How about a sub-forum dedicated to higher standards?

[harvey1]

I'm really tired of having to defend academic standards, and I'd like to see a sub-forum where the standards for entering a debate are a lot higher. I don't want to see people discouraged from posting against a whole forum dedicated to higher standards, but that doesn't mean that every sub-forum must sink to the lowest common denominator. Any thoughts?

[Confused]

I'm really tired of having to defend academic standards, and I'd like to see a sub-forum where the standards for entering a debate are a lot higher. I don't want to see people discouraged from posting against a whole forum dedicated to higher standards, but that doesn't mean that every sub-forum must sink to the lowest common denominator. Any thoughts?

While I would hope your intentions in this post were not as I interpreted it, i have to say I consider it somewhat selfish. While I admit I am not the best debater and I am as subject to flaw in logic and interpretation as anyone else, you negate the learning process when you start to categorize debaters on standards. Debating is a learning process. If you feel you are above helping those of us who lack some of your knowledge, then feel free to ignore us. But at some point every debater started out as the lowest common denominator. Even you. Someone says something wrong, you challenge it, they show support, you show the flaw. They learn. How can you expect anyone to reach your standards if no-one helps them.

Sorry, just my opinion and since you asked for any thoughts, I figured I would throw one in there.

[QED]

It is my sincere hope that Harvey is reading your post Confused. He hasn't posted lately, possibly because he became dissatisfied with the standards here. That would be understandable to a degree, but I would suggest that it's quite possible to let much that gets rehashed wash over you and focus on one or two points of detail. To do otherwise is to miss potentially informative material elsewhere.

[Confused]

It is my sincere hope that Harvey is reading your post Confused. He hasn't posted lately, possibly because he became dissatisfied with the standards here. That would be understandable to a degree, but I would suggest that it's quite possible to let much that gets rehashed wash over you and focus on one or two points of detail. To do otherwise is to miss potentially informative material elsewhere.

I will keep that in mind. You are correct. But since knowledge is ever changing, an area you may felt has been rehashed to death, may now have a new twist to it. If you opt to narrow your focus to much, you lose out on new discoveries and interpretations. To me, that is the greatest tragedy that can happen.

[Jester]

Thanks for everyone's comments. Since there's no interest for this kind of sub-forum, there's no need to add it. I just thought it would be a nice concept that discussions branch off from where academia as a whole is currently, instead of always having to defend academic fields, such as philosophy, cosmology, biological science, etc..

My opinion is similar to the others: more academic integrity is always good, though I can’t envision a new forum helping much.
I wanted to suggest the idea that making yourself an example of such integrity would probably be the most effective course of action: following your own strict guidelines and politely pointing out the points at which your adversary is not properly supporting his/her claims.
I’ve found that this technique has made an amazing difference in increasing the general courtesy of debates and feel that this is another area worthy of such action.

[Biker]

That's not exactly what I had in mind, BM. My idea was that we are committed to academic standards, not necessarily that we reach academic standards. I just find it annoying that when sufficient academic resources are quoted, that this has no bearing on the poster. I don't debate with creationists for a reason. It's not because they are wrong, it's because of this issue.

Like I said, I don't expect anyone to agree to this idea. Perhaps I should spend more time at philosophyforums.com and less time here, but honestly the people here are more intelligent.

Harv,

I just find it annoying that when sufficient academic resources are quoted, that this has no bearing on the poster. I don't debate with creationists for a reason.

Funny, as a creationist, I feel the same way about those of the alternate worldviews.
"Academic resources" is a widely (?) used term? One persons "academic" is anothers speculation/conjecture.

Biker