BAUT Review for Parents and Teachers

[Cougar]

If I remember the strongest stance was they agreed with Michio Kaku about the possibility of alien visitors.

Maybe he was Michio Kaku and he was trying to do a little damage control, only to meet with a batch of BAUTian skepticism, so he had to discredit the site.

Well, he never claimed BAUTians were unimaginative, did he?

[EDG]

If there's one thing I wouldn't call BAUT, it's "polite". Politeness applies to everyone, not just to people who share your worldview, and the regular BAUTians are extremely impolite to people who do not share their worldview.

If someone voices an opinion about BAUT here, it's immediately jumped on as if it was an ATM thread. But more than that, people often twist words that the OP says, wilfully miss the point, mock them, make direct personal attacks against them (not these imaginary ones that don't actually attack individuals), or dish out wholly unnecessary snide and snarky comments. I'm wholly sick of that attitude myself, and it's only been getting worse as time goes on especially as egos grow and the people doing it become even more insufferable - people here are twisting science and the scientific mindset into something entirely unpleasant and nothing like what it actually is, and I don't want to be associated with this charade anymore. Of course you'll protest that there's nothing wrong with your attitudes, that's what you always do, and why things never change for the better around here.

When I come to a board and spend more time being disgusted at peoples' behaviour than getting anything useful out of it, that's a good cue to leave. To the few of you who have been helpful (grant hutchison, stupendous man, george... um, that's pretty much it), thanks. Next time I want to have any science questions answered, I think I'll just find an expert to ask directly rather than ask on this board. And if anyone asks me, I would recommend that others do that as well.

[CJSF]

I feel like there's been some strange science fiction rift universe. I think sometimes impersonal or precise language can come across as rude or impolite, but honesly, the only really impolite person I can remember recently was Neverfly - and I miss him a lot. It seems that quite a few people can not separate attacks on their idea with personal attacks. That makes sense when we identify ourselves with our ideas. Seriously, EDG, why are you still here? There are ALWAYS going to be a few people or a few instances where people are less than polite. The board is run so well, it's almost sick. I mean, have you VISITED the wider 'Net at all lately?

CJSF

[orionjim]

Maybe he was Michio Kaku and he was trying to do a little damage control, only to meet with a batch of BAUTian skepticism, so he had to discredit the site.

Well, he never claimed BAUTians were unimaginative, did he?

Now that's funny! That thought actually went through my mind several times while I was reading the CT thread.

Jim

[Grashtel]

If there's one thing I wouldn't call BAUT, it's "polite". Politeness applies to everyone, not just to people who share your worldview, and the regular BAUTians are extremely impolite to people who do not share their worldview.

Could you provide pointers to some examples of such? It may be that I've not been in the right places but I do not recall seeing such behaviour on a regular basis here.

[grant hutchison]

I feel like there's been some strange science fiction rift universe.

Likewise. Is BAUT actually Bizarro World? Are people on all those other Internet fora actually behaving politely?

Grant Hutchison

[Paul Beardsley]

If there's one thing I wouldn't call BAUT, it's "polite". Politeness applies to everyone, not just to people who share your worldview, and the regular BAUTians are extremely impolite to people who do not share their worldview.

EDG, the first time you ever replied to something I'd said, you were so impolite that I nearly put you on my ignore list. (In the end I kept to my resolve to keep the list empty.) In the past few months, all your posts seem to be complaining about how everybody else is impolite and how you don't see any point in staying around any more. Let's just say it comes across as a little bit rich!

Please, sort yourself out one way or another. Maybe you just need a break from here. Go away for a while, do something entirely different, and come back refreshed, if that's what you want to do.

direct personal attacks against them (not these imaginary ones that don't actually attack individuals)

Note well: you might not be offended by that kind of thing, but most people are, and rightly so. You are trying to impose your perspective on others. It will not work.

