[pogono argues BAUT definition of ATM]

[pogono]

The question actually is, "Is your theory generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community?" If it's not, then it's ATM unless proven otherwise. Consistency with the current mainstream does not automatically make it mainstream.

I would discuss this argument.

If we read description of ATM Section it is:
"Post here if you want to discuss a hypothesis that is currently outside the scientific mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? Have a speculation that you want exposed to scientific scrutiny? This is the place."

Goldstone post it is definitively not such kind of theory.
It is based on mainstream documents. If you read the papers linked (I did) you will see, it has nothing to do with being against heliocentrism...

I have read a lot of ATM threads, and most of you probably confirm, that most of people here does not argue with scientific arguments. Even me ;-) (P.S. It was all of you, who forced me to learn, to buy books and read all nights ;-)

Maybe community would consider to open new forum in "The Proving Grounds", for scientific, mainstream theories under construction (f.e. Mainstream Fights) It is enough to make at the beginning short 3-questions test for authors if they understand what Lagrangian is, etc.

I support Goldstone.
His theory does not match here* (*ATM).

[NEOWatcher]

It is based on mainstream documents. If you read the papers linked (I did) you will see, it has nothing to do with being against heliocentrism...

Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context.

But; I would like to point out that papers in mainstream publications do not mean that the idea in the paper is generally accepted. That's why they are published... To allow the scientific public to review them and see if they hold up to scrutiny.

[Swift]

This is the thread from which ToSeek's comment was taken.

[pogono]

Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context.

Yes, it was moved by mods. I was arguing in this thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....03#post1950003

In my opinion Goldstone's post does not match to ATM section. (P.S. Sorry if it looked like discussion with mods decision).
And I see, it is hard to point proper place for this valuable post.

I think there is some gap, between S&T and ATM.
Place for people who are substantive, scientific and has something new to discuss what keeps mainstream.

[slang]

But; I would like to point out that papers in mainstream publications do not mean that the idea in the paper is generally accepted. That's why they are published... To allow the scientific public to review them and see if they hold up to scrutiny.

And even if the papers are fully mainstream, that does not mean that any idea or paper citing or referring to those papers is automatically mainstream too. (Disregarding for the moment papers that have been withdrawn or refuted). I don't know if this applies to the thread the comment was taken from.

[NEOWatcher]

Without reading the entire thread, I can reply to this statement over there.

Is this a matter of against-the-mainstream because the time problem hasn't been rectified, or is there some other displeasure?

How can something be mainstream if it's not rectified?
Either something is accepted, or it is not (whether it be unexplained, or opposed). So; we may have 3 states, but only one is an accepted mainstream view.

[pogono]

So; we may have 3 states, but only one is an accepted mainstream view.

I do not agree.
There is a lot of mainstream documents, where people does not agree with other's documents and discuss other's arguments. I can see only one place, where one answer may be correct - math. And it is not always...

In all the rest science's areas there is always place for mainstream discussion.
Moreover, there is a lot of mainstream areas, where we have more than one explanation for the same phenomena, but we are not able to prove who is right.

String theory is mainstream or not?
So Kaluza-Klain is right or not?
So what about MOND?

If there is only one mainstream, why we make measurements in astronomy and recalculate it few different manners, to check witch prediction does it fit?

[Swift]

Whether there are 3 states, or 2, or many in science, it does not mean that room for all of them have to exist on BAUT. There is no requirement that any and all topics related to science are allowed topics for discussion here.

Beyond the question of what is the nature of science and "such" in the real world, the arguments have to be made why some category needs to be on BAUT and how it can be administered. There have been many such modifications or additions to ATM proposed in the past and none of those proposals could ever satisifactorily address all the various issues. If you wonder why this is an issue, you should read A Very Brief History of the ATM Forum.

[pzkpfw]

(A little side-point that may be useful: I can see it was confusing that I didn't specifically link to the originating thread, but at the time I moved the post I figured the quote was sufficient. It's one reason why we like full quote tags to be used, i.e. the difference between:

[QUOTE=NEOWatcher;1950295]Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context. ...[/QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE]Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context. ...[/QUOTE]

Giving (note the name and icon):

Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context. ...

and

Since this is extracted from (I presume) another thread, I don't know the context. ...

The full quote from ToSeek was in the post by pogono at the start of this thread (thanks pogono). Clicking the little double-right-arrow icon next to ToSeeks name takes one to the originating post - even though it's in a different thread.
)

[pogono]

Beyond the question of what is the nature of science and "such" in the real world, the arguments have to be made why some category needs to be on BAUT and how it can be administered.

Ok, agree. I haven't take a look from admin's point of view.
Despite I did not agree with some mods' decisions, I respect your work. Actually, anyone can see you have a lot of work with ATM.

