The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Philosophy and Religion

Poll

Should NSF create a separate category for these subjects and where should we put them?

New theories
1 (20%)
Just chat
0 (0%)
Create an entirely new category
4 (80%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: 09/03/2014 00:01:18

« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Philosophy and Religion

  • 4 Replies
  • 3023 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ethos_ (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Philosophy and Religion
« on: 08/01/2014 00:01:18 »
Should NSF create a separate category for philosophy and religion?

 If this forum had a place where these unscientific subjects could be dumped, we wouldn't have to constantly put up with them bleeding over into scientific categories. If any one wants to discuss these topics, allow them to go there. If they attempt to infiltrate other categories, they could be summarily and expeditiously moved.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2014 00:15:38 by Ethos_ »
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 



Offline David Cooper

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2896
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Religion
« Reply #1 on: 08/01/2014 18:51:43 »
A philosophy and/or religion subforum could generate an awful lot of extra pointless waffle and attract a high tonnage of new fruitcakes here who would inevitably leak over into other parts of the site. Probably best to leave things as they are.
Logged
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1478
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Religion
« Reply #2 on: 14/01/2014 18:42:49 »
The problem is I don't people agree what is relevant to science or might be empirically provable in the future, and some of these questions will end up in the science topics anyway. 
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 14800
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 1120 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Religion
« Reply #3 on: 15/01/2014 10:25:19 »
Possibly a good idea to let the crackpots rave in their own asylum, and I promise never to visit it unless specifically invited.

They can be let out when their hypothesis has explained everything that was explained by the previous hypothesis, plus something that wasn't previously explained, and/or predicted something that turned out to be true but wasn't predictable under the previous hypothesis.

This procedure is called science. 
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Ethos_ (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Religion
« Reply #4 on: 15/01/2014 16:50:32 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2014 10:25:19
Possibly a good idea to let the crackpots rave in their own asylum, and I promise never to visit it unless specifically invited.

They can be let out when their hypothesis has explained everything that was explained by the previous hypothesis, plus something that wasn't previously explained, and/or predicted something that turned out to be true but wasn't predictable under the previous hypothesis.

This procedure is called science.
Thank you Alan,..................And the argument that we have to deal with them anyway is without necessity. Moderators could direct them to that forum where their unscientific comments might receive consideration. Until we structure this forum with that provision, we'll have to continually deal with the likes of those who want to push these agendas. Waste of bandwidth!
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 45 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.