Formal Debate subforum?

[MacM]

Thanks for your suggestions exAstro. I think your point of view is definitely a valid one. I'll discuss your ideas with Fraser and the other moderators and see what they think about being more diligent in insulating the forum against "wackos". It's often difficult to balance free speech with high quality content, especially as the forum gets larger.

Kashi

Hi,

I'm new here and was just looking through some threads to decide if and where to post. I posted much of what follows in the "Extract" in my "Introduction" post but I'm not sure how many read those.

This looked like an excellent place to put this information. I have been called "wacko", "crackpot" and much worse on a number of forums.

However, I almost wear that with a badge of honor in that it seems to occur when I embarass the elite.

I don't mean to offend but it is fact.

One site has really amazed me and actually set up a special "Formal Debate" subforum where I debated a currently working Phd Physicists. Only debators can post in the debate thread.

The conduct and posting standards and rules are rather strict. There is a parallel thread under the same general topic for discussion of the debate by other members. Debators are not allowed to post in that thread until the debate has been closed.

A debate commitee evaluates debate topic proposals and tries to organize two debators for the topic.

I post the following comments by the Dr I debated from Fermilab because it clearly shows what "Most" on forums such as these refer to as "wackos", "crackpots" etc, may possibly be deeper thinkers than you give credit before attacking. (I am not making a blanket statement this is in all cases - but frankly to many)

In the "Formal Debate" format what I was saying was heard and not swamped by the tounge bashing of dozens of offended educated types (again no offense) making unrealistic demands of mathematical proofs, test data and such nonsense with respect to serious issues regarding relativity alternatives or issues.

It is shear falicy to mandate that to challange relativity you must have an alternative theory which can pass peer review.

I'm posting this here in hopes that this forum might also consider a Formal Debate subforum. Not to fluff my own feathers but as a hopeful trend for such forums.

********* Extract Comments of Phd Physcist from Fermilab during Debate *********

There are two issues here. Your original question, which was posed in Euclidean space. In this space, the speed of light is constant and matter may not exceed the speed of light. It's a good question, I like it.
...........
the debate has been an interesting one and you have clearly mulled over what appears at face value to be an inconsistency of SR.
............
So back to your original query. It's cute, I like it. I may well use it to torture cocky graduate students.

..........(His response to an offer to hold a second debate )

Regarding reciprocity…probably not. It takes up too much time (in part because your conundrums are good ....
.............
First, let me say that the conundrum posed by Mac was a rather good one, the solution of which is non-trivial.
.....................
On the other hand Mac, the query you posed was good enough to stump a number of my colleagues.
..........................
.............................................
Another poster in a parallel thread wrote:
...........................................

Hi Dr. xxxxxxx,

I have just discovered this thread. My educational background is that I am a physics major who is graduating in May. I have read the posts and the discussion is a bit above my head but I was interested in asking some questions nevertheless.
.....................................
...................................
Another Member Posted (with whom I had on previous occasions had some words regarding what were personal attacks telling me to go read a book for example - very insulting):
....................................

I feel a certain awe at Dr. xxxxxxx's ready understanding of sentences, even whole paragraphs, that seem to me like gobbledegook. Maybe this experience will encourage me to new humility. Just because something expressed in familiar language looks like gobbledegook to me doesn't mean that it necessarily is.
.................................................. .............................
.................................................. ..............................
.................................................. ................................
Frankly while I enjoy discussion, I have had enough bashing the past couple years and don't intend to waste a lot of time competing with those that want to expouse rhetoric, dogma, innuendo or advocate appeals to authority or try to impose truth by fiat or prove relativity by citing the theory.

If we cannot think for ourselves and defend issues based on sound physics we shouldn't even have a discussion board. Any of us can read the current assertions of modern physics.

My opology in that I did not notice that this thread is up to 63 pages already and I have responded to something on about page 3.

[Nereid]

Welcome to BAUT, MacM!

I see that you posted something similar, in the Introductions forum thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38345).

Please take the time to read through our guidelines for posting (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), it'll make your stay with us much more enjoyable (and save the time of the mods, in moving posts or threads to the right place!).

Our Against the Mainstream section (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17) has its own guidelines (#13 in the rules), and this post - which you had originally put into the Electric Universe model thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=28596) - doesn't really belong there.

[tusenfem]

i am wondering what the use of the posting of MacM is, the same message was in "against the mainstrean - electric universe" thread.

Does MacM want us to go to his formal discussion board (if so, why not a link to it?). Otherwise, why would we be interested in some "out of the blue" quotes from his discussions?

[MacM]

Hi,

Some clarification. I am not offended by the moved thread. Subsequent to my posting I see it has gone into extensive technical discussion. But at the same time I would have to say that my comment was in response to a discussion of "wackos" etc, made in the thread.

