Where on earth did I get the idea that I’d somehow vacuumed up all the world's collective intelligence? I suppose by even asking a question like the one in this thread, I am effectively admitting there’s a gap in my knowledge. Honestly, what kind of authority was I trying to peddle here? Did I attempt to defend a single claim by leaning on some supposed status? Of course I didn't—you're imagining things, and if you stop to wonder why, you'll realize you're being just as narrow-minded as someone reading those fringe conspiracy PDFs.
Just because someone happens to be a physicist doesn't mean they don't enjoy a bit of side-track philosophizing now and then.
Alright, let's settle this. You claimed that any question starting with "why" is inherently philosophical, but I believe I've already provided a counterexample proving that isn't the case. Shall we continue debating why this topic qualifies as philosophy? Because, frankly, your first argument has already fallen flat on its face.
Well, take a question like why water hits its maximum density at 4°C—that’s really more of a riddle for philosophers and theologians with a sense of humor, isn't it? Lately, I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in tactics, an attempt to claim my topics don't belong within the realm of Natural Science just because I tend to "philosophize" a little too much. If anyone is actually curious, I was revisiting Feynman's work on physical law characteristics, where he noted that even the law of inertia remains a profound puzzle, and he actually went looking for answers through NASA. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Of course not, and it certainly doesn't make Feynman a philosopher.
It seems some people are having a bit of trouble grasping the current guidelines.
I’d really love to know which specific rules you’re referring to, honestly, because nobody here has actually laid them out yet. hollowtrucker77 mentioned that this wasn't a great way to kick off the discussion, but I wouldn't say that's quite right, given how many times you've essentially contradicted him. So, help me out—which rule am I supposedly breaking here? That's my only real question, just so I can keep things straight moving forward. All this talk about what counts as "fair" or "unfair" feels a little silly to me, especially since you shut down my thread for violating absolutely nothing and then turned around to claim that *I'm* the one being unfair.
If you had been decent enough to send a PM, I would have been happy to walk you through it. But since you seem to enjoy publicly questioning my decisions and tearing them down right here, you haven't earned any credit with me.
Look, this is a forum designed for grievances and complaints. There’s nothing particularly "polite" about sending a private message, and frankly, I’m not interested in hoarding "credit" or playing nice just to shield my decisions from being publicly scrutinized or criticized.
If only that were actually the case. But the moderators are insisting that isn't what's happening here at all. I mean, Kate Bishop76 already pointed out that's not even where the issue lies.
Could someone please point me toward some actual guidelines regarding what kind of topics are permitted over on the Natural Science boards? I’m honestly a bit lost here; Kate Bishop76 keeps making these sweeping comments about "wannabe philosophers" and a mountain of "philosophical fluff," though if I recall correctly, it’s been ages since I even bothered to start a thread or post anything on Natural Science—certainly nothing remotely philosophical.
Now, don't take this as a provocation, because I am genuinely trying to figure out the boundaries of what’s acceptable to write about on Natural Science. It feels a bit like browsing through certain partisan political forums where everything seems strictly organized by party lines without any clear criteria, leaving the whole thing subject to the whims of whoever happens to be moderating at the moment. So, my question is simple: is it actually permissible to ask questions about physical laws on the Natural Science boards without having the entire thread shut down immediately?
If that’s off-limits, then where exactly can I go? 🤷
I really have no desire to get into whether my previous thread on Natural Science was closed unfairly—it seems all it takes is a moderator’s word for an admin to justify locking a grievance right here—but I truly just want to know where it is possible to open a discussion.
hollowtrucker77, honestly, that little "objection" you’re raising applies to about 90% of the discussions we have over on the PZ forums anyway. Besides, the moderator didn't even cite that as the reason for the decision. I really don't see why you're standing up for such an absurdly foolish way to shut down a thread, especially when it's just going to end up migrating right back here as some even more chaotic off-topic mess. 🤷
hollowtrucker77 As if I haven't heard this one before, or perhaps more accurately, as if we haven't all been circling this same drain for years... Now, regarding that second question—it could easily veer into some incredibly advanced territory, but the way the topic was framed felt a bit off, didn't it? It almost felt like it was pitched at an elementary school level, which is a shame because it lacks the depth required for a real discussion. If we're looking at something that basic, I honestly think it would be better to just go straight to the teacher and get the clarity needed from the source.
