How About Some Ideas Instead of Non-ending Ridicule?

[Eric12407]

Hi Everyone ...

Just a suggestion ...

I get tired of someone posting a link to someone's supposedly "wacky" ideas on a website .. and then filling the thread with derogatory comments about that person and his or hers theory, invention ... whatever.

It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas instead of the relentless debunking of defenseless non posters ...

You're not really encouraging the free expression and discussion of "alternative" concepts ... or is that the point?

Thanks ...

[hhEb09'1]

I get tired of someone posting a link to someone's supposedly "wacky" ideas on a website .. and then filling the thread with derogatory comments about that person and his or hers theory, invention ... whatever.One of the missions of the Bad Astronomy website is to identify and correct instances of "Bad Astronomy". Those links to websites are an extension of the mission, to "bad" ("wacky") physics. Most of the time, in my opinion, the comments are not so much derogatory as much as they are corrections of mistakes. At least, attempts at corrections, we all make mistakes.
It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas instead of the relentless debunking of defenseless non posters ...I've seen hundreds of such presentations over the years. Stick around, we talk about a lot of them. :)
You're not really encouraging the free expression and discussion of "alsternative" concepts ... or is that the point?I think we do encourage it.

It's not easy to devise an Against the Mainstream theory that doesn't have all sorts of holes in it--if it were completely unblemished, it would probably already be mainstream.

If someone thinks their personal theory is above criticism, they're wrong. Even Mainstream theories have their critics.

[Fram]

I have seen only a small amount of threads that started as "look what silly theory website I found". Almost all of them start with someone coming along with his theory, after which there starts a "free expression and discussion" of it. Of course, many of those theories (and the websites which almost invariably accompany them) are wrong and some are truly ridiculous, and then it is hard not to notice that. Although they usually aren't as bad as the conspiracy theories...

[Ken G]

If anyone doesn't enjoy a particular type of thread, they need not read it. As long as the thread comes under the guidelines of the existence of the forum, it's OK. But I agree that there is a danger of being self-serving when ideas are debated from only a single perspective, it reminds me of how a certain major world power is being governed lately. I think it's probably in the best interests of the forum to minimize the "preaching to the choir" kind of threads. Perhaps that is already being minimized sufficiently, it's just something to watch.

[Peter Wilson]

Hi Everyone ...

Just a suggestion ...It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of (ideas) Against the Mainstream. Thanks ...

See "Dark energy is light Energy" www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37523, my attempt to do just that!

[Fortunate]

It's not easy to devise an Against the Mainstream theory that doesn't have all sorts of holes in it--if it were completely unblemished, it would probably already be mainstream.

A lot of the top undergraduate and graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things bright, interested people do. It would be tough to think of a plausible possibility that all of them have overlooked. Fortunately, the activity is very stimulating and enjoyable.

[turbo-1]

A lot of the top undergraduate and graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things bright, interested people do. It would be tough to think of a plausible possibility that all of them have overlooked. Fortunately, the activity is very stimulating and enjoyable.Too true! And for those of you who are too young to appreciate it, we are blessed by the ready availability of papers, articles, and streaming-video lectures on the Internet. Not too long ago, such resources were science fiction.

[johntsang]

A lot of the top undergraduate and graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things bright, interested people do. It would be tough to think of a plausible possibility that all of them have overlooked. Fortunately, the activity is very stimulating and enjoyable.

A lot of the un--graduated and bottom graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things dumb, interesting people do. UnFortunately, the activity is very rewarding, stimulating and enjoyable.

Cannot support group thinking.

[turbo-1]

A lot of the un--graduated and bottom graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things dumb, interesting people do. UnFortunately, the activity is very rewarding, stimulating and enjoyable.

Cannot support group thinking.Group-think is likely not going to produce the next breakthrough. Personal interaction may give someone the impetus to charge forward with the next great idaea.

[Fraser]

So you're saying you'd like to see ATM theories posted without critique? Or you'd like to define what kinds of critique is acceptable, and which is unfair?

I'd like to see more ATM theorists just say, "hey, here's an interesting idea I just had. Is it possible that [insert original idea here]?"

[Fortunate]

I'd like to see more ATM theorists just say, "hey, here's an interesting idea I just had. Is it possible that [insert original idea here]?"

I agree. If a friend of mine proposed an idea to me, I would usually treat it with respect and interest. If I thought it was incorrect or shallow, I would try to express my reservations tactfully. I feel that people are more important than ideas. I would enjoy a forum in which people could float trial balloons without being skewered.

That being said though, I feel that ideas on this forum are sometimes (though certainly not always) accompanied by provocative suggestions. If you start by saying something like "Why is it that mainstream scientists can't understand..." or "How can anyone believe in...," you invite opposition.

