What is PF doing having a Politics section

[ZapperZ]

Has anyone actually passed this by the web master? Do you have any idea how much traffic this one forum generates? Remove it and you will see a lot less... If that is what you want then so be it...

But think about this. If you want to discuss political issues, you look for ... er ... a PHYSICS FORUM? What's wrong with this picture?

That makes as much sense as me going to a Psychology forum wanting to discuss the controversy between the phonon picture and the spin-fluctuation picture as the mechanism for High-Tc superconductor. Unless, of course, I'm full of it and I am hoping that people who actually know about such area of study would not tend to be in such a forum. That way, I can bluff my way through all of it, and there wouldn't be that many people who can dispute me.

The "experts" in many of the issues being discussed are not here, the same way that there is very little chance that experts in physics would be found in a psychology forum. If one thinks one has a valid point, then go test it out at the obvious place where there are people more familiar with the issues hang out. Or is this not obvious?

Zz.

 

[edward]

If the amount of flaming/ranting/attacking is a drain on the Mentoring time, then perhaps a stricter, "no nonsense" policy will help alleviate the situation ?

I could certainly live with that idea. The mentors have my sympathy.

Secondly - in regard to SOS's post - very, very little of the stuff that's posted in this forum would count as political science, and you know that.

Political science has changed. And it never has been something that we could define with empiracle evidence and tuck away neatly in a box.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to Nereid’s post, censorship has been prevalent particularly under the current administration. We have already had threads about editing of global warming reports, EPA reports, etc., before the more recent thread regarding NASA. I personally am appalled by the suppression of advancement of science that we’ve seen, and agree it is a shame that people aren’t more appalled, especially in a forum like this.

As stated above (I think by Art - ooops edit: it was edward) politics is connected to everything. We’ve discussed nuclear energy and energy in general, global warming, funding for science programs and medical research, etc. I disagree that PFs P&WP section is like all the other politics forums out there—there is a higher quality of debate here than in most.

But if PF is sincere about making the P&WA section more in keeping with the physics and mathematics focus and academic standards, it would be nice to see all social sciences treated alike. Political Science is a social science, actually combining many social sciences as posted above. Also, it might help to consult/recruit a Political Science professor somewhere since this is not a field that current PF staff has much knowledge of. What does the current staff know about Political Science to know how it should be? It would be nice if it were structured according to Political Science curriculum and practices, which BTW includes open debate of current events.

 

[Evo]

But if PF is sincere about making the P&WA section more in keeping with the physics and mathematics focus and academic standards, it would be nice to see all social sciences treated alike. Political Science is a social science, actually combining many social sciences as posted above. Also, it might help to consult/recruit a Political Science professor somewhere since this is not a field that current PF staff has much knowledge of. What does the current staff know about Political Science to know how it should be? It would be nice if it were structured according to Political Science curriculum and practices, which BTW includes open debate of current events.

Again, we decided AGAINST a Political Science forum for a number of reasons. We're not going to go that route.

 

[Moonbear]

Politics touches everything we do, from every gallon of gas we burn to how we intrepret our very existence. Politics is involved in farming as it is in determining how much tuition you will pay at a state University. Politicians ,for the most part, determine how much scientific research is done. Political appointees determine what may and may not be an ingriedient in your McDonalds hamburger (ja wunt fries withat).

I agree with you on that, and it's why I don't think it would be that impossible to focus on the side of each issue that impacts science rather than just ranting about who loves or hates Bush. Many political issues DO impact science in many ways, yet on a SCIENCE forum, we almost never discuss those things. Everything from restricting the dissemination of scientific findings paid for by tax dollars, as sparked Nereid to start this thread, to hindrance to international collaborations due to the increased difficulty in getting visas for visiting scientists, to these insane regulations that now require I fill out umpteen forms in quadruplicate and wait over 6 months to a year to get approval to import a drug for experimental use only because the delivery method of the drug isn't approved by the FDA yet even though the actual drug being delivered has been for ages, and I've already used these devices in the US in two different labs so know all the regulations and requirements and handling precautions to ensure none of it ever gets anywhere near any food supply, and the only reason it isn't approved is because there isn't much of a market for it in the US, so nobody is doing the trials to get it approved here (a larger device for a different species that is otherwise identical in every way is already approved!) That's my current rant. Right, and government affects agricultural practices, how science is funded, what is funded, who gets the funding, what research is prioritized for funding, how the results of that research are disseminated, etc. If everything we talk about here could affect science, why aren't scientists talking about that aspect of it?!

