This Board Could Discuss....

[Synirr]

If the scientic section is going to be like this in the furture I think i'll take my leave and read some books instead to find an answer.

"Like this"? You mean... like expecting posters to cite actual sources to back up their arguments? If that's not what you'd expect from a science section, perhaps you really should take your leave, because things are going to become difficult if we are all defining science differently.

 

[andywg]

I see we have different points of view. If the scientic section is going to be like this in the furture I think i'll take my leave and read some books instead to find an answer. I guess the welcome wagon got ran over by andywg.

Essentially, there is no consensus in the scientific community on whether fish feel pain, and there probably won't be for some time. The ability to pull up a number of papers to support either side will attest to that. There has been somewhat of a shift with recent research towards proving that fish may feel pain (note may, not do). I understand Dr Sneddon is trying to undertake some research and experiments to show that fish do have long term negative effects from pain. The results of these will be most interesting.

As people have said, science is about using sources to back up your argument. You came out with a claim, I pointed out things that disagree with what you said. Bignose and nmonks have pointed out the correct way to respond to what I put. I did not call you an idiot for stating that all organisms feel pain, I just provided the resources I have seen which appear to counter that belief.

When I asked you to back up your argument you started attacking me instead of my argument, so I called out your ad hominem attacks. In any science based community, if you make baseless claims, and then defend them with personal attacks, you will quickly find yourself ostracised. I am sorry you cannot handle the fact that someone was able to present a robust argument to your claims, but if your input to the science forum would be baseless claims followed by personal attacks, then I don't think the science forum will have lost a great contributor. Name-calling and sulking is not what I envisaged the science forum to be about when suggesting it.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Well, I see the section is already a bundle of fun...

Methinks steelhealr and whichever others are lucky enough to mod here are going to have a whale of a time...

 

[shibby]

i only just browesed through, but i dont think fish feel pain well nto to our extenct, and pain i beleive is all in the mind, kids usually cry at the sign of blood not at because theyve cut themshelves!


if you look at some of the martial art forms they have found ways to feel practically no pain ... or they may feel it but show no visible signs.

im sorry if im slightly off topic, i had a quick browse and im not to good with science but though id put a pain review in !

 

[Danno]

Well anyways, you can always make lemonade out of lemons.

Good points were gathered.

• Science has different definitions to different people
• Sarcasm makes people angry
• Acting is different then being one
• There needs to be more then just one moderator in this section
• Citation needs to be cited
• Mental reasoning (it seems) should be included in the science section?

Getting back on topic, it seems that there is a fine line on what is thought by one person is different to another.

I think that one of the biggest things that needs to defined on what the board could discuss is "what IS science?". What is the boarder? How far are topics going to rain from? Which definition will this forum use?

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts. -Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb

the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy. - Academic Press

Are physiological phenomenon, moral ethics, are "feelings" apart of the definition defined by the future rules?

 

[andywg]

Mental reasoning (it seems) should be included in the science section?

I think you will find that it was actually noted that all scientific papers and journals that relate to fish will be included. If this includes a scientific paper on mental issues (such as the one on pain mentioned by bignose) than so be it.

I think that one of the biggest things that needs to defined on what the board could discuss is "what IS science?".

I thought this was cleared up in my suggestion thread. For anyone who missed it this is science! (may contain a little bit of flashing lights).

And on a similar note, this is not science

 

[-germ-]

Excellent links Andy, very informative....

 

[idlefingers]

I thought this was cleared up in my suggestion thread. For anyone who missed it this is science! (may contain a little bit of flashing lights).

And on a similar note, this is not science

very informative.. that cleared a lot up..

 

[steelhealr]

I think we can all see that the difference between the SCIENCE forum and the TFF areas is quite different. I've been watching the last few posts and my following comments are NOT implied to point fingers at anybody, but, point out what WILL NOT work in the new section:

-personal attacks, or, as used above, ad hominem attacks. There is just no place for it here. I can tell you right now, being a 'scientist' myself, discussions can get very heated when it comes to picking apart someone's scientific viewpiont, but, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND ARGUMENTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, NOT OPINION
-anyone joining in this forum MUST BE ABLE TO TAKE A SCIENTIFIC BEATING.....but...PERSONAL ATTACKS AND BEING CONFRONTATIONAL IN A NEGATIVE WAY...are out
-this forum will NOT be a good place for those without a tough skin. If you present a viewpoint that was disproved scientifically 20 years ago, someone is going to open up a can of scientific 'wup-a$$'

I think you can all see that we have some very bright people here. In fact, I think it is EXCITING that we do and it further makes me feel that the potential to learn here is formidable.

To date:
1) Guidelines are complete and are being touched up. Thanks to contributing members. They will soon be open for all to see and for all to make recommendations on.
2) A 'how to argue' pin is in the making and almost done.
3) Any volunteers for a 'definitions' section???
4) After #'s 1 and 2 are posted and approved, there will be a 'call for papers', that is, a first topic will be posted...that will involve a little 'dictatorship' to try and keep things under control and then the forum will be open. I would like to open a panel of five members to decide on 3 initial topics. I would like to appoint three and ask for 2 volunteers. If anyone thinks that is a bad idea, post here. I will then post a separate thread for volunteers. Thanks.

SH

 

[steelhealr]

The first pinned topic is open...arguing and discussing. Feel free to make comments. SH

 

[steelhealr]

Pins now available for comment, critique or discussion:

• How to Argue
• Science Forum Guidelines

We are ready to discuss 'a call for papers', or, we are ready for our first thread.

SH

 

[@ombomb]

Persoally I think the "how to argue" thread is rather patronising, fair enough make the point, but I assume the most people that would bother to view such a thread are not the people who would need to be told how to have a discussion with poeple, particularly not in that manner.

 

[andywg]

Persoally I think the "how to argue" thread is rather patronising, fair enough make the point, but I assume the most people that would bother to view such a thread are not the people who would need to be told how to have a discussion with poeple, particularly not in that manner.

But it is an easy pinned thread to point people to. And it does provide some help for some people (and I have little doubt there will be some) who may want to get involved, but are a little scared by the fact some debates have a load of cited research thrown at each other.

 

[Bignose]

Persoally I think the "how to argue" thread is rather patronising, fair enough make the point, but I assume the most people that would bother to view such a thread are not the people who would need to be told how to have a discussion with poeple, particularly not in that manner.

@ombbomb, check out the acclimitization thread in chit chat, and then check how many points in the "how to argue" posts have been broken. That is the kind of thread I'd much rather NOT see in the science section, though the topic is a great one for the science section. If it takes a somewhat patronizing 'how to argue' thread to point out to people so that our science sub-forum doesn't end up like that thread, then so be it.

 

[andywg]

Persoally I think the "how to argue" thread is rather patronising, fair enough make the point, but I assume the most people that would bother to view such a thread are not the people who would need to be told how to have a discussion with poeple, particularly not in that manner.

@ombbomb, check out the acclimitization thread in chit chat, and then check how many points in the "how to argue" posts have been broken. That is the kind of thread I'd much rather NOT see in the science section, though the topic is a great one for the science section. If it takes a somewhat patronizing 'how to argue' thread to point out to people so that our science sub-forum doesn't end up like that thread, then so be it.

I fully agree. While I admit to having had some fun, it is irksome to have to defend oneself against personal attacks for requesting evidence to support a "fact"