That's no explanation ... [Archive]

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 03:26 PM

In my recent thread about Dynamics of Escaping Earth ejecta (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120301-Dynamics-of-escaping-Earth-ejecta-...) the following "explanation" was given by Moose as to why it was moved to ATM:

Are we going to have to go through this every single time you choose to post here, A.DIM?

First: Panspermia is categorically an ATM topic. It is not appropriate for LiS. You know this. Do not pretend you don't know better by now.

Second: Don't pretend you're not indirectly advocating for panspermia. I don't think there's anybody left who doesn't see right through that little game.

Third: You also know that you've had several "kicks at the can", and you're entitled to one. By rights, I should also be closing this thread. Still, I'll permit this paper to be examined for a while (probably _not_ the full 30 days, but we'll see) so long as the discussion stays _very_ focused on the paper in question.

Fourth: If you have something to ask or dispute, you do it via PM or the reports mechanism, never in thread. This, also, you know.

If you have any other questions or concerns, PM or report. Do not create more of a fuss in thread.

I disagree this is sufficient reasoning as to why this specific thread is being considered ATM.

So, those of you who think the "Dynamics ... " paper is "categorically ATM," please explain yourselves.

Much obliged.

Swift

2011-Sep-13, 03:30 PM

By policy, panspermia is ATM. Moose quoted the relevant section in his actually post (not reproduced in your quote)

LINK (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/100954-Rule-13-and-the-LiS-forum)

Effective immediately, claim advocacy regarding the existence, nature, and origin of extraterrestrial life now bear a Rule 13 burden. Depending on the precise nature and defensibility of such claims, these posts and threads may be moved to CT or ATM as appropriate and will bear the full responsibilities of claims made in those forums, as detailed by Rule 13. Specific claim threads or posts made here and left here may be assumed to bear the same evidential burden as they would in the CT forum.

Examples of topics bearing a Rule 13 burden are:

* Advocacy of specific ET visitations.
* Advocacy of the existence of intelligent extra-solar life.
* Advocacy of microbial life on Mars/Jupiter's moon(s)/Saturn's moon(s), etc.
* Advocacy of panspermia.
* Advocacy of knowledge of specific values for Drake's Equation.
* Other similar topics for which a non-mainstream claim is asserted.

Note bullet point # 4.

That's why in fact Moose did explain it in his post.

However, if you'd like to debate that policy, that's a different story.

Strange

2011-Sep-13, 03:33 PM

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 03:38 PM

By policy, panspermia is ATM. Moose quoted the relevant section in his actually post (not reproduced in your quote)

LINK (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/100954-Rule-13-and-the-LiS-forum)

Note bullet point # 4.

That's why in fact Moose did explain it in his post.

However, if you'd like to debate that policy, that's a different story.

In this instance, heck yes.
He accused me of "indirectly advocating panspermia" and that I'm playing some "little game."
That's complete rubbish considering the paper in question.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 03:41 PM

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way

Ha!
Thanks I missed that.

I wonder Moose, do you consider Fraser as "indirectly advocating panspermia?"
:think:

jlhredshift

2011-Sep-13, 04:03 PM

Yep, same paper.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-13, 04:25 PM

Ha!
Thanks I missed that.

I wonder Moose, do you consider Fraser as "indirectly advocating panspermia?"
:think:
That subforum is a mirror of the posts put on the UT website, and as such follows different rules regarding the initial posting.

Jim

2011-Sep-13, 04:27 PM

I wonder ... do you consider Fraser as "indirectly advocating panspermia?"

How many posts has A.DIM made on panspermia?

How many posts has Fraser made on panspermia?

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 04:48 PM

How many posts has A.DIM made on panspermia?

How many posts has Fraser made on panspermia?

So because A.DIM has interest in the topic and has posted much about it, it's automatically ATM?

That's no explanation ....

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 04:49 PM

That subforum is a mirror of the posts put on the UT website, and as such follows different rules regarding the initial posting.

This is a little better explanation but had I posted in Fraser's thread about the paper, that I agree, and think it likely, I'm rather certain I'd still get shoved into ATM.
No?

NEOWatcher

2011-Sep-13, 05:01 PM

Interesting situation.

The OP of that thread does not say why this paper is being introduced in that thread. (something I'm not crazy about people doing, but it does happen)
So; now we have history vs assumptions. Something that sounds like a lack of communication.

I can understand both sides in this case.

There also seems to be some muddling between the possibility of life migrating between planets, and what I think when I hear "panspermia" (giving life to a lifeless planet - specifically Earth)

Swift

2011-Sep-13, 05:02 PM

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way
I'll make Henrik's comment official - the rules for UT (and for the BA's blog) are different than they are for BAUT. Both talk about political topics, for example, that would never be allowed in BAUT. This is actually covered (indirectly) in our rules and has been stated numerous times by moderators.

Buttercup

2011-Sep-13, 05:09 PM

This is why I avoid ATM like the plague!!! :hand:

Swift

2011-Sep-13, 05:10 PM

CJSF

2011-Sep-13, 05:22 PM

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 05:25 PM

Since what I posted in post #2 doesn't seem to have been read, let me say it again. Discussions of panspermia, even if the topic is mentioned in some paper in the literature, are considered ATM on BAUT. That is our policy and it has been for a considerable period of time. That paper is about panspermia and so a thread about it is ATM. My only personal disagreement with what Moose wrote is I probably wouldn't have used the word "indirectly" and I don't care if you were advocating it or not. The thread very clearly belonged in ATM, per our policy.

I still don't get.

Is life on Earth? Yes.
Has Earth experienced high velocity impacts? Yes.
Does material reach other bodies in our system? Yes (eg. Mars rocks)
Are there lifeforms from Earth that might survive such a trip? Yes.
Could more material than previously thought be reaching other bodies in our system? According to the model, yes.

BAUT's policy, in this instance, is nonsensical.

So you are not going to gain any traction by focusing on whether that particular thread should have been in ATM, at least with me.

I'm not looking for "traction" with anyone.
My point here is simply to show how duplicitous and nonsensical a BAUT policy can be.

Now, if you want to debate the broader topic of whether that policy should be changed, then do so, but I haven't seen a single argument about that yet (other than Fraser mentioned the one particular paper).

Take a look at Fraser's Panspermia (http://www.universetoday.com/42040/panspermia/) and be sure to see the many other articles he's written (listed at bottom).

"That life could have originated somewhere in our solar system and then spread to Earth is not particularly controversial, today."

Now, had I started that thread pointing to Fraser's article (and other such quotes like the one above), it would still have been shoved into ATM, no?

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 05:29 PM

jlhredshift

2011-Sep-13, 05:39 PM

I think the policy is invalid because we as a species are engaged in it. Does anyone doubt that Pioneer and Voyager are not perfectly sterile.

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 05:46 PM

Just so I understand: Even though the notion of panspermia may be a valid, active area of legitimate scientific research, it is out of bounds on BAUT's non-ATM fora because "we" say so. Is that correct?

I've posted this earlier today. I'm reposting it because it's immediately relevant.

[...]There's a fairly fundamental misunderstanding about the demarcation of what goes into the mainstream fora and what goes into ATM. ATM isn't just for stuff that's against the mainstream consensus. It's also meant to contain proposals on topics that have mainstream interest, but for which the conclusions are as-of-yet too tentative or too unsupported to have been widely accepted by the mainstream.

Topics on, say, dark matter/dark energy (to pick one example) that attempt to draw conclusions, for example, belong in ATM. The fact that there are no widely-accepted conclusions as of yet (other than "the math suggests more mass/energy than we can account for") does not entitle this topic to a free pass to the mainstream forums, as some have recently claimed. This falls into the credibility-by-association kind of unwanted behavior I mentioned earlier.

More newsy pieces chronicling the current research of not-yet-mainstream topics are probably fine for the mainstream boards (somewhat on a case-by-case basis), typically so long as the topic isn't so contentious as to inevitably cause friction among participants, or isn't being used as thinly-veiled promotion.

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 05:51 PM

Now, had I started that thread pointing to Fraser's article (and other such quotes like the one above), it would still have been shoved into ATM, no?

Had you posted it and said: "revises upwards the probability and amount of", then yes, becomes a claim, and yes, will get moved.

CJSF

2011-Sep-13, 05:54 PM

Moose (and the mod team)

While I appreciate the work and stress involved in running this forum, I have to say the above is one of the most stupid policies I've read. Fortunately for me, I don't have much to say or add to either Dark Matter/Dark Energy research or on Panspermia, so I'm relatively safe; however, it seems to me this policy is more for workload reduction for the mod team (and, arguably, a necessary one) to shut out topics that have a high tendency to drop into out-and-out ATM explanations. It would be similar to the prohibition against AGW discussions we had (and later modified).

Anyway, thank you for letting me have my say in the matter, and as always, you all have my respect for the thankless jobs you do as moderators every day.

CJSF

jlhredshift

2011-Sep-13, 05:55 PM

captain swoop

2011-Sep-13, 05:56 PM

Mainstream Science says that Life on Earth originated on Earth.
When someone can show that the consensus has changed to it originating in space then come back to us.

Buttercup

2011-Sep-13, 05:57 PM

Van Rijn

2011-Sep-13, 06:11 PM

Since what I posted in post #2 doesn't seem to have been read, let me say it again. Discussions of panspermia, even if the topic is mentioned in some paper in the literature, are considered ATM on BAUT.

I thought the rule was "Advocacy of panspermia." That would be, I would think, like someone insisting that life came from the stars. Discussions about issues related to panspermia, especially the possibility of interplanetary panspermia, should be considered reasonable non-ATM discussion. There are, after all, mainstream scientists studying this issue (interplanetary, ballistic panspermia), and it is not generally considered a settled question.

That paper is about panspermia and so a thread about it is ATM.

I disagree. That paper was about a simulation of material transfer from Earth and impact probabilities on other worlds. I would not classify it as an ATM paper. It did not say, for instance, that there is life on other worlds, and it did not say that life was transferred from Earth.

Now, if you want to debate the broader topic of whether that policy should be changed, then do so, but I haven't seen a single argument about that yet (other than Fraser mentioned the one particular paper).

Yes, let's debate that. I think the LiS rules are going too far, to the point where we're now not being allowed to discuss important research topics. Limit advocacy, fine. Limit posts from fringe or ATM websites. But discussion of papers like the one in A.DIM's thread should not be limited to only the ATM section.

Luckmeister

2011-Sep-13, 06:12 PM

Mainstream Science says that Life on Earth originated on Earth.
When someone can show that the consensus has changed to it originating in space then come back to us.

That's panspermia (to Earth), not what A.DIM's thread was about. His thread discussed the possibilities of Earth ejecta carrying surviving microbial life to other planets or moons, which has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth. There is still very little information to form a mainstream view on whether it could happen.

People can post all they want in Life In Space about what ET life might be like because we don't have enough information on the subject to define a mainstream view. BAUT doesn't tell a poster to take it to ATM because mainstream view is that ET doesn't exist.