Does that really suggest we’re looking at an elementary school level of understanding? On what grounds, exactly? If I had chosen to frame it by saying, rather than just moving in a straight line, that one moves via the shortest possible distance within some metric space, would the topic suddenly be considered more sophisticated or easier to grasp? 🤷
Besides, even if you want to argue that this points toward a middle school level of understanding, that hardly seems like a valid reason to shut down the entire discussion.
So, in your view, what would the actual answer be? An object in motion stays in motion, traveling in a straight line at a constant velocity, provided no external force acts upon it. We can debate whether we’re talking about inertia or perhaps conservation of energy—from the perspective that change itself requires an input of energy—but honestly, that doesn't change the fact that the premise of this whole discussion is fundamentally flawed.
If I actually had the answer, I wouldn't be opening a thread to ask for it. And regarding your suggestion about the law of conservation of energy: Newton's law of inertia isn't some mere byproduct of thermodynamics.
I genuinely can't wrap my head around why you'd say the topic "isn't well-posed." It seems perfectly straightforward to me. 🤷
Beyond the fact that the answer isn't exactly trivial—and frankly, yours isn't even correct to begin with—the question itself is perfectly straightforward. Has anyone here, whether they're a regular participant or a moderator, actually stepped up to claim the question was too broad? You really need to pick a lane regarding why this thread was shut down. Is it because it’s nonsensical, just plain boring, or supposedly too general? It seems to me you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner; since nobody actually knows the real reason for the lockout, you're left frantically trying to justify someone else's call without any actual ground to stand on. If there were a legitimate basis for it, the moderator would have provided an explanation.
And no, Joseph Watson3 wasn't calling the topic "philosophical"; he was making a wry remark about the "resident philosophers" among us forum users. So, the only valid critique here is whether the subject matter itself is relevant. Locking a thread just because someone *might* start philosophizing is a pretty absurd concept; if that were the case, a moderator should step in and steer the conversation when it happens, rather than just pulling the plug on the whole discussion prematurely.
you have to realize that you're the only one who actually knows what's going on inside your own head, whereas everyone else is just reading the words on the screen.
What part of the question is unclear? You're the only one grasping at that particular argument. To everyone else, everything is perfectly clear. 🤷
Here is a perfect example of a twelve-year-old coming at us with "stupid and boring questions," specifically targeting something as fundamental as the law of inertia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAQV...eature=related. Honestly, trying to dismiss an argument by labeling it "stupid and boring" is just incredibly low-brow. It truly baffles me how someone can step into a moderator role without having the slightest grasp of what constitutes a valid argument. It’s quite a mess; instead of having an open discussion, I find myself wasting my breath trying to explain why this isn't "stupid," especially since the moderator, Timothy Jackson2, actually managed to pick a topic worth closing amidst a sea of genuinely nonsensical threads . I’m curious, hollowtrucker77, do you actually mean it when you claim this topic is "boring"? Because if that’s your stance, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the reasons Timothy Jackson2 gave—reasons that strike me as a blatant display of moderator overreach and poor etiquette. Besides, for someone like Dennis Rogers6, this topic clearly isn't boring at all. Who exactly gets to be the arbiter of whether a thread should be locked based purely on a subjective sense of boredom? Is there some official handbook that covers that particular rule?
The whole point of this forum evaporates if we have to appeal to the PŽK every single time a decision needs defending. From any reasonable perspective, the thread in question is perfectly fine. The criteria for relevance shouldn't hinge on whether someone finds a subject tedious or dim-witted. I mean, plenty of people find mathematics boring and stupid, but we don't exactly label them as geniuses, do we? It seems we're facing a similar situation here . And don't even get me started on that comment regarding the twelve-year-old's level of knowledge; by that logic, one would have to assume Nobel Prize-winning physicists are operating at a middle-school level whenever they tackle the same concepts. How can anyone even suggest such a thing? Do you even understand the law of inertia? It really makes you wonder who the actual twelve-year-old is in this scenario .