As I noted in my post I didn't realize the thread was so extensive and I merely responded to comments in the thread about an issue which I find important to conducive ATM discussions.

Yes a lot of the information was in my introduction post but as indicated I wasn't sure how much those are read in that it was virtually impossible to find the thread initially.

It is not "MY" Formal Debate site. It was a subforum created by another forum, which seems to be an excellent format. It was posted as information hopefully to be considered by management here.

The comments were posted to hopefully emphasize the differance in formats and results.

In standard formats, as I have indicated, I have been called many unpleasant things but in the formal debate format my concepts were far better understood and addressed.

That is the entire purpose of my post. To have management consider such a format.

While I am not in the mainstream, neither am I actually a "wacko". (PS: I also know and understand that is what wacko's say -Ha). But I do have extensive education, training and experience. I am not just a drudge off the street with no physics background.

[Tensor]

Welcome to BAUT MacM. Just my two cents worth. I really don't think a subforum is needed. As far as this:


Hi,
In standard formats, as I have indicated, I have been called many unpleasant things but in the formal debate format my concepts were far better understood and addressed.

If you read the forum rules, you will notice that name calling and attacks on the person posting are not allowed here. Go through the banned posters thread and you will see that.



While I am not in the mainstream, neither am I actually a "wacko".

We have many posters here who are similar. Just a warning though. When you read the rules, check out rule 13. Here you are expected to present evidence for your idea. And while personal attacks are not allowed, you can expect to find your ideas attacked, with glee and fevor.


But I do have extensive education, training and experience. I am not just a drudge off the street with no physics background.

There are many here who are similar in this respect also (I'm an example) But, we also have several working professionals who post here.

Personally, I think if you go through some of the threads in ATM, you will find that a separate forum is not needed.

[MacM]

Welcome to BAUT MacM. Just my two cents worth. I really don't think a subforum is needed.

Just a warning though. When you read the rules, check out rule 13. Here you are expected to present evidence for your idea. And while personal attacks are not allowed, you can expect to find your ideas attacked, with glee and fevor.

Thanks for the reply. I guess this the the area of my concern. I see it being used to avoid discussion. That is cutting short criticisims of existing theory by trying to force the poster to supply a mathematically supported alternative.

That I think is bad policy. Certainly if I were to post a new theory then it should be supported and falsifiable but to discuss apparent or believed flaws of existing theory that rule simply doesn't apply.

[Gillianren]

That I think is bad policy. Certainly if I were to post a new theory then it should be supported and falsifiable but to discuss apparent or believed flaws of existing theory that rule simply doesn't apply.

But what's the point, unless you have something to replace it with? I mean, I am aware that even physicists acknowledge flaws in relativity (its failure to match with quantum mechanics, right?), but so what? Until a theory comes along that can solve those gaps, all we're getting from the discussion is that relativity isn't perfect, which surely everyone knew.

[Nereid]

There is no shortage of internet discussion fora where one can point out, discuss, and decry - to one's hearts' content - the apparent or otherwise flaws in existing (astrophysics, cosmology, and space sciences) theories. In fact, the internet has, I feel, far far more of such sites than ones like BAUT.

There are also fora where one can ask about such flaws - BAUT's own Q&A section, Astronomy section, and so on. And, as long as the discussion does not introduce alternatives that are beyond the mainstream, these flaws etc can also be discussed there. In fact, within the BAUT guidelines, many such discussions are welcome, and you will find quite a few in those sections.

Within the ATM section, there is no requirement to supply math, or even numbers. However, a proponent of any ATM idea is required to answer direct, relevant questions about the claims they make (such an answer may be, of course, along the lines of "I don't know" or "That does appear to be a huge inconsistency in the idea").

Why not give it a try? Pose a question - in the field of astronomy etc - about what you see to be a flaw in a mainstream theory! I'll give you an example: In this paper (insert link to abstract on ArXiV preprint server), Hawkins reports results of some observations into time dilation in quasars, and concludes that what you might expect, within the mainstream view of quasars, is not found. What's going on here?

Notice that this does not begin with, or contain, a bald assertion (e.g. "Big Bang Theory must be wrong because Hawkins found no time dilation in quasars!"), nor a claim about an alternative (e.g. "Hawkins' paper proves Arp right!"). As such, I think it fits what you're looking for very nicely (a discussion).

Wrt the absurd illogic* all too common in ATM presentations, I try to focus the claimant on their own idea first ... once that's been on the table, and discussed, moving on to how or where it's better than the relevant mainstream theory might be appropriate.

*crudely "The {insert mainstream theory or other object of ire here} cannot handle/address/deal with/explain {insert observations or experiments here}, THEREFORE {insert pet ATM idea here} must be right!!!!" In a great many cases, sadly, when challenged, the sole support offered for how well the pet ATM idea explains the observations that were put on the table amounts to nothing but word salad.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Actually, I like the idea of having a formal debate forum here. You could tighten up the posting rules a bit. Sure, they're already strict, but even harsher rules could force better arguments. Besides, it seems that formal arguments would be much easier for the layman to follow.