So what I'm wondering is why A.DIM couldn't discuss it in Life In Space without it being a problem.

CJSF

2011-Sep-13, 06:14 PM

Mainstream Science says that Life on Earth originated on Earth.
When someone can show that the consensus has changed to it originating in space then come back to us.

(reluctantly)
But research INTO panspermia is legitimate, and not ATM at all! It's a legitmate area of reseach with properly testable hypotheses! It's SCIENCE for goodness sake. Sure, there are some who have an ATM bent on it, what with tying it into UFOlogy and other nonsense, but that's hardly a justification for barring all discussion on it.

*sigh*

CJSF

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 06:24 PM

Had you posted it and said: "revises upwards the probability and amount of", then yes, becomes a claim, and yes, will get moved.

How does that make the topic ATM though?
Is life on Earth ATM?
Are Earth impacts ATM?
Is material exchange in our system ATM?
Are extremophiles and expanded habitable zones ATM?

Sorry Moose, that's no explanation ...

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 06:27 PM

Mainstream Science says that Life on Earth originated on Earth.
When someone can show that the consensus has changed to it originating in space then come back to us.

The paper in question says nothing about life originating in space.

That's no explanation ...

I must add though, there is no scientific consensus on abiogenesis. There are many competing theories.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 06:31 PM

I thought the rule was "Advocacy of panspermia." That would be, I would think, like someone insisting that life came from the stars. Discussions about issues related to panspermia, especially the possibility of interplanetary panspermia, should be considered reasonable non-ATM discussion. There are, after all, mainstream scientists studying this issue (interplanetary, ballistic panspermia), and it is not generally considered a settled question.

I disagree. That paper was about a simulation of material transfer from Earth and impact probabilities on other worlds. I would not classify it as an ATM paper. It did not say, for instance, that there is life on other worlds, and it did not say that life was transferred from Earth.

Yes, let's debate that. I think the LiS rules are going too far, to the point where we're now not being allowed to discuss important research topics. Limit advocacy, fine. Limit posts from fringe or ATM websites. But discussion of papers like the one in A.DIM's thread should not be limited to only the ATM section.

Thanks Van Rijn (and others with similar sentiment)!
I appreciate your level headedness and input.

Regards.

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 06:31 PM

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 06:33 PM

(reluctantly)
But research INTO panspermia is legitimate, and not ATM at all! It's a legitmate area of reseach with properly testable hypotheses! It's SCIENCE for goodness sake. Sure, there are some who have an ATM bent on it, what with tying it into UFOlogy and other nonsense, but that's hardly a justification for barring all discussion on it.

Who's barred anything? You can see plain as day that the thread is open.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 06:35 PM

Yes, and as long as you treat it like a not-settled question, there's no problem. Discuss away. If you immediately overreach and draw non-mainstream conclusions, then those conclusions have to be defended. ATM/CT have the tools needed to manage that situation. LiS really doesn't.

Please explain how I "immediately overreached and (drew) non mainstream conclusions" in presenting that paper.

You're on a slippery slope my friend.

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 06:37 PM

Please explain how I "immediately overreached and (drew) non mainstream conclusions" in presenting that paper.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934117#post1934117

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 06:40 PM

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934117#post1934117

That's no explanation...

How did I overreach and draw nonmainstream conclusions?

Is life on Earth? Yes.
Has Earth experienced high velocity impacts? Yes.
Does material reach other bodies in our system? Yes (eg. Mars rocks)
Are there lifeforms from Earth that might survive such a trip? Yes.
Could more material than previously thought be reaching other bodies in our system? According to the model, yes.

Why should a new model suggesting more material in more places be considered ATM?

CJSF

2011-Sep-13, 06:40 PM

Who's barred anything? You can see plain as day that the thread is open.

Yes, open in the ATM forum, where it was moved. That's what we're debating here. Why was it moved, and was it justified? The argument some of us are making is that at least some of the discussions on panspermia (and perhaps others restricted for similar reasons) should be allowed to exist in non-ATM fora.

CJSF

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 06:49 PM

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-13, 06:58 PM

Frankly, what made panspermia ATM material was your history of repeatedly promoting ATM panspermia claims. If you had not repeatedly abused this boards previous tolerance, then it wouldn't have become a problem.

It's the same reason why this board adopted a specific global warming policy. It was only after it became a chronic problem that the topic was specifically addressed. The only difference was that several different users were chronic ATM proponents on global warming, whereas with panspermia it's mostly just one specific user.

Swift

2011-Sep-13, 07:01 PM

Yes, open in the ATM forum, where it was moved. That's what we're debating here. Why was it moved, and was it justified? The argument some of us are making is that at least some of the discussions on panspermia (and perhaps others restricted for similar reasons) should be allowed to exist in non-ATM fora.
Maybe I'm really missing something, but I've seen limited arguments to that effect. I personally might be willing to modify the rule (but it is a consensus decision among the moderation team), but mostly what I've seen is a debate about one particular thread, that doesn't seem significantly different than a lot of other panspermia threads (some of which also have referenced articles).

To my mind, panspermia is a highly unlikely explanation for life on a planet, and with no direct evidence (the fact that rocks can be transported from Mars to Earth, for example, doesn't prove that they transport organisms). As an alternative to abiogenesis I find that it actually makes the situation harder - life still had to start some place, but now it also has to get transported.

I read most of what has been posted about it on BAUT and frankly I have seen nothing significantly new in years.

And yes, to some extent the rules about panspermia were put in place because of similar reasons as the rule we had at one point about AGW, to make moderators' job easier. When panspermia was an allowed topic in LiS, without ATM's requirements for answering questions and offereing evidence, the battles were long, ugly, and with never any endpoint (other than closing threads for uncivil behavior).

But on the flip side, I am quickly approaching the point of I-don't-care... I'm tired of every decision we make is constantly debated and things that were decided years ago still get us roasted. Go ahead, do anything you please. This place isn't fun or healthy for me any longer....

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 07:09 PM

Frankly, what made panspermia ATM material was your history of repeatedly promoting ATM panspermia claims. If you had not repeatedly abused this boards previous tolerance, then it wouldn't have become a problem.

Oh come on Isaac. Because I find panspermia an interesting and plausible alternative to abiogenesis on Earth, and have posted much about it, I've abused BAUT?

Harrumph!

Is this forum not about cosmology?

.... whereas with panspermia it's mostly just one specific user.

Somehow I'm solely responsible for getting panspermia relegated to ATM?

I think it was the mods' way of avoiding the need to moderate betwixt a certain other poster and myself.

Some policy.
:rolleyes:

Usher

2011-Sep-13, 07:10 PM

Having a great deal of interest in origin of life hypotheses, I'm sympathetic to the argument for being able to have "mainstream" discussions of such ideas at BAUT as they relate to interplanetary space as a medium for transport of material to or from the Earth. As long as mainstream science is employed in such discussions, resulting ideas, while speculative, should not be considered ATM.

ETA: I just read Swift's post. I have little history on this site, and admittedly do not appreciate its evolution. Not trying to make the Mod's job harder...

pzkpfw

2011-Sep-13, 07:12 PM

Oh come on Isaac. Because I find panspermia an interesting and plausible alternative to abiogenesis on Earth, and have posted much about it, I've abused BAUT?

Yes.

You had a tendency to spam panspermia into any thread that even hinted at being on or related to that topic.

That got very very tiresome, and some behaviour modification was required.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 07:16 PM

Yes.

You had a tendency to spam panspermia into any thread that even hinted at being on or related to that topic.

That got very very tiresome, and some behaviour modification was required.

So when a thread hinted at or was related to the topic, and I posted my views, you (mod team) grew weary and felt the need to alter my behavior by instituting what has, in this thread, been deemed a most stupid policy?

Check.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-13, 07:21 PM

I do not think this policy is "a most stupid policy", nor do I think that this thread has deemed it a most stupid policy. If anything, this thread is validating the unfortunate continued need for the policy.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-13, 07:25 PM

Somehow I'm solely responsible for getting panspermia relegated to ATM?
Nope, you're solely responsible for automatically getting every thread you get involved in which border on panspermia relegated to ATM because of your long history of using the flimsiest excuse to turn discussions into full-fledged arguments about interstellar panspermia.
It's basically because you have taught us from long experience what will happen next, once the subject comes up.

This means that a thread like the one discussed, when opened by you, will have everyone else going into it reading your posts as inserting wedges to open your main topic again and will have people responding to the full wedge when they spot the tip.

You poisoned this well yourself.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 07:38 PM

I do not think this policy is "a most stupid policy", nor do I think that this thread has deemed it a most stupid policy.

Well, I should've said "been deemed by others in this thread."
Reread and I'm sure you'll find them.

If anything, this thread is validating the unfortunate continued need for the policy.

Why, because I wanted a better explanation as to why the paper I presented was automatically moved to ATM?

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 07:43 PM

Nope, you're solely responsible for automatically getting every thread you get involved in which border on panspermia relegated to ATM because of your long history of using the flimsiest excuse to turn discussions into full-fledged arguments about interstellar panspermia.
It's basically because you have taught us from long experience what will happen next, once the subject comes up.

This means that a thread like the one discussed, when opened by you, will have everyone else going into it reading your posts as inserting wedges to open your main topic again and will have people responding to the full wedge when they spot the tip.

You poisoned this well yourself.

Perhaps then I should simply leave BAUT because it's not interested in a long standing scientific theory that is gaining momentum.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-13, 07:57 PM

Well, I should've said "been deemed by others in this thread."

But you didn't. As usual, you simply ignore anything which anyone says which you disagrees with.

Why, because I wanted a better explanation as to why the paper I presented was automatically moved to ATM?

No, because you are continuing in your habit of simply ignoring anything which you disagree with and repeatedly beating the same dead horse over and over and over again.

You wanted a better explanation? The moderators replied with their explanation, and repeated it. And still, you continue to beat on the same dead horse as if no one gave you the answer.

Jeff Root

2011-Sep-13, 08:06 PM

I haven't read past the first two lines of the quote in the
first post, in which Moose apparently said:

"Panspermia is categorically an ATM topic. It is not appropriate for LiS."

Really??? Discussion of panspermia is outside the appropriate
range of discussion in the Life in Space sub-forum??? What????

What?????

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Jeff Root

2011-Sep-13, 08:14 PM

I'm not particularly interested in the idea of panspermia
(having developed a similar idea when I was eleven years
old, and eventually dropping it), so I haven't gone looking
for threads discussing it. I've only seen maybe two or
three threads in which A.DIM discussed panspermia, but
lots of threads he was involved in that I don't recall any
mention of panspermia.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Moose

2011-Sep-13, 08:25 PM

The search facility thinks there are 90 such threads in LiS alone, according to a search I've just run. 20 of them started by A.DIM. (I have not searched the other forums.)