Of course you'll protest that there's nothing wrong with your attitudes, that's what you always do

And what if there isn't? So far, all I'm hearing is a lot of ranting, and no specific examples, such as, "When you said X to the poster, you belittled him; if you'd said Y you could have made the same point and got him on your side."

and why things never change for the better around here.

And for many it's fine as it is.

[Strange]

I feel like there's been some strange science fiction rift universe.

Indeed. My thought on reading the OP (as is often the case with similar threads) was that perhaps there is an alternative, parallel universe BAUT that I was not aware of.

I have seen hardly any examples of impoliteness. Things do seem to get heated occasionally when certain topics come up. But I have seen very few personal attacks. There was (apparently) one spectacular example quite a while ago involving Big Don and geocentrists. He got suspended (I guess he might have been banned if he weren't such a nice guy ) and the post was deleted (which is almost unheard of).

There have also been some very heated "discussions" on different interpretations of GR which have required a lot of moderator intervention. But the people on both sides of these have been the sort of BAUT regulars that MicVR is criticizing - so it isn't BAUTians attacking The Outsiders.

To be honest I haven't even seen impolitness in the discussions with MicVR - maybe that is because I am biased because I am on the "wrong" side. I don't even consider his use of "pseudo-skeptic" particularly offensive; I am more annoyed by the fact he is misusing it than that he is throwing accusations around.

I do see a certain amount of hypersensitivity, though and misinterpretations or misrepresentations of what someone has said.

Which brings me to...

In the last part of this thread you had to witness the primitive and uninformed kindergarten reasoning so often found around here.
Clearly, anybody who is stupid enough to even consider alien visitation must therefore also be stupid enough to assume unicorns and the easter bunny as real. And not only as real, of course, but as science fact.
Obviously (as far as BAUT members are concerned), there is no other possible conclusion.
If that is the level of "debate" you are looking for then you will probably have a blast in this forum.

Other people have answered this better than I can. But as one of the people who made this argument I need to point out that I never said, implied or even thought anyone was stupid for having any particular beliefs.

I also never said, implied or thought that MicVR believed in the Easter Bunny.

I did say that there is just as much basis for a belief in alien visitors as there is for belief in the Easter Bunny. They both have a substantial body of anecdote and folklore associated with them (ditto Yeti, unicorns, etc). They both suffer from a lack of compelling evidence. We have good reason to believe that aliens of some form are quite likely to exist somewhere in the universe (it is a big place) and we know bunnies of some form exist. (Does that make the Easter Bunny more plausible than alien visitors? I'm not sure.) Is that impolite or offensive? Is it "kindergarten reasoning"?

It is not even a dogmatic claim that aliens don't exist (the other accusation that has been made).

I don't think anyone is stupid for believing in aliens, Easter Bunny, God, whatever. I don't even think the beliefs themselves are stupid. Some of the more outre ones might be bizarre or eccentric but they often seem to be held by people who are otherwise highly intelligent. And I am always fascinated by why people believe the things they do.

I am, however, curious as to whether MicVR genuinely didn't understand the point I was making (I seem to remember [s]he may have said that English was not his|her first language) or was misrepresenting it to make a point. When I made the same argument in another thread (the Michio Kaku one, I think) I got a similar response: I was criticized for making a completely different point.

I also wonder why MicVR did not address the substantial aspect of this: why is a belief in aliens any more reasonable than a belief in any other mythical or religious figure?

[Swift]

A friendly reminder to everyone, particularly appropriate given the topic, to not make the debate personal. For example, please do not bring up such points as to whether a pariticular member is or is not on your Ignore list. Thanks to all.

[R.A.F.]

If there's one thing I wouldn't call BAUT, it's "polite". Politeness applies to everyone, not just to people who share your worldview, and the regular BAUTians are extremely impolite to people who do not share their worldview.

You really need to demonstrate this "impoliteness" with evidence...because I ( and others here) just don't see it.