[MacM]

But what's the point, unless you have something to replace it with? I mean, I am aware that even physicists acknowledge flaws in relativity (its failure to match with quantum mechanics, right?), but so what? Until a theory comes along that can solve those gaps, all we're getting from the discussion is that relativity isn't perfect, which surely everyone knew.

Until specific shortcomings are identified and how, there exists no driving force to find a correct alternative.

[MacM]

There is no shortage of internet discussion fora where one can point out, discuss, and decry - to one's hearts' content - the apparent or otherwise flaws in existing (astrophysics, cosmology, and space sciences) theories. In fact, the internet has, I feel, far far more of such sites than ones like BAUT..

Good post. Perhaps BAUT is a bit different than other forums I have beeninvolved with.

[MacM]

Actually, I like the idea of having a formal debate forum here. You could tighten up the posting rules a bit. Sure, they're already strict, but even harsher rules could force better arguments. Besides, it seems that formal arguments would be much easier for the layman to follow.

Thanks. I did find the one I was involved with very useful. It keeps the topic narrowily focused and sometimes to many thoughts or ideas end up confusing the issue and you lose track of key thoughts.

One of the rules was one post at a time. You post and wait for the opponent to respond.

The rules do not preclude debators from commmunicating with others via PM's, etc, but keeps the posted threads simple and clean, to the point. I have been involved with other fourms where as many as 6 - 8 would post different issues and you are all of a sudden trying to address a dozen points at once. The thread becomes impossible to follow.

[Gillianren]

Until specific shortcomings are identified and how, there exists no driving force to find a correct alternative.

And you think here is the place for that? I'm just trying to express my confusion, here--scientists already know there are flaws to theories; it's part of the way science works, after all. Any scientist who clears up the lost bits can start thinking about booking flights to Sweden. That's not incentive enough for you?

[Jerry]

Hi,

One site has really amazed me and actually set up a special "Formal Debate" subforum where I debated a currently working Phd Physicists.

It is not fair to pick on the cripples.

Seriously, I like the idea, especially since anarchists (like me) tend to draw threads off-topic, although in general, this forum is excellent, and there are some threads, like the EU and Arp, that are absolutely excellent without formal rules, beyond the forum rules, which are quite tight.

I'm planning on challenging William Keel (Author of "The Sky at Einstein's Feet", to a staged debate, somewhere, but I had not thought of using this forum. In my opinion, any formal debate must be with the intent of spawning interest in science, and in the scientific method - otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

[01101001]

I see it [ATM rules] being used to avoid discussion. That is cutting short criticisims of existing theory by trying to force the poster to supply a mathematically supported alternative.

Yeah, it sure appears totally broken to me. So far, there have been merely 5393 threads in the Against the Mainstream Forum. A scant approximately 1210 (22%) of the threads have gotten 30 or more replies. One can only conclude that ATM topics are not being given adequate discussion in this forum!

Meanwhile, in the Astronomy Forum, there have been a huge 8251 threads. That's almost 53% more threads than in ATM! A whopping approximately 695 (more than 8%) of those worthless Astronomy threads have 30 or more replies. What can all those astronomy-heads be talking about?

Way too much attention is being given here to the science of astronomy! Shape up, folks.

Yep, this forum definitely needs more coddling of ATM posters to raise their output. They clearly are just not getting their say!

It isn't fair.

[MacM]

And you think here is the place for that? I'm just trying to express my confusion, here--scientists already know there are flaws to theories; it's part of the way science works, after all. Any scientist who clears up the lost bits can start thinking about booking flights to Sweden. That's not incentive enough for you?

I can say without hesitation that I have historically pointed out logical flaws, as well as more logical alternatives, to SR than some professionals have even considered.

I don't know if here is right for a Formal Debate SubForum. The demeanor here seems different than most sites but even at that one can see where multiple voices and ideas begin to become distractive and hard to follow.

Restricted debate to tit for tat posting by only two inviduals keeps things on track and easy to follow.

[MacM]

I'm planning on challenging William Keel (Author of "The Sky at Einstein's Feet", to a staged debate, somewhere, but I had not thought of using this forum. In my opinion, any formal debate must be with the intent of spawning interest in science, and in the scientific method - otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

Precisely.

[MacM]

Yep, this forum definitely needs more coddling of ATM posters to raise their output. They clearly are just not getting their say!

It isn't fair.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and criticisims but I have glanced at a couple of threads and I did see attacks demanding mathematical proofs where none were infact required to have an intelligent discussion which would have hopefully enlightened one or the other; perhaps both participants.