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 08:33 PM

But you didn't. As usual, you simply ignore anything which anyone says which you disagrees with.

This is rubbish Isaac; I don't ignore differing viewpoints.

This is to what I referred when stating "deemed in this thread" :

CJSF stated, in regards to the policy in question: While I appreciate the work and stress involved in running this forum, I have to say the above is one of the most stupid policies I've read.

Then jlhredshift "agreed and seconded" while Buttercup did so as well with "Ditto."

Others as well explained why they too think the policy is wrong, especially in regard to the paper in question.

No, because you are continuing in your habit of simply ignoring anything which you disagree with and repeatedly beating the same dead horse over and over and over again.

Rubbish.

You wanted a better explanation? The moderators replied with their explanation, and repeated it. And still, you continue to beat on the same dead horse as if no one gave you the answer.

So you agree that the paper I presented should be in ATM?

Please explain what is ATM about life being on Earth, impacts on Earth, material exchange in our system, extremophiles possibly surviving the transit and how the model makes any sort of ATM claim.

Thanks.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 08:37 PM

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 08:43 PM

As usual, you simply ignore anything which anyone says which you disagrees with.

I'm bothered by this remark and request you provide examples where I've "simply ignore(d) anything which anyone says which (I) disagree with."

Thanks.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-13, 08:54 PM

This is rubbish Isaac; I don't ignore differing viewpoints.

This is to what I referred when stating "deemed in this thread" :

And you're still ignoring the fact that only some people agreed with this while others did not. You continue to only consider the statements which you agree with while simply ignoring the ones which you don't agree with.

And apparently you are oblivious to the fact that you're proving the very thing you are attempting to deny!

So you agree that the paper I presented should be in ATM?

That isn't the reason why your thread was put in ATM, as you should know since the moderators have repeatedly given you explanations in this thread.

Please explain what is ATM about life being on Earth, impacts on Earth, material exchange in our system, extremophiles possibly surviving the transit and how the model makes any sort of ATM claim.

Thanks.

This is not how it works on BAUT and you know it. Or at least, you should know it by now.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 09:02 PM

And you're still ignoring the fact that only some people agreed with this while others did not. You continue to only consider the statements which you agree with while simply ignoring the ones which you don't agree with.

I've considered the reasons given Isaac, on both sides.
The point of this thread was to highlight not all people (even on BAUT) view panspermia as entirely ATM; particularly ballistic panspermia.

And apparently you are oblivious to the fact that you're proving the very thing you are attempting to deny!

Apparently?

That isn't the reason why your thread was put in ATM, as you should know since the moderators have repeatedly given you explanations in this thread.

Yeah, they're attacking the person, not the science.

This is not how it works on BAUT and you know it. Or at least, you should know it by now.

Nice dodge buddy, but the fact remains that there is nothing ATM about the paper I presented.
Can you explain why it should be, based on the science, and not some poster's history?

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-13, 09:20 PM

I've considered the reasons given Isaac, on both sides.
The point of this thread was to highlight not all people (even on BAUT) view panspermia as entirely ATM; particularly ballistic panspermia.

This is another thing that you repeatedly do. You backpedal from a claim without any acknowledgement.

You claimed that this thread deemed the panspermia policy stupid--ignoring the fact that others did not. You backpedaled from that (slightly), saying that "others" said the policy was stupid--still ignoring that others did not agree. Now you are backpedaling from that claim even further, saying that not everybody thinks that panspermia is entirely ATM.

When you make claims which go too far, you pretend that you're actually claiming something less.

Yeah, they're attacking the person, not the science.

You're the one who single-handedly forced the policy by repeatedly ignoring the science, so unfortunately it does matter.

Nice dodge buddy,

That's what all the ATM proponents say. But there are good reasons why BAUT stacks the deck against ATM proponents.

but the fact remains that there is nothing ATM about the paper I presented.

Again, since you don't seem to get it--that wasn't the reason why your thread was moved to ATM.

You just can't stop beating this dead horse over and over and over again.

This is the fundamental reason behind the time limit and single chance ATM rules. ATM proponents tend to spam the same thing over and over and over again.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-13, 09:29 PM

And still I've no good explanation why the science presented in that paper should be deemed ATM.

Not a single one of you explained why the science in that paper should be considered ATM.

All arguments have been focused on the messenger, not the message.

Is that how science works?

marsbug

2011-Sep-13, 10:15 PM

A.dim this is an internet forum, not peer review. In my (very in this instance) humble opinion: The focus is indeed on the messenger because the messenger is accused of being disruptive (I'm not passing comment either way but unarguably that is being said), and because the moderators may fear that allowing the paper to be designated 'not ATM', in this instance, will lead to the messenger starting a heated and unproductive discussion about a subject (interstellar panspermia, and please note the emphasis) that is widely acknowledged to be ATM.

If you concurr and you're about to throw your hands in the air and cry 'curse the politicking of mods and admins' I humbly suggest you take a breath and recall that the job of the mods and admins is to run the forum smoothly. In other words it is politics*, and there is no way for it not to be. While your science points of view are interesting and thought provoking, and I for one am alway happy to discuss them (even those I disagree strongly with) you seem to rock the boat more than average, and so the people whose job it is to keep the boat level may be understandably quite wary of you by now.

I'm not saying that the mods are indifferent to the science but in their shoes I would not allow a member to damage the forum I had invested so much in just to make a point about a theory (and its clear they think your discussions might) - even a potentially important one.

I was in a similar position on another forum. I'm still convinced my argument was sound but it didn't go down well and in the end I was hurting myself by letting an internet forum - a place that literally doesn't actually exist peopled by strangers I would never meet - cause me alot of stress. I left, and it was the right decision.

It sounds like a few people here might be at that same point.

* Forum politics, not mainstream obviously.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-14, 12:07 AM

After reading the paper I'd say it's not anywhere near ATM in itself.
The problem is that the media reported it in the context of panspermia and it was brought up here by someone with a history of using anything vaguely related to moving biological material in space and use it to promote the idea of interstellar panspermia, which means anyone else reading the thread already have a strong educated expectation of where it's going to go.
Moving the thread early rather than late was really just a matter of snipping that in the bud.

A.DIM, you might as well get used to the fact that you yourself, by your previous behavior, has made it impossible for you to touch this subject without raising large red flags in most people's minds.
The specific excerpt from the BBC article you picked was a major flag raiser, which to my mind makes the purpose of starting the thread eminently obvious.

It's actually likely that we could have had an interesting discussion about this paper if it had been brought up by someone else especially if it had been done without that excerpt.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-14, 12:29 AM

Please explain what is ATM about life being on Earth, impacts on Earth, material exchange in our system, extremophiles possibly surviving the transit and how the model makes any sort of ATM claim.

ATM is where you take the step from "possibly" to "did."

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-14, 01:06 AM

ATM is where you take the step from "possibly" to "did."

Very well stated...if I might add...when that step is taken from "possibly" to "did", there must be convincing evidence, to demonstrate that "did".

...and simulations, no matter how well carried out, are simply are not convincing evidence.

In my opinion....:)

PaulLogan

2011-Sep-14, 05:05 AM

if it was put into atm because of the content of the paper itself it shows that whoever makes the rules or decisions around here in that particular case should definitely not make those decisions. it simply isn't atm. it was a simple n-body simulation, a commonly used and undisputed scientific device.

if it was put into atm because of the messenger, then it was an ad hominem, plain and simple.

however you look at this incident: the decision was plain wrong and unsupportable.

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 05:12 AM

PaulLogan

2011-Sep-14, 05:13 AM

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 05:18 AM

It almost seems to depend who does it, at times.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-14, 05:54 AM

It almost seems to depend who does it, at times.

It can and, in my opinion, should. If every time a person has discussed a subject, it has tended a certain way, why shouldn't you operate under the assumption that it will this time, too?

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 06:04 AM

besides, the entire subforum LiS is almost entirely about such speculations. according to the applied "logic" of the mods LiS belongs squarely into atm.

Rather than guess the rules, you can read the LiS rules for yourself in the sticky at the top of the LiS forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/100954-Rule-13-and-the-LiS-forum).

Speculation is explicitly allowed, including but not limited to:

"* Questions or speculative topics about what conditions might be suitable to sustain life.
* Questions or speculative topics about the form(s) such life might take."

unless of course (and that is what i suspect and was pretty much admitted by the mods), it is not about the science but about the messenger in this case. if that's true it was an ad hominem, which afaik is "against the rules", is it not?

Ad hominem attacks are against the rules. User specific moderation is not. Like it or not, infractions, suspensions, and bannings are user specific. How else could it work?

Of course, there is a desire to set rules that are applied in a fair manner. Rather than arbitrarily suspend/ban A.Dim, the moderators put together the LiS rules after careful consideration. He has had a history of constantly trying to skirt/cheat the rules, and this is something which the moderators have to take into consideration.

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 06:06 AM

So now they're setting limits on what certain people are allowed to discuss, ATM or otherwise?

I know, it's still there in the ATM section, but I think we're probably all aware of one or two people who appear to really dislike A.DIM or his posts and seem to take any opportunity to disrupt them. Placing them automatically into the ATM section, regardless of content, just gives that/those person/s the opportunity to shut down any discussion that he wants to have in such a related topic.

I say this because the point appears to be repeatedly made that it's in some part to minimise the grief the mods have to endure. I say, how is it harder to move a thread there once it is reported to them that it's strayed into an actual ATM discussion, as opposed to sending it there when it's not ATM? By all means, if it goes ATM then put it there - that is the proper place for it - but it would seem a little trigger happy (and for no greater ease) to get all pre-emptive about it.

And lets not start with "but the mods do a thankless task, so a concession for their sake is only fair" - most of us greatly appreciate what they do, and have thanked them for their efforts many times over.

(Swift - I am sorry that you appear to be sick of this place. Maybe you'd prefer to hand back the mod role so as to make your experience more enjoyable, but I find you one of the more reasonable and helpful mods so I would be sorry for such a decision.)

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 07:22 AM

So now they're setting limits on what certain people are allowed to discuss, ATM or otherwise?

As you well know, the ATM rules do indeed set limits on what specific people are allowed to discuss. When a person is barred from promoting an ATM theory, that does not bar others from promoting the same ATM theory.

A. Dim is indeed specifically barred from promoting his panspermia beliefs. When the moderators decide whether or not a user is promoting an ATM theory, they do indeed take into consideration the specific user's history of bending/cheating/breaking rules into consideration.

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 07:46 AM

Yes, I'm aware of this. But he wasn't promoting his pet theory, he was merely looking for discussion on a new piece of scientific research. All it achieved by putting the thread in there was others trying to force him to defend the research - highly inappropriate, and even from a mod. So a mod moved his thread to a place where he was expected to defend something the OP didn't define as his argument, then another mod started demanding he show his defence.

Thankfully the ever cool and calm head of Swift popped in to clear that up, but that only raised the further question of why was the thread in ATM in the first place?

