of person.........apparently I am not there yet, I have to work harder.........and will.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~Buddha

Apt. GA

Of course that quote equally applies to Rogers' actions.

Will the philosopher see that? I wonder.

The only reason I'm here is to enhance my life, not destroy anyone else's.

This no longer has anything to do with Roger. It has to do with me. Took me a while to realize it.

I will regroup and start a new thread. My apologies.

I have not followed the link to the discussion of Socrates' disdain for democracy personally, but I can assure you that the particular site to which Roger has chosen to link is not the only source of this assessment- Plato's "Republic" specifically limits the right to participate in "democratic" government to "Citizens", not the general public. "Citizen" was an upper-class designation that did NOT include unskilled laborers or "artisans" (such as engineers, doctors and other skilled professionals).

If one reads our own Constitution, and some of the more esoteric of the documents of our Founding Fathers, one encounters an apparent distrust for "popular" democracy as well, with an attempt to keep the real power in the hands of the aristocracy (i.e., the Electoral College for selecting the President, the distribution of powers between the popularly-elected House of Representatives and the more selective Senate, etc.). It would appear that our Founding Fathers had very little faith in the ability of the "uneducated masses" to make viable political decisions.

Even further back, that most venerable document that stands as the Foundation of modern democracy, the Magna Carta, was an agreement between the King and the aristocracy, not the general populace...

Disclaimer: I am an avowed elitist, although never presented with the opportunity (or, possibly, never having been sufficiently motivated to pursue) a position amongst the "elite" class...

... and it's not an accident that the 'old' name for physics (or perhaps, science in general) is 'Natural Philosophy', and that there is an academic qualification known as a 'Ph.D.' (Doctor of Philosophy).

Excellent point.

Philosophy is a funny thing. There are Doctors of Philosophy, but as far as I know, the only job they are qualified for, is to turn around and teach it.

It also seems like philosophical discussion would be benign, yet at the same time, philosophical differences are behind the current war(s) we are fighting. I think it could be safely said that philosophical differences have been a major component in every war that's been fought since the dawn of man. I think it would be naive to think that philosophy would ever remain cheery and lighthearted on CR4.

I checked out a random thread from the link I posted above. I can tell you, I wouldn't want to be a moderator on that site.

They may have a rule about personal attacks, but the anger was boiling just below the surface. The thread was about the meaning of, "nothing". I got about 20 posts into it, started to get a headache and quit. I suspect that by the end of a lengthy thread, the posters accomplished exactly, "nothing".

kramarat, I appreciate that you created this thread/topic. I, too, had my posts deleted in replying to the original blog. I wasn't thinking I would post here, but then this comment by you elicits the same response in me that I posted in Roger's Blog, because there is no way to write about the history of science without including philosophy. The questions of philosophy lead to the scientific method, which is what, I think, was Roger's intent in writing the blog in the first place.

I'll restate my response here, as best as I can recall, just for the record, because my perspective on knowledge (or more widely, Truth) is based on my own experience. It is definitely, Off-Topic, and I will mark it as such. But, I think, most readers would agree that this perspective is 1) not critical of others, 2) not religious, in the sense, that it is tied to no particular religion, and 3) is not very inflammatory. (It is best understood within the context of my early life history, but that would make the post too long.) And I do appreciate and take you at your word that you most won't delete this post!

My understanding of scientific methodology is that, first, a question is posed about the nature of the physical world around us, or some phenomena in it. Next, anyone who chooses creates a hypothesis to explain the phenomena, which should be able to be repeated by others to verify the validity of said hypothesis. Then the "experimenter" performs the experiment, records his/her data, and analyzes the data to see if it proves the hypothesis. If the person who created the hypothesis and experiment, now thinks his hypothesis proven, he shares his results with others who are invited to repeat his/her experiment and see if the data they "get" matches the data in the first experiment.

My post in Roger's blog, was to the effect that the deepest questions of science, of "What is the Mystery of Life?," -- or "Where did it all come from?," will likely never be answered by science, since physical science depends on experiencing our world through our physical senses. And to say science isn't after these answers would be "spinning" scientific investigation. Particle physics is after finding "elemental" particles that are the foundation of all matter. Astronomical "cosmology" is after find a "model" of the universe that explains all the phenomena that we experience. Science does arise from this larger question of "What is the Mystery of Life." And these questions come about because Man is a "conscious" being. We are the only animal that we know of, capable of reflection on these things.

All I stated, is that, given this basic outline of the scientific method, I have found that Mysticism, is just as "scientific" as physical science, except that the laboratory is one's own consciousness. There such a thing as "Inner Seeing" and "Inner Hearing" of "Life" beyond the physical senses. The method for doing these experiments, comes under the general heading of "meditation." Although, there have been many instances of spontaneous experiences without looking for it at the time of its occurrence. (See Chrisg288's experience, for one.) And there is basic consistency and agreement between those who do this experiment successfully. (If one researches the topic of Mysticism and Mystics, one will begin to read about the experiences they described as having.) Differences and seeming contradictions come about because the scope of the "Inner" world is much more vast than the physical universe, if you can fathom that! Most people who read about this kind of perspective will never broach the subject enough to "experiment" in this way. And there are many types and methods of "meditation," most of which, do not lead anywhere, to speak of because the person(s) giving you the method, has in most instances, not achieved any results themselves. So they are repeating a method to others without having seen any success with the method themselves. A hypothesis without data.

With this perspective, there are no "beliefs" to adhere to only a "practice" which offers a way to experience what has been termed "altered" consciousness. It is up to each "experimenter" to see if he can have such experiences, and if he does, then judge the "reality" of them after having them.

As a sort of side note, it has been noted by some mystics, that the area between and behind the two eyes (referred to in the New Testament, as the "Single Eye") is the root of all inspiration -- scientific and/or otherwise. As one's attention drifts and collects toward this area, insights are there like a blowing wind at the command of the desire (problem being pondered) of the questioner. This is what happens as one gets deeply focused on a problem. A few years ago I found a book in the library, by Jacques Hadamard, demonstrating this.

So since Roger's post was concerned with science being rooted in philosophy, it was only natural for me to post this perspective. Obviously, it was not appreciated.

I also agreed with you that these discussions really don't belong on CR4 front pages or any of the defined forums. But, I note, that there is a penchant for the topic itself.

I suggested, as you have, that maybe it is best to tell people to visit the many other forums on the Net where suchlike ideas are discussed. But I also noted, that having a "fringe" forum here on the CR4 board would allow for this community (as Engineers and Scientists) to have those discussions. I think the users here, in fact, would rather have these discussion with their "known" peers here rather than be scattered to the winds of philosophical forums on the Web and not being able to share with the people they already know here. Just a thought. The topic can bring out the worst in people.

Readers will make of it what they will. That was my only intent in posting it.

I wouldn't delete your post if I could. I can understand you posting anonymously, although, the blogger can only delete posts from his blog. As far as I know he cannot delete your membership status.

There are lots of things I'd like to talk about here, with the people I've been talking to for the past couple of years. I won't likely happen, and I can understand why. It would be a moderation nightmare first of all. Secondly, all belief systems, religions, etc. would have to be allowed.

Whether it was a deliberate tweak or not, for the blogger to use the word God in his intro, was inappropriate. It's thing's like this, followed by the inability to respond, that really get people steamed on here.

I don't expect any changes, but whenever a blog goes beyond the concrete and into the intangible, which I consider philosophy to be, all voices should be heard.

I also think that if it's okay for a blogger to go into the intangible, anybody should be able to start a thread in the general section along the same lines. As long as the thread is labeled properly, just like the blog, those that aren't interested can skip it.