[Jeff Root]

I would have to read this entire thread again more carefully, plus
other threads that have been referenced, before I could comment
on the questions and problems raised. However, there is one big
thing I can say from what I've seen so far: A great deal of the
significance of MicVR's comments depends on his perspective as
a professor "who has guided quite a few students to their PhD".
If he really is who he claims to be, I would put considerable
weight on his perspective. If he is not, then I would be more
comfortable in letting this contoversy slide. Since there is a
real question of whether he is who he claims to be, I think it
is important to determine that. If he returns, and is willing, it
should not be difficult to verify his identity. I don't know how
to do it, but that should be an easy puzzle for people here to
solve.

MicVR, please post again, and please make it possible to
verify your identity.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[grant hutchison]

I would have to read this entire thread again more carefully, plus
other threads that have been referenced, before I could comment
on the questions and problems raised. However, there is one big
thing I can say from what I've seen so far: A great deal of the
significance of MicVR's comments depends on his perspective as
a professor "who has guided quite a few students to their PhD".
If he really is who he claims to be, I would put considerable
weight on his perspective. If he is not, then I would be more
comfortable in letting this contoversy slide. Since there is a
real question of whether he is who he claims to be, I think it
is important to determine that. If he returns, and is willing, it
should not be difficult to verify his identity. I don't know how
to do it, but that should be an easy puzzle for people here to
solve.

MicVR, please post again, and please make it possible to
verify your identity.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I couldn't disagree more.
It's frankly offensive to require MicVR to provide academic credentials before we decide whether to consider his/her comments seriously.
The points raised stand or fall on their own merit, and would garner no additional plausibility by "argument from authority".

Grant Hutchison

[pzkpfw]

I couldn't disagree more.
It's frankly offensive to require MicVR to provide academic credentials before we decide whether to consider his/her comments seriously.
The points raised stand or fall on their own merit, and would garner no additional plausibility by "argument from authority".

Grant Hutchison

I agree with your basic point, and it applies to us all, but - from his own writing - he's claiming that authority.

Why isn't that offensive?

[Swift]

I couldn't disagree more.
It's frankly offensive to require MicVR to provide academic credentials before we decide whether to consider his/her comments seriously.
The points raised stand or fall on their own merit, and would garner no additional plausibility by "argument from authority".

Grant Hutchison

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is "offensive", but I'm unconvinced it adds any merit to the discussion. I have know some professors who were wonderful human beings and treated their students and others with kindness, politeness and respect. I've also known professors who were the exact opposite. I have seen a similar range in just about ever other profession.

As far as what I think matters here is how you behave on BAUT.

[Jeff Root]

It matters to me how BAUT feels and looks. MicVR says that he
is an experienced college professor, and in his view, and those of his
students, there are significant problems with how people are treated
on BAUT, compared to how they are treated in the environment he
works in. I take that as a professional opinion. I cannot dismiss it,
because I do not have the expertise he claims to have. So I depend
on his opinion, and I depend on that opinion being professional. So
I believe that it is important for understanding and dealing with the
possible problems to determine one way or another whether he has
the expertise he claims to have.

Some remarks by MicVR above seem out of character for who he
claims to be, which raise the question. But I have not yet read the
thread carefully enough to put those remarks into context. So for
the moment all I am commenting on is the form of the argument,
not the content.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[grant hutchison]

I agree with your basic point, and it applies to us all, but - from his own writing - he's claiming that authority.

Why isn't that offensive?

I didn't say it wasn't offensive.
I think it's fine to let us know if you're a teacher and feel passionate, but I honestly don't see the relevance of PhD supervision to an argument about common courtesy and the philosophy of science. I feel patronized by the suggestion that such information should weigh in my consideration of the subjects under discussion in this thread. Now, I don't know what MicVR's motives were in providing that information: perhaps the intention was just a bit of personal anecdote to illustrate the strength of feeling involved. (I could respond with personal anecdote about PhD supervisors of my acquaintance, but anecdote is rather poor evidence.) So I'm not going to get too vexed about something that may well have lacked any ulterior motive. But Jeff has been very careful to set out what his motives are in requesting evidence of professorial status and/or PhD supervision from MicVR: he wants this information in order to lend weight to MicVR's expressed opinions. I am offended by that, I want nothing to do with it, and I'm saying so.

