Where'd you go rembar?

>> ^rembar:

nochannel
femme
viral
happy
anatomy


What have you against science good sir!

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Femme, Viral, Happy, Anatomy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Anatomy, Femme, Happy, Viral) - requested by rembar.

I don't take offense, such things are not personal to me. I just happen to troll bad sifts sometimes.

In any case, like I said, I have a standard for quality of factual accuracy and logic, regardless of whether the actual video is science or not. This sift didn't make the cut. I haven't watched the Hitchens video.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
With regards to my previous message, I was merely explaining my position and reasoning, please don't take it the wrong way, and I understand why you don' want to waste any more time or effort on this issue.

It is difficult to determine what is appropriate for any given channel, I run the debunked channel, and I'd hate to turn it into a political channel, for instance, but then again , where to draw the line, and why? Take, for instance the new Portal 2 trailer, Portal is a game that plays with science and experiments, but really, it doesnt have anything to do with actual science. In the recent Hitchens video "it does not follow" Hitchens talks about scientific discoveries to be sure, but is it science or an opinion-piece?

*Yawn*. I am more experienced than you as a sifter, channel owner, and, I dare say judging by your formulation of theories in this thread, a scientist. And I don't give a damn about truth by democracy. I serve the Videosift community by running a channel that is held to a certain standard of accuracy, logic and scientific credibility, not by cushioning people's feelings when they cling to ignorant or dumb ideas. Sorry if you can't deal, but that's how it is and is gonna be. I'm done wasting time on this sift.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Are you really resorting to personal "rulings" that go against the community? You're at your most professional and appropriate when you refer to the many comments that disagree with your own as "shit."
The science channel is clearly meant to serve science and the community, not the inexperienced, self-righteous biases of a single user.

@rembar,

Are you really resorting to personal "rulings" that go against the community? You're at your most professional and appropriate when you refer to the many comments that disagree with your own as "shit."

The science channel is clearly meant to serve science and the community, not the inexperienced, self-righteous biases of a single user.

I explained my judgment on Science videos. Since you don't seem to have been around when I established the channel, you should know that I have always ruled that just because a sift discusses science does not make it worthy of being in the Science channel. There are a bunch of bad science and pseudo-science videos I have booted out (homeopathy, water fluoridation conspiracies, evil vaccines, etc.) because they have misinformation and straight up incorrect theories.

Another great thing about science is that publications are judged by people with graduate degrees and correlating levels of knowledge so that people who know what they're talking about get a say.

Oh, and I am, in fact, debating whether this video is true, and that is why it doesn't belong in Science. Science aims at objective truth. Fuck this nonsense about "discuss the controversy". Shit doesn't fly up in Science.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.
It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a controversy tag.
The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

@rembar
I put this video in the science channel not because the video itself is scientifically correct, it is quite clearly an opinion piece that may or may not have its numbers/wordings correct. Its not a scientific paper, and I admit the statistics it presents is somewhat sketchy when he talks about muslims as if they all lived in the parts of the world dominated by Islam. The point of the video however, is to point out the clear difference between the expected output of science from parts of the world dominated by islam (expected compared to the rest of the world) and the actual output. In essence , he is asking "Why are the science rates so low in all these islamic countries?"

Now, there may be valid objections to this line of questioning, this difference may not be connected to Islam, maybe you have a better explanation that would debunk this suspicion, and I welcome it.

But dont you think its a valid question to ask? why are some countries, seemingly independent of everything else, so bad at science? There may be several answers, a very complex answer or no answer at all. Either way its a question ABOUT science, and this is why I put it in Science.

This is not a plea or demand for putting it back, I'm merely giving my reasons for putting it there in the first place, I did not intend to abuse or disrespect the channel in any way, but its a video DISCUSSING science and the state of science, and how science seems to be low on the priority-list in some parts of the world.

@rembar,

We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.

It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a *controversy tag.

The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

Well, first of all, #3 isn't actually a theory, since it MUST be true that Islamic societies play a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing. You are not actually staking a falsifiable claim here.

What you are probably trying to say with #3 is actually: "Islam (or Islamic governance) (or Islamic influence) plays a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing." If this is actually what you are claiming, your theory is not backed up by #1 or #2 in the slightest because you are not providing evidence of any causation.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

@rembar,

Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.

1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.

These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

Chilaxe, #3 is very confusing to me. Could you please restate #3 replacing "these outcomes" with the actual outcomes you're referring to?

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?
>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?

Pro tip (no game-stepping involved): Equating criticism with "whining" makes you look petulant and childish. Yeah, telling you to get over yourself is a little rough, but turnabout is fair play, oui?

Look, if your ego won't allow you to stop being a condescending pedant when explaining something, then you're going to lose most, if not all, of your audience. And then what's the point of even trying to explain anything? For most people a negative tone DOES subtract from the point one is trying to make, whether you believe it or not. You're the one being silly if you don't understand basic communication skills. (Did you check out that link I provided? It's actually pretty good.)

And if you think I'm not going to call out arrogant a-holes, think again.>> ^rembar:

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.
If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.
And that's all I have to say.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

@rembar

Please make clear your dispute.

1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.

These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.

If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.

And that's all I have to say.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.