I was wondering if "Mainstream Fights" would be some kind of ATM for trusted and tested members, without need for so much effort. But ok, I understand it would be hard to maintain. For me, case closed.

[captain swoop]

Quoting papers from journals that are Mainstream or using any Mainstream work to support your own ideas dosn't mean your idea is Mainstream. That's why we have a forum that lets people ask questions of a person proposing an idea.

[Swift]

I was wondering if "Mainstream Fights" would be some kind of ATM for trusted and tested members, without need for so much effort. But ok, I understand it would be hard to maintain. For me, case closed.

Thanks for understanding. Among the many things we have considered is some sort of more open ATM for "trusted" members. The problem then is how do you define "trusted" and the complaint that we are showing favoritism to long established members.

[ToSeek]

Maybe community would consider to open new forum in "The Proving Grounds", for scientific, mainstream theories under construction (f.e. Mainstream Fights) It is enough to make at the beginning short 3-questions test for authors if they understand what Lagrangian is, etc.

I'd be willing to consider this if you or someone could describe how this forum would differ in any functional way from the current ATM forum. By my reckoning, the only difference would be that one forum would bear the (apparently pejorative) title "Against the Mainstream," and the other wouldn't. Otherwise, all of the same rules would apply. I'd also rather avoid having the moderators make judgment calls as to which hypotheses are reasonable but speculative and which are outlandish.

[antoniseb]

One recurring theme from people who have disagreements with rules and implementation of the rules here at BAUT is boundary situations. There is a certain type of person that wants a straightforward guide to be able to tell in every boundary situation which side of the rule's implementation a certain approach will fall on. When looking at things in this light, there always seems to be a need for yet more categories and rules to define what belongs where. We are vague in some cases on purpose. We DO make changes at much faster than glacial speeds. Some suggestions work well, some don't. In general we try to balance making things work better with people's (both mods and members) resistance to change.

ATM specifically seems to be a part of the forum where people put a lot on the line, and frequently regard having their idea questioned as some kind of loss of face. It matters to them, and they fall back on the rules in some cases to find a way to avoid seeming loss. So this is often where we get the most requests about rule-changing.

I like what ATM is now, but think it could get better. I'm not sure rules changes would make a big difference that way. Mostly it seems like social changes. Greater recognition of the big effort it takes to create, refine, and defend new idea would be good, and on the other side greater realization that your new idea probably will need refining to account for phenomena you haven't considered yet, or that some math may be needed to estimate these effects. I would characterize most complaints from ATM as being of the variety in which someone proposes an idea, and is quickly worn down by the scale of work it takes to defend it, and then gives up and stops responding in some ungraceful way. I don't know how to fix that.

In my mind the people arguing on either side in any ATM thread are the hardest working members of our community, and my hat is off to them.

[Luckmeister]

In my mind the people arguing on either side in any ATM thread are the hardest working members of our community, and my hat is off to them.

Nope. That distinction goes to the moderators.

[tommac]

Excellent point ...

Yes, it was moved by mods. I was arguing in this thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....03#post1950003

In my opinion Goldstone's post does not match to ATM section. (P.S. Sorry if it looked like discussion with mods decision).
And I see, it is hard to point proper place for this valuable post.

I think there is some gap, between S&T and ATM.
Place for people who are substantive, scientific and has something new to discuss what keeps mainstream.

[tommac]

The problem is that there is a void for a forum to test ideas. Maybe that forum would not be for everyone but there clearly seems to be a demand for it as this is not the first request for such a forum.

I'd be willing to consider this if you or someone could describe how this forum would differ in any functional way from the current ATM forum. By my reckoning, the only difference would be that one forum would bear the (apparently pejorative) title "Against the Mainstream," and the other wouldn't. Otherwise, all of the same rules would apply. I'd also rather avoid having the moderators make judgment calls as to which hypotheses are reasonable but speculative and which are outlandish.

[Swift]

The problem is that there is a void for a forum to test ideas. Maybe that forum would not be for everyone but there clearly seems to be a demand for it as this is not the first request for such a forum.

Whether there are 3 states, or 2, or many in science, it does not mean that room for all of them have to exist on BAUT. There is no requirement that any and all topics related to science are allowed topics for discussion here.

Beyond the question of what is the nature of science and "such" in the real world, the arguments have to be made why some category needs to be on BAUT and how it can be administered. There have been many such modifications or additions to ATM proposed in the past and none of those proposals could ever satisifactorily address all the various issues. If you wonder why this is an issue, you should read A Very Brief History of the ATM Forum.

My answer from earlier in the thread

[Strange]

The problem is that there is a void for a forum to test ideas. Maybe that forum would not be for everyone but there clearly seems to be a demand for it as this is not the first request for such a forum.

