Is even the mere mention of religion (or politics) forbidden?

[amensae]

My jaw dropped when I saw this:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....70#post2026770

Regardless of the plausibility of TooMany’s other claims, here he (?) was simply applying an analogy. As it reads, there is no criticizing or commenting on any specific faith or on religious faith in general.
Is the BAUT forum so chaste with regard to religion and politics that the topics cannot even be mentioned?

If I describe someone’s ideas as “antediluvian” or some scheme as “diabolical”, will I be warned for making a religious reference? Yes, I’m exaggerating; but this is not a criticism of mod policies, simply a request for clarification.

[HenrikOlsen]

Not speaking as a moderator, but repeat transgressors are under closer scrutiny if they've already shown themselves to use innocent looking comments to wedge a banned subject into a discussion, which results in them being cut off at the innocent statement rather than waiting for the real transgression.

[pzkpfw]

With TooMany, such comments were too many times used in a general way, in any thread, to criticise the concept of mainstream science and the way the BAUT is run.

The part of the post, above the bit quoted by the moderator in that instance was this: 'My gripe is not that you want to keep truly cuckoo ideas out of regular discussions and isolate them to an ATM section. My gripe is that any deviation from the current interpretation of observations by the "mainstream" is treated as cuckoo. Alternate ideas are thoroughly condemned in a hostile, defensive style.'. That is, he was off topic, and making meta-comments about the thread and about BAUT.

By itself, such a comment might just be squeezed in under the exclusions in BAUTs "no religion" rule; but in a thread by itself. When that kind of thing gets thrown into any thread where TooMany doesn't like the mainstream approach (in this case, the thread was about creation of new Galaxies) it's disruptive (another rule breaker). Like someone going into any/every random thread and asking "but what can we really know??".

It's mis-use of religion as a topic.

P.S. now, about the first part of your user name... (insert smiley here)

[Robert Tulip]

There are threads on BAUT which discuss religious texts from a mainstream astronomical viewpoint, for example asking what the Star of Bethlehem might have been astronomically.

Problems in this area seem mainly to arise when people use religious language to argue against mainstream science.

[antoniseb]

... Problems in this area seem mainly to arise when people use religious language to argue against mainstream science.

The bigger problem is when what they say is offensive to a large group of people. In the particular case that got TooMany suspended, what he wrote made a blanket statement that religious people are inflexible in their thinking, and he said it in a way that was disrespectful of all religious people. We would rather not have pointless but heated arguments about such things here.

[djellison]

My jaw dropped when I saw this:.

Why? Look at his posting history - it's quite clear his time here is going to be troubled. He doesn't like how BAUT works and had begun to already lash out at admins and their policies in public (a rule violation) and having already been warned about using religion by an admin, proceeded to do it again.

The mods here are surprisingly lenient. They will help you try to understand and follow the rules as best they can....but there is an obvious (and I believe unwritten) rule in ANY venue.... respect the wishes of the hosts. When an admin tells you to not do something, and then you do it again...that's just darn rude.

[Jeff Root]

Of course, TooMany's comment had nothing to do with
any religion. It had to do with the religious treatment
of scientific dogma on BAUT.

Instead of suspending TooMany, ask him to be a
moderator for, say, two months. See how he does.
I think he could do very well. BAUT needs people
like him.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Jeff Root]

The bigger problem is when what they say is offensive
to a large group of people. In the particular case that
got TooMany suspended, what he wrote made a
blanket statement that religious people are inflexible
in their thinking, and he said it in a way that was
disrespectful of all religious people.

YOU said that, not TooMany.

What TooMany said was:

Alternate ideas are thoroughly condemned in a hostile,
defensive style. Sorry, but the impression it gives is
rather like in faiths where the believers will condemn
any information not consistent with their beliefs as
incorrect or impossible.

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Tensor]

Of course, TooMany's comment had nothing to do with
any religion. It had to do with the religious treatment
of scientific dogma on BAUT.

Instead of suspending TooMany, ask him to be a
moderator for, say, two months. See how he does.
I think he could do very well. BAUT needs people
like him.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Ahhhh, no. If you want an example of someone BAUT needs, look to Quotation. He came here with some not very mainstream ideas, gotten from finding some not very mainstream websites. It was explained to him why the ideas were wrong, links were given and he took it upon himself to actual do the work to find the details to the answers given to him . With a question or two for clarification. He didn't make demands, didn't denigrate the BAUT posters, and frankly admitted the ideas he saw didn't have a lot of support.