EVO is just looking for an excuse to get her out of having to break up all of the food fights in the current forum.

That certainly is a compelling reason to make changes as well.

 

[SOS2008]

Again, we decided AGAINST a Political Science forum for a number of reasons. We're not going to go that route.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "forum." A forum to me means this site in general, with Poli Sci as another sub section along with other social sciences. I find it insulting that it is considered frivolous in comparison and is not being treated in a similar manner. It makes me suspect motives are not that of academic standards.

 

[SOS2008]

I agree with you on that, and it's why I don't think it would be that impossible to focus on the side of each issue that impacts science rather than just ranting about who loves or hates Bush. Many political issues DO impact science in many ways, yet on a SCIENCE forum, we almost never discuss those things. Everything from restricting the dissemination of scientific findings paid for by tax dollars, as sparked Nereid to start this thread, to hindrance to international collaborations due to the increased difficulty in getting visas for visiting scientists, to these insane regulations that now require I fill out umpteen forms in quadruplicate and wait over 6 months to a year to get approval to import a drug for experimental use only because the delivery method of the drug isn't approved by the FDA yet even though the actual drug being delivered has been for ages, and I've already used these devices in the US in two different labs so know all the regulations and requirements and handling precautions to ensure none of it ever gets anywhere near any food supply, and the only reason it isn't approved is because there isn't much of a market for it in the US, so nobody is doing the trials to get it approved here (a larger device for a different species that is otherwise identical in every way is already approved!) That's my current rant. Right, and government affects agricultural practices, how science is funded, what is funded, who gets the funding, what research is prioritized for funding, how the results of that research are disseminated, etc. If everything we talk about here could affect science, why aren't scientists talking about that aspect of it?!

Okay, then remove it along with other social sciences in this forum that are not related to the core purpose/focus of this forum. Without consistency in this argument I'm not buying the argument.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "forum." A forum to me means this site in general, with Poli Sci as another sub section along with other social sciences. I find it insulting that it is considered frivolous in comparison and is not being treated in a similar manner. It makes me suspect motives are not that of academic standards.

Why should a physics forum have a political science forum or "subforum"? Who said it was frivolous? We're not going to have multiple political forums and it was decided that we would prefer to discuss political dealings with science, which impact a lot of the members on this forum as opposed to having a "political science" forum. We have limited space here and we have to decide which "sub forums" we can handle. If you've been active in the academic portion of the forum, you are aware that we have renamed, combined & closed a number of "sub forums" recently.

Again, as it has been previously stated, the final decision on P&WA has not yet been made.

 

[Astronuc]

Is the concern on P&WA related to limited resources or bandwidth?

As for Nereid's concerns, I would point out that there are several threads on policy issues, e.g. "Should nuclear energy be phased out?", or "Does Every Nation on Earth Have a Right to Build Nuclear Power Plants", "What happens when we don't need oil?", and a few others.

P&WA is also a place where PF members can express views on Politics and World Affairs beyond just technical and scientific matters. It offers more serious topics than say "General Discussion".

Part of being a well-rounded citizen in the world is the ability to explore other matters besides science and technology. That is why universities often insist that science and engineering students take some humanities electives.

Certainly, the administration is entitled to restrict discussion to P&WA matters related to science, technology, and policies affecting S&T.

 

[Evo]

Okay, then remove it along with other social sciences in this forum that are not related to the core purpose/focus of this forum. Without consistency in this argument I'm not buying the argument.

Right now, we are talking about the possibility of giving a more defined direction to P&WA.

The discussions in other sciences are currently appropriate for their category. They are fine as they are. We have recently added M&B for an even more defined discussion. We are constantly evaluating the different "sub" forums to see if they are in line with our objectives.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "forum." A forum to me means this site in general, with Poli Sci as another sub section along with other social sciences. I find it insulting that it is considered frivolous in comparison and is not being treated in a similar manner. It makes me suspect motives are not that of academic standards.