The thread is being locked because it’s stupid and boring, basically at the level of a 12-year-old's knowledge.
Oh, please, based on what criteria? How on earth would a 12-year-old even grasp the underlying REASONS behind such a fact? We aren't debating whether the statement itself is true; we are discussing the causality behind it. That is a distinction that apparently even people well beyond the age of 12 struggle to make.🤷
Take Richard Feynman (that Nobel Prize winner in physics from, I believe, about eleven years ago) who once remarked:
Free motion has no obvious cause. Why bodies are capable of flying forever in a straight line, we simply do not know. In its very essence, the law of inertia remains a mystery.
I truly fail to see what is so controversial about simply posing a question.
And no, the topic isn't closed just because you provided this explanation:
I’ve had enough mental exhaustion on this subforum, and that is precisely why this thread is going under lock and key.
Look, I really don't want to resort to ad hominem attacks here, but if that is how you explain things to people, then you’re being quite primitive. (And I mean that in a general sense regarding that style of "explanation"—I’m not trying to insult you personally, as I find it hard to believe that’s actually how you think)
I’m struggling to see what exactly qualifies as "obvious" about a response like that. Honestly, I can't tell if you're implying my question should have been simple enough for a twelve-year-old to grasp, but if that's your stance, please, by all means, enlighten me. 🤷
To be perfectly blunt, I couldn't care less about the rest of it; my only real interest lies in understanding the specific reasoning behind why the thread was shut down in the first place. I simply don't have the bandwidth to dwell on anything else. What I received wasn't an explanation, it was just a closure. If topics can just be shuttered at random without any actual justification provided, then I fail to see the point of this entire forum.
Why on earth was my thread locked over in the Natural Sciences section? Or, if I’m being honest, how can someone even hold a moderator position when they provide justifications quite like those?
Honestly, if someone just handed me a controller, a PlayStation, and any Tekken game released after the second installment, I’d probably eat the joystick with a side of mustard and then finish things off by thumping my own head with it just for the sheer thrill of it. But this movie? Based on the screenshots alone, we’re looking at some serious bottom-of-the-barrel trash. It feels like a messy collision of Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, and Guyver (has anyone actually sat through 😁?). My best guess is that the whole thing will clock in at about ninety minutes before eventually finding its way onto a late-night broadcast on FOX in a few years. 😍
I wonder if the secret behind the moderate success of that first Mortal Kombat—which was also total garbage, let's be real—was simply the complete lack of charisma or sexual energy from a protagonist like Liu Kang?
The whole idea of "freedom" is an absolute mystery. It feels like a subjective impression that you just can't prove or disprove through an experiment (sure, there are studies that claim to debunk free will, but I find them unconvincing). At the end of the day, you either choose to believe in freedom or you don't.
If someone believes in free will, they’ll likely argue that they *chose* to believe in it (just as others chose the opposite).
On the flip side, someone who doesn't believe in free will will say they have no choice but to feel that way—because free will doesn't exist, so there's no "decision" to be made. They simply believe because they must, just as others must believe.
Personally, I'm undecided 😬—as usual. I honestly can't tell if I'm unsure because it's predetermined, or because I've freely decided to remain indecisive. 🤣
If there is one thing that grates on my nerves in a debate, it’s when someone labels something a 'mystery'—implying it's totally beyond our grasp—and then immediately turns around and tries to lecture us on what we can or cannot know about that very mystery. It's a bit of a logical circle, isn't it? ☕ Generally speaking, I find that there is rarely such a thing as a sound argument built upon the foundation of a mystery.
Quincy:
Those who believe in freedom will typically argue that they *chose* to believe in it (while others simply chose the opposite path: a refusal to believe).
Conversely, those who don't believe in freedom will claim their disbelief isn't a choice at all, but rather an inevitability—that because freedom doesn't exist, there is no capacity to 'decide' anything; they are simply compelled by necessity to disbelieve, just as others are compelled by necessity to believe.
