Just curious: Why even have an ATM section?

[Buttercup]

Considering all the threads which get closed, the strain on the moderators, questions as to "why did my thread get closed" or "why is this considered ATM? (you moved my thread into it)", etc...

Why not just let people post what they want to discuss/question (within bounds of civility and politeness), and let whoever wants to engage them do so?

If it's polite "duking it out," so be it.

Seems to me ATM is far more trouble than it's worth, and counterproductive.

[peteshimmon]

Well just read all the stickies down
there Buttercup.

[captain swoop]

All threads in ATM get closed after 30 days.

[grapes]

Seems to me ATM is far more trouble than it's worth, and counterproductive.

Apparently, both Phil Plait and Fraser Cain decided that there was a need for a separate forum. When a poster would ask questions about astronomy, the answers would sometimes be mainstream, and sometimes be wild speculation--and it wasn't always obvious to the poster that it was wild speculation. Neither Phil nor Fraser wanted to limit discussion, both enjoy speculating themselves, so a special forum was created. It is there to both allow speculative discussion, as well as encourage speculative discussion.

Some people might say that this entire forum is worth more trouble than it's worth, but not me.

[slang]

Why not just let people post what they want to discuss/question (within bounds of civility and politeness), and let whoever wants to engage them do so?

Because BA and Fraser intended BAUT to be a forum where people can get answers from mainstream science, and where they're not subjected to all kinds of woo and other unsupported stuff. If all that is allowed to remain in Q&A threads, many will wonder what the "real" answer (that is, supported by science) is. For the average person simply asking a question, it's not easy to find out for him or herself, not without a lot of studying, and they'll get away with the impression that there still is debate about some issues (where there really isn't, not in the scientific community). And what peteshimmon said. Good for a rainy day.

[Argos]

Who´s to say that the next Big Thing is not coming from there? Think about it.

[Buttercup]

Who´s to say that the next Big Thing is not coming from there? Think about it.

Oh, I'm not against it.

Just wondering why not let people start ATM threads same as any other.

What if I think Jupiter's atmosphere is made of methane and hot fudge? Let me start the thread (same as any other), defend my theory. People will either respond or won't.

[HenrikOlsen]

Because this is a forum linked to two websites specifically created to combat such nonsense and allowing proponents of it a free unfettered soapbox to spout their nonsense would defeat the very purpose it was made to serve.

[korjik]

Oh, I'm not against it.

Just wondering why not let people start ATM threads same as any other.

What if I think Jupiter's atmosphere is made of methane and hot fudge? Let me start the thread (same as any other), defend my theory. People will either respond or won't.

I take it you werent around before they banned 'Electric Universe' altogether?

Imagine someone starting a thread asking about how stars shine, and getting an answer along the lines of 'It's a giant spark!', only alot more wordy. Then the thread devolves down to people trying to show the EU theory is wrong, and someone trying to show it is right, and the OP not having a clue. There is also the EU guy starting a thread in S&T about how the Sun is a giant electrical discharge, and a massive discussion on how that is wrong. A visitor may not be able to figure out that the EU theory is wrong.

So ATM is made to keep ATM discussions out of the mainstream sections of the board.

Now the restrictions on ATM come from the threads that go to thousands of posts where 90% of the posts are 'yes it is', 'no it isnt' type arguements. It got to the point that the huge threads were having adverse effects on the operation of the board.

[Buttercup]

I take it you werent around before they banned 'Electric Universe' altogether?

Guess so.

Imagine someone starting a thread asking about how stars shine, and getting an answer along the lines of 'It's a giant spark!', only alot more wordy. Then the thread devolves down to people trying to show the EU theory is wrong, and someone trying to show it is right, and the OP not having a clue. There is also the EU guy starting a thread in S&T about how the Sun is a giant electrical discharge, and a massive discussion on how that is wrong. A visitor may not be able to figure out that the EU theory is wrong.