TheScienceForum has a Pseudoscience (similar to ATM) and a "New Hypotheses and Ideas" section (which seems to be semi-ATM/speculative). There seem to be fewer rules (and a generally lower level of expertise) than you will find here.

[dgavin]

Just to chime in on the moderators side here, ATM is even for alternate explaination of currently knows theory's, hypothesis, etc... Such as "decreasing time - dark energy being equivlent" one I proposed some months ago. I answered every objection with cites and information from papers supporting that argument, and it simply went to sleep after 30 days when there were no more arguments against it. Did I prove anything by that thread? Hard to say, but atleast I was able to being to light some intresting peer reviewed papers on the subject. So basically even an alternate view of something mainstream, belongs in ATM, and you best be prepared to defend it appropriately.

[captain swoop]

Posts discussing Universe Today story on 'ATM' view of Mercury moved to this thread

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....20#post1954320

[Omniverse]

I'm really new here, but I've been reading around for a while.

There seems to be a desire for a middle-ground between ATM and general discussion. I've read all the forum guidelines and a lot of related threads (including the history of ATM) and I can really sympathise with the forum moderators. They do a great job and the history of ATM is pretty much as I expected it would be, with people who just won't accept any counterarguments no matter how reasonable they might be.

I also see the point of the people arguing for a more lenient sub-forum of "The proving grounds". A month is, in scientific terms, a very short time. If a thread has failed to prove it's worth within a month then it is only right that it should be stopped in it's tracks. However if a thread has provoked discussion and may have some merit then it might be wrong to deny all further discussion after the month has elapsed. I have read that extensions are sometimes gained to this month limit, but these exceptions are few and far between.

Let me consider a case study...

Someone who acknowledges that they are not an expert in a specific field develops a concept in this specific field. They would like to recieve, if not confirmation that they are correct, a consensus that their concept is not implausible. The originator of this concept starts a thread in ATM and argues their case in order to ascertain the validity of their argument and to recieve feedback. If at the end of the month they have not convincingly proved their case, but nobody has yet convincingly disproved their case then the case could be considered to be "open". However, the current rules of ATM would close this case and disallow even the possibility of further discussion after revision and/or the aquisition of further evidence. This person operating outside their field would be denied the opportunity to reflect on their concepts and spend more time acquiring data or to rephrase their concept based on what they have learned in this first month of "trial by fire".

Perhaps the moderators would allow another ATM thread to be started after further evidence and/or reasoning has come to light, but if this was the case then the complete argument would be split up into a number of threads and would be hard to follow.

I'm not advocating a change in the forum structure or the moderation procedures, but nor am I indicating that the current status quo is ideal or even accceptable in all cases. I'm merely commenting from the perspective of a fence-sitter who occupies a position somewhere between idealism and reality.

I hope nobody is offended by what I have said, this is certainly not my intention. I'm merely trying to present a fair and unbiased view of my perception of the current situation.

Peace.

[Gillianren]

I have never seen an ATM thread that wasn't convincingly disproven pretty much right away.

[Omniverse]

I have never seen an ATM thread that wasn't convincingly disproven pretty much right away.

I've been reading through that forum and I wholeheartedly agree.

So the month timeframe is vastly over-permissive in the majority of cases.

However, should someone come up with a concept that is not easily falsifiable I think it is highly likely that they would need more than a month to make their case. I might cite A.G.Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" here, which has given rise to the paper Unification of gravity, gauge fields, and Higgs bosons. This is undoubtedly a speculative area, but speculative does not necessarily imply non-mainstream. There have been articles in New Scientist and Scientific American magazines devoted to this along with substantial international workshops with attendants that are respected in the international theoretical physics community.

There is currently no facility available for these rare occurances to be allowed for. For a new ATM theory to be developed it requires room to move and time to develop. There's a moderation minefield here and I fully understand why the current rules are there.

I think I read in one of the guidelines threads that bautforum is not the place to develop theories (and this is understandable), but to present them fully formed. However, if an individual was in a position to present a theory fully-formed then they would have no reason to post them at bautform since this is a discussion forum. If such people did post here they would post their findings as news and not ATM.

This brings into question the purpose of ATM. If people can not post developing theories here and would not post developed theories here then what can be expected of the posts in this forum?

[Jim]

However, the current rules of ATM would close this case and disallow even the possibility of further discussion after revision and/or the aquisition of further evidence.

Not exactly. From Rule 13:

Your ATM thread will be closed after 30 days. Extensions may be granted by Moderators/Admins, if circumstances warrant. Once an ATM idea has been presented, it may not be presented again unless you have information not available the first time.