Since barely anyone had much to say other than "Oh, interesting article" apart from one person who was clearly intent on forcing the closure of the thread with disruptive and provocative posts (and this is the case in almost all of A.DIMs threads - I can't see this as being anything but disruptive), had it remained in the appropriate section it likely would've died out after a few posts. Unless it strayed into the ATM realm, at which time I think everyone could agree the ATM section would be a suitable place to move the thread to. How would such a treatment be anything but sensible and logical is beyond me.

PaulLogan

2011-Sep-14, 07:47 AM

...I think we're probably all aware of one or two people who appear to really dislike A.DIM or his posts and seem to take any opportunity to disrupt them. Placing them automatically into the ATM section, regardless of content, just gives that/those person/s the opportunity to shut down any discussion that he wants to have in such a related topic.

yes, i agree. you - the mods - know what happens to a topic when you put it into atm. and with regard to the thread in question no atm proposals had been made when the thread was moved to atm. there was no justification for it, except a general dislike of A.DIM. i don't know the history you guys have but what i have seen his posts are polite and level-headed and on-topic. and again: no atm proposal had been by him. or are you really saying the paper the thread is about is atm?
it was not. there is no doubt about. from what i can see that is not disputed, even by many posters who are not exactly known for a high atm tolerance (trying to be moderate here).

that kind of modding is not fair. sure, you can do it, being the mods and all. but it certainly doesn't feel fair to me.
if and when the thread goes atm for real, then move it. that's fair. that's in the spirit of the rules. or so i hope!

Van Rijn

2011-Sep-14, 08:05 AM

Yes, I'm aware of this. But he wasn't promoting his pet theory, he was merely looking for discussion on a new piece of scientific research. All it achieved by putting the thread in there was others trying to force him to defend the research

Also, by putting it in ATM, it limits the audience, and it encourages (or really, almost requires) a confrontational approach.

I thought it was an interesting article and deserved thoughtful discussion.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 08:31 AM

Also, by putting it in ATM, it limits the audience, and it encourages (or really, almost requires) a confrontational approach.

I thought it was an interesting article and deserved thoughtful discussion.

I also thought the article was interesting and was tempted to discuss it in the Universe Today Story Comments (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way) thread about it.

But then, I thought to myself, "With A. Dim around...meh, it's not worth it." I was surprised when a couple days had passed and he hadn't yet pounced on the thread. (Earlier in this thread, he posted that he had not noticed it.)

Anyway, the UT Story Comment (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way) thread is still there, and it's still open. You can still discuss it there if you want.

Buttercup

2011-Sep-14, 11:53 AM

Also, by putting it in ATM, it limits the audience, and it encourages (or really, almost requires) a confrontational approach.

I agree. And will admit I often do NOT follow the ATM threads (therefore putting me in the "limits the audience" category) because of ... ongoing issues around ATM.

I say let people start threads (within bounds of forum rules) period. Some people will chime in, some won't. The thread will take off or putz out. If things get out of hand, Mods step in.

Tagging something "ATM" and having a specific section for it implies "specialness," which of course can (and apparently does) sometimes attract heightened reactions and attitudes. :eh:

Jim

2011-Sep-14, 11:54 AM

ATM is where you take the step from "possibly" to "did."

independent of the fact that i think this statement is nonsense, there was no "did" in this case. the thread and certainly A.DIM's posts remained in the sphere of "possibly".

besides, the entire subforum LiS is almost entirely about such speculations. according to the applied "logic" of the mods LiS belongs squarely into atm.

unless of course (and that is what i suspect and was pretty much admitted by the mods), it is not about the science but about the messenger in this case. if that's true it was an ad hominem, which afaik is "against the rules", is it not?

I'm sorry you don't care for Gillianren's characterization, because it's spot on.

But it does explain your misundertanding of LiS.

Yes, that forum is all about "possibility" and speculation. We welcome it. We encourage it. But, when "possible" becomes "fact, I tells ya, fact" we must draw the line.

As for the preemptive move being ad hominem, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but A.DIM has a bad track record of starting a thread innocently enough and then turning it into a "factual" claim. Unfortuantely for him, this time he chose a quote from the article that seemed to be heading the thread there from the start.

Sorry, but we're not going to play Charlie Brown to his Lucy.

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 12:10 PM

Gillian's comment was correct but it was also completely irrelevant to what was going on in this case. Great soundbite, just not appropriate as a response to what she quoted.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 12:35 PM

ATM is where you take the step from "possibly" to "did."

That's no explanation ...

I defy you to show where I took that step, Gillianren.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 12:41 PM

but A.DIM has a bad track record of starting a thread innocently enough and then turning it into a "factual" claim. Unfortuantely for him, this time he chose a quote from the article that seemed to be heading the thread there from the start.

Bovine excrement!
Explain how the quote I used was "heading the thread there from the start."

Also, please show any instance where I've taken a thread which deals with the possibility of panspermia and turned it into a factual claim.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 12:45 PM

I also thought the article was interesting and was tempted to discuss it in the Universe Today Story Comments (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way) thread about it.

But then, I thought to myself, "With A. Dim around...meh, it's not worth it." I was surprised when a couple days had passed and he hadn't yet pounced on the thread. (Earlier in this thread, he posted that he had not noticed it.)

Anyway, the UT Story Comment (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120349-Earth-Could-Spread-Life-Across-The-Milky-Way) thread is still there, and it's still open. You can still discuss it there if you want.

I'm calling you out Isacc: my thread was started two days before the UT article.
So I consider what you say here a lie.
Meh...

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 12:56 PM

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 01:18 PM

I'm calling you out Isacc: my thread was started two days before the UT article.
So I consider what you say here a lie.
Meh...

I also noticed your earlier thread. So what? I did not lie. It's because of your earlier thread that I knew you were around, and it's because of that thread that I expected you to pounce on the UT article.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 01:23 PM

I also noticed your earlier thread. So what? I did not lie. It's because of your earlier thread that I knew you were around, and it's because of that thread that I expected you to pounce on the UT article.

Pants on fire, Isaac!
It was April when last I started a thread, so ... you did.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 01:25 PM

Pants on fire, Isaac!
It was April when last I started a thread, so ... you did.

Umm...Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I knew about you being around because you wrote your thread before the UT article.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 01:28 PM

That one person's incessant squawking is a large part of the "history" being used against me. He was banned for good reason and why, after a year, he was reinstated is beyond me. One can go back and look at the threads I started during the time of his absence and realize the problem was nonexistent.

Umm...no. Your problem behavior continues regardless of whether or not R.A.F. is around.

And while he may have been on the right side of the science, he was on the wrong side of (already existing) civility rules, and that's what got him into trouble.

Maybe you could take into consideration that moderation came down harder against him than you, before you consider yourself a martyr of unfair persecution.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 01:30 PM

Umm...Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I knew about you being around because you wrote your thread before the UT article.

Ah my mistake then, I retract what I said.
You just didn't want to discuss interesting science with me.
Gotcha.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-14, 01:35 PM

Umm...no. Your problem behavior continues regardless of whether or not R.A.F. is around.

Oh, did you review that year's worth of threads by me? Can you point to the "problem behavior" then? Can you point to any thread where I was involved and he was not that became so problematic?

And while he may have been on the right side of the science, he was on the wrong side of (already existing) civility rules, and that's what got him into trouble.

Maybe you could take into consideration that moderation came down harder against him than you, before you consider yourself a martyr of unfair persecution.

I don't consider myself as such.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 01:55 PM

Ah my mistake then, I retract what I said.
You just didn't want to discuss interesting science with me.
Gotcha.

Sigh. That is the reason I stated in the first place. I quote myself:

But then, I thought to myself, "With A. Dim around...meh, it's not worth it."

In other words, if you specifically weren't around I would have replied to it.

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-14, 01:59 PM

Oh, did you review that year's worth of threads by me?

Throughout that period, yes. I have never put you in my "ignore" list.

Can you point to the "problem behavior" then? Can you point to any thread where I was involved and he was not that became so problematic?

Yes, I can, but why go back so far? I have pointed out some examples of your continuing problem behavior even in this very thread.

jlhredshift

2011-Sep-14, 02:38 PM

I think you two are being given enough rope to.....

Back to the topic, there was another incident of a different Bautian wherein I thought that they were shoved into ATM prematurely, but I now think it was a "preemptive" move for purposes of "behavior modification" and I am not entirely comfortable with it.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-14, 04:06 PM

I'm sorry you don't care for Gillianren's characterization, because it's spot on.

Thank you kindly. I would like to emphasize that I didn't read the thread in question; I actually only participate in a few sections here, and Life in Space isn't one of them in part because I find assumptions of panspermia to be so silly. My experience only extends to CT, Q&A when I still participated there, and General Science. And if I were a mod and A.DIM started talking about anything to do with alien life, I'd be pretty wary.

Jim

2011-Sep-14, 04:42 PM

Bovine excrement!
Explain how the quote I used was "heading the thread there from the start."

Also, please show any instance where I've taken a thread which deals with the possibility of panspermia and turned it into a factual claim.

The real question is whether any ejecta will carry living cargo that can fulfil the "panspermia" hypothesis, but Dr Sigurdsson says that evidence of the hardiness of life has already been found closer to home.

"There are viable bacterial spores that have been found that are 40 million years old on Earth - and we know they're very hardened to radiation."

Based on your past performance, this is a door left slightly ajar through which you would try to force the entire cow.

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-14, 05:21 PM

Maybe you'd prefer to hand back the mod role so as to make your experience more enjoyable...

Swift...if you do that, I'll give you such a pinch. :)

Spoons

2011-Sep-14, 08:15 PM

Thank you kindly. I would like to emphasize that I didn't read the thread in question...<snip>

And it shows, because your comment had no relevance to it. So you can probably disregard what Jim said because he was completely wrong if he was trying to suggest in any way that it had a place in this discussion.

Jim

2011-Sep-14, 08:31 PM

And it shows, because your comment had no relevance to it. So you can probably disregard what Jim said because he was completely wrong if he was trying to suggest in any way that it had a place in this discussion.

Yes, it does. I'm sorry you can't see that.

pzkpfw

2011-Sep-14, 08:37 PM

Temporary closure, for deep breaths to be taken.

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-20, 05:35 AM

To be honest, that's how it comes across to me too. Is it really that much easier for mods to move the thread pre-emptively rather than when someone actually starts pushing an ATM idea? If it happens at all, of course.

Noo! You mean some people start threads with alternate agendas? I don't believe that! Just because someone has a proven record of doing something time and time again doesn't mean we should assume they'll do it again. They my be totally changed and reformed!

Garrison

2011-Sep-22, 06:26 PM

In theory ATM is the appropriate place for a topic like panspermia that's speculative but within the boundaries of scientific study. In practice it means being ranked alongside crackpots who want to repeal relativity or otherwise rewrite physics usually without any of that annoying maths, so while yes I think its the right forum for a panspermia related topic I can also see why some people would get upset about it being moved there.