Why? We can't possibly include every subject in a university course catalog. We limit ourselves to the things we know we can do well. As far as I know, we have no bona fide political scientists here. The discussions in this forum would NEVER pass as political science, thus no need. What we do well is physical sciences. We've indulged other interests of our members with some forums that are either complementary to the science focus (such as philosophy, with such sections as ethics and philosophy of math and science), or peripheral but provide a place for the scientists here to share some common other interests. When those "indulgences" begin to require a disproportionate amount of the moderators' time when we really want to be focusing on the science topics, it becomes a detraction from the science focus rather than a supplement or fun indulgence.

We do have a "Social Sciences" forum here within "Other Sciences" that gets very little traffic. There's no need to start splitting the social sciences down even further if the umbrella forum cannot even sustain much interest (and why would it, really...I'm sure there are plenty of places on the internet inhabited by social scientists where a much more fruitful discussion on any of those topics could be had than on a physics forum). But, keep in mind that chit-chat about politics, as exists in this forum, is extremely different from political science, which would be discussed under social sciences.

As has been said before by many others, we can't be everything to everyone. We focus on things we can do well, and when we realize we're not doing something well, we change it.

 

[SOS2008]

Why should a physics forum have a political science forum or "subforum"? Who said it was frivolous? We're not going to have multiple political forums and it was decided that we would prefer to discuss political dealings with science, which impact a lot of the members on this forum as opposed to having a "political science" forum. We have limited space here and we have to decide which "sub forums" we can handle. If you've been active in the academic portion of the forum, you are aware that we have renamed, combined & closed a number of "sub forums" recently.

Again, as it has been previously stated, the final decision on P&WA has not yet been made.

I see that Economics has been removed. But my question remains -- how does

History & Humanities
Human history, mythology, literature, arts and media, foreign languages, cultural studies, law...

qualify as appropriate to PF any more than politics?

If the argument is that politics AND all other social sciences and humanities are being removed/altered because these are not related to the core sciences of this forum it would make more sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Evo]

I see that Economics has been removed. But my question remains -- how does

History & Humanities
Human history, mythology, literature, arts and media, foreign languages, cultural studies, law...

qualify as appropriate to PF any more than politics?

If the argument is that politics AND all other social sciences and humanities are being removed/altered because these are not related to the core sciences of this forum it would make more sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

I understand. History and humanities were added in response to a request by a number of members that also enjoy these topics. It has also been discussed that history be limited to discussions of history of science. I love history, so I would not be happy if that happened, but hey, I don't make the rules around here.

The point is that we can only have ONE sub forum for politics and popular demand has been that it address issues of science. I think that is a great idea, my personal concern was that it may not have a lot to discuss, but it was pointed out, as Edward also pointed out, that it is actually quite a broad subject.

We have not made a final decision on P&WA. It may stay open to all topics, but with stricter guidelines for discussion.

 

[ZapperZ]

qualify as appropriate to PF any more than politics?

If the argument is that politics AND all other social sciences and humanities are being removed/altered because these are not related to the core sciences of this forum it would make more sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

1. We have no experts no mentors for this forum. It falls in Evo by default because it is under GD. But other than a number of mentors monitoring it ad hoc, it has no strict monitoring, unlike the other forums. So THAT is one difference between this and the Social Science forum.

2. This one forum has taken a disproportionate amount of complaints, grief, effort, time, and patience, more than even the main forums on PF! Something that is supposed to be a minor forum is causing way more problems than it should.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

I see that Economics has been removed. But my question remains -- how does

History & Humanities
Human history, mythology, literature, arts and media, foreign languages, cultural studies, law...

qualify as appropriate to PF any more than politics?

If the argument is that politics AND all other social sciences and humanities are being removed/altered because these are not related to the core sciences of this forum it would make more sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

Those are actual subjects of study, and people holding discussions in that forum are typically 1) discussing coursework, and 2) capable of holding discussions that don't require a great deal of moderation. Too many of the recent P&WA threads are not maintaining any sort of academic level of discussion, they are about the same quality as I could find at the corner bar, or worse. We ditched the Theory Development forum when it began to require a disproportionate amount of moderation as well.