[01101001]

Everyone has a right to their opinion and criticisims but I have glanced at a couple of threads and I did see attacks demanding mathematical proofs where none were infact required to have an intelligent discussion which would have hopefully enlightened one or the other; perhaps both participants.

Have you considered that there's a reason for Rule 13? It didn't always exist.

And, still I don't understand what's so hard about answering a difficult direct question with: I don't know.

Please explain how hard questions stop a thread, instead of advancing it.

[MacM]

Have you considered that there's a reason for Rule 13? It didn't always exist.

And, still I don't understand what's so hard about answering a difficult direct question with: I don't know.

Please explain how hard questions stop a thread, instead of advancing it.

This is not against Rule 13 perse'. If a person makes a claim for a theory he advocates then he should be able to support that mathematically, unless it is being presented as a matter of general discussion and not a formal theory.

If he is speaking logically about an apparent inconsistancy in another existing theory but is not proposing an alternative, the demands to provide a better solution are not warranted.

I speak of logically vs mathematically in that SR is consistant mathematically. At least I am not aware of any flaw mathematcially.

[01101001]

If he is speaking logically about an apparent inconsistancy in another existing theory but is not proposing an alternative, the demands to provide a better solution are not warranted.

Well, yeah, demands to provide a better solution are not warranted. But aren't questions like "Do you have an alternative theory that is less inconsistent?" warranted? What kind of a reasoned debate would exclude a question like that? If one doesn't have such an alternative, one should just say so.

What's the problem?

[HenrikOlsen]

If he is speaking logically about an apparent inconsistancy in another existing theory but is not proposing an alternative, the demands to provide a better solution are not warranted.
As you said, as long as the apparent inconsistancy is not used as an argument for an alternative hypothesis, there is not a requirement for a better solution, though one would be greatly appreciated.

You will find however that in the majority of ATM discussions, the inconsistency is used as an argument for an alternative hypothesis, where subsequent discussion shows that the proponent for the hypothesis is not aware of the exixting body of observations that are inconsistent with his hypothesis and are consistent with the currently favoured one.
When confronted with questions about these observations, the most common response is not to drop the alternative hypothesis, but to start making vague excuses for why it it still true.
Rule 13 is intended to stop discussion at this point, when it has become meaningless to continue.

Discussions such as the ones you're talking about are not likely to follow this pattern, and should therefore be fairly immune to having Rule 13 invoked.

[tusenfem]

Maybe MacM should just start up a discussion about a topic that he likes instead of discussing the discussion.

Try it and see how it evolves here on the board.

the Tao Te Ching says: The discussion that can be talked about is not the true discussion :-)

[Tensor]

Maybe MacM should just start up a discussion about a topic that he likes instead of discussing the discussion.

Try it and see how it evolves here on the board.

Gee, I don't know tusenfem, that sounds awfully logical. ;)

[Fram]

As you said, as long as the apparent inconsistancy is not used as an argument for an alternative hypothesis, there is not a requirement for a better solution, though one would be greatly appreciated.

You will find however that in the majority of ATM discussions, the inconsistency is used as an argument for an alternative hypothesis, where subsequent discussion shows that the proponent for the hypothesis is not aware of the exixting body of observations that are inconsistent with his hypothesis and are consistent with the currently favoured one.
When confronted with questions about these observations, the most common response is not to drop the alternative hypothesis, but to start making vague excuses for why it it still true.
Rule 13 is intended to stop discussion at this point, when it has become meaningless to continue.

Discussions such as the ones you're talking about are not likely to follow this pattern, and should therefore be fairly immune to having Rule 13 invoked.

When you have a question about a mainstream theory or an objection against one (which is mostly a question as well, like "how does GR account for...?" or something similar), you can also present those in the Q&A forum. It's only when you want to present an alternative (and one that goes clearly against a mainstream theory) that you are supposed to do so in the ATM forum.

[MacM]

Well, yeah, demands to provide a better solution are not warranted. But aren't questions like "Do you have an alternative theory that is less inconsistent?" warranted? What kind of a reasoned debate would exclude a question like that? If one doesn't have such an alternative, one should just say so.

What's the problem?

I don't see any problem here. Certainly one could ask if he is advocating a new theory and if so what support does he have for it. But my only point is that in absence of a fully detailed replacment theory discussion of logical alternatives should not be prohibited.

I have seen that happen in other forums.

[MacM]

As you said, as long as the apparent inconsistancy is not used as an argument for an alternative hypothesis, there is not a requirement for a better solution, though one would be greatly appreciated.

Discussions such as the ones you're talking about are not likely to follow this pattern, and should therefore be fairly immune to having Rule 13 invoked.

Also no problem here.

[MacM]

Maybe MacM should just start up a discussion about a topic that he likes instead of discussing the discussion.