Edit: I note Jeff posted while I was composing. But I believe I've said my piece and should stop there.

Grant Hutchison

[pzkpfw]

I didn't say it wasn't offensive.

...

I am offended by that, I want nothing to do with it, and I'm saying so.

...

Well, it's interesting then, which "offenses" you chose to post about and which you didn't.

[grant hutchison]

Well, it's interesting then, which "offenses" you chose to post about and which you don't.

Thanks. I find it interesting, too.
You'll see I set out my reasons above:

Now, I don't know what MicVR's motives were in providing that information ... So I'm not going to get too vexed about something that may well have lacked any ulterior motive. But Jeff has been very careful to set out what his motives are ...

Grant Hutchison

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm a bit confused at what is/isn't/should be/shouldn't be offensive in the most recent posts, but I tend to agree with Grant.

MicVR claims to be a theoretical physicist, but as his posts have not been about theoretical physics, I don't see how his credentials are especially relevant. His apparent unfamiliarity with the null hypothesis is bewildering - as if an historian of British pop music had never heard of The Beatles - but this (and much else) might be nothing more sinister than a lapse in communication.

[Strange]

It matters to me how BAUT feels and looks. MicVR says that he
is an experienced college professor, and in his view, and those of his
students, there are significant problems with how people are treated
on BAUT, compared to how they are treated in the environment he
works in.

I got the impression (it wasn't realy clear) that his students were more interested in discussions in the ATM and CT forums. They may well have been surprised/disconcerted/amused/whatever by the fact that, unlike some Internet forums, people posting about Nibiru or UFOS are not met with an uncritical "wow! cool..." but instead are asked for evidence for their opinions.

Sounds like a great opportunity to introduce them to critical thinking skills and the scientific method, to me. But MicVR doesn't seem to think that asking for evidence is appropriate. <shrug>

[Paul Beardsley]

I got the impression (it wasn't realy clear) that his students were more interested in discussions in the ATM and CT forums. They may well have been surprised/disconcerted/amused/whatever by the fact that, unlike some Internet forums, people posting about Nibiru or UFOS are not met with an uncritical "wow! cool..." but instead are asked for evidence for their opinions.

Sounds like a great opportunity to introduce them to critical thinking skills and the scientific method, to me. But MicVR doesn't seem to think that asking for evidence is appropriate. <shrug>

Yes, and again the adjective "bewildering" comes to mind.

I'm very curious about what these students look at when they are not laughing at BAUT. Do they visit GLP and nod their heads wisely saying, "Yes, this is how it should be done"?

I'm not making any accusations here, but I'm starting to find the whole thing unbelievable. Call me a pseudoskeptic if you must, but I think there's less to MicVR's posts than meet the eye.

[slang]

I'm not making any accusations here, but I'm starting to find the whole thing unbelievable. Call me a pseudoskeptic if you must, but I think there's less to MicVR's posts than meet the eye.

I'll just say that from a well studied, well educated person, I expect a more concise, less ranting style of writing than is evident. But I'll be the first to admit that when tempers flare, style suffers.

[AdamL]

I have no idea what this person’s intent is/was. But reading their post it didn’t seem like they were really taking a strong stance on anything. If I remember the strongest stance was they agreed with Michio Kaku about the possibility of alien visitors. They spent some time giving possible answers to questions you posed but strongly stated there was no evidence and that they were skeptical.

From there it seemed to get blown out of proportion.