However, as Greg mentioned, for the time being, we're trying to find a solution to not completely ditch P&WA, but to make it work so the scientists here can enjoy some political discussion without us having to have 3 or 4 moderators babysitting the threads here instead of in the forums where we have real expertise. And yes, it has gotten to be a babysitting chore lately, which is why we need to change something. This forum did not used to be this way. It used to have an amazing number of high quality, civil, respectful, thoughtful, referenced discussions, and thus was allowed to grow. I used to find it so refreshing to come in here and read threads where people were airing differences of opinion without bickering; it was so different from all the other places I see politics discussed, because it was being done in the same manner as all our other science debates where evidence was presented, and various interpretations and conclusions discussed, and it wasn't necessary to "win" or browbeat everyone to your side as long as you had fun in the process of debating and learned something by having to support and explain all your arguments. Unfortunately, that quality has been declining, and rapidly, so we're trying to find ways to re-focus the forum to either re-attain that quality or know we gave it our best effort before pulling the plug.

 

[Gokul43201]

I see that Economics has been removed. But my question remains -- how does

History & Humanities
Human history, mythology, literature, arts and media, foreign languages, cultural studies, law...

qualify as appropriate to PF any more than politics?

SOS, I think you're missing the point here.

The drawbacks of the P&WA forum (as it stands now) appear to be :

1. Unlike the other non-science forums which are populated by science interested members who also frequent these sections, P&WA has a lot of traffic from members who rarely post elsewhere (and while PF has a vested interest in indulging the "other" interests of its science community, I can't see why it should cater to anyone but.)

AND

2. You don't have flame wars, unsubstantiated rants and personal attacks erupt in Social Sciences like they do here. This causes an inordinately large drain on the moderating resources of PF.

If the argument is that politics AND all other social sciences and humanities are being removed/altered because these are not related to the core sciences of this forum it would make more sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

P&WA is not a political science section, and hence can not be compared to the social sciences section. If you want to have a discussion on Political Science (like one that might happen in a Political Science course at a University), you could probably have that discussion under Social Sciences.

 

[Cyrus]

Sadly, I have to agree that this forum is for physics as much as I love the P&WA forum. I really think that another forum made by Greg for the other topics would be best. This way we can talk about anything we want, and not have to stictly adheare to science in the news. I would vote for Greg to make an appropriate forum (www.politicsforums.com or something like that), and retitle the sub forum from P &WA to something more along the lines of "Politics and World Affairs in modern science."

 

[Evo]

Sadly, I have to agree that this forum is for physics as much as I love the P&WA forum. I really think that another forum made by Greg for the other topics would be best. This way we can talk about anything we want, and not have to stictly adheare to science in the news. I would vote for Greg to make an appropriate forum, and retitle the sub forum from P &WA to something more along the lines of "Politics and World Affairs in modern science."

That still wouldn't remove the need for constant moderation, which is the problem.

I think P&WA can remain as is, if we tighten the posting rules. That way people that are serious and can post in a non-combative, non-redundant, non-sarcastic/insulting manner can enjoy participating.

The others can find more appropriate places to post.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sadly, I have to agree that this forum is for physics as much as I love the P&WA forum. I really think that another forum made by Greg for the other topics would be best. This way we can talk about anything we want, and not have to stictly adheare to science in the news. I would vote for Greg to make an appropriate forum (www.politicsforums.com or something like that), and retitle the sub forum from P &WA to something more along the lines of "Politics and World Affairs in modern science."

Cyrus, why do you expect that a new website might not get invaded by the all the yahoos that permeate the other political forums on the web ?

 

[CosminaPrisma]

Politics and World Affairs in Modern Science sounds good.

 

[Cyrus]

now the trick will be to tie anything and everything to science some how

 

[ZapperZ]

I think P&WA can remain as is, if we tighten the posting rules. That way people that are serious and can post in a non-combative, non-redundant, non-sarcastic/insulting manner can enjoy participating.

Welp, that certainly rules me out!

:) :)

Zz.

 

[Evo]

now the trick will be to tie anything and everything to science some how

Like I said, we might keep it as is, but with stricter posting guidelines.

Does no one read my posts?

 

[Cyrus]

Im sorry what did you say evo? I was pulling your leg.

