Why is this forum entitled Science/Math/Philosophy

[flipdeadshot22]

And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because there is no "religion" forum. This is the only place that the self-proclaimed 2+2 missionaries can spread the word of the lord Jesus Christ without fear of being banned.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the only place that the self-proclaimed 2+2 missionaries can spread the word of the lord Jesus Christ without fear of being banned.


[/ QUOTE ]

99% of my posts are responses to other posts and I would guess 70% or more of those are in threads started by atheists or DS.

Like this one, for instance.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, it usually isn't constructive. But I'd guess there are numerous people in the gray area who read the threads and it helps them shape their opinions a little more clearly. I believe the real audience is the reader not active in the thread.

Also it's hard to sustain much discussion on a math or sci topic. OP: Who loves Laplace Transforms?

[flipdeadshot22]

Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. The only problem is a real meaningful discussion of these topics is not well suited to a message board format, IMO. I think it would dissolve into a swap of links, which happens here -- finding a respected article online >>> Joe Schmo's opinion on these subjects.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the thought is there to engage the poster directly, but knowing that many are set in their views anyway. I have read examples on this board and in Politics of people being affected by what they read to look at things differently. And that's why people engage in online debate -- to express ourselves, learn from each other, and maybe unconsciously to get people to see the world from our perspective?

Oh, and I think of it as target practice, too. Sharpening debate skills for future debates that might matter.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. The only problem is a real meaningful discussion of these topics is not well suited to a message board format, IMO. I think it would dissolve into a swap of links, which happens here -- finding a respected article online >>> Joe Schmo's opinion on these subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I tried to start that "ideas without faces" thread. There is a lot that could come from openly talking about various topics with people who have no clue as to what the current theories are saying. Links to articles from experts are definite discussion killers, but if even 1/100 of those "stupid" ideas that ignore the intellectual consensus provided any insight (possibly because it takes a completely new perspective on the issue), then we have value.

Once I was in NYC with my girlfriend and I got the idea for this hat that attaches to a jacket so you wouldn't have to carry the hat around. She says: "Oh, you mean a hood?" Then I got the lecture on how my idea was as dumb as some guy on American Inventor that apparently "invented" sleeves. That killed the discussion, but that's OK because it pointed out something that I was obviously missing and recreating.

When an idea gets killed via link to expert opinion, a lot of times it involves data interpretation that admittedly the expert would be better at. A fresh perspective, however, could provide an insight that the experts overlook based on their biases. Look no further than the Luminiferous Ether for that sort of thing. There is absolutely no reason why the dumbest guy on 2+2 couldn't offer up a contrarian view that spawns a slightly smarter but harder working guy to put the work into making a cohesive theory from the initial spark.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I occasionally get PMs from posters I've never seen post before on some topic that we discussed in SMP. Sometimes they are even positive!

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I occasionally get PMs from posters I've never seen post before on some topic that we discussed in SMP. Sometimes they are even positive!

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk,

What exactly do you mean by this? I felt my speech was rather ambiguous as to which side i'm on. Please dont troll this thread, as i'm already aware of your incredible intellect, and would be honored to hear your true opinion. Thank You.

[flipdeadshot22]

edit: to above post, i'm rather drunk right now ant cannot dissiminate fact from fiction, please beeleev