I very much agree with Jim on this observations. I have read the Michio Kaku thread very carefully and I find the positions MicVR took there very considered, well-worded and polite. "Pseudo-Skeptic" is certainly not name-calling where I come from, which is The Netherlands and before this becomes an issue let me state that as far as I know I have never met MicVR and I am not connected to him in any way (as far as I know). I don't even agree with his opinion on alien visitation but I do very much agree on the points he has raised regarding scientific honesty here on BAUT.
I became an active member today (in order to participate in this thread) but I have browsed this forum and read a good amount of threads over the last months.
My observations largely met what MicVR reported in his first statement.
I find it really interesting how this thread developed.
It got mostly stuck on the "pseudo-skeptic" thing, which in my opinion got completely blown out of proportion and distracted from the many good points MicVR and others (especially also EDG) raised.
Did anybody take notice that he was not the only one reporting the same issues? EDG, inflector, peterf and orionjim (some of them longterm members with several hundred posts) confirmed at least some of his observation, especially the closed-mindedness (i think only orionjim did not mention that term) of this forum and the general tone. And I agree with that assessment as well.

The most common response was how tired BAUT members are of this term and that it - from their perspective - simply meant that someone does not agree with them.
Nobody seems to even consider that maybe there is a lot more to it than that, since it seems to be a common characterization of BAUT members.
Then MicVR got suspended. I agree with orionjim when he said that that pretty much proved the points MicVR was making.
I did not find ANYTHING in the post that led to his suspension offensive. Maybe it was the term "kindergarten reasoning"? I think it was a VERY polite term, given the onslaught of ridicule and intentional misrepresentation of his statements.

I think MicVR's suspension but even more so the general behavior and ridicule he and others who dared to agree with him had to endure in this thread (and others) VERY MUCH proves the points of the opening statement.

[NickW]

Did anybody take notice that he was not the only one reporting the same issues? EDG, inflector, peterf and orionjim (some of them longterm members with several hundred posts) confirmed at least some of his observation, especially the closed-mindedness (i think only orionjim did not mention that term) of this forum and the general tone. And I agree with that assessment as well.

So, let me get this straight. A majority of the people think BAUT is fine with how things are run, and the overall tone isn't as MicVR et al says it is. The some very small minority of people agree with MicVR and therefore BAUT is a bad place because we don't pander to the few?

Maybe it was the term "kindergarten reasoning"? I think it was a VERY polite term, given the onslaught of ridicule and intentional misrepresentation of his statements.

Yeah, I really like my thought process to be compared to a child. I don't think that would be rude or impolite at all......

... especially the closed-mindedness (i think only orionjim did not mention that term) of this forum and the general tone. And I agree with that assessment as well.

And when did asking for evidence become close-minded?

[Gillianren]

And that's the issue. We are essentially never called closed-minded by people who don't resent evidence-based reasoning. We're just supposed to stay open to all possibilities. On the face of it, that's fine. It is possible that some percentage of UFO reports are actually caused by alien spacecraft. However, it's still less probable than that there simply isn't enough information present to make an identification of the exact sort of thing the other reports turn out to be. If someone can't accept that, who's being closed-minded?

[AdamL]

We are essentially never called closed-minded by people who don't resent evidence-based reasoning.

How do you know that? I am calling the average BAUT member closed-minded. DO you know what my stance is on evidence-based reasoning? Or EDG's? Or of any other who spoke out in favor of the closed-mindedness of BAUT?

It is possible that some percentage of UFO reports are actually caused by alien spacecraft. However, it's still less probable than that there simply isn't enough information present to make an identification of the exact sort of thing the other reports turn out to be. If someone can't accept that, who's being closed-minded?

What is the assessment that that is "less probable" based on?
That is a personal opinion (one that I happen to agree with by the way) but nothing more.
Here at BAUT that personal opinion is usually not stated as such. It is declared as a fact of science. On that I agree with MicVR: that is not scientifically honest. It is a very misleading statement, especially for young kids.

