Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock stare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nemencine" data-source="post: 564714" data-attributes="member: 5217"><p><strong>Rigour versus Speculation on RVF</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My post on this subject will be on the issue of approach and methodology when writing about science on a Game forum. My take will be on the issue of Rigour versus Speculation on RooshVForum, when it comes to technical subjects.</p><p></p><p>I think on a game forum like the RVF, there is little obligation for nuances or rigour when discussing science. That is why i agree with Thomas the Rhymer attitude when he says "Where's the fun in that?"</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Texas_tryhard</strong> talks about these responsibilities as scientists, etcetera, etcetera. I don't really care, unless under 3 conditions:</p><p></p><p>#1. If there is a very specific scientific request by the RVF community about a subject matter. In such a case, i can see how you are obligated to provide nuance if you chose to comment.e.g <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-27133.html" target="_blank">this thread by CJ_W</a>. </p><p></p><p>#2. If there is a GROSS misrepresentation of a technical issue, then i can see how you are obligated to set the record straight if you chose to comment e.g <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-22985-post-714548.html#pid714548" target="_blank">this cancer thread</a>(reason i ended up giving <strong>Texas_tryhard</strong> a rep point.) or this thread on <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-34686-post-698982.html#pid698982" target="_blank">high frequency trading subject.</a>(how i ended up giving <strong>ElBorrachoInfamoso</strong> a rep point). This is critical to the veracity of data on RVF that when you see something erroneously stated as FACTS, you bring science to solidly correct it. </p><p></p><p>#3. If you are dropping a serious, lifestyle datasheet on a subject. In such a case, i can see why it is critical to utilize the tools of science, e.g. <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7518-post-756495.html#pid756495" target="_blank">This solid acid/base post</a> in the Apple Cider Vinegar thread(that is how i ended up giving <strong>Objectivist Tree</strong> a rep point.). </p><p></p><p>On the other hand, there IS ABOSULTELY NOTHING WRONG with generating hypothesis or conjectures using scientific data. In my opinion, if <strong>Thomas the Rhymer</strong> post were listed in the Lifestyle section as a datasheet, then, it is incumbent upon him to treat the issue with the right amount of scepticism and some good dose of rigour. However, this is obviously not a datasheet-- this is an obvious speculative piece posted on the everything else section, alongside threads with links to nude photos of celebrities. </p><p></p><p>Another critical point: RVF is not a science forum, it is a Game forum. </p><p></p><p><strong>Thomas the Rhymer</strong> is entitled to speculative flights of fancy and hypothetical thoughts. Just because he has science background and is writing about science, doesn't mean he cannot engage in conjectures and scenarios that pick his fancy like everybody else does. </p><p></p><p>The anxiety about what the manosphere will then negatively thinks about scientists-- if <strong>Thomas the Rhymer</strong> let loose with some fancy speculation -- is overblown, in my opinion. As long as Thomas the Rhymer makes it clear-- which he does -- that what he is writing is just speculation on his part. </p><p></p><p>He is not writing this for scientific publication, he is writing this for the bloody Roosh V. fucking Forum. So why does he need to state his position with utmost nuance and rigour? What he wrote about is different from his post on <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-29268-post-670727.html#pid670727" target="_blank">Science fiction and Mental illness. </a></p><p><a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-29268-post-670727.html#pid670727" target="_blank"></a></p><p></p><p>The <strong>Lizard of Oz</strong> and I engage in private PM conversations about technical stuff all the time, we discussed these issues on a more serious level. Our conversation on that level is not fitting for the public forum of RVF: It is very, very nuanced. If we were to discuss such matter in the public forum, we will have to dilute it and make it very accessible. What is the point of communication(or information) if it is not accessible?</p><p></p><p>In my view, the first and most important rule on discussing science at RVF is: make it accessible. Make it fun and interesting. e.g. <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-31831.html" target="_blank">this post on hepatitis C</a> with words like "one-armed amputee", "twisted ladder", etc. you try to paint a picture with words-- that is the point of explaining science to those not familiar with it. My very long arse post on <a href="http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-38587.html" target="_blank">Dystopian Manospheric Vision & Science</a> was specifically written like that to make it accessible, evidently, you will sacrifice nuance to write to non-science audience. RVF is basically a non-science audience, since this is game forum. As long as you are not outright lying, then it is fine in my opinion. Now, if people interests are pique on the subject, you can then provided a more nuanced and rigorous treatment of the subject matter. </p><p></p><p>Like i told commentator *TheKantian* on the "Quantum Drive" thread</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't understand the whole position/demand of