Is Science now considered PRSI?

[icanhazmac]

In every single one of these cases, these people would benefit from a trusted medical professional utilizing his site and status to give them the facts.

LOL, no offense at all to arn but who on MR considers arn a "trusted medical professional", that's laughable! I don't know arn, I don't know arn's education level, specialty or any areas of expertise. To the best of my knowledge arn does not publish these things or endeavour to be known in that capacity to the members of MR. I am not visiting MR for medical advice, anyone who is should rethink that approach. Running a web site does not make you a trusted anything or give you any "status" in the medical world.

What happens when arn makes a statement on getting vaccinated to a member on this forum and that member ends up as one of the very few who dies as a result? Who do you cancel then?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Topics are not nearly as black and white as people seem to suggest. And I’m not even suggesting false equivalency between truth and not truth.

No, they are not "black and white", agreed.

However, - and we are back to false equivalency - nothing requires that they be given equal respect, space and time on a social media platform.

And whatever equivalency could credibly have been argued for, 18 months ago, no longer applies.

Moreover, false equivalency between what is demonstrably (and scientifically proven) to be true and that which is not (vaccines vs no vaccines; masks vs non masks, and this is leaving aside entirely any discussion of voter fraud during last year's election)- is - to my mind - one thing that the site ought to think about addressing.


Otherwise, the issue of what is true and what is false becomes a mere matter of debate, and opinion, and one where different standards as to veracity are applied to different sections of the site.

Teasing out valid reasons vs invalid reasons of widely held opinions is not something that we can realistically moderate.

Why not?

Should we ban all discussion of religion or belief in God, since it’s not scientifically proven?

Well, - and I used to not think this, but now do - given that so many on this forum seem to think that PRSI (the "all politics is a cess pit" school of thought) ought to be banned, and has no place on a tech site, I would advance the same argument about the divine, religion, and belief in God.

If anything, this argument applies far less to politics - which is about power (and many tech companies these days are far wealthier, more influential and much more powerful than the vast majority of national governments on the planet) - than it does to religion, which is a subjective belief system, and for which a case could be made that it has absolutely no place whatsoever - and ought to have no place whatsoever - on a tech site.

In a way, we are back to the old discussion, debate - "religion v reason, or evidence and science v opinion and belief" that I (erroneously) thought had been put to bed and tucked up nicely as long ago as the nineteenth century.

Science (and technology) did acquire a reputation for a respect for facts, truth, and for presenting independently verified evidence in support of whatever scientific stance or position for which they argued.

And I would argue that a tech based site should treat scientific arguments - arguments that derive their force from the fact that they are based on evidence, facts, and science - more seriously, and with greater respect, than might be accorded to (mere) opinions.

If many can see no reason to discuss politics, and matters relating to political (and socio-economic) power on a tech site (one informed by scientfic and tech advances), it is even harder to make a case for finding a space on such a site for discussions of religion, which merely requires belief, or, perhaps a willing suspension of applying criteria which one may insist on elsewhere in one's life.

...

Even the example which triggered this thread was saying a building collapse was caused by climate change. Was it caused by climate change? Maybe? I frankly don’t know and I don’t expect the moderators to figure it out.

And does saying it wasn’t caused by climate change automatically mean you don’t believe in climate change or are anti science?

The OP would have you believe we are being anti science for not allowing that discussion to take place outside of PRSI.

Perhaps this is really nothing more than a depressing reflection of the fact that US society is currently so polarised that it seems to be well nigh impossible to have a civil (and civilised) discussion on masks, or climate change, or elections, or guns, or God, or vaccines.

 

[TiggrToo]

LOL, no offense at all to arn but who on MR considers arn a "trusted medical professional", that's laughable!

FYI: @arn was a practising physician until 2008. He completed an Internal Medicine residency, a fellowship in Nephrology and even worked two years in private practice as a physician (Nephrologist).

 

[icanhazmac]

FYI: @arn was a practising physician until 2008. he completed an Internal Medicine residency, a fellowship in Nephrology and even worked two years in private practice as a physician (Nephrologist).

Thanks for that, doesn't change the overall point of my post but thanks. As stated before my post was not a slight against arn or his education/credentials but I will take my medical advice from my immediate care team and not a tech site/forum.

 

[SuperMatt]

I didn’t know climate change was a PRSI topic. I figured scientific arguments would be allowed anywhere on a tech site... since they’re not Political, Religious, or Social issues.