What BAUT doesn't need is a poster who posts long discarded ideas or ideas without support in actual experiments, and when the reasons for discarding those ideas are explained and links to those explanations are given, the poster rejects the explanations, but doesn't show why the rejections fit with experiment, can't show the links to be wrong, and then demands that you do the research for them.

[John Mendenhall]

Jeff, I don't see it that way. Look at the wonderful quote from korjik below.

Regards, John M.

[R.A.F.]

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

Why do you mischaracterize this board and it's posters?

[R.A.F.]

BAUT needs people like him.

Thanks for that opinion, Jeff...

[Perikles]

It had to do with the religious treatment of scientific dogma on BAUT..

Er - as far as I can see, there is no such thing as scientific dogma. Dogmata are the exclusive reserve of religions.

[djellison]

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years.

Then why on earth are you here if you find the BAUT admin team so wrong?

You couldn't be more wrong if you had tried, imho.

[Jim]

Let's not start questioning each other's motives for being here. Members have all sorts of very different/similar motives for their participation.

And they have all sorts of very different/similar opinions. They are free to express those opinions within the framework of the Rules for Posting.

[Jens]

Er - as far as I can see, there is no such thing as scientific dogma. Dogmata are the exclusive reserve of religions.

At least in the way that it's normally used, I don't think dogma belongs to any special class of institutions. If a person were to say, "quantum mechanics must be wrong because nature doesn't play with dice," then I would see that as a dogmatic statement even if the person is not even religious. Or if say a person says, "regardless of what Michelson found, there has to be an ether because I refuse to believe that waves could travel without a medium," normally we would call that dogmatic. Maybe the precise definition is different, but I'm talking about regular usage.

[Perikles]

Or if say a person says, "regardless of what Michelson found, there has to be an ether because I refuse to believe that waves could travel without a medium," normally we would call that dogmatic. Maybe the precise definition is different, but I'm talking about regular usage.

Yes, I agree. But that is being dogmatic about a scientific issue, which is not what I would call being scientific. (I notice you use the word believe in the above - that is not science!) I just don't see how you can be scientific and dogmatic simultaneously. As you say, it's the range of use of the word dogma.

[Moose]

At least in the way that it's normally used, I don't think dogma belongs to any special class of institutions. If a person were to say, "quantum mechanics must be wrong because nature doesn't play with dice," then I would see that as a dogmatic statement even if the person is not even religious.

To his credit, he didn't rest on that dogmatic statement. He put in considerable effort into proving his view scientifically, and was eventually satisfied (though disappointed, I'm sure) that the evidence pointed elsewhere.

[korjik]

YOU said that, not TooMany.

What TooMany said was:


The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

So those of us who take the time and effort to actually learn the science are simply closed minded fools?

Pretty much all of us in the ATM forum are more than willing to make it a hostile, defensive style. Guess what: That is how science is done. That I tell you from my first hand experience presenting at real conferences. So, I will not apologize for that. The thing that both you and TooMany miss is that when we shoot down an idea, we tell the person what the problem is. Generally repeatedly. We dont shoot someone down because they offend our views, but because they are simply wrong.

The problem with ATM isnt that the mainstream people are getting their 'faith' offended, it is generally that someone presents an ATM idea over a theory they dont really understand, and then they dont understand the answer that shows them to be wrong. At that point, most of them get angry that people arent agreeing with them without ever even bothering to try to understand what is wrong with their idea. Then they get abusive, then they get banned.

Frequently after complaining repeatedly about some semi-religious persecution they are suffering.

[Swift]

We dont shoot someone down because they offend our views, but because they are simply wrong.

And just to add one further point to what korjik wrote... It is wrong not because it doesn't match the current mainstream view, but because it doesn't match the experimental evidence, or, at the least, doesn't explain the current evidence as well or as completely as the current theory.

[Cougar]

The only thing offensive about that is....

Boy, Jeff, you're quite the contrarian lately.

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

Now, that is offensive. Claiming that a scientist holds a position because of faith or adherence to dogma is about as nasty an insult as you can throw at a scientist. This is troll behavior, not reasoned discussion.

