"Science & Politics" Topic

Should discussion of politics involving science be allowed on the Science board?

* yes, allow discussion of how the two relate
* no, only allow pure science

No

Fezz only. Along with those old sparky-bit instruments and epic music.

YouTube link

No.
Thus my currently running poll about Climate Change.
I just want to isolate it.

You don't need a poll Bill. Just ban it and DH the guilty. Sooner it later some folks will catch on.
The problem with Climate Change is that the articles presented are 100% political. You can't be selective about who gets the DH. All or none.

I know I that am right and they are wrong. They think that way too. Nobody will convince the other side, so why run anything?
Besides, isn't this site supposed to be about miniature wargaming?
The Science Board should have at least something to do with wargaming. So should its articles.

This isn't Scientific American, National Geographic, or the a Proceedings of the Yadda Yadda Society.
It's the Miniatures Page.

As for other Plus Boards….
I can't recall anybody getting the DH over music or food. Such a test is not necessary there.
The real issue is whether the bad behavior by people who can't behave themselves poisons the whole board.
I think it does on Ultramodern, which is not even handedly moderated.
We can't be like the NFL or MLB where the first punch is tolerated but the retaliation is not.
Either punish all bad behavior or punish none of it.

Yes.

Perhaps we need two boards Bill, like for the Ultramodern, and Ultramodern Gaming ones.

How about a pure Science board, and then a Science and Politics board?

Then, of course, we'll need the Wargaming Science board, and the Scientific Manipulation of Data to Support Higher Taxation board.

I think these should all be voted on in a poll.

No, and if you create a Science and Politics board you might as well create a Politics bard. Actually do that, prohibiting cross psting to other boards. It might help.

Ah no we had that once in all but name and it was a gobdaws fiesta with much bad feeling seeping out to the interesting boards that are about toy soldiers.

Allowing politics on any board other than the fezz is a bad idea. It would open a huge can of worms with people bitching about why it is okay for science but not UM, and so on and so on. Yuck.

No

Really, Bill? Really?

NO.

NO !

Reunite Pangea! Er… No!

The thread in which Terrement expounds on his daily opportunities for DH'ing, seized on a regular basis :)

Save us from ourselves!

no

No.

Nichst, nein, Idar-Oberstein. Or, in English-no!

" If that science is funded by, or supports or opposes a political or social agenda, it isn't pure science."

I think you are really going to struggle with this one. In the UK publically funded research is expected to demonstrate 'impact' – some influence or effect on the economy, industrial development, innovation, medical advance, public policy… The more impact it has the higher it is rated and the more money flows to those institutions doing the research. One of the research metrics used is citations in policy documents and legislation (and Altmetrics trawls public data sources looking for such citations which can be reused in impact case studies). Research funded by industrial partners has its own agenda of course.

In both cases, there is no such thing as 'pure science', if it doesn't produce some concrete results, it gets killed off and it is inextricably linked to social, political and industrial agendas. Perhaps things are different in the USA.

So if you can only discuss 'pure science', you won't be discussing any science at all.

"The purpose of science is to prove your grant proposal."
-----some guy

And where does the grant money come from?
Like Terrement sez, if you approve of their results, the Good Guys. Or if you don't approve, it's the Evil Koch Brothers or satanic Exxon.

We are not allowed to ridicule news sources. Like MSNBC or Fox or the New York Times or the Guardian…..
Does this mean that those who pass out grants are above reproach too?

What is "politics", exactly?
In simplest terms, the interaction of people. Are scientists people? Do they behave as ordinary humans, or are they Avatars of Truth? Do they never reach conclusions…. humanly, as in knowing what is expected?

Are we not allowed to conclude that when certain data is ignored, that there are reasons for it? Or is it allowed because they are the Avatars of Truth?

Look. We all know what this is about. The CC word.
Either allow the bi-weekly topics by the Usual Suspects with their agendas and DH nobody or ban the subject entirely.
It's worse than the bricole debate! Nobody changes anybody's mind. Nobody is educated. And the usual suspects get DHed.

As far as I know there is no politics involved in dinosaurs. (Somehow I know that I am very wrong on that. Right Sue?)
Nor in pictures of Pluto.
And arguing over whether Heisenberg tanked it passes the 10 year rule.

Good God, no. Half the posts every day verge on political doom mongering as it is. We don't need more; let's stick to wargaming issues.

Considering this I say kill the Science Board. Terrement has pursued me that Science is impossible to discuss without politics and as this is a Hobby Site, we have no need for that. National Review, Nation, Commentary, Frontpage Magazine,New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Salon, and several other thousand print and e-media plus 6000+ institutions of higher learning discuss Science and thus politics.

No need for a page on TMP. Indeed if any of the plus boards can be construed as political (and I say most can) they two must die.

Enough. Either let politics free or ban it totally. Every regime in history that tried a middle way failed miserably.

Still wondering why this is important….

I'm with KTravlos, kill it.

My humble opinion is that editors should be constantly patrolling the forum, and threads with no wargaming nexus just disappear. No dawghouse, no ban, the thread just isn't there.

V/R,
Jack

While I normally support a staunch no politics approach, the "plus" boards tend to be more of a free-fire zone.

No.

No
Science, Politics, and Religion mix about as well as putting a day care center in a toxic waste dump.

NO

Absolutely not.

Why is there a science board? I guess I vote no.

No.

And I would prefer Bill to drop in once in a while to see that much of what passes for scientific discussion on the Science board is actually political in nature.

And I would prefer Bill to drop in once in a while to see that much of what passes for scientific discussion on the Science board is actually political in nature.

With the number of posts, it is unreasonable to expect the size staff available to read, understand, and evaluate every post, especially the longer ones. I never understood why people ask for moderators to be assigned to the boards, as the system has deputized everybody here to be a moderator with that little "!" icon in the top of the post.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.