Hornblower

2011-Sep-22, 10:42 PM

When I read the OP, I had no prior experience with the poster's previous threads and had never heard of panspermia. The linked paper dealt mainly with the possibility that ejecta from a large impact on Earth could reach other planets as intact chunks of rock and possibly carry embedded, hardy bacterial spores. At that point I could not see any compelling reason to move it to ATM. My sympathies were with the opening poster.

Usher

2011-Sep-22, 11:56 PM

Noo! You mean some people start threads with alternate agendas? I don't believe that! Just because someone has a proven record of doing something time and time again doesn't mean we should assume they'll do it again. They my be totally changed and reformed!

Of course some people have other agendas; it is naive to think otherwise. But should not that hidden agenda manifest itself before an assumption is made one way or the other?

Gillianren

2011-Sep-23, 02:34 AM

How often do you propose to let them hijack threads?

Usher

2011-Sep-23, 04:37 AM

How often do you propose to let them hijack threads?

Whom are you addressing? If me, I say it is clear that thread hijacking, however intended (not malicious in many cases) is generally well-moderated and corrected (I have seen it tolerated when the OP has basically disappeared). Do you disagree?

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-23, 04:51 AM

Of course some people have other agendas; it is naive to think otherwise. But should not that hidden agenda manifest itself before an assumption is made one way or the other?

Not if the person is a serial offender. Much like paedophiles are forbidden to be within 500m of a school or playground. I think it is safe to say there is good grounds to make an assumption for serial offenders. Not I'm not implying any ATM poster is or is not a paedophile.

I think it is crazy when people get offended that you assume they are doing something that they've done time and time again and that you should be ashamed for suggesting it.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-23, 06:14 AM

Your posts, particularly the last one, WayneFrancis, make me reconsider the worth of belonging to this forum. I don''t care how you try to justify yourself, there is no need.

korjik

2011-Sep-23, 06:22 AM

Your posts, particularly the last one, WayneFrancis, make me reconsider the worth of belonging to this forum. I don''t care how you try to justify yourself, there is no need.

No need for what? All he said was that if someone did something over and over, it is a safe assumption that they will do it again. Or did he say a bad word that makes you uncomfortable?

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-23, 06:42 AM

Don't leave on my account. Put me on ignore if you don't like what I say. If I, or anyone else, said something inappropriate then please use the http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/report-40b.png button found at the bottom left corner of the post and tell the moderators the issue is.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-23, 06:55 AM

Whom are you addressing? If me, I say it is clear that thread hijacking, however intended (not malicious in many cases) is generally well-moderated and corrected (I have seen it tolerated when the OP has basically disappeared). Do you disagree?

Yes. If the same person hijacks threads the same way over and over again, how many chances do you propose giving them? I'm not pleased with the pedophile analogy, but it does rather hold in one way. Eventually, people run out of chances. It's like parole--you aren't supposed to spend time around the people with whom you committed the crimes you were sent to prison for.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-23, 07:14 AM

No need for what? All he said was that if someone did something over and over, it is a safe assumption that they will do it again. Or did he say a bad word that makes you uncomfortable?

And all I said was the post made me question the worth of membership at this forum, by which I meant, if members are going to discuss issues using such needless and tasteless comparisons, this isn't the type of forum I thought it was, nor would I want my children taking it as an example of how to discuss issues appropriately.

I am at liberty to question the worth of this forum and to express such doubts I assume.

Usher

2011-Sep-23, 07:24 AM

Yes. If the same person hijacks threads the same way over and over again, how many chances do you propose giving them? I'm not pleased with the pedophile analogy, but it does rather hold in one way. Eventually, people run out of chances. It's like parole--you aren't supposed to spend time around the people with whom you committed the crimes you were sent to prison for.

Parole? I missed this in the Rules. If someone exhibits behavior that earns infractions, then they will serve their "time," there is no parole. I think "running out of chances" is equivalent to being banned. There should not be added to the system in place some type of arbitrary penalty based on past annoyances. If a moderator is certain that someone will re-offend, then keep close eye and yank their chain as needed to enforce the rules, but don't do it before the offence is committed. Such practice is a liability to the reputation of this fine forum.

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-23, 08:46 AM

Its not just hijacking that goes on. Many times you'll get people trying to circumvent the ATM rules and bring up old ATM ideas after they've been closed or even worse ask a leading question in Q&A that you know will lead to them into arguing their ATM idea in there then get offended when their posts are moved or closed.

If your offended by me saying I don't believe a serial offender in these forums isn't going to attempt the same thing they've done for the past few years over and over then, please, feel free to put me on ignore. I for one don't live in a fairy land where people suddenly change their behavioral patterns and I'm. So lets try another analogy if your offended by the first. If you have know of a dog that has been known on many occasion to be aggressive and bite people should the owner get offended when you say "Hey put your dog on a leash and muzzle it please" and how would you feel when the dog owner says "My little dog wouldn't hurt anyone, how dare you make such accusations." Some stranger on the street that doesn't know the history of the dog might think you are over reacting but are you?

Colin Robinson

2011-Sep-23, 08:57 AM

Not if the person is a serial offender. Much like paedophiles are forbidden to be within 500m of a school or playground. I think it is safe to say there is good grounds to make an assumption for serial offenders. Not I'm not implying any ATM poster is or is not a paedophile.

I think it is crazy when people get offended that you assume they are doing something that they've done time and time again and that you should be ashamed for suggesting it.

Panspermia may be good science, bad science or pseudo-science -- I see room for debate about that...

But one thing panspermia is NOT, is a sexual perversion or paraphilia.

Though I can see that someone unfamiliar with the term might think it was one.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-23, 09:39 AM

Though I can see that someone unfamiliar with the term might think it was one.

I once declared at a dinner party that I thought "directed panspermia" a good idea. The immediate reaction was an awkward silence. Fortunately I had a chance to explain the idea before being asked to leave.

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-23, 10:06 AM

Panspermia may be good science, bad science or pseudo-science -- I see room for debate about that...

But one thing panspermia is NOT, is a sexual perversion or paraphilia.

Though I can see that someone unfamiliar with the term might think it was one.

My comments aren't directed at anyone in particular and not at any topic at all. My use of the pedophile analogy was to show that it isn't unreasonable that someone hasn't changed when their past and present behavior doesn't indicate it.

So you don't like the pedophile analogy then use my dog analogy.

Again I have no problem talking about many ATM topics but my comment is about members, not just A.dim, that have been known to repeatedly break the same forum rules then get offended when ever they are called on it even when it is down by the moderators.

Honestly if you think I'm calling A.dim or anyone else here a sexual predator then I have to ask do you think someone using the balloon analogy of cosmic expansion is saying the universe is made of rubber?

Jim

2011-Sep-23, 12:02 PM

Enough with the analogies, okay. WayneFrancis chose a poor one. Done and done. Let's move on.

Jim

2011-Sep-23, 12:07 PM

And all I said was the post made me question the worth of membership at this forum, by which I meant, if members are going to discuss issues using such needless and tasteless comparisons, this isn't the type of forum I thought it was, nor would I want my children taking it as an example of how to discuss issues appropriately.

I am at liberty to question the worth of this forum and to express such doubts I assume.

We very much want this to be a family friendly forum.

And you are defintely free to express your concerns, even your desire to leave. But, you should not say, "I'm thinking of leaving because of you, <Member's Name>!" That makes it a personal attack which is definitely frowned on here.

Keep it general. Report the post. Blame the Mods. Don't get personal.

marsbug

2011-Sep-23, 12:31 PM

Its not just hijacking that goes on. Many times you'll get people trying to circumvent the ATM rules and bring up old ATM ideas after they've been closed or even worse ask a leading question in Q&A that you know will lead to them into arguing their ATM idea in there then get offended when their posts are moved or closed.

If your offended by me saying I don't believe a serial offender in these forums isn't going to attempt the same thing they've done for the past few years over and over then, please, feel free to put me on ignore. I for one don't live in a fairy land where people suddenly change their behavioral patterns

Though I can't think of specific instances on BAUT; on other forums (a black and yellow one many martian moons ago) I have seen people change long standing behavioral patterns. This is usually a side effect of some big change in their real life, and is comparatively rare.

If one is going to pre-empt bad behavoir then I suggest banning, but with some well guarded route back. People convinced they have 'ye holy truth' to spread to the ignorant will keep trying hard at it, in clever ways, for a long time. In fact from my POV it seems much as though the behavoiral pattern is similar to an addiction. I suggest a banning case could be re-visited if the subject contacts the mods via outside the forum routes and convinces them that a real change in attitude has taken place. Though I suggest the mods keep their phone numbers off the interweb, given that these are some fairly obssesive types.

A.DIM

2011-Sep-23, 12:43 PM

We very much want this to be a family friendly forum.

And you are defintely free to express your concerns, even your desire to leave. But, you should not say, "I'm thinking of leaving because of you, <Member's Name>!" That makes it a personal attack which is definitely frowned on here.

Keep it general. Report the post. Blame the Mods. Don't get personal.

Well that's curious, considering the explanations you and others gave to justify my thread being shoved in ATM are precisely that: personal. There is nothing ATM about the paper I presented while "behavior modification" was necessary.
It couldn't be any more personal could it?

IsaacKuo

2011-Sep-23, 01:44 PM

Well that's curious, considering the explanations you and others gave to justify my thread being shoved in ATM are precisely that: personal.
It's not curious at all. As I already explained repeatedly to you earlier in the thread, moderation is necessarily user specific.

korjik

2011-Sep-23, 01:49 PM

Well that's curious, considering the explanations you and others gave to justify my thread being shoved in ATM are precisely that: personal. There is nothing ATM about the paper I presented while "behavior modification" was necessary.
It couldn't be any more personal could it?

behavoir modification =! attack

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-23, 02:04 PM

I thought it curious but I have come across curiouser.

Paul Beardsley

2011-Sep-23, 04:46 PM

This is how I see it.

You can have an ATM obsession, and that's fine. People have bees in their bonnets about panspermia, astrology, electric universe and so on.

If people wish to discuss them here, they have to obey clearly established rules, and some people don't like that.

However, it is also possible to discover some interesting non-ATM science in the course of investigating one's hive-like headwear occupant, and this is what I think happened with A.DIM in this case.

Obviously A.DIM hopes that the ejecta science supports panspermia. But there was nothing wrong with the ejecta science itself.

Luckmeister

2011-Sep-23, 04:50 PM

Behavior change is part of maturing and there are some (who knows how many) posters here who are in their teens or maybe even younger. They are growing up while posting here. How many of us would want to be assumed unchanged as adults from our thoughts and behaviour as teens?