Try it and see how it evolves here on the board.

the Tao Te Ching says: The discussion that can be talked about is not the true discussion :-)

HeHe. I full well anticipate posting but this was about introducing the concept of a Formal Debate subforum.

[MacM]

When you have a question about a mainstream theory or an objection against one (which is mostly a question as well, like "how does GR account for...?" or something similar), you can also present those in the Q&A forum. It's only when you want to present an alternative (and one that goes clearly against a mainstream theory) that you are supposed to do so in the ATM forum.

OK. I think this is helpful clarification. So ATM would not be the place for a logical flaw and logical alternative dislcussion to part of SR because the alternative is not a fully developed alternative with mathematics or emperical data being advocated as a theory?

In other words where do you see the line between a Q&A type post and an ATM post.

Also, in keeping with the above comments perhaps once it is more clear where such subject should be posted (in absences of a Formal Debate subforum) let me suggest that we give it a try and see how it goes.

The subject will be "Spatial Length Contraction" in SR. I suggest that you PM each other and select a participate for a trial informal - Formal Debate where there are only two participants.

I think you will see the advantages.

General Temporary Rules (including existing ones).

1 - Each participate may only post once and then waits for the other to respond. No multiple sequences of posts.

2 - Edits should be highlighted in "Red" to insure changes are not missed.

3 - Post must remain on topic and in physics rebuttal format and not resort to other generalized comments, i.e. - but thousands of test have verified this theory.

In the debate which I was in had (17) rules so this is a short version. But I think of what I see here not as many debate rules would be required.

[Fram]

OK. I think this is helpful clarification. So ATM would not be the place for a logical flaw and logical alternative dislcussion to part of SR because the alternative is not a fully developed alternative with mathematics or emperical data being advocated as a theory?


Oh no, I do think ATM is the place for a "logical alternative" discussion, as most of the times the "logical alternative" turns out to be not so logic after all, and furthermore you first have to make certain that there is a logical flaw. What I would do (but I'm not a moderator, so they may always see this differently) is to propose (ask about) what you think is a logical flaw in the Q&A forum, so it can be discussed there. Not possible alternatives, just a basic discussion if it is a flaw or not. If that is established, then it may be time to think about alternatives.
Of course, you are absoluetly free to start the discussion of the flaw and the alternative at the same time, but then ATM is the place to be.

As for the rest of your post: I'm not interested in such a formal debate and appreciate the current way this forum is run, where everyone is encouraged to participate. The only thing I agree on that is sometimes necessary (and which happens already) is that if a thread gets seriously offtopic (perhaps inbetween the on topic posts), these parts are moved to a new thread. But many of the best threads around here come about because many people with different backgrounds participate.

[Kaptain K]

I've got a better idea!

If you don't like the way this board is run, instead of coming in here and telling the operators how to run their board, start your own board!!!

[MacM]

I've got a better idea!

If you don't like the way this board is run, instead of coming in here and telling the operators how to run their board, start your own board!!!

Sorry you seem offended. But your assertion is simple incorrect. I have not said I don't like the way this forum is run and I have only made a suggestion not to change what you have but to add another utility which I have found interesting and which others have made appropriate comment about.

A few have even indicated they like the idea. Yours is the first to be entirely negative and borderline on being an attack i.e. - like it or lump it attitude. It just wasn't very constructive in my opinion and would be the type of comments which become restricted in a Formal Debate format. :lol: But then you don't seem to care much for my opinion so I will leave it there.

[MacM]

Oh no, I do think ATM is the place for a "logical alternative" discussion,

As for the rest of your post: I'm not interested in such a formal debate and appreciate the current way this forum is run, where everyone is encouraged to participate.

Thanks for your input. I'll be giving it a go in the ATM area.

Just one last note regarding the benefits of the Formal Debate format. It is useful to first determine where there is agreement before presenting the specific issue of concern and that is not generally possible where you have an open forum.

It is also easier to present and discuss 1 component at a time. The open forum requires that you post a complete series of comments, conclusions, etc at the same posting.

[HenrikOlsen]

2 - Edits should be highlighted in "Red" to insure changes are not missed.

Already covered by the forum rules.

[hhEb09'1]

The subject will be "Spatial Length Contraction" in SR. I suggest that you PM each other and select a participate for a trial informal - Formal Debate where there are only two participants.Are you suggesting that the trial debate be in PM only? If not, then I don't see how you can hold the trial--all threads here are open, anyone can respond. There is no "thread boss" that I know of. It seems to me that a private thread would be a violation of...something :)

[01101001]

The subject will be "Spatial Length Contraction" in SR. I suggest that you PM each other and select a participate for a trial informal - Formal Debate where there are only two participants.

Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen -- 12500 forum members are going to deliberate off-line and select a willing champion.


I think you will see the advantages.

I suggest you convince us that the new rules are needed.


General Temporary Rules (including existing ones).