[slang]

BAUT needs people like him.

You know, this comment keeps puzzling me. The many rule transgressions that were noticed are well documented, and there were several others that went by without visible repercussions. It is not an admirable list, and most by far are not merely about quibbling if something is touching religion in a nasty way or not. To me, it seems quite obvious that BAUT does most certainly not need more people behaving like that. The logical conclusion seems to be that you mean some other characterization when talking about "people like him". I wonder what that is (not implying there can be none!).

[Nereid]

I'm late to this party ...

Of course, TooMany's comment had nothing to do with
any religion. It had to do with the religious treatment
of scientific dogma on BAUT.

Instead of suspending TooMany, ask him to be a
moderator for, say, two months. See how he does.
I think he could do very well. BAUT needs people
like him.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

(bold added)

Quite a few BAUTians have commented on your post, Jeff Root, specifically on this part of it.

However, unless I read right past it, no one asked you why?

Why do think BAUT needs people like TooMany?

[Nereid]

Again, I'm late to this party ...

My jaw dropped when I saw this:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....70#post2026770

Regardless of the plausibility of TooMany’s other claims, here he (?) was simply applying an analogy. As it reads, there is no criticizing or commenting on any specific faith or on religious faith in general.
Is the BAUT forum so chaste with regard to religion and politics that the topics cannot even be mentioned?

If I describe someone’s ideas as “antediluvian” or some scheme as “diabolical”, will I be warned for making a religious reference? Yes, I’m exaggerating; but this is not a criticism of mod policies, simply a request for clarification.

(bold added)

Unless I missed it, no one asked you, amensae, if your request was answered, to your satisfaction.

Was it?

[Jeff Root]

It had to do with the religious treatment of scientific dogma
on BAUT..

Er - as far as I can see, there is no such thing as scientific
dogma. Dogmata are the exclusive reserve of religions.

Dogma is what is believed and asserted. If you believe
that objects are composed of atoms, and tell others that
objects are composed of atoms, the assertion is dogma.

To what extent dogma is treated on BAUT as sacrosanct
is the question. I agree with TooMuch's assessment:

My gripe is not that you want to keep truly cuckoo ideas out
of regular discussions and isolate them to an ATM section.
My gripe is that any deviation from the current interpretation
of observations by the "mainstream" is treated as cuckoo.
Alternate ideas are thoroughly condemned in a hostile,
defensive style. Sorry, but the impression it gives is
rather like in faiths where the believers will condemn
any information not consistent with their beliefs as
incorrect or impossible.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Jeff Root]

What TooMany said was:

Alternate ideas are thoroughly condemned in a hostile,
defensive style. Sorry, but the impression it gives is
rather like in faiths where the believers will condemn
any information not consistent with their beliefs as
incorrect or impossible.

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

So those of us who take the time and effort to actually
learn the science are simply closed minded fools?

I didn't say anything even very remotely resembling
that statement.

I won't ask you to try to defend it, but I will ask you
to spend at least 20 minutes thinking about it, asking
yourself why you said it.

At least 20 minutes actually thinking about *why* you
said that. Please.

It is the sort of reaction that TooMany was complaining
about.

Pretty much all of us in the ATM forum are more than
willing to make it a hostile, defensive style.

Which is the problem. I think it is a serious problem.
TooMany evidently thinks similarly.

Guess what: That is how science is done. That I tell
you from my first hand experience presenting at real
conferences.

In 'Stranger in a Strange Land', Robert Heinlein had a
scence in which the protagonist observes a monkey in
a zoo being beaten up on by another monkey. The
beaten-up monkey then goes over to a third monkey
and beats on him. That sparked the protagonist's
enlightenment in which he finally grokked human
nature, which was so alien to him.

So, I will not apologize for that.

One does not see any good reason to apologize when he
does not see that he has done any wrong.

The thing that both you and TooMany miss is that when we
shoot down an idea, we tell the person what the problem is.
Generally repeatedly. We dont shoot someone down because
they offend our views, but because they are simply wrong.

Your final words point out your error.

Questions generally are based on assumptions. The
assumptions are intertwined with each other in complex
ways. Some of them may be wrong, but they aren't
necessarily "simply wrong".