I've been an adult for many many years but I've altered my behaviour in the five years I've been here. I've learned some things not to do.

slang

2011-Sep-23, 05:42 PM

What about the one kick at the can in ATM? If panspermia has been decided to be a topic that should be in ATM, and should be subject to ATM rules, then it makes no sense to keep complaining that it shouldn't be, at least with respect to what caused this thread. Of course one can argue for a change of the rules, but while they aren't changed, they should be applied as is.

If a poster has defended an ATM idea once, he's not allowed to argue for it again (unless something has changed enough to ask the mods for a second chance). Bringing up mainstream research supposedly supporting the ATM idea without actually explicitly linking the two can be considered a sneaky new attempt at discussing the ATM idea. It's up to the mods to decide if such is the case, probably not always an easy decision. Members' posting histories probably factor into it.

Paul Beardsley

2011-Sep-23, 07:02 PM

Okay, so I believe in the electric universe. I post a thread on ATM and get my 30 days. I don't defend my claim well and the thread is duly closed.

I go away, still believing in the electic universe, so I study everything mainstream that might possibly support the idea. I learn about electronics, and superconductors, and find it's really quite interesting. In my researches I come across some cutting edge mainstream stuff about superconductors.

I post a thread about superconductors in Science and Technology and am careful to talk about just that because there's a good chance I will learn more from the others on BAUT.

This is not an exact analogy. A.DIM didn't just post a single thread about panspermia, I believe he hijacked quite a few threads, and persisted in ignoring challenges to his unsupported assertions (such as the Copernican principle).

However, in the recent thread in question, he largely stuck to mainstream findings.

If I'd been a mod, I would have sent a PM to the effect of, "You are welcome to discuss ejecta, but be aware that, in view of your past behaviour, we will move the thread to ATM if you begin to argue for panspermia."

I believe there would have been no argument if this had happened.

Usher

2011-Sep-23, 07:38 PM

slang

2011-Sep-23, 08:22 PM

Yes, Paul, it's easy to come up with a hypothetical where the situation I described does not apply. However it's equally easy to come up with one where it does. The area in between is where it becomes a judgement call, where other factors can influence the outcome.

That there would have been no argument remains to be seen: others may well protest the fact that an ATM topic is raised for the umpteenth time by the same member, or the argument would be about whether the line set in the PM warning is crossed or not. Well, at least there wouldn't be this particular argument. :)

Paul Beardsley

2011-Sep-23, 08:56 PM

Thank you for your considered responses, Usher and slang. I think we understand each other.

One important aspect that I don't think has been mentioned so far is a fairly subjective one. Namely, that I am actually interested in the ejecta discussion. If somebody other than A.DIM had started the thread, it could have resulted in a fascinating discussion about the terrestrial fossils we might possibly find on Mars and on the Jovian moons, how it might give us insight into early Earth life, how we will have to be careful to eliminate such things when we are looking for Martian fossils and so on.

And if someone - not necessarily A.DIM - had said, "Well if Earth life managed to arrive on other worlds, perhaps Earth life itself originated from another world," posters could have replied, "Yeah, maybe, but it's not very likely, is it? Let's stick with likelihoods in this thread," and moved on.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-24, 04:11 AM

Panspermia is a non-mainstream conclusion. Mechanisms that might or might not be necessary to the existance of panspermia are possible, so long as the discussions stay firmly focused on the mechanisms, and that there aren't other issues making such a topic problematic enough to require added controls on the discussion.

I happen to agree with Fraser. I think it's worth the effort of making certain discussions possible in the face of certain patterns of misuse (like AGW and Heavy Lift), even if it means added work in the form of monitoring. Otherwise, we really _would_ have to bar such discussions, or ban far more often than we wind up having to.

Mainstream Science says that Life on Earth originated on Earth.
When someone can show that the consensus has changed to it originating in space then come back to us.

Would anyone be kind enough to direct me towards some authority which has declared panspermia non-mainstream, apart from what appears to be some type of consensus reached at this forum that there is a scientific consensus and it is not mainstream? Alternatively, some reference to the idea that life originated on Earth as being mainstream would also be helpful. Please note, I don''t want a reference to some individual opining it is mainstream, but some authority which has gauged scientific thought and opinion using a fair, agreed and open process to reach the conclusion about what is and what isn't mainstream.

Either way a link or reference would be appreciated to assist me in understanding the above quoted claims.

Being of a legal background, I see terms like consensus and mainstream as loose substitutes for ideas like majority and democracy. How society reaches positions and decisions legally or constitutionally are carefully defined. In the exercise of reaching a position the process itself is protected to avoid unfairness and unlawful manipulation. I'm not aware of processes deemed necessary in most open societies generally being reflected in the determination of what is mainstream in science. I welcome correction on this point.

I hope I am wrong in stating the following but what appears mainstream around here seems to be what the moderators and admin declare it to be, which seems to be a wholly inadequate way of determining what is scientific mainstream, or, even more importantly, if such a concept like mainstream has any place in science except to repress ideas. However, if it is just a pragmatic tool for the purpose of making this forum easier to manage, I would feel more comfortable about the idea, as long as such claims as it representing science were not persisted with because of their misleading nature generally. After all, one of the purposes of this forum is to dispel illusions about science, not create them, I thought.

The reason why I have focused on this issue is because, as the quoted moderator posts would suggest, it is at the heart of the issue being discussed. Declaring panspermia ATM is a tool being used to control the idea and its proponents on this forum. Fair enough to some degree if everyone is being up front about that method, but let's not create a smoke screen by using illusionary ideas to conceal a truth about what one is in fact doing and, just as importantly at least, what is science.

WayneFrancis

2011-Sep-24, 07:33 AM

Most of the science of abiogenesis is clearly focused on how it would have started here on Earth. A reason panspermia isn't considered mainstream is that it doesn't help the issue of abiogenesis here on Earth. Earth seems to have everything needed for life to have started here. The idea of panspermia is partly rooted in the idea that there wasn't enough time for life to form here on Earth in the last 4 billion years. But when we look at life here on Earth over the last 4 billion year we see that that amount of time is just fine.

There is no group out there that says what is and what isn't mainstream. It is more subjective based on the amount of research out there and more importantly the progress and quality with that research. So in a way it is a bit of the Mods call.

Taking any "ATM" topic and relegating it to the ATM forum is a way to make it clear to lurkers in forums like Q&A as to what is the most generally accepted answers in any particular area. Lurkers watching threads might think that ATM claims have a lot more support and viability then they do if left unchecked. Just like many people think intelligent design has almost as much scientific support as evolution when in reality the scientific support for ID is almost non existent while evolution is pretty much universal.

slang

2011-Sep-24, 09:08 AM

Would anyone be kind enough to direct me towards some authority which has declared panspermia non-mainstream, apart from what appears to be some type of consensus reached at this forum that there is a scientific consensus it is not mainstream?

Can you point out such an authority for any scientific theory?

The reason why I have focused on this issue is because, as the quoted moderator posts would suggest, it is at the heart of the issue being discussed.

It isn't. This thread is about whether someone with a long history of bringing up a certain ATM topic in the wrong places can be limited in what (s)he posts about mainstream science. Whether it is correct to consider panspermia as ATM (as the term is used on this forum) is a related, but different discussion. I think there have been several threads here in feedback about what is considered mainstream, and why.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-24, 09:16 AM

It's ATM because despite multiple attempts, several of which started out even more circumspect that the OP of the thread in question, A.DIM has failed to successfully argue why it should be considered to be otherwise.

And the previous history of using such posts to sneak in full-blown interstellar panspermia is the heart of the issue.

If anyone else had posted a link to that article, especially if the cherry-picked pro-panspermia comments from it had been omitted, it would likely have been seen as a discussion of orbital dynamics rather than as yet another attempt at sneaking an already thoroughly discussed obsession in once more.

Swift

2011-Sep-24, 02:43 PM

Whether it is correct to consider panspermia as ATM (as the term is used on this forum) is a related, but different discussion.
And I actually asked that question, in post #14 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934090#post1934090) and in post # 39 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934160#post1934160). I'm willing to be convinced that panspermia should be considered mainstream science. But I have not seen a single piece of evidence that it should be so considered. I have seen a lot of discussion about one particular thread (that I pointed out in post # 2 violated a long stated policy, whether you agree with that policy or not), and I've seen some questions as to why that policy exists.

At this point, if someone wants to make some convincing arguments as to why panspermia should be considered mainstream, please start a new thread; it would make for a cleaner discussion.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-24, 04:11 PM

Orlagh Maher

2011-Sep-24, 04:38 PM

To me, panspermia is just adding another step to the question and doesn't solve anything. If it is what happened, there's still the question about how life started wherever it did start. So what's the point of talking about it?
I find your question about the point of discussing panspermia to be a bit odd. If panspermia happened*, I think the point of talking about it would be self-evident, even if it was merely another stage in the development of life and not an explanation for the start of life.

*I do not think exogenesis happened.

Luckmeister

2011-Sep-24, 04:42 PM

To me, panspermia is just adding another step to the question and doesn't solve anything. If it is what happened, there's still the question about how life started wherever it did start. So what's the point of talking about it?

So don't study something because it wouldn't answer every question about a general subject? Then why study the structure and origin of the universe? Why study exoplanets we will most likely never travel to?

It's called scientific curiosity and without it, the building blocks for a lot of important discoveries would not have happened.

Buttercup

2011-Sep-24, 05:35 PM

...at a little message board some long-time friends and I threw together, panspermia comes up as a topic occasionally; the basic interest is in Mars to Earth (and vice versa) panspermia; the implications of bacterial life on Mars.

It's not a strong suit topic of mine personally, however.

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 05:45 PM

And I actually asked that question, in post #14 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934090#post1934090) and in post # 39 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120921-That-s-no-explanation-...?p=1934160#post1934160). I'm willing to be convinced that panspermia should be considered mainstream science. But I have not seen a single piece of evidence that it should be so considered. I have seen a lot of discussion about one particular thread (that I pointed out in post # 2 violated a long stated policy, whether you agree with that policy or not), and I've seen some questions as to why that policy exists.

At this point, if someone wants to make some convincing arguments as to why panspermia should be considered mainstream, please start a new thread; it would make for a cleaner discussion.

Swift i'm not totally sure what you're asking for..... there are ideas that fall under the umbrella of 'panspermia' that I would consider self evidently mainstream - for example the idea that life from Earth might have been carried to another nearby body on ejecta from a major impact, with a slim but non-zero chance of arriving intact. Quite a lot of work has been done on this concept, from the survivability of launch during the impact, to how long a given microbe population could remain viable in space, to the odds of a given population surviving landing. It doesn't contradict any mainstream theories I know of. The supporting work is conservative in its assumptions and carried out by credible investigators. I'd be happy to mount a defense of its place in the mainstream (in fact I think I just outlined my defense of it).

The idea that life on Earth was seeded by microbes travelling here from another star system on a comet nucleus, or were present in the pre-solar nebula is infinitely less credible, and the supporting work for it is at best poor science done by investigators who, by all accounts, think themselves misunderstood latter day galileos. But this also falls under the umbrella of 'panspermia'.