Keep in mind that BAUT's ATM forum is not intended as a means of developing an idea. You should have your concept ready for "peer review" before you present it in ATM.

[Gillianren]

However, should someone come up with a concept that is not easily falsifiable I think it is highly likely that they would need more than a month to make their case. I might cite A.G.Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" here, which has given rise to the paper Unification of gravity, gauge fields, and Higgs bosons. This is undoubtedly a speculative area, but speculative does not necessarily imply non-mainstream. There have been articles in New Scientist and Scientific American magazines devoted to this along with substantial international workshops with attendants that are respected in the international theoretical physics community.

Yes, but we don't get those ideas here.

There is currently no facility available for these rare occurances to be allowed for. For a new ATM theory to be developed it requires room to move and time to develop. There's a moderation minefield here and I fully understand why the current rules are there.

As Jim points out, we do have a possible workaround.

I think I read in one of the guidelines threads that bautforum is not the place to develop theories (and this is understandable), but to present them fully formed. However, if an individual was in a position to present a theory fully-formed then they would have no reason to post them at bautform since this is a discussion forum. If such people did post here they would post their findings as news and not ATM.

If I were posting an ATM idea--I'm not, in no small part because I'm not a scientist and therefore not really qualified--I might use this as my last step before attempting real peer review and publication. A "spot anything I've missed." Certainly if I tried to post it as "news," the mods would and should still hold me to ATM rules.

This brings into question the purpose of ATM. If people can not post developing theories here and would not post developed theories here then what can be expected of the posts in this forum?

More of the same, but blocked off from the other sections of the board. We've discussed why the ATM section exists many times.

[Omniverse]

@Jim: i think there was a bit of a cross-post there, but having read your post, I realise I didn't fully take in the part of the guidelines that says "Once an ATM idea has been presented, it may not be presented again unless you have information not available the first time. "

So it is possible to re-present an idea when new information comes to light. This is definately a good thing. My misunderstanding.

[Omniverse]

We've discussed why the ATM section exists many times.

I don't intend posting in ATM any time soon myself either, but it's a credit to the forum that off-the-wall ideas are given any place at all. Many forums would simply remove all posts that were too speculative. I guess that in a field where even the professionals are in constant discussion it's wrong to write something off simply because it contradicts common perceptions of the subject. On the other hand, there is a lot of spurious opposition to established facts and the people that espose these opinions would probably spam the other sub-forums if they didn't have a place to call home.

Here's to the cosmological frontier! Discussion is a sign that field is interesting.

[slang]

I hope nobody is offended by what I have said, this is certainly not my intention. I'm merely trying to present a fair and unbiased view of my perception of the current situation.

Not offended. But your post does show that you are relatively new here (welcome, btw!). This discussion has been brought up many times in the past, almost every single time when a new poster in ATM discovered that it was not the type of forum he or she expected. And their reaction is almost always the same: BAUT should change to fit their expectations, instead of them changing their posting style to fit in with what BAUT is. Read several of the many threads here in Feedback about ATM, and read about the ATM history. It'll give a better understanding of why things are the way the are.

[Strange]

However, should someone come up with a concept that is not easily falsifiable I think it is highly likely that they would need more than a month to make their case. I might cite A.G.Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" here, which has given rise to the paper Unification of gravity, gauge fields, and Higgs bosons. This is undoubtedly a speculative area, but speculative does not necessarily imply non-mainstream. There have been articles in New Scientist and Scientific American magazines devoted to this along with substantial international workshops with attendants that are respected in the international theoretical physics community.

It may be worth noting that this paper was discussed here (not in ATM).

There is currently no facility available for these rare occurances to be allowed for. For a new ATM theory to be developed it requires room to move and time to develop. There's a moderation minefield here and I fully understand why the current rules are there.

We have had a very small number of ATM threads which are not complete bonkers pseudoscience but people genuinely looking for feedback and criticism of a theory. I have seen at least one with constructive criticism taken on board by the proponent. A couple of times he asked for the thread to be closed while he went off to do some more work to understand the new information. I am pretty sure the time allowed was quite a bit more than the 30 day limit. Simply because he was reasonable and took the feedback constructively.

However, if an individual was in a position to present a theory fully-formed then they would have no reason to post them at bautform since this is a discussion forum.

And, sadly, most people presenting an ATM idea can't understand that. They also can't understand the idea that they might be wrong. Or that their idea just makes no sense.

This brings into question the purpose of ATM. If people can not post developing theories here and would not post developed theories here then what can be expected of the posts in this forum?

The usual "relativity is wrong because I have misunderstood it" crowd. I find it a useful learning forum because complex ideas are often explained very simply to try and get through to the proponent It is also a useful place to practice explaining complex (or even simple) ideas to people who don't get it.