writing nuanced, rigorous posts on technical science matter on a Game forum like RVF. It makes no sense to me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with generating fun hypothesis and throwing ideas around like rugby ball, as long as you make it clear that is what you are doing. </p><p></p><p>regards,</p><p></p><p>Nemencine</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nemencine, post: 564714, member: 5217"] [b]Rigour versus Speculation on RVF[/b] My post on this subject will be on the issue of approach and methodology when writing about science on a Game forum. My take will be on the issue of Rigour versus Speculation on RooshVForum, when it comes to technical subjects. I think on a game forum like the RVF, there is little obligation for nuances or rigour when discussing science. That is why i agree with Thomas the Rhymer attitude when he says "Where's the fun in that?" [b] Texas_tryhard[/b] talks about these responsibilities as scientists, etcetera, etcetera. I don't really care, unless under 3 conditions: #1. If there is a very specific scientific request by the RVF community about a subject matter. In such a case, i can see how you are obligated to provide nuance if you chose to comment.e.g [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-27133.html]this thread by CJ_W[/url]. #2. If there is a GROSS misrepresentation of a technical issue, then i can see how you are obligated to set the record straight if you chose to comment e.g [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-22985-post-714548.html#pid714548]this cancer thread[/url](reason i ended up giving [b]Texas_tryhard[/b] a rep point.) or this thread on [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-34686-post-698982.html#pid698982]high frequency trading subject.[/url](how i ended up giving [b]ElBorrachoInfamoso[/b] a rep point). This is critical to the veracity of data on RVF that when you see something erroneously stated as FACTS, you bring science to solidly correct it. #3. If you are dropping a serious, lifestyle datasheet on a subject. In such a case, i can see why it is critical to utilize the tools of science, e.g. [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7518-post-756495.html#pid756495]This solid acid/base post[/url] in the Apple Cider Vinegar thread(that is how i ended up giving [b]Objectivist Tree[/b] a rep point.). On the other hand, there IS ABOSULTELY NOTHING WRONG with generating hypothesis or conjectures using scientific data. In my opinion, if [b]Thomas the Rhymer[/b] post were listed in the Lifestyle section as a datasheet, then, it is incumbent upon him to treat the issue with the right amount of scepticism and some good dose of rigour. However, this is obviously not a datasheet-- this is an obvious speculative piece posted on the everything else section, alongside threads with links to nude photos of celebrities. Another critical point: RVF is not a science forum, it is a Game forum. [b]Thomas the Rhymer[/b] is entitled to speculative flights of fancy and hypothetical thoughts. Just because he has science background and is writing about science, doesn't mean he cannot engage in conjectures and scenarios that pick his fancy like everybody else does. The anxiety about what the manosphere will then negatively thinks about scientists-- if [b]Thomas the Rhymer[/b] let loose with some fancy speculation -- is overblown, in my opinion. As long as Thomas the Rhymer makes it clear-- which he does -- that what he is writing is just speculation on his part. He is not writing this for scientific publication, he is writing this for the bloody Roosh V. fucking Forum. So why does he need to state his position with utmost nuance and rigour? What he wrote about is different from his post on [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-29268-post-670727.html#pid670727]Science fiction and Mental illness. [/url] The [b]Lizard of Oz[/b] and I engage in private PM conversations about technical stuff all the time, we discussed these issues on a more serious level. Our conversation on that level is not fitting for the public forum of RVF: It is very, very nuanced. If we were to discuss such matter in the public forum, we will have to dilute it and make it very accessible. What is the point of communication(or information) if it is not accessible? In my view, the first and most important rule on discussing science at RVF is: make it accessible. Make it fun and interesting. e.g. [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-31831.html]this post on hepatitis C[/url] with words like "one-armed amputee", "twisted ladder", etc. you try to paint a picture with words-- that is the point of explaining science to those not familiar with it. My very long arse post on [url=http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-38587.html]Dystopian Manospheric Vision & Science[/url] was specifically written like that to make it accessible, evidently, you will sacrifice nuance to write to non-science audience. RVF is basically a non-science audience, since this is game forum. As long as you are not outright lying, then it is fine in my opinion. Now, if people interests are pique on the subject, you can then provided a more nuanced and rigorous treatment of the subject matter. Like i told commentator *TheKantian* on the "Quantum Drive" thread I don't understand the whole position/demand of writing nuanced, rigorous posts on technical science matter on a Game forum like RVF. It makes no sense to me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with generating fun hypothesis and throwing ideas around like rugby ball, as long as you make it clear that is what you are doing. regards, Nemencine [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock stare
Top