If I were to mount a defense of the first idea I would be very very angry to be seen as, or expected to be, defending either of the latter two. I would also be very very disapointed to find that because I could not and would not defend the latter two the first idea was declared shown to be ATM.

You cannot really invite convincing arguments for why 'panspermia' should be considered mainstream....there are things that could called panspermia that probably are and lots of things that definately aren't. You have to be specific, or at least explicitly state that the defender is only expected to defend what claims they are willing to make in their OP.

Swift

2011-Sep-24, 06:04 PM

<snip>
If I were to mount a defense of the first idea I would be very very angry to be seen as, or expected to be, defending either of the latter two. I would also be very very disapointed to find that because I could not and would not defend the latter two the first idea was declared shown to be ATM.

You cannot really invite convincing arguments for why 'panspermia' should be considered mainstream....there are things that could called panspermia that probably are and lots of things that definately aren't. You have to be specific, or at least explicitly state that the defender is only expected to defend what claims they are willing to make in their OP.
Thank you for your response marsbug. I do appreciate it (it won't seem so from my following comments).

I would be open to the idea that some concepts under the umbrella of panspermia are mainstream and others are not. But then someone would have to go through the task of carefully defining which are which, and defining rules to differentiate them, and putting those rules in place (including convincing a majority of the moderation team).

Unfortunately, the very thought exhausts me, and is not a strong enough concern of mine to even begin to tackle. Maybe someone else wants to take up the mantle.

If that's a cop-out, so be it.

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 06:25 PM

I'm not volunteering for that job either Swift, so I'm hardly gonna accuse you of copping out! :)

A suggestion: you said
I'm willing to be convinced that panspermia should be considered mainstream science. Perhaps you should retract that given that seperateing the credible panspermia from the not is currently impractacle? I only suggest this as if I were an obsessive looking for an 'in' it wouldn't take me long to reverse the concept of my post 138 and try useing idea number one as wedge to get ideas two and three in! I apreciate thats the kind of cow-poo the moderation team has to put up with lot.

Swift

2011-Sep-24, 06:50 PM

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 07:11 PM

I don't see a need to retract my statement... I, me personally, am open to evidence that some or all of panspermia is worth being considered mainstream science. If someone wants to offer evidence for some of panspermia, it is their problem to separate the wheat from the chafe.

I then might be willing to discuss such with my other moderators (they also may come to the same decision upon reading this evidence). But a majority of the moderation team would still need to agree and to agree to change the rules.

Until that all happens, it actually doesn't matter what I believe. BAUT's rules on panspermia are clearly defined and I will enforce them as a moderator.

Fair enough, "I'm willing to be convinced that panspermia should be considered mainstream science" is your personal position, not a reflection of any softening on the rules by the mod team as a whole. Though I does suspect that some people would try to use it as evidence of such anyway.

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-24, 07:51 PM

I suppose that is dodge of your post in itself - I know what you mean about a lot of 'panspermia' ideas. I'd just like to make the distinction.
It's your type two or three panspermia which is the dodge, poor attempts at getting around abiogenesis by moving the problem somewhere else while adding enormous extra barriers in the way to life here.

ToSeek

2011-Sep-24, 07:52 PM

Would anyone be kind enough to direct me towards some authority which has declared panspermia non-mainstream, apart from what appears to be some type of consensus reached at this forum that there is a scientific consensus and it is not mainstream? Alternatively, some reference to the idea that life originated on Earth as being mainstream would also be helpful. Please note, I don''t want a reference to some individual opining it is mainstream, but some authority which has gauged scientific thought and opinion using a fair, agreed and open process to reach the conclusion about what is and what isn't mainstream.

I don't think you're going to find any such explicit declaration, but in any relevant textbook you'll find terrestrial abiogenesis being considered as far and away the most likely theory for the origin of life on Earth. Panspermia might be mentioned, but only as a fringe alternative.

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 09:15 PM

It's your type two or three panspermia which is the dodge, poor attempts at getting around abiogenesis by moving the problem somewhere else while adding enormous extra barriers in the way to life here.

Yes.....thats what I thought I was saying. But also that my post was somwhat a dodge of gillianrens as she was reffering to the idea that life from planet A could seed life on very different planet B, and I was refering to the idea that life from planet A might reach planet B if the two were close neighbours - which might be confusing for people from planet A if that life were later found by people from planet A, even as fossils.

I get the feeling you felt I was defending ideas two and three?

HenrikOlsen

2011-Sep-24, 09:25 PM

I get the feeling you felt I was defending ideas two and three?
More a matter of me misunderstanding your comment to indicate you'd misunderstood Gillianren, so I added a clarification that apparently wasn't needed. :)

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 09:30 PM

More a matter of me misunderstanding your comment to indicate you'd misunderstood Gillianren, so I added a clarification that apparently wasn't needed. :)

All good then :)

marsbug

2011-Sep-24, 11:26 PM

Anyway this not a thread for discussing what is and is not panspermia.... so I think we'd be well advised not to get into it, here.

captain swoop

2011-Sep-25, 03:11 PM

This is not the place to start a Panspermia discussion.

Moose

2011-Sep-25, 11:28 PM

I've moved the side discussion here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/121496-Topics-about-panspermia-Split-from-Feedback?p=1938538#post1938538).

transreality

2011-Sep-26, 12:03 AM

Clearly though some topics of panspermia have definite applicability to ATM. Fred Hoyles 'Cosmic Ancestry' is clearly at odds with mainsteam cosmology, just like the recently proffered 'HGD cosmology'. Also the 'Red rain of Kerala' repeatedly debunked would have to be an ATM claim just like UFO's and the Face on Mars. 'Ultrasmall bacteria' ecologies in the upper atmosphere, and 'putative fossils' in impact fragments are also panspermia ATM wedges into the mainstream. If there is any authority on where a line could be drawn with these topics it probably rests with editors of the mainstream journals as well as their local equivalent.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-26, 04:09 AM

I don't think you're going to find any such explicit declaration, but in any relevant textbook you'll find terrestrial abiogenesis being considered as far and away the most likely theory for the origin of life on Earth. Panspermia might be mentioned, but only as a fringe alternative.

I was hoping for something more specific, but I am not surprised by the generality of response. Thank you for the reply though.

Without wishing to trouble you beyond your immediate memory of the texts (I'm assuming it is more than one text), could you tell me whether they were secondary school or university level texts, general or specific field texts. If university, what level, undergraduate or postgraduate? Were there any citations by way of footnotes for the assertion? Did the author(s) explain the reasons for their assertion or were they just repeating what appeared in another textbook somewhere?

If you have handy a more specific reference to the texts, I'd be grateful if you would post it.

Tensor

2011-Sep-26, 05:06 AM

I was hoping for something more specific, but I am not surprised by the generality of your response. Thank you for the reply though.

Without wishing to trouble you beyond your immediate memory of the texts (I'm assuming it is more than one text), could you tell me whether they were secondary school or university level texts, general or specific field texts. If university, what level, undergraduate or postgraduate? Were there any citations by way of footnotes for the assertion? Did the author(s) explain the reasons for their assertion or were they just repeating what appeared in another textbook somewhere?

If you have handy a more specific reference to the texts, I'd be grateful if you would post it.

Here, (http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Chemical-Origins-Synthetic/dp/0521821177) here, ( http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Spring-Harbor-Perspectives-Biology/dp/193611304X/ref=pd_sim_b4) here, (http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Origin-Beginnings-Biological-Evolution/dp/0520233913/ref=pd_sim_b7) and here (http://www.amazon.com/RNA-Worlds-Origins-Diversity-Regulation/dp/0879699469/ref=pd_sim_b15). There are several textbooks there and also links to other textbooks and popular science books that should give you enough to info to get started or lead you to other stuff that may help answer your questions.

Interestingly, (at least to me) unless a book (among the links) is entirely about panspermia, the idea isn't mentioned all that often within the descriptions of other books. I think that you will find that the overwhelming consensus of the biologists, chemists, and physicists involved with the origin of life on earth is that it occurred through terrestrial abiogenesis. But, come to your own conclusions.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-26, 05:23 AM

Here, (http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Chemical-Origins-Synthetic/dp/0521821177) here, ( http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Spring-Harbor-Perspectives-Biology/dp/193611304X/ref=pd_sim_b4) here, (http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Origin-Beginnings-Biological-Evolution/dp/0520233913/ref=pd_sim_b7) and here (http://www.amazon.com/RNA-Worlds-Origins-Diversity-Regulation/dp/0879699469/ref=pd_sim_b15). There are several textbooks there and also links to other textbooks and popular science books that should give you enough to info to get started or lead you to other stuff that may help answer your questions.

Interestingly, (at least to me) unless a book (among the links) is entirely about panspermia, the idea isn't mentioned all that often within the descriptions of other books. I think that you will find that the overwhelming consensus of the biologists, chemists, and physicists involved with the origin of life on earth is that it occurred through terrestrial abiogenesis. But, come to your own conclusions.

Thanks but maybe you should re-read my posts in this thread. Your links appear irrelevant beyond the superficial.

ToSeek

2011-Sep-26, 02:07 PM

I was hoping for something more specific, but I am not surprised by the generality of response. Thank you for the reply though.

Without wishing to trouble you beyond your immediate memory of the texts (I'm assuming it is more than one text), could you tell me whether they were secondary school or university level texts, general or specific field texts. If university, what level, undergraduate or postgraduate? Were there any citations by way of footnotes for the assertion? Did the author(s) explain the reasons for their assertion or were they just repeating what appeared in another textbook somewhere?

If you have handy a more specific reference to the texts, I'd be grateful if you would post it.

It was a long, long time ago for me, but in the meantime here's an online textbook (http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookCELL1.html). I'm normally not that keen on online sources for authoritative information, but from what I've sampled this seems to be solid.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-26, 04:06 PM

Thanks but maybe you should re-read my posts in this thread. Your links appear irrelevant beyond the superficial.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but what you appear to be looking for is the Big List of What's Mainstream from some official source or another. You're not going to find it, because science doesn't really work that way.

Tensor

2011-Sep-26, 04:31 PM

Thanks but maybe you should re-read my posts in this thread. Your links appear irrelevant beyond the superficial.

You ask for :

could you tell me whether they were secondary school or university level texts,
general or specific field texts.
If university, what level, undergraduate or postgraduate?
Were there any citations by way of footnotes for the assertion?
Did the author(s) explain the reasons for their assertion or were they just repeating what appeared in another textbook somewhere?

Three out of the five of your requirements are met either by those specific links or, other links on those pages. I'm quite sure if you want the answer, you'll find it in either those links that are labeled as textbooks or among other links on those pages. Panspermia is labeled as fringe, more from it's lack of consideration, than anything else. Much as Lorentz Ether Theory, Flat Earth, or Geocentrism.

If you have handy a more specific reference to the texts, I'd be grateful if you would post it.

