New DU Group: Natural Sciences - Astronomy, Archeology, Paleontology etc.

Hey Folks, need you to sign up one more time (sorry, members with yellow stars only). We needed a coherent mission statement and here it is. If you signed up on the thread in the Meeting Room please sign again here...this will be the final copy that I'll submit to Skinner, et al.

This is to be distinguished from the Science and Technology forum which is already listed in the Politics & Issues room (which is open to members and non-members). I think this distinction is necessary because Science is a broad category, and this narrows it down somewhat into an area of science that generates a lot of interest for those in DU (and which is still quite broad in its own right).
The existing forum's title (Sci/Tech) does not seem to invite the same sort of discussion. I think those interested in the Natural Sciences would not be likely to go to the Politics & Issues room to find it.


Mission Statement:

This forum is a place for discussion on a broad number of topics and issues that fall under the category of the The Natural Sciences which include, but are not limited to, Astronomy, Archaeology, Paleotology, Weather and Natural phenomenon, etc.


We need 10 signatures for a forum.

and for 'Science and Technology' to be political? I think that needs to be made clear in the statement, or the posts will get split.

distinction. Also, this will be available for discussion to members only, although anyone can lurk and browse this forum.

Sign me up though

I dig the science and it sounds like a good place to discuss my love of geology and amateur astronomy.

Amateur Astronomer here.

it's all connected as far as I'm concerned

Count me in

the group.

Thks, pinto

Suggestions?

the group, I guess. Love the idea. Count me in.

I am loving that stuff !

-Amateur primatologist.

if changes are required. Hang in there!

Graduate of Brooklyn Tech!

Love astronomy and cosmology. Scientific cosmology not the wacko kind.

--IMM

so I am always interested in new info on the topic.

I read Brian Greene, Hawking, Arno Penzias, Freeman Dyson, etc. The popular stuff.

A recent Scientific American was devoted to the latest issues -- branes. Not sure I've digested all of it.

I don't know if I could feed you anything you don't have access to.

Who shows up for your course? Is it for physics majors? Or do you get the Velikofskyites and Von Danikens?

--IMM

It is a course for non-majors in our honors program. Strictly non-mathematical, so we read pretty much what you are reading (popular stuff).

I'd take it!

I was a Psych major. The best course I took in college (outside my major) was the History of Jazz, second was English Grammar (go figure:shrug:.) I'd have loved a course in cosmology. But when I went to school plate tectonics was hot stuff.

--IMM

I like this idea a lot (and the new diversity of forums on DU in general).

Edit: oops, looks like I've lost my star. Guess it's time to donate again!

Did you donate since your post?

--IMM

But I sure didn't expect it to reappear so fast!
DU Admins: :yourock:

--IMMO8)

I was a kid who was nuts about dinosaurs at three, astronomy at four, Greek myths and ancient history at seven, weather at ten -- and I've never gotten over any of it.

So definitely count me in.

Can we specify somewhere that rants about creationism and occulty stuff about prehistory should stay out? (Nothing wrong with either of those in their place, but I'd like to see a natural science forum stick to science.)

forums will attract some of that. But it's sometimes hard to keep all that separated...you can't regulate how people interpret their world. Conflicting theories and interpretations are part of our evolving understanding...


Also keep in mind that there will be separate threads in this forum so if you are not interested in the topic in one thread, you can start your own or join a thread of interest. Do you think, if we run into problems we can address that with the group? I don't want this group to be so tightly wound and regimented that non-scientists are intimidated or people who find wonder in natural events don't feel welcome to express that. What do you say?

It's probably because I'm feeling kind of cranky this week and in need of some good escapism -- but I'd love to have a little corner of DU where I could get away from the arguments and the depressing news and just find people oohing and aahing over the Northern Lights, or exchanging hurricane photos, or speculating about whether T. rex had feathers.

That's just me, though, and as you say, it's always possible to skip threads that look likely to get too political or too argumentative.

..

Thanks for suggesting this. :thumbsup:

I'll sign on.

Hope Skinner goes for it....don't let him put it with the tech/science....

.... you can let us know if you need help convincing Skinner :evilgrin:

wahoo :bounce:

:hug:
DR

I'm interested in all those fields.

sounds great!

Sounds great!

...but I expect all of science will become a hot political issue under the Bush administration.

Bush panders to an anti-intelectual crowd, the "anti-smartypants," as the Plaid Adder said in some lost thread.

amateur astronomy is a hobby of mine.

I'm in...

any new groups at the moment...apparently busy with other things.

Skinner is concerned that this group would be redundant to the existing "Science and Technology" forum which used to be in the Politics and Issues area, but has now been moved to the "Non-political" area. Is this placement better than having a members-only DU Group?

