Honestly? I went over to read the rules again to answer your question and my first thought was, "it's Phil Plait's forum, what did you expect?"
When they start a discussion about your theories on their website, and you join the discussion, wouldn't you expect them to at least operate from a place of scientific integrity, not based on a witch hunt mentality? It's not a logical way to discuss scientific topics, that's for sure.
But there's a broader issue at play here, and that's how to handle fringe theories/nonsense and quackery at a science forum (or really any forum where people gather to discuss specific subjects). (Remember, from their point of view, plasma cosmology is nonsense)
Sure, but Christians here take criticisms from atheists (clearly a minority position) without shutting down all discussion on topics, and without banning people simply for presenting alternative ideas. I've never seen a more draconian website anywhere in cyberspace on any topic, *ever*! They don't use their real names, and they shred *people*, not ideas.
CF could be a valid comparison, but what I had in mind is a biology forum (obviously, I'm a biologist
). I think from a mainstream perspective, this is more or less the same problem: should we allow creationists, cryptozoologists of the pseudoscientific kind etc. to freely peddle their stuff in such a place? Or, since I've been reading lots of
Respectful Insolence lately, should we allow antivaccination activists, homeopaths etc. to promote their views on a health advice forum?
Commercial spam is one thing, "alternative ideas" are quite another. Look at particle physics if you want to compare things. They "allow' for SUSY theory to be discussed as an 'alternative' to standard particle physics theory quite openly. You don't see them shutting down discussion on SUSY theory, even *after* the failures of LHC. It's typical to entertain *multiple* ideas in science.
I don't think there is an obvious answer. On the one hand, excluding them entirely is, as you say, too much like shutting out opinions we don't like. On the other hand, they can be seen as annoying and distracting from the discussions that are the main purpose of the forum, or even as causing real harm to readers (that'd apply more strongly to the homeopaths on a health forum case).
If we compared that behavior and applied it here, atheists would have a single forum to present their case for 30 days, and then all discussion on that topic must forever cease, *or else*! Come on. That's not even a "scientific' attitude in the first place, it's a "control freak" attitude.
Look at it from the mainstream person's perspective - when you've had to refute the same tired old fringe nonsense a hundred times, things like CosmoQuest's section 13A aren't that surprising.
The problem with that logic is that new advancements in various areas improves over time. For instance they are still using Ned Wrights website from 2001 to attempt to justify why 2012 theories of tired light should be ignored and not allowed to be discussed on their website.
Furthermore they don't even apply that logic to their own claims, or the fact they can't name a source of dark energy should prevent anyone from discussing that topic on their forum. They don't apply their own rule system fairly in the first place. It works like a cult, not like a science forum.
I personally think that some of the limitations (e.g. the 30-day rule) are unnecessary, and that the same debating guidelines should apply to anyone arguing a position.
Ya think? It's like one person gets one shot at one topic, and then everyone for all time must never discuss it again. The whole 'trial" mentality is exactly like a witch hunt. It's like rounding up all the atheists into one forum, putting them on trial. Labeling them "evil spawns of satan" (they use terms like crackpot, crank, ect) in post after post and expecting them to answer questions on command, and then burning the witch and shutting down the thread in 30 days an forbidding anyone from discussing it again! Wow! I've honestly never seen a religious website that was more intent on publicly lynching it's heretics in the ugliest personal way possible.
It's a bit odd to single out non-mainstream users instead of just writing a general rule to the effect of "support your arguments or we'll get grumpy".
Not just grumpy, the get verbally abusive and virtually violent!
Then again, I've never had to administrate or moderate a forum.
I can tell you that it's a pain. It doesn't justify that rule system however.
All of that said, this is an online message board, not mainstream cosmology. Saying that some of the rules on the CQ forums are unfair is not at all equivalent to saying that the mainstream wants to shut down alternative views. It's like saying that the CF rule about discussing unorthodox theology means mainstream Christian theology wants to shut down non-Nicene faiths.
Whereas this board creates various forums for all voices to be heard, CQ does not. That's the key difference.
Meh, whatever you might think of the quality of the arguments, RC1
did attack your ideas. All of
this post is about ideas, for instance. I know you've had enough of being rudely rebutted, but RC1 seems a far cry from dad or consol when it comes to argument-free namecalling
RC attacked my ideas based on Ned Wright's single website that contains four physics errors in a row. It's like citing a single creationist website containing four physics errors and claiming to have 'debunked' evolutionary theory with that one guy's website written 11 years ago and never updated. What kind of argument is that?
Oh, I am
I try not to be as much of a jerk as I'd sometimes like to, but I do admit that watching
others be jerks can be extremely amusing.
It can be entertaining, particularly if you aren't in the middle of the mudslinging. The personal attacks get old after awhile however, and the lack of focus on the content (of Holushkos work for instance) says volumes. Haters are all alike however. They can't deal with or attack the science, so they attack the individual instead and try to "debunk" ideas with a handwave or in this case based exclusively on the content from one guys website that was written in 2001, and never updated since.