If the argument is that the discussion gets heated... well, people get into heated discussions over the notch on the iPhone too, so as long as people stay within the rules, I don’t see the problem.

 

[gustavopi]

There is a philosophic principle that you can't use a axiom to justify or deny itself. This forum is about science, by technology and social communication aspects. So you can't exclude any scientific topic because is difficult subject. Climate Change is science, so my understanding is it cannot be excluded.

Many topics are false controversy. Climate Change is a scientific fact, we can discuss about it but we can't deny it in a forum.

 

[dukebound85]

Topics are not nearly as black and white as people seem to suggest. And I’m not even suggesting false equivalency between truth and not truth.

Teasing out valid reasons vs invalid reasons of widely held opinions is not something that we can realistically moderate. Should we ban all discussion of religion or belief in God, since it’s not scientifically proven?

Even the example which triggered this thread was saying a building collapse was caused by climate change. Was it caused by climate change? Maybe? I frankly don’t know and I don’t expect the moderators to figure it out.

And does saying it wasn’t caused by climate change automatically mean you don’t believe in climate change or are anti science?

The OP would have you believe we are being anti science for not allowing that discussion to take place outside of PRSI.

I get what you are saying. However, I do not see how that explains why the post was moderated in regards to PRSI as the reason as opposed to being left alone. Granted this is your forum and you can operate how you see it fit, with no reasons provided, but there just seems to be inconsistencies that do get frustrating as an active long term member.

Perhaps I could have elaborated more on my response but then again, this is an informal forum discussion. There are many views (on every topic this forum sees) that state opinions (much less scientific consensus on topics like climate change, vaccines, etc) that are not held to the same standard as what is being communicated here.

You say you don't expect the moderators to figure it out but by acting, they did. It sends the message that science topics are political in nature when in reality, they are not.

 

[arn]

You say you don't expect the moderators to figure it out but by acting, they did. It sends the message that science topics are political in nature when in reality, they are not.

You are being disingenuous to suggest that we have unilaterally determined climate change to be a political topic.

Are you suggesting it’s not a political topic? Not that it shouldn’t be — which I agree with — but that it is currently not a political topic?

 

[SuperMatt]

You are being disingenuous to suggest that we have unilaterally determined climate change to be a political topic.

Are you suggesting it’s not a political topic? Not that it shouldn’t be — which I agree with — but that it is currently not a political topic?

Simply existing as a transgender person today is considered a “political” topic by some. Same for people of color... how many threads ended up in Political News just because they involved a person of color or LGBTQ person in an otherwise non-political story?

It is impossible to block every political topic because they change constantly. If I made a post in 2019 about vaccines for certain diseases, nobody would have thought it to be political. Likewise, in most of the world, climate change isn’t a political issue at all.

The denial of scientific facts by a well-known political faction in America ends up making many non-political discussions suddenly “political” in nature. I don’t think we should let a group of people that deny reality disallow us from talking about an important issue such as climate change. Many scientific studies exist. Many proposals on how to solve it exist. These are all things that can be reasonably discussed without the slightest mention of politics. Unfortunately, we are letting this group of anti-intellectuals dictate that science is off-limits because they don’t believe in it.

If one political party decides owning a Mac vs a PC is a political issue, will we shut this whole site down?

I am just putting the questions out there. I realize it is not black and white as to what is or isn’t a “political” issue... it’s definitely a moving target.

 

[arn]

Simply existing as a transgender person today is considered a “political” topic by some. Same for people of color... how many threads ended up in Political News just because they involved a person of color or LGBTQ person in an otherwise non-political story?

It is impossible to block every political topic because they change constantly. If I made a post in 2019 about vaccines for certain diseases, nobody would have thought it to be political. Likewise, in most of the world, climate change isn’t a political issue at all.

The denial of scientific facts by a well-known political faction in America ends up making many non-political discussions suddenly “political” in nature. I don’t think we should let a group of people that deny reality disallow us from talking about an important issue such as climate change. Many scientific studies exist. Many proposals on how to solve it exist. These are all things that can be reasonably discussed without the slightest mention of politics. Unfortunately, we are letting this group of anti-intellectuals dictate that science is off-limits because they don’t believe in it.

If one political party decides owning a Mac vs a PC is a political issue, will we shut this whole site down?