It seems as if some threads degenerate into personal squabbles. I am not sure why.

[Ken G]

I think it's the format-- anonymous and typewritten, very conducive to hearing barbs where none was intended, but also conducive to including barbs that we would hesitate to use in person. Remember, politeness is taught to us as children in certain situations, but we were never in this situation as kids. The kids of today are, but they are probably not taught politeness except in person anyway.

[johntsang]

A deep voice coming from within answered " You animal !"

Still :

I agree. If a friend of mine proposed an idea to me, I would usually treat it with respect and interest. If I thought it was incorrect or shallow, I would try to express my reservations tactfully. I feel that people are more important than ideas. I would enjoy a forum in which people could float trial balloons without being skewered.

We are still under that evolution .... more diversity that way, better that way too.

Get tired ? take a break, come back for more.

[Captain Kidd]

Some of the issue also arises from ideas that have been hashed over and over. While not applicable to every ATM idea (and more applicable to the conspiracies section) after awhile it's hard to supress the "oh great, here we go again about topic xyz" reaction.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you're saying you'd like to see ATM theories posted without critique? Or you'd like to define what kinds of critique is acceptable, and which is unfair?
Err, no...

He's talking about the occasional thread that starts with, "Check out this insane theory I found! [link] lol! Where do these people come with this stuff?"

I think his post would've been better founded if he had included some links to the threads he's talking about, though, because most of those types of threads seem to progress to a point where people are actually pointing out flaws rather just pointing and laughing.

[peter eldergill]

A lot of the un--graduated and bottom graduate math and physics students spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives - it's one of the things dumb, interesting people do. UnFortunately, the activity is very rewarding, stimulating and enjoyable.

Cannot support group thinking.


John, I don't know what you're trying to say here...could you be more specific? I've a master's degree in math and I would consider myself "bottom graduate" in mathematics. (I teach high school math now..dang that PhD requirement for university!)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

Pete

[johntsang]

Meaning :

To contribution is good , no matter what and where they are from.
To think and contribute is Enjoyable and Encourageable.

ATM is suppose to explore new thinking regardless.There should not be group thinking.
Cheer.
Here, spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives, and propose it is to stick one's neck out, it's kind of "dumb (?)" .... but that's just what I did....meaning: I am one of the dumb

[swansont]

It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas instead of the relentless debunking of defenseless non posters ...

You're not really encouraging the free expression and discussion of "alternative" concepts ... or is that the point?


This would seem to imply that all ideas are equal, which is decidedly untrue in science. In science the merit of an idea is quantifiable in how well it explains and predicts phenomena.

An underlying assumption in this viewpoint seems to be that mainstream ideas were somehow adopted without undergoing the "trial by fire" that alternate viewpoints undergo, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Nereid]

Hi Everyone ...

Just a suggestion ...

I get tired of someone posting a link to someone's supposedly "wacky" ideas on a website .. and then filling the thread with derogatory comments about that person and his or hers theory, invention ... whatever.

It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas instead of the relentless debunking of defenseless non posters ...

You're not really encouraging the free expression and discussion of "alternative" concepts ... or is that the point?

Thanks ...I shall speak to only the last paragraph.

The ATM section of the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) is, IMHO, crystal-clear:
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16242). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.In other words, alternative ideas and views are welcome ... BUT If you are considering posting your ATM ideas here in the ATM section, make sure you have read the READ THIS THREAD FIRST thread If you choose to post your ATM ideas, you must be prepared to answer ALL relevant, direct questions about your idea (in a timely fashion) The challenges to your idea will be both vigorous and sharp; they will (hopefully) also quickly reveal the extent to which your idea is *internally consistent; *consistent with theories whose domains of applicability overlap with your idea's; *(above all) consistent with all relevant good observational and experimental results.Should BAUT relax these rules, and allow unsubstantiated speculation to go unchallenged (for example)? Should ATM ideas be treated similarly to contestants to American Idol (i.e. this ATM section become some kind of popularity contest)? Should BAUT members who are 'wilfully ignorant' (as someone characterised them) of the most basic aspects of astronomy and physics be allowed (or worse, encouraged) to blithely promote their absurd ideas without question?

For avoidance of doubt, I will most vigourously and vociferously oppose any suggestion that BAUT lowers its commitment to scientific method standards that are consistent with those in use in astronomy and space science, in regard of this ATM section.

[johntsang]

Eric :
Just a suggestion ...

I get tired of someone posting a link to someone's supposedly "wacky" ideas on a website .. and then filling the thread with derogatory comments about that person and his or hers theory, invention ... whatever.