And how do the temporary rules get enforced? On what basis? On whose authority? What are the penalties for violation?

If someone "butts in" and asks a question that you decline to answer, who is breaking the rules? I geefully volunteer to be the trial-interloper.

What problem does your solution solve? I remain puzzled and persuaded of nothing. Show the need.

[MacM]

Are you suggesting that the trial debate be in PM only? If not, then I don't see how you can hold the trial--all threads here are open, anyone can respond. There is no "thread boss" that I know of. It seems to me that a private thread would be a violation of...something :)

No. I just thought if some persons were interested to see how it works that a thread could be started and indicate it was a trial thread and ask "by an honor system" that posting stay limited to the two participants.

[MacM]

Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen -- 12500 forum members are going to deliberate off-line and select a willing champion.

Fair point.


I suggest you convince us that the new rules are needed.

The rules would be specific to the Formal Debate subforum and not changes to BAUT perse'.


And how do the temporary rules get enforced? On what basis? On whose authority? What are the penalties for violation?

It is called an honor system. Hopefully members are actually interested in science and discovery.


If someone "butts in" and asks a question that you decline to answer, who is breaking the rules? I geefully volunteer to be the trial-interloper.

No enforcement anticipated. Those that dishonored the process would infact be indications of why such a subforum has utility.


What problem does your solution solve? I remain puzzled and persuaded of nothing. Show the need.

I think you are referring to the formation of a Formal Debate subforum. If so it is easier to present such concerns and issues in a step by step process where agreement is reached or debate proceeds which is virtually impossible in an open forum.

I think it is important to keep in mind that all current forums remain intact just as they are. What I have suggested is an additional format "Formal Debat" subforum where members that have a specific dispute with another member about some scientific issue he can challenge that member to the debate forum where they can work on the subject without disruption.

Other members get to see a clear presentation of both sides of the arguement and hopefully be able to choose which is correct.

[hhEb09'1]

It is called an honor system. Hopefully members are actually interested in science and discovery.I don't think that there is any doubt of that.
No enforcement anticipated. Those that dishonored the process would infact be indications of why such a subforum has utility.So, it appears that such a thread would either be breaking the current rules, or a change in the current rules. Maybe the captain thought that would dishonor our board.

[nokton]

Thanks. I did find the one I was involved with very useful. It keeps the topic narrowily focused and sometimes to many thoughts or ideas end up confusing the issue and you lose track of key thoughts.

One of the rules was one post at a time. You post and wait for the opponent to respond.

The rules do not preclude debators from commmunicating with others via PM's, etc, but keeps the posted threads simple and clean, to the point. I have been involved with other fourms where as many as 6 - 8 would post different issues and you are all of a sudden trying to address a dozen points at once. The thread becomes impossible to follow.

MacM,
If I may, you seem to be driving the bus that carries you.
To my thinking, yes, you are full of ideas, nothing wrong with that.
But never think of those who would challenge your ideas as opponents,
rather they would, logically and in reason, question your assumptions.
That does not imply you are a geek, or assumes you are one. I dont.
Just there is a different opinion to yours
If you have a point to make, MacM, you will find reasonable people in here
to discuss it with. Am reminded, never ask a question if you cannot face
the answer.
Nokton.

[MacM]

MacM,
If I may, you seem to be driving the bus that carries you.

Not sure I fully appreciate what you might mean here.:)


But never think of those who would challenge your ideas as opponents, rather they would, logically and in reason, question your assumptions.[/quotre]

I have not conflict with that and the idea of a Formal Debate subforum is not about being opponents. It is about an efficient way to stay on topic and to address one issue at a time rather than have five peop[le all offer questions of negative comment at the same time which requires the ATM poster to become a professional typist just to keep up and to become buried in questions rather than addressing issues and a reply in a step by step logical procedure.

[quote] If you have a point to make, MacM, you will find reasonable people in here to discuss it with. Nokton.

Your input is appreciated and I think you are generally corect as to the different tone of this forum compared to most. But even under the best of conditions it seems counter productive to have to many questioners all requiring responses in the same time interval. It makes presentation of a logical process extremely difficult.

[01101001]

It is called an honor system. Hopefully members are actually interested in science and discovery.

Quite interested. So, someone who asks a question about science in a science forum is being dishonorable? Excuse me, but no thanks.


No enforcement anticipated. Those that dishonored the process would infact be indications of why such a subforum has utility.

Enforcement definitely anticipated. I promise I will ask questions during your "debate". Then you may chose to answer the questions or avoid them. I suggest you answer them. I look forward to doing what I consider the honorable thing. I hope you will do the honorable thing and answer them.

You seem to be saying: Make a rule, and if it gets broken, then that proves the rule was needed. Huh?



What problem does your solution solve? I remain puzzled and persuaded of nothing. Show the need.
I think you are referring to the formation of a Formal Debate subforum. If so it is easier to present such concerns and issues in a step by step process where agreement is reached or debate proceeds which is virtually impossible in an open forum.