I am just putting the questions out there. I realize it is not black and white as to what is or isn’t a “political” issue... it’s definitely a moving target.

Yes, I get it. I know your argument. You want us to moderate everything to a specific point of view. And you want it to be exactly your point of view.

But, it's hardly ever "climate change isn't real" vs "climate change is real". It's "climate change won't affect us for 100 years" vs "climate change won't affect us for 80 years". Or it's "climate change didn't affect this building" vs "climate change affected this building". Or "climate change might be worse than we thought" vs "climate change might be less bad".

We can't moderate based on your specific viewpoint. And nor do the moderators have a consensus on what is the right amount of skepticism about a specific scientific study. So, yes... we quarantine those topics in a broad "politics" blanket.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

The denial of scientific facts by a well-known political faction in America ends up making many non-political discussions suddenly “political” in nature. [...]

Is there a subtle suggestion that those who go against scientific facts are pegged as a certain political party or leaning?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You are being disingenuous to suggest that we have unilaterally determined climate change to be a political topic.

Are you suggesting it’s not a political topic? Not that it shouldn’t be — which I agree with — but that it is currently not a political topic?

While it is a political topic, it is also - to a considerably greater extent - a scientific topic, where the science and scientific evidence comes to inform subsequent political decisions.

A tech site should consider giving greater weight (respect? attention?) to scientific evidence and arguments when discussing such a subject matter, or, rather, should make clear that false equivalency does not mean equal merit or respect.

Otherwise, we are back to the world of Darwin, Galileo, Jenner,among others, - all of whom caused considerable controversy in their respective lives - a world where some sort of false equivalency, (or worse, excessive respect for, and deference towards religious or other belief) serves to give equal weight to arguments informed by matters (of faith, or opinion) as it does to arguments informed by independently verified scientific evidence.

 

[arn]

While it is a political topic.

Yes, and the rule is no political topic discussion outside of PRSI. If you want to change the rule, ok. But don't argue that it isn't a political topic.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yes, I get it. I know your argument. You want us to moderate everything to a specific point of view. And you want it to be exactly your point of view.

But, it's hardly ever "climate change isn't real" vs "climate change is real". It's "climate change won't affect us for 100 years" vs "climate change won't affect us for 80 years". Or it's "climate change didn't affect this building" vs "climate change affected this building". Or "climate change might be worse than we thought" vs "climate change might be less bad".

We can't moderate based on your specific viewpoint. And nor do the moderators have a consensus on what is the right amount of skepticism about a specific scientific study. So, yes... we quarantine those topics in a broad "politics" blanket.

Forty years ago, the debate would have been about whether climate change existed at all.

These days, it is "hardly ever" a case of "climate change is real" vs "climate change isn't real" because that debate is more or less over, for, too much evidence suggests that climate change is all too very real.

Now, few deny the fact of climate change - and that is down to evidence (scientific, fact based, evidence).

Thus, the debate has changed entirely, and will change further as further facts come to light.

Instead, nowadays, the debate on climate change tends to focus on how bad, how comprehensive, how fast, and what form climate change will take, and what (if anything) needs to be done to alleviate, ameliorate or reverse this.

That is a very different debate.

But, for a tech site to overlook, or ignore, or disregard science based evidence - in favour of a sort of bizarre preference for the appearance of equivalence (all views are of equal merit, hence all merit equal respect) is a disservice to scientific inquiry and to the idea that some views are supported by independently and scientifically verified facts, while others, manifestly, are not.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yes, and the rule is no political topic discussion outside of PRSI. If you want to change the rule, ok. But don't argue that it isn't a political topic.

Yes, but it is also a scientific topic, or, one where the science supports a particular perspective.

And I'm arguing that on a tech site, as a consequence, or, in logic, science should trump politics (or religion).

 

[ericgtr12]

Yes, I get it. I know your argument. You want us to moderate everything to a specific point of view. And you want it to be exactly your point of view.

But, it's hardly ever "climate change isn't real" vs "climate change is real". It's "climate change won't affect us for 100 years" vs "climate change won't affect us for 80 years". Or it's "climate change didn't affect this building" vs "climate change affected this building". Or "climate change might be worse than we thought" vs "climate change might be less bad".

We can't moderate based on your specific viewpoint. And nor do the moderators have a consensus on what is the right amount of skepticism about a specific scientific study. So, yes... we quarantine those topics in a broad "politics" blanket.

But MR already moderate based on a specific point of view, which is abundantly clear.