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, it makes more sense to me what the real objections are. It isn't so much the subject matter and how it relates to the sciences, but how much resources a subject requires. So the way to reduce the resources needed, P&WA will be restricted to members who primarily participate in the science core, but who like to dabble in politics on occasion. The general public, even if more politically astute, are really not welcome. This section will return to a less diverse, conservative viewpoint that I saw when I first became a member. I think this is what is desired, and that's cool if that's what is wanted. I just prefer honesty about it.

 

[Evo]

Okay, it makes more sense to me what the real objections are. It isn't so much the subject matter and how it relates to the sciences, but how much resources a subject requires. So the way to reduce the resources needed, P&WA will be restricted to members who primarily participate in the science core, but who like to dabble in politics on occasion. The general public, even if more politically astute, are really not welcome. This section will return to a less diverse, conservative viewpoint that I saw when I first became a member. I think this is what is desired, and that's cool if that's what is wanted. I just prefer honesty about it.

No, read my lips. (and we like you SOS), no flaming, no baiting, no sensationalism, no sarcasm, no insults, no redundant posts, no mindless lemming mentality. The mentors here are actually fairly divided between right and left. If we're doing our job, you can't tell who's right and who's left because we don't take sides but call anyone to task that is posting questionable information or is just plain out of line.

I've always found it amusing that the conservatives think I'm liberal and the liberals think I am conservative.

 

[Moonbear]

Sadly, I have to agree that this forum is for physics as much as I love the P&WA forum. I really think that another forum made by Greg for the other topics would be best. This way we can talk about anything we want, and not have to stictly adheare to science in the news. I would vote for Greg to make an appropriate forum (www.politicsforums.com or something like that), and retitle the sub forum from P &WA to something more along the lines of "Politics and World Affairs in modern science."

Why does Greg have to do it? There are plenty of free places to set up discussion groups...MSN has them, Google has them, Yahoo has them, etc. If you prefer the unmoderated, or lightly moderated, anything goes, can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, format and want to discuss politics without having to back up your claims, without having to be respectful of the others in the discussion, etc., then nothing and nobody is stopping anyone from setting up your own group in one of those places (or, if you have the time and money, get your own dedicated server for such a forum). I would even argue for a one-time lifting of the restriction on advertising other sites if someone wanted to create such a site and would like to post a link here while we are under transition so folks who do not wish to participate in a forum with more restrictions can regroup elsewhere. Something is going to change, and when things change, inevitably some people will love the change, and some will hate it. For those who do not like it, I personally have no objection to a brief post offering a new location for like-minded individuals to join them (though I can't speak on behalf of all the admins and mentors on this point).

 

[Moonbear]

No, read my lips. (and we like you SOS), no flaming, no baiting, no sensationalism, no sarcasm, no insults, no redundant posts, no mindless lemming mentality. The mentors here are actually fairly divided between right and left. If we're doing our job, you can't tell who's right and who's left because we don't take sides but call anyone to task that is posting questionable information or is just plain out of line.

I've always found it amusing that the conservatives think I'm liberal and the liberals think I am conservative.

Agreed! If anything, we've gone a bit too easy with some of the moderation out of hesitation to not let our personal viewpoints influence our decisions in moderation, and I think this has further led to the decline in the quality of discussion here. I've had the same experience of being accused of being both liberal and conservative, depending on the viewpoint of the person whose posts I've had to moderate.

 

[Cyrus]

I was just putting an alternative out there moonbear. I think we should all be respectful to each other in the P &WA section, just as we would be in any other area of PF. I was suggesting it to greg because the PF is probably the best physics forum out there, and he would have the best political forum as well. I would pay greg for membership if he had a political forum too, that's all I am getting at.

 

[Bystander]

That still wouldn't remove the need for constant moderation, which is the problem.

I think P&WA can remain as is, if we tighten the posting rules. (snip)

That's going to be a neat trick, getting people to follow rules without constant moderation.

How much trouble would it be to ban people from only P&WA for misconduct? Hang a new set of rules up front, a la philosophy, to the effect that there are no warnings, first infraction is a two week time-out, second gets a month, and strike three is out, or something along those lines.

Re. Nereid's OP, it's a bit maddening that the voice of experience can post twice to the thread, explaining that "editorial review" procedures for government labs have been in place for many years, and are not "censorship."