[Jens]

Did anybody take notice that he was not the only one reporting the same issues? EDG, inflector, peterf and orionjim (some of them longterm members with several hundred posts) confirmed at least some of his observation, especially the closed-mindedness (i think only orionjim did not mention that term) of this forum and the general tone. And I agree with that assessment as well.

There is something I find odd about this statement. To me, it seems like the people who talk about are also setting the tone here. I think that even for you, deciding to participate means that you also take some responsibility for the tone that is set. Same for me, of course. I've occasionally run across people (I'm not accusing you of this, just pointing out that this happens) who had a sort of attitude like, "you people are all. . ." or "the members of BAUT are. . ." when in fact that person was a member of BAUT and also was part of the tone-setting process.

I really can't agree with the position that there is a bad tone, but that doesn't mean I can agree with the position that there is nothing wrong. There are posters here who can be rude at times, and there are disagreements of position that become (in my opinion) too heated. But I really think that's just part of what an Internet forum is like. As I've said before in this thread, the "regular posters" (including EDG, in my opinion) are a self-selected group, and nobody is paying us and so there are real limits as to how far we can be disciplined.

[AdamL]

...To me, it seems like the people who talk about are also setting the tone here...

As far as I am concerned it is not so much the tone that is the issue. The issue for me is the intellectual dishonesty I see here.
I can't speak for MicVR but he stressed that point as well.

For me, it is the arrogance with which BAUT members try to sell their personal opinions as a fact of science, especially in the so-called fringe areas of science.
MicVR called that "declarative arrogance" or "declarative authority". I like these terms.

And, please, even though I am still a student I understand the scientific method quite well. I don't need a lecture.
In my field (mathematics) it may be a bit easier because it is often possible to prove that a certain statement must be false.
In most other fields that is very often not that easy and therefor you utilize the "null hypothesis". That makes sense and I didn't see anybody here argue against that approach.
But - and that is a big but, carefully overlooked in such discussions - that null hypothesis is not a science fact! To declare it as such is common practice here at BAUT and that is the intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

[Swift]

<snip>
For me, it is the arrogance with which BAUT members try to sell their personal opinions as a fact of science, especially in the so-called fringe areas of science.
MicVR called that "declarative arrogance" or "declarative authority". I like these terms.

And, please, even though I am still a student I understand the scientific method quite well. I don't need a lecture.
In my field (mathematics) it may be a bit easier because it is often possible to prove that a certain statement must be false.
In most other fields that is very often not that easy and therefor you utilize the "null hypothesis". That makes sense and I didn't see anybody here argue against that approach.
But - and that is a big but, carefully overlooked in such discussions - that null hypothesis is not a science fact! To declare it as such is common practice here at BAUT and that is the intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

AdamL,

May I ask you a couple of questions? You are under no obligation to answer them, but I am curious.

First, have you read my post here and if so, what are your thoughts about it? How do think questions such as "was that light I saw last night in the sky an alien spaceship" supposed to be answered by the scientific method? Are all possible answers to that question just opinion and of equal probability and value?

[Jens]

For me, it is the arrogance with which BAUT members try to sell their personal opinions as a fact of science, especially in the so-called fringe areas of science.
MicVR called that "declarative arrogance" or "declarative authority". I like these terms.

Yes, I have no doubt that this is true. But you are a student, and I think I'm correct in guessing that you have been in discussion-type classes where people have said things that contained some arrogance. There are lots of members here, and people sometimes speak in an arrogant way. I don't see how anybody could deny that. So the question is, what do you think should be done about it? Would you like to see the moderators moderate all posts? Would you like the moderators to be stricter? It's not OK to say, "the moderators should be objective," because then you need to explain what would be "objective" to you. I suppose one thing you might try is reading through the discussions, and sending private notes to people who you think are behaving arrogantly. Sure, that would be troublesome, but you are asking for something that I think is quite troublesome, IMO.