Let's say someone posts:
"if black people don't want to get pulled over, they should stay out of rich neighborhoods"

And another replies:
"You are racist"

Only the person calling out the first poster gets penalized, no matter how one looks at this it's moderating from a specific point of view.

Essentially, if it's not white, straight and male it's considered controversial and maybe it speaks to society more than anything but the pattern here is to stuff these topics in PRSI and let the bloodbath for moderators begin.

 

[Sydde]

Yes, and the rule is no political topic discussion outside of PRSI. If you want to change the rule, ok. But don't argue that it isn't a political topic.

You can, though. You can argue/disagree on the science of climate change without actually getting political about it. When the dialog becomes "those guys want to ______" as opposed to stats, analysis and effects, then it gets political. Like on a thread discussing Apple's strategy, all is well until some jerk drops a politbomb about the whatever-types at Apple into the thread.

It can be difficult to assess, though. I would guess the metric here is positively assigning direct blame, as in "climate change caused this" as opposed to describing it in less positivist term (like, may have or was probably a contributing factor). Topics of that sort can generate acrimony, but if the post is not written provocatively, it should not be treated as the cause of the flare up.

Most importantly, though, one must be careful not to hand the pieces of the podium over to the CTists and loudmouths. All they have to do is poison the discussion with fringe views and suddenly any topic becomes theirs to cornfield. This must absolutely not be allowed to happen.

 

[SuperMatt]

You can, though. You can argue/disagree on the science of climate change without actually getting political about it. When the dialog becomes "those guys want to ______" as opposed to stats, analysis and effects, then it gets political. Like on a thread discussing Apple's strategy, all is well until some jerk drops a politbomb about the whatever-types at Apple into the thread.

I agree. It seems like every day, yet another non-political topic is made “political” by some people. An intelligent discussion about how fast the globe is or isn’t warming, what we can do to help (or make it worse), etc. can quite easily be had without anybody inserting politics. Unfortunately, I don’t think MR forums are a place where that is allowed to happen.

In the community section, there is a thread about people getting their vaccine shots and nobody inserted politics into it. IMHO, in this climate change case, the moderators jumped on something that wasn’t overtly political instead of waiting to see if it would turn into a political fight.

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes, I get it. I know your argument. You want us to moderate everything to a specific point of view. And you want it to be exactly your point of view.

But, it's hardly ever "climate change isn't real" vs "climate change is real". It's "climate change won't affect us for 100 years" vs "climate change won't affect us for 80 years". Or it's "climate change didn't affect this building" vs "climate change affected this building". Or "climate change might be worse than we thought" vs "climate change might be less bad".

We can't moderate based on your specific viewpoint. And nor do the moderators have a consensus on what is the right amount of skepticism about a specific scientific study. So, yes... we quarantine those topics in a broad "politics" blanket.

I understand you will moderate from your viewpoint. From your viewpoint, climate change is a political issue. I get it - you don’t want flame wars about climate change on the forum.

As for the discussion you suggest - I agree that is more likely the type of discussion that will happen. My question is: what is political about that? To me, that is a discussion of the science, and would likely lead to people providing multiple sources from scientific journals and everybody learning something. Nothing political.

To be clear, I did not (and will not) ask for climate change deniers to be banned. But I also don’t think any mention of climate change outside of PRSI should be shot down.

 

[SuperMatt]

Is there a subtle suggestion that those who go against scientific facts are pegged as a certain political party or leaning?

You appear to be suggesting the converse of my statement. It’s not what I said.

All squares are rectangles. The converse is not true.

 

[bpeeps]

I agree. It seems like every day, yet another non-political topic is made “political” by some people. An intelligent discussion about how fast the globe is or isn’t warming, what we can do to help (or make it worse), etc. can quite easily be had without anybody inserting politics. Unfortunately, I don’t think MR forums are a place where that is allowed to happen.

In the community section, there is a thread about people getting their vaccine shots and nobody inserted politics into it. IMHO, in this climate change case, the moderators jumped on something that wasn’t overtly political instead of waiting to see if it would turn into a political fight.

This is a great point. I follow the r/coronavirus subreddit, which has its own host of problems. But one of their main rules is no political discussion. Redditors who break that rule have their comments removed and get sent a message as to why. It's simple and effective and keeps the conversation on topic. MacRumors chooses to group race, sexual orientation, vaccines, or the plethora of other topics that can be non-political into the cesspit that is PRSI.

