The newcomers.

[duszek]

What are your standards for "evidence", uwot ?

Would a quote from "Lancet" qualify as such ?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You sound frustrated, can I help somehow ?

[uwot]

What are your standards for "evidence", uwot ?

Good question. Pretty much anything that all but the most stubborn can agree is there. For instance, a pile of presents by your fire place is evidence that Santa exists, if you happen to believe in Santa. That might sound trivial, but the fact that the planets are where Ptolemy's system says they will be is evidence that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Or, a bit more up to date, the fact that they are where general relativity says they are, is evidence that there is a substance called spacetime. It is also true that the fact that there is a universe at all is evidence that it was created by some supernatural being; again, if that is what you happen to believe.
The evidence is the stuff we can all agree on. The interpretation, metaphysics, is the stuff we can all make our own mind up about.

Would a quote from "Lancet" qualify as such ?

That all depends on the quote and what it is taken as evidence for.

You sound frustrated, can I help somehow ?

Well, if you can get the above through to some of the knuckleheads who keep accusing people of saying things they haven't said, you will be doing us all a favour.

[Greta]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

[thedoc]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

This is not a completely unmoderated forum, I participated in one of those that was finally shut down by the forum host. That forum was an experiment by the forum owners to find out what various members would do when elevated to certain status and confronted by certain objectionable elements.

[Walker]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

This is not a completely unmoderated forum, I participated in one of those that was finally shut down by the forum host. That forum was an experiment by the forum owners to find out what various members would do when elevated to certain status and confronted by certain objectionable elements.

Speaking of that, here's a posting that I'm pretty sure I made.

And now I can't seem to find it. It either vanished or I'm posting so dang much that I've lost track. But it relates to the topic.

Here 'tis, as near as I recall. Let's see if it disappears again. Or if I disappear.


*

Hello. To retain the continuity of your question, I’ll retain the “that” you reference in your question.

If the postulate is true, then the law you seek is:

Without form, consciousness pools at the lowest level present.
With form, consciousness elevates to the level of the highest consciousness present.

As this law pertains to thread title, the law you seek can be stated:

Without an internal or external governer, on-line discourse which by definition is conducted in absence of the physical form, never-the-less follows the physical, elemental path of water, pooling at the lowest level.

[Greta]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

This is not a completely unmoderated forum, I participated in one of those that was finally shut down by the forum host. That forum was an experiment by the forum owners to find out what various members would do when elevated to certain status and confronted by certain objectionable elements.

Shame the other forum experiment didn't work out. Must we always degenerate like a remake of Lord of the Flies?

Why can't we just talk like reasonable human beings? Is it just that more people enjoy fighting more than thinking? Or is it because the flash of intensity in someone's words inspires responses while quieter, reasoned posts are less noticeable? Once a couple of people start "shouting", no one else is "heard" unless they "shout" too.

It is interesting to watch from a psychosocial POV. Like a slo mo car accident.

[thedoc]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

This is not a completely unmoderated forum, I participated in one of those that was finally shut down by the forum host. That forum was an experiment by the forum owners to find out what various members would do when elevated to certain status and confronted by certain objectionable elements.

Speaking of that, here's a posting that I'm pretty sure I made.

And now I can't seem to find it. It either vanished or I'm posting so dang much that I've lost track. But it relates to the topic.

Here 'tis, as near as I recall. Let's see if it disappears again. Or if I disappear.


*

Hello. To retain the continuity of your question, I’ll retain the “that” you reference in your question.

If the postulate is true, then the law you seek is:

Without form, consciousness pools at the lowest level present.
With form, consciousness elevates to the level of the highest consciousness present.

As this law pertains to thread title, the law you seek can be stated:

Without an internal or external governer, on-line discourse which by definition is conducted in absence of the physical form, never-the-less follows the physical, elemental path of water, pooling at the lowest level.

I remember reading that post, but I doubt I could find it again without some searching. This forum is moderated but the moderators seem to have a bit more tolerance than some members, so that posts will stay up that some will object to. I think this is a more honest approach and allows others to post an objection and a counter to a post that may be objectionable to some.