But what about those people who didn't believe in free will until they encountered a compelling argument that finally convinced them? (I know myself as an example here.)
James Lee77 said:Proof feels like this kind of pressure, you know? Like a total necessity. I guess once you actually wrap your head around a piece of proof, you don't really get a choice in whether you believe it or not. There isn't much room left for options, it’s just straight-up necessity—you pretty much have to admit it's true if it's been proven.
It would be super weird if there wasn't freedom of choice in whether you believe in free will, because then you'd basically be forced to believe in free will. But honestly, it totally fits with having free will that I can choose to (not) believe that such freedom even exists.
So, I guess it actually makes sense that there shouldn't be any proof for free will. If someone feels like they need proof that they have free will, they probably don't really get what free will is. And if you actually get it, you wouldn't need proof anyway (and maybe wouldn't even want it).
You're free to be (un)free.
Inconsistent? Based on what logic?
Quincy:
Anyone who truly understands freedom of choice doesn't require a proof for it (nor would they ever entertain one).
I had quite the ordeal yesterday trying to sit through a Costa Gavras film with English subtitles—you know, for those of us who aren't fluent in French. It was honestly a bit of a headache; I found myself constantly rewinding scenes just to grasp the nuance of what was actually happening. I don't run into that particular frustration when I'm watching something from an English-speaking production... it just flows much more naturally.
vividhawk48 said:"your topic"? honestly, have we really descended to the point where we distinguish between "my" topic and "your" topic? don't you realize, kiddo, that this forum is essentially just a digital version of a public square, an agora, or a town hall? would you actually walk up to someone joining a conversation in a physical plaza and tell them, "hey, this is my discussion"? 🙄 i haven't seen this kind of audacity in quite some time. 👎
I couldn't agree more. There is simply no such thing as ownership over a discussion thread. Besides, I am well aware—unlike Kate Fisher73—that there used to be far more competent moderators in the philosophy section. It used to be handled by Nobody and Nothing, but that’s all water under the bridge now because certain cliques formed against them until they finally walked away. And as for William Gonzalez3, well, he is who he is. He hands out warnings daily, but purely for the sake of performative flair. It’s much like giving a bureaucrat permission to operate entirely outside the law; one warning just triggers another, which does absolutely nothing to actually improve the quality of the debate. On top of that, there is this constant shuffling of threads, as if Zeus himself might strike us down if a post stays put when it sits somewhere between philosophy and, say, the "social sciences." The issue is that he fails to distinguish between a post seeking a deep explanation and one merely looking for affirmation or negation; consequently, everything gets dumped into the descriptive "social sciences" bucket, even when topics are clearly intended to be explored from an ethical perspective rather than just providing a clinical description of a phenomenon.
It is genuinely infuriating when you feel forced to double-check every single post just to ensure you haven't been hit with an unfounded warning for "insulting" someone. It feels less like being on a forum and more like standing in the presence of some authoritarian officer in a public square. If we want a real example of how users are being mistreated here, look no further than what Dennis Rogers6 went through. What is your take on that specific situation, Kate Fisher73? Would you call the response intelligent, tolerant, or fair?
If you honestly believe that the ramblings found in that thread about "The one intangible phenomenon we can't doubt" and the trolling regarding emergence by those two users constitutes anything resembling intelligence, then I am truly stunned. When I pointed out that he was clearly just trolling, he hadn't actually accomplished anything—other than handing me a ☕. It’s the exact same story now with hiddenpuma75. Regarding that discussion on suicide, I have to disagree with the consensus because I know I felt compelled to weigh in, only to find the next day that the thread had been wiped, and frankly, it had nothing to do with psychology (unless, of course, one is completely unacquainted with both philosophy and psychology). Regardless, I presented several clear instances of poor moderation, yet you chose to say absolutely nothing about them. It is a mistake to conflate the vibes of some random chat room—which I suspect is where that user spends all their time—with actual moderation. Philosophy is a world away from the mindless chatter of a dive bar chat room, and this certainly isn't the venue to be grading a moderator's skills.