Gotcha.

But I'm still avoiding ATM.

[Gillianren]

I take it you werent around before they banned 'Electric Universe' altogether?

Did they really? Well, that's unsurprising, though it was the only part of ATM I was generally able to participate in. That and Expanding Earth. The easy ones.

[Tensor]

Did they really? Well, that's unsurprising, though it was the only part of ATM I was generally able to participate in. That and Expanding Earth. The easy ones.

I think you're limiting yourself Gillianren. A lot of the problems with the ATM ideas are simply faulty logic or the originator not realizing that part of the idea contradicts another part. You're very good at finding things like that.

[Gillianren]

Thank you kindly. Not that the ATM proponents I spoke to listened to me anyway. But then, they didn't listen to anyone.

[CJSF]

I'll also note that through the years you've grown ever more eloquent and (at times) pithy with your comments and logic in many fora on this site, Gillian.

CJSF

[R.A.F.]

I'll also note that through the years you've grown ever more eloquent and (at times) pithy with your comments and logic on many sites on the internet, Gillian.

Hope you don't mind that I "fixed" that for you.

[Gillianren]

Aw . . . .

[Arneb]

Buttercup,

a similar kind of discussion is rather frequently held over at the CT section (which I read regularly while avoiding ATM). The solution that is presented in CT again and again (Jay Utah made that point rather succinctly a number of times) is simple: Bear in mind that this forum is (first and foremeost, I dare say) an educational resource. In that context ist is
a) important to counter nonsense;
b) important to demonstrate the way science can be used to debunk nonsense successfully;
c) demonstrate to the open-minded reader why specifically an idea is wrong;
d) show the occasional sincere ATM proponent where the holes in their theory are (some people seem to doubt the existence of such a sincere proponent, but let's not go into that discussion).

ATM may never produce any useful ideas at all, but at least it shows (from one side of the debate, at least) scientific reasoning in action live, uncut, and uninterrupted.

You see, I consider myself a fairly well educated astronomy lover. But I don't think I could succinctly refute a cleverly proposed, yet nonsensical idea, maybe garnished with a bit of abgstract mathematical verbiage in such a way that an intelligent but uneducated person would be convinced by my argument. But it is important to have that convincing counter-argument and to see it publicly. Those who take up the challenge of refuting bad ATM ideas do a great service to the public eager for competent education.

And yes, someday there may be the new Einstein first posting his ideas in BAUT's ATM. I am not holding my breath, but neither does ATM need that justification: Giving a good example to the fence-sitters, the interested, open-minded, uneducated but willing to be educated public, is justification enough.

[Buttercup]

Thanks for that reply, Arneb.

[Grey]

Just wondering why not let people start ATM threads same as any other.

What if I think Jupiter's atmosphere is made of methane and hot fudge? Let me start the thread (same as any other), defend my theory. People will either respond or won't.

You're absolutely welcome to start such a thread. It's just that you're asked to do so in a section of the forum specifically devoted to such speculation. And if someone asks in Q&A "what is Jupiter's atmosphere made of?", you're requested not to respond by saying, "I think it's methane and hot fudge!", since that's clearly not the mainstream viewpoint.

[John Jaksich]

Despite my own misgivings on my experiences on ATM---if the person who has to defend his/her idea comes away learning something new about themselves--(and uncovering the truth)--maybe there is some justice served by it.

[Usher]

Buttercup,

<snip>

ATM may never produce any useful ideas at all, but at least it shows (from one side of the debate, at least) scientific reasoning in action live, uncut, and uninterrupted.

You see, I consider myself a fairly well educated astronomy lover. But I don't think I could succinctly refute a cleverly proposed, yet nonsensical idea, maybe garnished with a bit of abgstract mathematical verbiage in such a way that an intelligent but uneducated person would be convinced by my argument. But it is important to have that convincing counter-argument and to see it publicly. Those who take up the challenge of refuting bad ATM ideas do a great service to the public eager for competent education.