Skinner and I both need your feedback on this. Do Natural Science people prefer their own area and subgroup or is being lumped together with other science disciplines just as good? Does the current title, Science and Technology invite you to participate? If you can think of a better way to express the distinction I am trying to make and/or have any response to Skinner's concerns, please contact him...rather than posting here.

I know he and other admins have their hands full with other changes as well, so I don't know how soon this will get resolved, but this is for you so please participate in the decision-making process.

Here's the request I posted and Skinner's responses:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x24785


Skinner's Latest Response: Here's my problem.


I like science. I'm very interested in science. I like reading about and talking about science.

We currently have a virtually empty Science forum. I kinda feel like we should try to get the science forum going before we go and create a dozen different niche science forums, which are limited to donors only. Once the science forum gets started, then we can assess the need for a niche group.

I have moved the Science forum into the Non-Political forums folder, which should clear up any ambiguity about it's purpose. We aren't limiting ourselves to discussions of public policy here. People can discuss anything they want about science, in any field.

Is part of the problem that we included the word "Technology" in the forum title? Does that make you feel as if natural sciences are somehow unwelcome? Would a name-change make any difference?

I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here, and I want to continue discussing this issue with you. I guess I just feel like people are saying "can we have a room?" and I'm saying "there's an empty room right there" and the response is "we don't like that empty room. We want our own empty room." I don't know, maybe people are naturally more interested in participating in their own room.

Or maybe the problem here is that I'm the type of person that likes to read Scientific American and Discover, which have interesting stories from many branches of science, rather than read narrowly-focused niche journals. Perhaps I just need to let it go

into the science forum that already exists. I do see Skinners point though. Maybe if he changed the name to ???? I dunno what, but if he is so reluctant to add another 'science' forum then maybe we could try the existing forum for a while and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out then maybe Skinner could seperate the two.

0.02 :shrug:

OR :evilgrin: heh heh we could take over the existing science forum and make it ours.....bwahahahahahahahaha. Kidding ;-)

And I don't think that would be a problem for Skinner if there were an abundance of Nat. Sci people there. He would like to keep it eclectic and available to non-members which I understand...though I don't think the current title (Science and Technology) really expresses that eclectic quality adequately. I don't know how many would really REALLY like to 'have their own room'. so please speak up!

I've expressed my own preferences to Skinner but feel like we need a group consensus about this so we can get started SOMEWHERE, and hope people will make their preferences known.

separate from the sci-tech-debunk stuff. That doesn't interest me very much at all.
Weather, space, galaxies, old bones, etc, ;-) now THAT'S the cool shit :-)

I love paleontology and archaeology. Science covers a wide range of subjects.

I love life sciences. I study animals (living and extinct) on my own just because I feel like it. I would love to participate in a life sciences forum.

AND I feel that the sciences should be divided now. It's just too general to have a science forum, IMO.

There's an American History forum. Would a "history" forum be too general? We have the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, the industrial age, the space age, the information age. And in each of those ages, there's tons of information.

"Science" is too broad.

I took that argument to Skinner (in my request thread) so he'll see it. That's the best argument I've heard that expresses the need for a somewhat distinct group.

I'm eclectic by nature, but there is plenty of variety to be found in this very large subgroup.

Articles about quantum computers or whether dark matter actually exists are cool with me.

And I'd actually be happier with an open forum than with one of these members-only jobbies.

If there's any question, perhaps Skinner could re-title it, "Science, Nature, and Technology." I'd think that ought to make everyone feel welcome.

I think Ladyhawk hit the nail on the head (read her post above). Maybe we could have TWO threads side by side in the "Non-Political" area. Right now, it seems very few are using the existing thread.
Why do you suppose that is? Is it the title? Is it that folks are still a bit confused about the new areas?

If Skinner insists on one thread, I think your suggested title is a good one.

I think Benjamin Franklin would like that.

l

.

How do you sign???

-Ladyhawk <---does this work?

..

I'm a geology/astronomy/archaeology/weather buff. :)

bible explains this to you all - yet you want to have your "science"....

fools

:freak:

That being said - sounds like a cool group; id snoop around everyone and awhile.

To the extent that there are different definitions being considered, I would recommend a somewhat broader category -- small groups on the web, like the state forums, tend to die. Even some good publications like Scientific American and Science Daily (?) go all the way from astronomy to social sciences to computer science.

Please Skinner...this is a whole different thing.

Dover posts the most amazing & unique discoveries and they don't really belong in the techie end of science....

Thanks :hug:
DR

archaeology is my fav subject

LOL! Now we have it covered. Hope you'll come and participate wherever we end up. The more the merrier.