I am really confused. Is it that you can't demonstrate the need for a debate forum without having a debate forum? What are you saying? What problem are you trying to solve?


I think it is important to keep in mind that all current forums remain intact just as they are. What I have suggested is an additional format "Formal Debat" subforum where members that have a specific dispute with another member about some scientific issue he can challenge that member to the debate forum where they can work on the subject without disruption.

Other members get to see a clear presentation of both sides of the arguement and hopefully be able to choose which is correct.

Asking questions is disruption? Tell me why I would want to read a forum where I can't ask questions about statements people make.

Show the need. Please. Cite an existing topic where, because it was not presented in your debate-form, readers did not receive a clear presentation of both sides and were not able to choose which is correct.

You are just asserting there is a problem to be solved. Back it up.

[Roy Batty]

Hello MacM.

I understand something of what you're proposing, formal debate isn't new after all:) I'm somewhat surprised at the level of negativity you're receiving here though. I like the idea in principle. It would probably involve an extra overhead of the moderators/administraors time & effort that they can ill afford however.
My tuppence of opinion is just go ahead & post whatever (well you are already, But I mean in the other fora:)), I'm confident of the moderators ability here that you will be warned of any forum transgressions ahead of time.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I understand something of what you're proposing, formal debate isn't new after all:) I'm somewhat surprised at the level of negativity you're receiving here though.

I agree. It is odd. The point of the board is to educate. A clearly laid out debate does that. It keeps things on track. Can you imagine a debate that went like this:

HB:

Dubious point 1
Dubious point 2
Dubious point 3

JayUtah:


Dubious point 1

Crippling refutation


Dubious point 2

Crippling refutation


Dubious point 3

Crippling refutation



And so on. Sure, we get that now, but when only the HB and Jay can post in the thread, it makes things very clear. It also makes sure that the HB can't get off-topic: there are no diversions.

And when the thing is over, we could just point new people to the debate thread, where everything is already explained extremely well.

(Sorry for using you as an example, Jay, but you were the logical choice).

[MacM]

Quite interested. So, someone who asks a question about science in a science forum is being dishonorable? Excuse me, but no thanks.

Well, I came here to have discussions, not to ruffle feathers or dictate to anyone. You are however, clearly misrepresenting what has been said.

This was a suggestion to have a trial debate, if members chose to not respect that effort I guess that would be within their right.


Enforcement definitely anticipated. I promise I will ask questions during your "debate". Then you may chose to answer the questions or avoid them. I suggest you answer them. I look forward to doing what I consider the honorable thing. I hope you will do the honorable thing and answer them.

I'll not comment much regarding this paragraph. I feel it points to the very issue I have referanced.

I'll leave the merits of both views to readers.


You seem to be saying: Make a rule, and if it gets broken, then that proves the rule was needed. Huh?

It seems it wasn't even necessary to have the debate to see the utility of having a subforum available to those interested.


I am really confused. Is it that you can't demonstrate the need for a debate forum without having a debate forum?

I didn't say that at all. If you or others wish to not do it then it is a moot point and will not proceed in any case. Thanks for your constructive efforts.


What are you saying? What problem are you trying to solve?

How about the one we just experienced?


Asking questions is disruption?

Most certainly. As I have pointed out questions are fine and necessary. They occur in a debate but they occur one at a time and you do not have 6 different questions being asked at the same time making it impossible to stay on track.

Don't forget there would be a parallel thread where other members could discuss and have a fully open debate about the debate progress. You could forward questions to the debating party or openly ask them in the parallel thread but the debate thread would not become cluttered with multiple questions at the same time.


Tell me why I would want to read a forum where I can't ask questions about statements people make.

Perhaps because you have some faith in you counter parts and would be interested to see how they rebut issues.


Show the need. Please. Cite an existing topic where, because it was not presented in your debate-form, readers did not receive a clear presentation of both sides and were not able to choose which is correct.

You are just asserting there is a problem to be solved. Back it up.

Frankly I am not gong to press the issue. I made a suggestion. I have cited advantages. I have no intention of getting involved in a specific posters comments to others in this forum.

I think the issue is self-evident. If not then simply disregard my suggestion. But I am not going to participate in an arguement about it.

Management will either consider this and act or not act. If they act and create it and members don't like it they own't use it and it becomes a moot point. So be it.

Thanks for our input. I think it is conducive to the suggestions being implemented.:lol:

[MacM]

Hello MacM.

I understand something of what you're proposing, formal debate isn't new after all:) I'm somewhat surprised at the level of negativity you're receiving here though.

Actually I haven't seen it being that negative. Most have merely made inquires some have (as you have just done) indicated liking the principle. It really isn't a big deal and I am not pushing the point.