Even the Animal self screams out: Eric has a point ... and should be faced.
Bring in link's without letting the owner to defend is marginal, and depends on the nature of the link ... say, religious, problematic.

Should have guildline.

[Fram]

Even the Animal self screams out: Eric has a point ... and should be faced.
Bring in link's without letting the owner to defend is marginal, and depends on the nature of the link ... say, religious, problematic.

Should have guildline.

Care to give some examples of when this happened? I can't remember one (I know of a few in the Conspiracy section), but there probably have been some (I don't read all threads).

[Fram]

Meaning :

To contribution is good , no matter what and where they are from.
To think and contribute is Enjoyable and Encourageable.

ATM is suppose to explore new thinking regardless.There should not be group thinking.
Cheer.
Here, spend huge amounts of time looking for alternatives, and propose it is to stick one's neck out, it's kind of "dumb (?)" .... but that's just what I did....meaning: I am one of the dumb

Again, care to give some examples? I think most people here try to discuss the facts, the evidence given, and point out errors. If most people think some theory is wrong and have good reasons for it, then that has nothing to do with group thinking, but only with reality.
You are not dumb for thinking about alternatives and having ideas, but if you are willing to post them here, a forum dedicated to the scientific scrutiny of ATM ideas, then you should be willing to accept the criticisms if they are based on errors in your idea or on too much missing evidence (the "invisible elf" problem). If the critics are about you instead of about your idea, please report the person in case to the mods, and he or she will be warned.

[johntsang]

Take a look of these, may not have too much to do with serious scientific discussion .


a link to someone's supposedly "wacky" ideas on a website .. and then filling the thread with derogatory comments about that person and his or hers theory, invention ... whatever.
It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38207
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38308
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38060
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38229
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38060
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37725

I like most of them though, not offended at all.

[Fram]

Thanks for the effort, those are nice examples. 1 and 2 contain no ridicule as far as I see and certainly not in the OP. 3 and 4 indeed are examples of someone pointing to a website or story to say "oh no, how silly". 5 is the same as 3, and 6 is your own thread ;-) I indeed do also not see how you could be offended by those, but perhaps they do go against the purpose of the forum. I don't feel so, but the mods will have their opinion!

I don't feel that these are examples of what the OP calls

It would be nice if this forum could focus on the presentation of Against the Mainstream ideas instead of the relentless debunking of defenseless non posters ...

You're not really encouraging the free expression and discussion of "alternative" concepts ... or is that the point?

as the subjects pointed out in those two threads are way wackier than most of the ATM theories we get here.
This forum focuses on the discussion of ATM ideas posted here by their inventors, and these discussions of other ideas are just sideeffects. Talking about Planet X is a result of the many threads (and even a whole forum originally) we had with people that believed in Planet X or wondered about it.
Most of the times, when a poster is no longer around, we stop discussing his ideas, unless someone else takes up the defence or some mainstream magazine or news site talks about them.

[N C More]

Two things were running through my mind as I read this thread. First, falsification. When one begins to test a hypothesis, one attempts to falsify it. Second, and albeit not as scientific, I couldn't help but paraphrase a line from Forrest Gump, "Silly is, as silly does". When you have something like Nancy Leider receiving messages from aliens via unwrapped candy...well, you see what I mean.

[Demigrog]

I think the situation here is similar to James Randi's problem with testing people with claims of paranormal powers--it is hard to nail down the exact claims, leading to a lot of bickering.

Perhaps everyone wanting to start an ATM thread should have to fill out an application where the claimant has to specify exactly what they are claiming and what they would accept as proof that they are wrong. If they cannot fill out the application coherently, there is little point in allowing a discussion. ;)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Perhaps everyone wanting to start an ATM thread should have to fill out an application where the claimant has to specify exactly what they are claiming and what they would accept as proof that they are wrong. If they cannot fill out the application coherently, there is little point in allowing a discussion. ;)
Well, their opening post, for all intents and purposes, is their "application". Most do seem to make their claim clear (relatively), although, yeah... self-proclaimed "observations that would falsify my theory" seem to be sorely lacking.

[Gillianren]

Actually, as I recall, the Solid Solar Surface entanglement (and boy, do I use that term advisedly) on the old BABB started with a "look how wacky this is" and just kept on going once Michael Mozina actually showed up to defend it.

See, but here's the thing--the science was very bad. As in, even we English majors could see the scientific flaws in it. And it stopped being funny and got annoying pretty quickly, because it rapidly became impossible to cram any learning at all into the hypothesis. It's hard to take an argument about solar composition seriously when the person arguing refused to accept the melting point of iron.