MR has militant moderation for nonsense things like posting an image without a caption, but they can't keep non-political topics on track through reports and removing off-topic comments? As I've said before, it's time to invest in more moderators to help out with the workload and to present ideas that differ from the current moderation groupthink. It's a hivemind over there and it's past time to acknowledge the faults that crop up because of it.

Silence and "stay tuned" ain't cutting it anymore.

 

[I7guy]

This is a great point. I follow the r/coronavirus subreddit, which has its own host of problems. But one of their main rules is no political discussion. Redditors who break that rule have their comments removed and get sent a message as to why. It's simple and effective and keeps the conversation on topic. MacRumors chooses to group race, sexual orientation, vaccines, or the plethora of other topics that can be non-political into the cesspit that is PRSI.

MR has militant moderation for nonsense things like posting an image without a caption, but they can't keep non-political topics on track through reports and removing off-topic comments? As I've said before, it's time to invest in more moderators to help out with the workload and to present ideas that differ from the current moderation groupthink. It's a hivemind over there and it's past time to acknowledge the faults that crop up because of it.

Silence and "stay tuned" ain't cutting it anymore.

Someone in this forum commented on the cesspool that reddit moderation is. I have no issue with MR moderation policies. These policies, at the basic level, imo, strive to eliminate a lot of the nonsense trolling that may be present in other forums. I have no issue with the "militant moderation"...and as such wish in some threads it was more militant.

There have been clearly some who don't like the way moderation is performed and some who do, and while nothing is perfect and things can be improved it seems some want MR to start to censor opinions (as well as change the definition of what constitutes hate language which isn't a bad thing)...at least that is what is seems like to me by reading these posts.

MR should maybe enforce the rules as @SuperMatt continues to voice and maybe that is really the answer to certain topics that turn into hot-button topics in non-political threads.

Stay tuned is a logical response as the staff can't turn on a dime.

 

[ericgtr12]

This is a great point. I follow the r/coronavirus subreddit, which has its own host of problems. But one of their main rules is no political discussion. Redditors who break that rule have their comments removed and get sent a message as to why. It's simple and effective and keeps the conversation on topic. MacRumors chooses to group race, sexual orientation, vaccines, or the plethora of other topics that can be non-political into the cesspit that is PRSI.

MR has militant moderation for nonsense things like posting an image without a caption, but they can't keep non-political topics on track through reports and removing off-topic comments? As I've said before, it's time to invest in more moderators to help out with the workload and to present ideas that differ from the current moderation groupthink. It's a hivemind over there and it's past time to acknowledge the faults that crop up because of it.

Silence and "stay tuned" ain't cutting it anymore.

This is a great example, the mods of that sub (which I've been subscribed to since day one) set the tone and that was that. Not only do you have moderators with clear set of guidelines at their backs but you have users who will vote you off the page. If you want facts based on science without hyperbolic speculation, it's the place for you.

Additionally, their structure of allowing users to dictate what stays or goes is what a real community looks like, anyone who's been downvoted knows it's not fun but it also teaches you what's acceptable and what's not by other users - not staff - and mods rarely have to step in as a result.

 

[pmiles]

In a thread talking about the miami building collapse, I posted these are the effects of climate change

As one who holds a graduate degree in atmospheric science and engineering, this is true and really not up for debate in the scientific community.

is discussing science now taboo in current events? I get a warning from a mod that this is PRSI. Really?

I get that there is a certain political party that seems to refuse science but that does not mean it is not scientifically false.

An explanation would be helpful.

There are a number of factors that cause the collapse of a structure. Unless you have investigated the incident personally, as-in, been to ground zero, have access to the buildings' as-built drawings, maintenance records et al, you are speculating, at best, as to what caused the structure to fail. Speculation isn't science nor fact.

You don't need a graduate degree in atmospheric science and engineering to know that much. A Forensic Engineer is the *expert* in this matter, not the media, not your local weatherman, nor anyone else who isn't directly involved with its investigation.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Perhaps we can step back a bit and look at the core issue: What was the reason or goal or purpose of creating forums on this tech site where non-tech issues could be discussed? Up to what year did that decision present few or no problems?

It seems that times have changed since then in numerous ways and having these non tech issues discussed is problematic. So it raises the basic question as to why does a tech site called Macrumors have forums for non tech issues?