I like the idea in principle. It would probably involve an extra overhead of the moderators/administraors time & effort that they can ill afford however.

Fair point.

[paulie jay]

MacM, I think the best thing is for you to just start a thread in Against The Mainstream and see how things pan out. Otherwise this thread may never end :)

[MacM]

MacM, I think the best thing is for you to just start a thread in Against The Mainstream and see how things pan out. Otherwise this thread may never end :)


Like I said I am not pushing this concept. I made a suggestion and it can be favorably considred or rejected. This thread I suspect is nearing an end unless others chose to continue to post comments or questions requiring reply.

Personally I feel the thread has already shown some advantage to perhaps having a formal debate forum. HeHe.

[01101001]

Personally I feel the thread has already shown some advantage to perhaps having a formal debate forum. HeHe.

Nope. HeHe.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Nope. HeHe.
Yep ...

HeHe ...

Actually, I Kinda Like The Idea, it'd Give Us a Place to REALLY, Civilly of Course, Cut Loose!

:dance:

[Wolverine]

I still don't understand what this would accomplish, given the very thoroughly structured, existing ruleset.

[Fram]

It would have big problems, I think, as probably every FD thread would have a shadowthread where other people (everyone except the two debaters) would comment and give their opinion, corrections, ... And then we would have two threads simultaneously about the same subject, which is unnecessary and (IMO) unwanted.
Often there are also more than two positions on a subject, and a debate between two positions I don't agree with would leave me very frustrated.

[mickal555]

No offence but I don't like the idea...

It seems... pointless...

[Baloo]

Other members get to see a clear presentation of both sides of the arguement and hopefully be able to choose which is correct.

Me don't get it. :eh: What's the point of such one to one match? That could show, at best, which one of the two has a better knowledge of the subject, but it would not mean at all that he is right since relevant arguments unknown to his oponnent where left outside the discussion.

A debate is a good ideea for politicians (after all the electors should compare them and decide which is more up to the job), but the main purpose of this board is to provide knowledge and that is not a contest. I'm willing to listen anyone who has something relevant to say on a given issue.
This kind of debate coud boost the winner's ego, but that's about all it can do. Not to mention that both opponents could be sooooo wrong... ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

The main problem I think people have with this format is that its result won't be to get a clearer understanding of how things work, but instead results in getting a clearer understanding of how two specific people think things work, which is a completely different thing unless at least one of the people is top of the field.

[Gillianren]

I find that a lot of little details ("but there's only one kind of photon, right?") tend to get missed by the people who know what they're talking about, because they're so busy looking at the big details. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but wouldn't this essentially be what you'd have to face in the Real World--lots of questions from lots of different people? If you're not up to facing that on BAUT, you're certainly not ready to try claiming your trip to Sweden, you know?

[Wolverine]

A debate is a good ideea for politicians (after all the electors should compare them and decide which is more up to the job), but the main purpose of this board is to provide knowledge and that is not a contest. I'm willing to listen anyone who has something relevant to say on a given issue.

I couldn't agree more.

We encourage discussion (and debate) and wish to see members participate, interact, and learn.

While I can understand the desire to keep a discussion focused, we don't need to alter the existing ruleset in order to accomplish that. For example:

proponents of ATM concepts or models are prohibited from hijacking other discussions to promote their ideas;
the forum staff regularly peruses active topics and guides discussions which have strayed back on track;
moderators have the ability to split divergent comments to a new thread or suitable, existing one should the need arise.


Our member base has a tremendous amount to offer, many users spanning the globe with varied areas of interest and expertise. Limiting a discussion to only two parties would largely stifle noteworthy contributions, not to mention from others perhaps better-qualified to tackle a given issue than either FD participant. That simply runs contrary to one of the board's main goals.

I consider Gillianren's post above to be spot on as well, ditto HenrikOlsen's.

As noted in the Alternative Concepts section of the rules:

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.

Further, from the perspective of a staff member: as Fram notes above, the idea of having one thread for debate and another for comments would get messy, and fast. We don't need two threads on the same topic when one gets the job done. Running commentaries from a peanut gallery of observers would not be desirable either; those with questions & comments relevant to a debate should be able to participate, and, we wouldn't want to see those on the sidelines idly gossip about the ongoings nor the participants. This would add quite a bit of responsibilities for the mods, who have enough work on their plates as is.

Great care was taken in devising a set of rules well-suited to preserving the forum's intent. While suggestions are always appreciated and considered, in this case really I don't think we need to tinker with guidelines which function admirably in their present form.

[MacM]

You all have made good points and I reiterate that I am not pushing this idea.

I think it had utility on the other site because it had more active scientific wanna-bes than scientists and the personal insults and attacks were the norm.

The debate forum was established and used by having a active professional physicist as one of the debators. It did produce coherent results without all the disruptive flack.