TooMany had an idea which was wrong, and he didn't
understand why. So he asked, in Questions & Answers.
People tried to tell him, but mostly what they said was
that he was wrong. They failed to follow his reasoning
and answer the questions he asked, instead providing
a synopsis of dogma. I mostly stayed out of it because
the correct answers were a bit beyond my level of
competence. But the answers that were given were in
many cases clearly (to me) incompetent because they
did not address the question asked. But they had the
advantage of being mainstream, and so -- according to
BAUT's corporate attitude -- were inviolable.

Eventually, after numerous failed attempts, a different
poster came along and provided an answer to TooMany's
question, and TooMany was satisfied with it.

TooMany was persistent in rejecting the "answers" which
were not answers to his question, and his persistence
eventually paid off. Someone finally came along who
understood both the question and the answer.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Jeff Root]

The only thing offensive about that is....

Boy, Jeff, you're quite the contrarian lately.

In kindergarten, 54 years ago, I protested (later in
the day) after we were told to stay in our seats after
finishing what we were working on, because there
was something else I wanted to do (I don't remember
what) and we had no opportunity to raise objections
at the time. If I could have presented my objection,
I would have been satisfied even if my request had
been rejected. My protest was more dramatic than
articulate, but I think it at least got the point across
that I was dissatisfied with implementation of policy
in that one instance.

Nevertheless, Mrs. Craighead was a wonderful teacher,
a wonderful person, and I love her for everything she
was, everything she did, and everything she loved.

The only thing offensive about that is that it is sadly
a fairly accurate characterization of the role BAUT has
taken on in the last few years. Defender of the faith.

Now, that is offensive. Claiming that a scientist holds
a position because of faith or adherence to dogma is
about as nasty an insult as you can throw at a scientist.

I disagree. There are much nastier.

However, I did not claim what you claim I claimed.

I claimed (and claim) that BAUT has a corporate attitude
of "mainstream versus ATM", and this seriously impairs
discussions involving non-mainstream ideas. It defends
the mainstream instead of considering the merits of the
non-mainstream ideas.

This is troll behavior, not reasoned discussion.

That's a pretty good description of BAUT's problem.
It brands ideas which are ATM as "cuckoo", along with
ideas which really are "cuckoo", unnecessarily causing
strife. Troll behavior.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Jeff Root]

BAUT needs people like him.

You know, this comment keeps puzzling me. The many rule
transgressions that were noticed are well documented, and
there were several others that went by without visible
repercussions. It is not an admirable list, and most by far
are not merely about quibbling if something is touching
religion in a nasty way or not. To me, it seems quite
obvious that BAUT does most certainly not need more
people behaving like that. The logical conclusion seems to
be that you mean some other characterization when talking
about "people like him". I wonder what that is (not implying
there can be none!).

My impression of TooMany is that he is intelligent,
thoughtful, honest, interested in the advancement of
science, and caring about people. I think he showed
considerably better judgement and comprehension
than many of the people replying to him. But because
he is wrong about some idea and persists in asking about
it, he is classified "not of the body" and reasons are found
first to label him as being obtuse, rejecting good answers,
and being influenced by ATM websites, and eventually to
infract him and ostracize him. Prominent among which
reasons is the excuse that what he said was against the
"no religion" rule. It was not.

The complaints against him may be numerous, but I think
they are seriously misplaced.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Jeff Root]

Why do you think BAUT needs people like TooMany?

BAUT has taken on a reactionary attitude to ideas which
it corporately considers to be ATM. Even if some individual
moderators are naturally easygoing, as a body they, and
the "rank and file" of posters, come across as hostile to
any ideas they don't already accept. That is a bad thing.
New people with fresh attitudes are needed to keep BAUT
from imploding in an excess of staid conservatism.

TooMany could be one such person. He alone might not
make a sufficient difference, but three or four such people
almost certainly would.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

[Perikles]

Dogma is what is believed and asserted. If you believe that objects are composed of atoms, and tell others that objects are composed of atoms, the assertion is dogma.

I think that is a fairly naive and not very useful definition of dogma, to be honest. It does not differentiate between an idea which could be changed with new evidence and an idea which is arbitrary and unchangeable. The word has often has a depreciating overtone, and can mean an arrogant declaration of opinion. Dogmatism is a way of thinking based on principles which have not been tested by reflection. If you are dogmatic about something, you are proceeding on a priori principles accepted as true.

Dogma is far more appropriate to religions than science.