Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[lordpasternack]

If Richard knew what was good, he'd aim to stay on speaking terms with the blue butterfly.

It's too bad that, when he graced the forum, Richard was usually too preoccupied with what people were discussing with respect to himself, to have become fully aware of Cali's fame in the science sections - particularly Evolution and Natural Selection - which Richard waxes so lyrical about his interest and fascination with - and which he purposely wants to raise the profile of on the newly formatted 'discussion' area. And Richard also has the nerve to suggest that these sections were somehow under par, or indicated need for change - even while his total ignorance of them, and most of the rest of the forum, forms a yawning chasm that's perhaps only marginally less deep than Josh's.

In fact Josh's, Andrew's and Richard's ignorance of the pertinent sections of the forum is so profound that I'd defy them even to be able to NOTICE any differences, for better or worse with the new format. Of course, there is the gross marker of total traffic - which may well go for the new format - but they will forever lack any nuanced view of how it compares and contrasts with the forum version, of what parts of the forum ethos would be good to keep/reintroduce.

One observation I would make is that some of the best expositions of reason and science were made in direct response to threads started by wilfull ignoramuses and loons, not to mention tentative laypeople whom I fear will feel less comfortable raising their hands in a more sterilised environment.

Josh would have no doubt pondered this all, if only he had a fucking clue about the very thing he seemed to feel apt to know required considerable change in the first place. And again to Richard mouthing that party line of the winds of change, presupposing something I doubt. That he has more than a vague familiarity with the forum, and in particular the sections geared towards reason and science.

If he did, he'd know and highly esteem Calilasseia, and would want to make some effort to build bridges with him. But since he probably doesn't know him - I would invite Cali to demonstrate some work here, of which RD.net will likely be bereft.

[Blondie]

-sigh- I love it when you talk awesome.

I know it's medically impossible, but.. Cali, will you have my baby?

[Blondie]

even while his total ignorance of them, and most of the rest of the forum, forms a yawning chasm that's perhaps only marginally less deep than Josh's.

Very good!

Oh, and I love your avatar

[goodboyCerberus]

Indeed, as a measure of my displeasure at the manner in which Timonen and his recycled yuppie lapdog engaged in egregious duplicity, and also to counter the misinformation in the press, I have just challenged Ruth Gledhill at The Times, and Heidi Blake at The Daily Telegraph, to publish my letter to Dawkins in their newspapers, along with admonitions to the effect that I prefer to see facts in newspapers, not fiction.

Then I take it you'll remove your comparisons to the "Pol Pot style 'Year Zero' operation" and the "hideous spectre that was Pinochet in Chile"? If that got to their reading audience it would be fucking absurd, and there would be no way to take it back.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...One observation I would make is that some of the best expositions of reason and science were made in direct response to threads started by wilfull ignoramuses and loons, not to mention tentative laypeople whom I fear will feel less comfortable raising their hands in a more sterilised environment...

And a very good observation it is - that aspect hadn't even occurred to me.

[hackenslash]

-sigh- I love it when you talk awesome.

I know it's medically impossible, but.. Cali, will you have my baby?

Do you look like this?

[Blondie]

hmm.. with enough plastic surgery.. maybe.


^^That emoticon displays a disconcerting level of lingual virtuosity.. not entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.

[goodboyCerberus]

hmm.. with enough plastic surgery.. maybe.


^^That emoticon displays a disconcerting level of lingual virtuosity.. not entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.

You're such a cunning linguist.

[Salviati]

Lord Pasternack,

I don't think you're being fair on Richard and Josh. I used to read the science forums from time to time, and I even contributed quite a bit myself back in 2006 and 2007. I confess that most of the time I was on that forum, I would get the feeling that simply reading science would be a better expenditure of my time. It seemed that there were only a few people reading the forum who actually had the confidence to debate or discuss matters of science. Otherwise, it was mostly pretty shallow stuff: someone would ask a question, and it would get answered and that would be the end of it; or, alternatively, someone would post a link about an exciting new discovery, and nothing would be said but the equivalent of "Cool!"

More importantly, the threads that were instructive would inevitably become lost, buried in a mound of threads of little interest. With a quality-centred framework, this will no longer be a problem. It could be organized so that it's much easier for readers to find high-quality material.

As the forum was, it was almost always at too low a level of discussion for professional scientists and university students. For laymen it might have been often helpful, although not nearly as good as a wheelbarrow full of decent books in popular science.

[hackenslash]

I can't agree there. Firstly, you can't quiz a stack of books, and when you misundertand principles from books, the effect is logarithmic. A book can't tell if you've got it before you move on. Being able to question people that have understanding means that they can tell when you haven't gotten it. Secondly, the aim of the foundation is supposed to be raising public awareness of science, not raising the awareness of academics already versed in the subjects. That would be absolutely bloody pointless. I'm an interested layman with regard to science, and I've read volumes and volumes over the years, but the practical application on the forum has firmed up my understanding and corrected misunderstandings. That is what the forum is about. I've learned more there in the last 16 months than in 20 years of books beforehand.

