That's no explanation ...

[A.DIM]

In my recent thread about Dynamics of Escaping Earth ejecta the following "explanation" was given by Moose as to why it was moved to ATM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much obliged.

[Swift]

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

LINK

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

Examples of topics bearing a Rule 13 burden are:

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

Note bullet point # 4.

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

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

[Strange]

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-The-Milky-Way

[A.DIM]

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

LINK

Note bullet point # 4.

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

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

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

[A.DIM]

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-The-Milky-Way

Ha!
Thanks I missed that.

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

[jlhredshift]

Yep, same paper.

[HenrikOlsen]

Ha!
Thanks I missed that.

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

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

[Jim]

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

How many posts has A.DIM made on panspermia?

How many posts has Fraser made on panspermia?

[A.DIM]

How many posts has A.DIM made on panspermia?

How many posts has Fraser made on panspermia?

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

That's no explanation ....

[A.DIM]

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

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

[NEOWatcher]

Interesting situation.

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

I can understand both sides in this case.

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

[Swift]

I have some sympathy with A.DIM as the same paper was reported here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-The-Milky-Way

I'll make Henrik's comment official - the rules for UT (and for the BA's blog) are different than they are for BAUT. Both talk about political topics, for example, that would never be allowed in BAUT. This is actually covered (indirectly) in our rules and has been stated numerous times by moderators.

[Buttercup]

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

[Swift]

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

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

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

[CJSF]

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

CJSF

[A.DIM]

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

I still don't get.

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at Fraser's Panspermia and be sure to see the many other articles he's written (listed at bottom).

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

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

[A.DIM]

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

CJSF

It would appear so.

[jlhredshift]

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

[Moose]

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

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

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

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

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

[Moose]

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

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

[CJSF]

Moose (and the mod team)

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

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

CJSF

[jlhredshift]

Moose (and the mod team)

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

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

CJSF

Agreed and seconded.

[captain swoop]

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

[Buttercup]

Moose (and the mod team)

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

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

CJSF

Ditto.

[Van Rijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luckmeister]

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

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

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

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

[CJSF]

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

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

*sigh*

CJSF

[A.DIM]

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

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


Sorry Moose, that's no explanation ...

[A.DIM]

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

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

That's no explanation ...

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

[A.DIM]

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

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

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

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

Regards.