[thedoc]

Shame the other forum experiment didn't work out. Must we always degenerate like a remake of Lord of the Flies?

Why can't we just talk like reasonable human beings? Is it just that more people enjoy fighting more than thinking? Or is it because the flash of intensity in someone's words inspires responses while quieter, reasoned posts are less noticeable? Once a couple of people start "shouting", no one else is "heard" unless they "shout" too.

It is interesting to watch from a psychosocial POV. Like a slo mo car accident.

If it is understood that some people come to a bar for a fight rather than a reasonable conversation, then that member can be avoided or ignored. But you are wrong to assume that the ignorant bullies will command the most attention, unless the reasonable posters let themselves be pushed aside. As I have posted before, "If you don't like the program, quit bitching and change the channel", there's always another post to read.

[Greta]

Shame the other forum experiment didn't work out. Must we always degenerate like a remake of Lord of the Flies?

Why can't we just talk like reasonable human beings? Is it just that more people enjoy fighting more than thinking? Or is it because the flash of intensity in someone's words inspires responses while quieter, reasoned posts are less noticeable? Once a couple of people start "shouting", no one else is "heard" unless they "shout" too.

It is interesting to watch from a psychosocial POV. Like a slo mo car accident.

If it is understood that some people come to a bar for a fight rather than a reasonable conversation, then that member can be avoided or ignored. But you are wrong to assume that the ignorant bullies will command the most attention, unless the reasonable posters let themselves be pushed aside. As I have posted before, "If you don't like the program, quit bitching and change the channel", there's always another post to read.

I'm not bitching, I'm noticing and commenting. I have been on forums for years and once you get a page or two of angry tete a tete, any reasonable conversations running concurrently dissipate. This has always been the case, and this forum ATM especially so.

For a new reader interested to know what those (seemingly) associated with Philosophy Now have to say, it's unlikely that they'll wade through all the fighting in the hope of finding a comment of interest. They'll just click the back button, figuring that they'd stumbled on to a nest of vipers.

[thedoc]

Shame the other forum experiment didn't work out. Must we always degenerate like a remake of Lord of the Flies?

Why can't we just talk like reasonable human beings? Is it just that more people enjoy fighting more than thinking? Or is it because the flash of intensity in someone's words inspires responses while quieter, reasoned posts are less noticeable? Once a couple of people start "shouting", no one else is "heard" unless they "shout" too.

It is interesting to watch from a psychosocial POV. Like a slo mo car accident.

If it is understood that some people come to a bar for a fight rather than a reasonable conversation, then that member can be avoided or ignored. But you are wrong to assume that the ignorant bullies will command the most attention, unless the reasonable posters let themselves be pushed aside. As I have posted before, "If you don't like the program, quit bitching and change the channel", there's always another post to read.

I'm not bitching, I'm noticing and commenting. I have been on forums for years and once you get a page or two of angry tete a tete, any reasonable conversations running concurrently dissipate. This has always been the case, and this forum ATM especially so.

For a new reader interested to know what those (seemingly) associated with Philosophy Now have to say, it's unlikely that they'll wade through all the fighting in the hope of finding a comment of interest. They'll just click the back button, figuring that they'd stumbled on to a nest of vipers.

You are probably correct, but I can have hope that newcomers will see through the dross to find the pearls.

[yiostheoy]

You are probably correct, but I can have hope that newcomers will see through the dross to find the pearls.

Most of these dross are already on my ignore list. They are quite a ship of fools. Their fallacies were a dead giveaway.

[yiostheoy]

Shame the other forum experiment didn't work out. Must we always degenerate like a remake of Lord of the Flies?

Why can't we just talk like reasonable human beings? Is it just that more people enjoy fighting more than thinking? Or is it because the flash of intensity in someone's words inspires responses while quieter, reasoned posts are less noticeable? Once a couple of people start "shouting", no one else is "heard" unless they "shout" too.

It is interesting to watch from a psychosocial POV. Like a slo mo car accident.