As for the last two, I hoped the links would: ".... give you enough to info to get started or lead you to other stuff that may help answer your questions."

I'm sorry I wasn't able to spend a few more hours earlier this morning, as your private researcher, doing more thorough searches to find your answer.

marsbug

2011-Sep-26, 05:04 PM

So.. if I may summarise where we've got to: there is no 'mainstream list' and no 'ATM list' . Some things fall into one box well, some fall into the other well, some are harder to place and need a judgement call by the mods taking into account things like the history of the poster, the precise nature of the claims being made or the discussion being proposed. Sometimes we will have to put up with a decision we disagree with a gracefully as possible - this is an unavoidiable part of the nature of sucha forum in the real (or at least cyber-real) world.

Geo Kaplan

2011-Sep-26, 05:52 PM

Thanks but maybe you should re-read my posts in this thread. Your links appear irrelevant beyond the superficial.

As noted by others, you are asking for something that does not exist. There's no central authority or document that defines what is Mainstream(tm). However, consider the way the scientific method is practiced -- evidence combined with a bit of Occam, and you arrive at the mainstream. In this specific instance, we only know of life existing here, on Earth. Yes, life could exist elsewhere, but without any evidence that it does, there's not a whole lot of motivation to think about other than terrestrial abiogenesis as the best-supported idea.

Jim

2011-Sep-27, 12:17 PM

Thanks but maybe you should re-read my posts in this thread. Your links appear irrelevant beyond the superficial.

Ya know, I'm willing to bet you could find a much less confrontational and antagonistic way to express this. Next time, find it.

And, Tensor, down boy.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 08:43 PM

It was a long, long time ago for me, but in the meantime here's an online textbook (http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookCELL1.html). I'm normally not that keen on online sources for authoritative information, but from what I've sampled this seems to be solid.

Thanks for that link but I can't find any mention in it stating that panspermia is against the mainstream.

Generally, as others have conceded, it seems what is mainstream and what is not is an arbitrary determination, especially at this forum where it is relied upon to a great degree, chosen by vague factors, probably reflecting more personal beliefs than anything which is scientifically meaningful.

The way the idea is being used at this forum, in my opinion, probably does science more harm than good.

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-27, 08:49 PM

Generally, as others have conceded, it seems what is mainstream and what is not is an arbitrary determination, especially at this forum, chosen by vague factors, probably reflecting more personal beliefs than anything which is scientifically meaningful.

??? Just who are these "conceding others"?

Gillianren

2011-Sep-27, 08:55 PM

The way the idea is being used at this forum, in my opinion, probably does science more harm than good.

What are your qualifications for stating that? I don't think you even understand what's being said. Certainly I'm not claiming that the distinction is arbitrary, just that there's no list delineating mainstream from ATM.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:01 PM

??? Just who are these "conceding others"?

I think Gillianren expressed it best, especially the part about it not being the way science works. I agree it is not the way science works. The use of the idea at this forum makes me wonder, if that is the case, why the idea is so important, or even used at all.

I would go a bit further than Gillianren though in saying that not only doesn't science work that way, but the idea is harmful to science. It's a great pity to see a forum such as this one with all its good intentions towards science, particularly astronomy, using it the way it does.

Usher

2011-Sep-27, 09:04 PM

Thanks for that link but I can't find any mention in it stating that panspermia is against the mainstream.

Generally, as others have conceded, it seems what is mainstream and what is not is an arbitrary determination, especially at this forum where it is relied upon to a great degree, chosen by vague factors, probably reflecting more personal beliefs than anything which is scientifically meaningful.

The way the idea is being used at this forum, in my opinion, probably does science more harm than good.

This is beyond laughable. Perhaps you would share your vision of what should be "scientifically meaningful"; heck, maybe just your idea of science to start with.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:04 PM

What are your qualifications for stating that? I don't think you even understand what's being said. Certainly I'm not claiming that the distinction is arbitrary, just that there's no list delineating mainstream from ATM.

I still think you said it best. :)

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:07 PM

This is beyond laughable ...

Before proceeding with the balance of your post, please could you explain what you mean by that phrase "beyond laughable ..." Sorry, I am not familiar with the idiom. Is it ridicule or are you suggesting something else?

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:16 PM

So.. if I may summarise where we've got to: there is no 'mainstream list' and no 'ATM list' ... Sometimes we will have to put up with a decision we disagree with a gracefully as possible - this is an unavoidiable part of the nature of sucha forum in the real (or at least cyber-real) world.

I also think Marsbug has come up with one of the more realistic appraisals about what is going on at this forum with the use of the idea of mainstream.

Usher

2011-Sep-27, 09:22 PM

Before proceeding with the balance of your post, please could you explain what you mean by that phrase "beyond laughable ..." Sorry, I am not familiar with the idiom. Is it ridicule or are you suggesting something else?

Can read it to mean "ridiculous." Having no nice and neat definition of mainstream does not extrapolate to harm being done to science; that stretch is, to me, ridiculous.

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-27, 09:29 PM

I think Gillianren expressed it best...

You'll have to be specific, and point out where she agrees with you, because I don't see it.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:30 PM

Can read it to mean "ridiculous." Having no nice and neat definition of mainstream does not extrapolate to harm being done to science; that stretch is, to me, ridiculous.

If it is ridicule, you'll excuse me from dealing with the balance of your post then, although I do appreciate your more direct objection this time. Thanks.

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-27, 09:31 PM

It's a great pity to see a forum such as this one with all its good intentions towards science, particularly astronomy, using it the way it does.

Save your "pity".

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:38 PM

You'll have to be specific, and point out where she agrees with you, because I don't see it.

That there is no authoritative source or list of what is mainstream, and, more importantly, it is not the way science works.

If it is not the way science works, it is fair to state the idea is ultimately unscientific. If it is unscientific, then the idea as science is harmful, notwithstanding any benefits it may offer in the management of a forum. Benefits I would say which are outweighed by the harm it does by masquerading as science, as if there is some authoritative source or list of what is mainstream.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:42 PM

Save your "pity".

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Is it another idiom I should be familar with? How does it relate to what I have posted, is it code for something I should know?

R.A.F.

2011-Sep-27, 09:44 PM

Oh just forget it. I don't have to explain that, do I?

PaulLogan

2011-Sep-27, 09:47 PM

Generally, as others have conceded, it seems what is mainstream and what is not is an arbitrary determination, especially at this forum where it is relied upon to a great degree, chosen by vague factors, probably reflecting more personal beliefs than anything which is scientifically meaningful.

i think Canis Lupus is spot on. there simply is no authority that defines what is atm and what isn't. it is arbitrary and very much colored by the personal beliefs and mental attitudes of the mods. furthermore, there is a huge gray area of atm that should be acknowledged as such. but since this board and its mods usually err on the extreme conservative side and that gray area is basically blackened and then discarded as atm.

The way the idea is being used at this forum, in my opinion, probably does science more harm than good.
yes, it breeds fundamentalism, which is widespread at baut, especially when it comes to atm. some people here are more than obsessed with defending the mainstream, or rather, what they believe that to be.

atm is emotionally highly charged around here - a clear sign of fundamentalism, which has nothing to do with science.

Canis Lupus

2011-Sep-27, 09:52 PM

Oh just forget it. I don't have to explain that, do I?

You don''t have to do anything as far as I am concerned. I wasn't issuing an order or demand. I would never want to set that example at this forum.

pzkpfw

2011-Sep-27, 10:01 PM

Once again, a thread is closed for deep breaths to be taken. I do think everyone who wanted to express their opinion, and it seems nobody is about to be convinced one way or the other, so this thread might not be re-opened. As usual, report this post to give an opinion as to why the thread should be opened.

antoniseb

2011-Sep-27, 10:07 PM

I have reopened this thread for a couple minutes so that Gillianren can post a response she got cut-off on. I agree that the thread needs some cool-down time.

Just as a side note, I have the sense from reading it, and seeing the many reported posts that some people are perceiving attacks where none were intended, and it has escalated from there.

Post edit: OK, that was about ten minutes. Sorry Gillianren, but I've got to leave for a while.

Van Rijn

2011-Sep-27, 10:54 PM

Thanks for that link but I can't find any mention in it stating that panspermia is against the mainstream.

Many (not all) panspermia arguments require ATM mechanisms (that is, are physically implausible, often insisting on alternate, unsupported cosmology arguments, unsupported evolution alternatives, etc.). So in many cases there really is no ambiguity - the arguments often presented are trivially obvious ATM. Those reasonably should go to ATM.

I am concerned that it seems all panspermia arguments (even ones discussing physically plausible mechanisms that appear to be part of serious research) are being lunped in with the trivially obvious ATM. However, even from this thread, it's clear that panspermia discussions can become emotionally charged, which really I think is one of the main reasons moderators are wary of such discussions. Might I suggest to try to take it a bit more calmly, and focus on the non-ATM side? With a bit of luck, mods then might then not have as much reason to be concerned when the word "panspermia" appears in a thread.

Gillianren

2011-Sep-28, 01:56 AM

Thanks for the opportunity, everyone.

That there is no authoritative source or list of what is mainstream, and, more importantly, it is not the way science works.

I don't think you understand why.

If it is not the way science works, it is fair to state the idea is ultimately unscientific. If it is unscientific, then the idea as science is harmful, notwithstanding any benefits it may offer in the management of a forum. Benefits I would say which are outweighed by the harm it does by masquerading as science, as if there is some authoritative source or list of what is mainstream.

No, having a definitive list upon which everyone agrees is not how science works. Do you know how large that list would have to be? Think about it for a minute. What's more, that's not how any field works. You said, as I recall, that your field is the law. What you are probably thinking of, when you're thinking of the Big Book of What's Mainstream Now, is legal codes. You shouldn't. Those are much closer to the equations used to do the work. The concepts are much closer to legal interpretations. If you are presenting an argument in front of a court, there are a lot which everyone knows are mainstream. An argument over whether something should qualify under a hearsay exemption, for example. If you're arguing that it's, say, an excited utterance, you're probably going to do a decent job of getting it in without having to go back to the books. However, the farther you get from the mainstream, the more likely you're going to be spending the night in a law library, right?

Of course, there's also no Supreme Court of science. (That science isn't a monolithic entity only starts with the differences between, for example, astrophysics and microbiology.) This means there's a lot more flexibility. However, in order to have a reasonable discussion about it, you have to draw a line. In my field, English literature, there is also no Big Book of What's Mainstream Now. However, if you want to claim that Sir Francis Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare, you're still going to have to defend that statement. Saying that William Shakespeare did it takes no defense. It is up to the anti-Stratfordians to prove their arguments just as much as it's up to, oh, the Expanding Earth people to prove theirs. You may disagree with where the line is drawn, of course, but that doesn't mean drawing the line isn't scientific. I would argue it is the only true way to conduct science. Once you let everything in with the same weight, nothing has any weight.