Observation re PF philosophy forum changes and content

  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
  • #26
cobalt124
Gold Member
43
29
Apparently not. See below.
Apologies, Evos post was an inspiration.

Why "more so the dual forum suggestion]"
I'll defer to the opinion of those members who have been here years. My understanding is this has been discussed over the years and my point is a specific forum may concentrate the crackpottery, and the crackpots see all the other wonderful forums and start to infect them.

But what if everyone thought that way, and stopped posting there?
Again, I'll defer to experience, but as I see it, the quality posters will stop posting if you let more "questions that popped into my head" type threads in, and then the quality is down. You can get this elsewhere. You seem to like PF like me, why try to take away the things that make it so special?

That is, assuming that the existence of a PF philosophy forum is important, in some sense. Which, for me, it isn't, in any sense
Then what is your issue?

How would you know that what you're not reading is rubbish? And why, if you did know, would that make you feel safe
Trust. And experience.

I like PF, but I don't think it matters, wrt PF's primary goal, or for my entertainment, whether PF has a philosophy forum or not.
Our entertainment or wants and needs are irrelevant. If you like it sign up, if you don't, you don't have to. I see where you are coming from now. I believe your OP should have been "Why Philosophy Forum?" rather than disputing how it is run. And I believe the answer is connected to advertising revenues (I may be wrong) as far as non-physics forums go. I don't know what PF's primary goal is, or if it has one, may have missed that.
 
  • #27
472
0
I see where you are coming from now. I believe your OP should have been "Why Philosophy Forum?" rather than disputing how it is run.
Yes, I changed my mind after thinking about it a bit more. There were a few closed threads that I might have commented in. But, no matter.

The current setup is fine as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • #28
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Enough that it was time to try something different. The complaints have come from long-time members, many of them science advisors and mentors.

The dual forum idea is an interesting proposal, but I think it would be difficult to implement. It would essentially create a serious elite forum and a "Crazy Town". Everyone who posts will probably assume that their thread belongs in the former, and when it is moved to the latter, there will be some yelling. And how crazy should Crazy Town be allowed to get? Should we have 87 vague "what is time?" threads, and posts about epiphanies during drug experiences, and "what the bleep" type posts, and junk that was booted out of the quantum forum?

It does have the advantage of corralling the silly away from the serious, but we're back to moderating the same garbage can, just in a different place.
What is time, anyway?
 
  • #29
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
  • #30
I've come to the conclusion that what has been done is good in principle, but in practice this has been a disaster. At least this was contained in one area... now people who used to post almost exclusively there need to be essentially educated as to how arguments based in reality are formed OUTSIDE of Phil.

So, I'm thrilled that the standards of this site are high, but it's getting ugly where the walking dead of philosophy sub-forum wander.
 
  • #31
2,685
20
I've also noted a number of philosophy type threads appearing outside of the philosophy section. But they don't seem to last long.

I'm yet to here a strong argument why philosophy shouldn't subscribe to the new rules. The new rules don't restrict legitimate posting any more than the ban on perpetual motion machines elsewhere.

Instead of posting random crap that comes into your head you now have to think about what you're writing and form a coherent post.

PF doesn't deal with personal theories and speculation anywhere on the site, so why should philosophy be any different? If you want to post your new and remarkable idea you can go elsewhere. If you want to discuss something already out there or something built upon what is already out there then by all means, go for it.
 
  • #32
18,054
7,414
The rules IMO are very reasonable and not difficult to satisfy.
 
  • #33
The rules IMO are very reasonable and not difficult to satisfy.
They do, and I agree, but unless you were irrational or had ulterior motives you clearly lack, doesn't it go without saying that you believe the rules are reasonable?

I'd just add, it doesn't really address the exodus of those unlike ThomasT and Apeiron (who clearly can thrive under these rules). The result is that those LEAST able to make a case in a formerly 'liberal' area, are now scattering into other threads like roaches. It's... very frustrating to talk to someone who is just trying to get their "Religion and Philosophy" fix for the day.
 
  • #34
2,685
20
The rules IMO are very reasonable and not difficult to satisfy.
Agreed.
It's... very frustrating to talk to someone who is just trying to get their "Religion and Philosophy" fix for the day.
Definitely agreed, but I don't think this is a major problem and as long as people report or respond adequately to the clearly BS posts things should be ok.

People either want philosophy to be taken seriously or they want a dumping ground for random thoughts. You can't have both and I personally feel the latter does bring down the level of PF.
 
  • #35
472
0
I've come to the conclusion that what has been done is good in principle, but in practice this has been a disaster. At least this was contained in one area... now people who used to post almost exclusively there need to be essentially educated as to how arguments based in reality are formed OUTSIDE of Phil.

So, I'm thrilled that the standards of this site are high, but it's getting ugly where the walking dead of philosophy sub-forum wander.
Hi nis, yeah, some sort of action was necessary given recent trends, and inevitable, assuming that moderation of the philosophy forum hadn't been completely abandoned. It's happened at least two times before iirc.

My motivation for starting this thread was that there were a few currently locked threads that I would probably have replied to (hence the proposed dual forum solution).

Anyway, while not exactly "thrilled" I agree that what's "been done is good in principle". Requiring reference to published work at the outset of a thread (when it's a topic other than just a question on definitions, semantics or argumentation protocols, which are also allowed) will facilitate more efficient moderation.

What will, hopefully, thrill me later on is settling down to watch Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity with a rather large bucket of popcorn covered in bacon grease.
 
  • #36
866
0
I just wanted to stop in and give my vote for the new forum rules. I promise if I get any free time I'll do more posting there :smile:. The problem with half-way decent philosophy (given my current schedule) is that it takes a lot of time and research to say anything meaningful.
 
  • #37
Q_Goest
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,974
39
I just wanted to stop in and give my vote for the new forum rules. I promise if I get any free time I'll do more posting there :smile:. The problem with half-way decent philosophy (given my current schedule) is that it takes a lot of time and research to say anything meaningful.
Ditto. I think the new rules have helped considerably.
 
  • #38
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
751
4
I agree with the last two posts, I like the changes! It is much better to read, and hopefully to post sometime.
 

Related Threads for: Observation re PF philosophy forum changes and content

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
Replies
26
Views
4K
Top