Skinner is concerned that this group would be redundant to the existing "Science and Technology" forum which used to be in the Politics and Issues area, but has now been moved to the "Non-political" area. Is this placement better than having a members-only DU Group?

Skinner and I both need your feedback on this. Do Natural Science people prefer their own area and subgroup or is being lumped together with other science disciplines just as good? Does the current title, Science and Technology invite you to participate? If you can think of a better way to express the distinction I am trying to make and/or have any response to Skinner's concerns, please contact him...rather than posting here.

I know he and other admins have their hands full with other changes as well, so I don't know how soon this will get resolved, but this is for you so please participate in the decision-making process.

Here's the request I posted and Skinner's responses:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Skinner's Latest Response: Here's my problem.


I like science. I'm very interested in science. I like reading about and talking about science.

We currently have a virtually empty Science forum. I kinda feel like we should try to get the science forum going before we go and create a dozen different niche science forums, which are limited to donors only. Once the science forum gets started, then we can assess the need for a niche group.

I have moved the Science forum into the Non-Political forums folder, which should clear up any ambiguity about it's purpose. We aren't limiting ourselves to discussions of public policy here. People can discuss anything they want about science, in any field.

Is part of the problem that we included the word "Technology" in the forum title? Does that make you feel as if natural sciences are somehow unwelcome? Would a name-change make any difference?

I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here, and I want to continue discussing this issue with you. I guess I just feel like people are saying "can we have a room?" and I'm saying "there's an empty room right there" and the response is "we don't like that empty room. We want our own empty room." I don't know, maybe people are naturally more interested in participating in their own room.

Or maybe the problem here is that I'm the type of person that likes to read Scientific American and Discover, which have interesting stories from many branches of science, rather than read narrowly-focused niche journals. Perhaps I just need to let it go

I am very interested in, and enthused about natural sciences. Geology, astronomy, anthropology, paleontology, etc.

I am intimidated and bored by tech type sciences.

I DO see a distinction between Natural Science and Technology.

Lemme know where I should post this to Skinner? To his email? (It must be stuffed at this point!)

Let him know your reasons for your preference and why posting in the current Science/Tech forum is not an attractive option.

Is that Non-Political area okay providing there is a separate Natural Science thread? If not, are you saying you want a members only DU Group?....Those are some of the things to address with him.

thanks

-

It's not like there's a lot going on there as it is. I suspect the natural science topics would quickly outnumber the hard science topics -- and either that would be fine with everyone or it would make clear that there really do need to be two separate forums.

Also, I've got to say I'm not clear on where the dividing line would fall. Astronomy, for example, isn't a life science, but everyone here seems to want it included. Is the real division between science and technology? Or between science which looks far out in space or time and more mundane, workaday science? That could get awfully hard to pin down.

always thought of myself as an amateur student of Natural History. Particular interests are herpetology and ornitholgy though any aspect of biology will get my attention, as will geology and weather.
Sign me up.

And I think I like it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=228

I don't fully understand why the need for a split from the Science & Technology forum, but it might be worth a shot.

--Petet

This is the final word from Skinner and the Admins. on forming the group.

"The difference between this and the American History group
is that we didn't already have a history forum.

We do have a science forum already. I feel like you have identified a group of people who are interested in science, and they're just looking at that forum like it's filled with kryptonite or something. I'm utterly perplexed by the whole thing. Instead of waiting for me to give you a special place, this substantial group of people could have simply moved into the science forum and started posting. I could just as easily make the argument that the empty science forum shows that there is not enough interest for your proposed group.

EarlG and I have discussed this at length, and we really feel that the proposed group is largely redundant with the existing Science Forum. The topic of "Natural Science" covers a very large sub-set of science, that could easily constitute the vast majority of postings in a science forum. This may sound counter-intuitive, but if you had proposed something that was a smaller niche, like an Astronomy Enthusiasts Group, we might have felt it was narrow enough to be different. But the proposed group is largely redundant with the existing and underutilized Science forum, and for that reason we do not feel it is necessary at this time.

I have moved the Science forum into the Non-Political Forums folder, and we have removed the word "Technology" from the forum's name. This should clear up any remaining ambiguity about the purpose of the forum and what topics are welcome there.

I hope everyone will understand."

_______________________________________________________________

For the extended version of this conversation between myself and Skinner on the formation of the group please go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x24785

So please meet me over there in the new and improved SCIENCE forum (located in the Non-Political area) and we'll make ourselves at home.
We can try it out, and if it doesn't work we can take this matter up with the admins again for the creation of a separate group or space......or those with interests in individual areas such as Astronomy can break off into smaller DU Groups.
See you there!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=228

hear hear!

*