And yes, someday there may be the new Einstein first posting his ideas in BAUT's ATM. I am not holding my breath, but neither does ATM need that justification: Giving a good example to the fence-sitters, the interested, open-minded, uneducated but willing to be educated public, is justification enough.

Great post. Thanks for this.

[marsbug]

I admit the ATM section has its uses, but I to avoid it, as it seems to breed a very combatative attitude on both sides that I find strikes sparks off my temper. It also seems taken as unwritten gospel by many posters there that if a theory is in ATM its automatically wrong. Thats understandable as it almost always is but such an attitude is stifling for creativity - and creativity is a vital part of science. I do get however that the proving grounds are there to test theories, not develop them.

However on a related point of semantics: I have to point out that in order for something to be a 'proveing grounds' once in blue moon something has to get out the other side, even if in a greatly reduced and altered form. If nothing ever gets out it is a black hole, or possibly a giant mincing machine. Were so much that goes in there not offal I might be more bothered about that.

[grapes]

However on a related point of semantics: I have to point out that in order for something to be a 'proveing grounds' once in blue moon something has to get out the other side, even if in a greatly reduced and altered form. If nothing ever gets out it is a black hole, or possibly a giant mincing machine. Were so much that goes in there not offal I might be more bothered about that.

I stand by supersupersymmetry (someone else's), and degree one (mine), until someone shoots a hole in them.

[marsbug]

Good for you, and no offense meant by any of the above. However niether can be 'proved' by a session in the ATM section - they will simply wait there until someone pokes a hole in them or the 30 day limit runs out.

I think that ATM only demonstrates the competitive, critical thinking and testing side of the scientific process. A sticky with some links to places where a theory can be developed, where constructive logical input can be sought, would be a nice acknowledgment that science is not just about tearing down ATM theories. It might also lead to a rise in the quality of the ideas in th ATM section!

[grapes]

science is not just about tearing down ATM theories.

No, science is about tearing down all theories. Seriously.

[Strange]

I stand by supersupersymmetry (someone else's)

I see his paper has been updated since it was discussed here. It is incomprehensible to me, so I have no idea if there is anything significantly new in it.

[Buttercup]

...It also seems taken as unwritten gospel by many posters there that if a theory is in ATM its automatically wrong. Thats understandable as it almost always is but such an attitude is stifling for creativity - and creativity is a vital part of science...

Agreed!!

Intolerance can take many guises. At least hear the other person out, if they're presenting something in a rational manner.

[Cougar]

Seems to me ATM is far more trouble than it's worth...

Beyond all the good answers already provided, I believe ATM gets a fair amount of traffic. On the internet, traffic is value. It could be that your assumption is incorrect and ATM is worth more than its trouble.

[Luckmeister]

To advance, science needs diverse mindsets -- the visionary's imagination, the futurist's projections, the mathematician's nuts and bolts, the mainstreamer's dogged skepticism, the model builder's tests and the engineer's practical application. All are seldom, if ever, found in one individual.

Since the average public does not read scientific papers, and the media cannot be trusted to educate objectively, places like BAUT are a vital source of knowledge on how the scientific method works. ATM primarily brings together three of the above mindsets -- the promoter of a new idea, the mathematician and the demanding skeptic, with the others weighing in or referenced. Yes, it can be brutal but it's a great lesson on the importance of remaining objective and doing the required research when developing an idea.

[marsbug]

No, science is about tearing down all theories. Seriously.

Tearing them down and building up new ones, and tearing those down and building up more new ones and so on ad infinitum. We need both, we need the cycle to keep going. ATM is explicitly set up to focus on the tearing down part. I submit that what ATM could do with is a better class of ATM theory and proponent.... and to get that the proponents need to be pointed towards resources that will educate them in how to construct a sound scientific theory. Thats no errand for the uninitiated without help and support.