If it is understood that some people come to a bar for a fight rather than a reasonable conversation, then that member can be avoided or ignored. But you are wrong to assume that the ignorant bullies will command the most attention, unless the reasonable posters let themselves be pushed aside. As I have posted before, "If you don't like the program, quit bitching and change the channel", there's always another post to read.

I'm not bitching, I'm noticing and commenting. I have been on forums for years and once you get a page or two of angry tete a tete, any reasonable conversations running concurrently dissipate. This has always been the case, and this forum ATM especially so.

For a new reader interested to know what those (seemingly) associated with Philosophy Now have to say, it's unlikely that they'll wade through all the fighting in the hope of finding a comment of interest. They'll just click the back button, figuring that they'd stumbled on to a nest of vipers.

There is a lot of vipers.

Note that lot is singular even though vipers the object of the preposition is plural.

Thus the singular present form of the verb "to be" is used. Never "there are a lot ...".

Anyway you can usually tell who the vipers are because they have not read any philosophy books -- or maybe at most only one.

The vipers are "wanna-be philosophers" but they are blind leading the blind. That's why they get along so well with each other and they hate real philosophers whenever they chance to meet one.

[uwot]

Anyway you can usually tell who the vipers are because they have not read any philosophy books -- or maybe at most only one.

I'm not sure who you would class as a viper, but I have read literally hundreds. If you include papers and web publications, it's probably thousands.

The vipers are "wanna-be philosophers" but they are blind leading the blind.

If you are referring to those that haven't read a lot of philosophy, there are a few people on this forum who don't have the breadth of knowledge to suggest they have read much philosophy, but are nonetheless first rate philosophers, in my book, because they have paid attention to their experiences, analysed the information in coherent and sometimes poignant, even beautiful way, and have the intellectual integrity to address what is actually said.

That's why they get along so well with each other and they hate real philosophers whenever they chance to meet one.

And they don't hastily reach untrue self satisfying conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I have been taught by dozens of professional academic philosophers and I have met many more. Is that what you mean by 'real''? What criteria are you applying, and which of those do you meet?

[Greta]

There is a lot of vipers.

I've often seen you be viperish without provocation, as with A_Seagull today. You said to a knowledgeable and respected member "You are dumb". The arrogance of it blew me away.

Self awareness!

[marjoram_blues]

One thing that surprises me about this forum is some people's love of arguing - not argument or debating - but straight out ad hom exchanges. No doubt fighting is an adrenaline rush, but for some the rush doesn't seem to wear off. It's very boring and as common as muck; you can find similar exchanges on social media everywhere.

I keep wondering if this unmoderated forum is an experiment by the site owners in self-management, to see if a chaotic and dynamic membership can avoid the temptation to abuse with impunity and engage as personably as if on moderated forums.

Hello Greta - yes, I too have often wondered if this softly moderated forum is some kind of a grand experiment on Rick's part. However, I think it's just down to his basic laissez-faire philosophy. For the most part, I find it enjoyable ( and have learned heaps ! ) but do have misgivings on what real 'newcomers' think as they scroll, wade and probably turn away. The trouble with this, if it is an 'experiment', is that we will never know how many have been, seen and were not keen to continue in a sleazy old bar with spitting and troublesome drinkers.

I admit to being surprised at uwot's OP - it certainly gives no indication of the consistent and (usually) calmly reflective quality of his work here, and elsewhere. Again, we can wonder about the motivation behind it - is it 'as it is' ,or some kind of a psycho/philosophical test
Perhaps a bit of both - and more. He did get our attention - and made his point ( but perhaps only if we have been following the previous 'arguments').
Either way, if any real newcomers hit on this thread first - well, it doesn't give a true impression of uwot for starters. If it is a youngster, what kind of a model is being sent out as to how to deal with the nastier elements on a forum ? And so on...

OK, probably over-thinking the issue. But it is certainly the case that some have been becoming increasingly 'creative' in their responses to the irritants. Fascinatingly eye-opening to read - and so, has pros and cons...
How do we react - in our own personal experiment that is life...( oh crikey, did that sound pretentious )