Finally, the threads and posts that were instructive did stand a chance of being lost in the noise, but measures were being taken to deal with that, in the form of users bookmarking posts for future reference and dissemination. I myself have a sizeable collection of such posts, and often referred to them and referred others to them. This collection was by no means comprehensive, but it covers a vast range of topics, and the information was being made available, along with explanation and instruction.

[SevenOfNine]

One of the things that Richard Dawkins asked on the forum was about radiometric dating, and from memory, knowledgeable folks like Cali, therepod, and I think spearthrower gave him erudite replies. [Forgive me anyone who did make a great reply, but I have not listed].

So it appears that RD's understanding of radiometric dating that he outlines in his 2009 book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is at least in part due to his requests for information and explanations received from people like Cali. We have all seen Cali's brilliant explanations, cited to the wazzoo with abundant source material on many aspects of science, including radiometric dating.

Now I don't begrudge an author the right to dedicate a book to whoever he wishes. RD no doubt has good reason to dedicate his book to Josh, what ever we may feel about him. Perhaps Richard did not use any of the information supplied to him by Cali-I could not find a citation acknowledging Cali's input on the matter, as RD seems to acknowledge a different source. [Talk origins website].

TGSOE is not well referenced compared to other popular books authored by Dawkins. This is understandable, since popular books most often do not contain rigorous or complete citations. "The Extended Phenotype" contained far more citations. Perhaps RD did not feel constrained to cite from people he does not regard as colleagues or peers?

Given the choice of deciding who was acting in the most professional manner that befits an academic, I would side with Cali every time. IMHO Cali, is at least RD's intellectual equal.

The loss of Cali's [and many other competent professional and gifted amateur scientists] expertise to the RDF.net forum is a loss that RD, Josh and Andrew do not seem to understand. Nor do they understand the loss in terms of science education and the advancement of reason and enlightenment in the public area. Nor do they understand the blow to atheism that has resulted from this whole sordid affair.

The spin-doctoring, childish self-interest, panic and duplicity of the "needs" of the three, apparently outweighs the needs of the many (85,000 of them).

If anyone wants to return to the RDF.net forum [without there being substantial apologies and radical changes made to the management set-up there], I would thoroughly recommend a prior health check with a psychologist before proceeding.

[Salviati]

Hmm, I was just looking at some of the threads in the RDF science forum, and it does seem to have improved since I was a regular. It seems like more than a few posters were giving informative answers. The remarks in my previous post were wrong or overstated.

Still, the point remains that a quality-centred format will have advantages. (I'm not aware that Josh has suggested stopping people from posting about science?) And the earlier comment about Richard just reading about himself and avoiding the science forum was over the top. Many or most scientists also don't bother to read general science forums. There are more interesting books out there, written by professional academics (not random forumites like Calilasseia), than any one of us will have the time to read.

[Calilasseia]

Now I don't begrudge an author the right to dedicate a book to whoever he wishes. RD no doubt has good reason to dedicate his book to Josh, what ever we may feel about him. Perhaps Richard did not use any of the information supplied to him by Cali-I could not find a citation acknowledging Cali's input on the matter, as RD seems to acknowledge a different source. [Talk origins website].

So the fact that I went to the trouble of compiling an Excel spreadsheet, and wrestling with the bureaucratic obstacles Microsoft erected in my path as I sought to provide RD with a proper exposition of the subject, and went to the trouble of clarifying a good number of details in numerous E-Mail exchanges, didn't even warrant a footnote?

I still have that spreadsheet, and the E-Mails, if anyone wants to see them. One of the advantages of being a cyber-hamster.

[Salviati]

Calilasseia, what are your scientific qualifications? Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with the content of your posts, or with whether you're right or wrong. It does have something to do with whether you can be regarded by people such as Richard Dawkins as a trustworthy scientific authority. I know a lot about science myself, but until I have acquired a PhD and achieved something in science that warrants real respect, I'm not going to be surprised if Oxford scientists give me short shrift.

Since now you seem to be peddling the rather extreme accusation that Richard didn't give you due mention in his book, yes, I would indeed like to see the details of this email correspondence.

[Calilasseia]

Actually, the claim that I would make with respect to forum material is that it does not matter who is posting that material, but whether that material is correct. Just because someone happens to be an amateur does not mean that they are incapable of making a contribution in an arena such as a forum. Indeed, if that contribution happens to be a particularly exquisite one, does it matter ultimately whether or not the poster in question is a tenured scientist or a dustman? If a dustman posts content that happens to be well structured, lucid, contains well-constructed valid arguments, and illuminates a topic, why should that individual not receive due credit for this? To state otherwise, with respect to forum content, is snobbery plain and simple. What matters, at bottom, is that valid ideas are being presented in such a manner that people realise those ideas are valid. The identity of the author, ultimately, matters not one jot, except for the proper purpose of dispensing credit where it is due for excellent work.

Oh, can I have a little time with respect to the material I've cited? Only I'm currently adding Imodium supplements to my meals because I woke up today with a fulminating case of the trots, and I'm at the stage now where I need to curl up with a hot water bottle for a few hours before continuing. Doubtless Dev will find something amusing to say about this, though if he posts this:



then I'll tell him he can come round and clean up any mess.