[Unwritten Rules re' Mainstream Conformity]

[Canis Lupus]

... Gentlemen I have observed that the benevolent dictatorship does seem to work well...

Problem is this dictatorship is not always benevolent but sometimes, too often, appears malevolent, depending upon whether one conforms to the repressive idea of "mainstream" which the powers to be here cling to so ruthlessly, using it like a baseball bat to bash some members around with.

There are broadly two sets of subtle unwritten rules here: one for the conformists, who give the ironical impression sometimes they imagine themselves extremely intelligent and gifted. This group are given plenty of scope to snipe aggressively, basically doing the moderator's work to control ideas to conform to their own idea of "mainstream". The other set of rules apply to those who may approach issues unorthodoxly, even if only suspected of that particularly hideous crime. Not only are they expected to tolerate narky aggressive comments with Christ like forbearance, one after another, turning the other cheek, they, in responding, must be ultra-polite, setting standards of civility the mainstream conformists rarely, if ever, display themselves.

This has on occasions been galling to observe and experience, however, when one sees moderators themselves joining in on the rudeness, leading the charge in case "the mainstreamers" forget their role of making others conform in thought and idea via the weapon of aggressive, rude or insidious posts then I am reduced to a passive observer of this forum (possibly like so many others) basically ignoring most of its content, concentrating more on Universe Today.

Over moderation is not an idea which should bother mainstream conformists here, they being effectively part of the moderating team themselves, like deputies swung into action on a posse.


Mod note...
Discussion moved from http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ver-moderation

[Swift]

Over moderation is not an idea which should bother the mainstream conformists here, they being effectively part of the moderating team themselves, like deputies swung into action on a posse.

I wouldn't comment about the use of the term "conformist", but I then find it interesting that the "mainstreamers" seem to be the ones complaining this time about overmoderation.

Of course, I am completely self-serving in my comments, but it appears to me that whatever the divide, the one side seems to feel the other side is treated better.

[captain swoop]

Canis Lupus, this is a board that supports Mainstream Science. What would you have us do?

As we always say, if you want a board that will allow uncontrolled proposal of non mainstream ideas and unsupported speculation then you are in the wrong place.

[Canis Lupus]

Canis Lupus, this is a board that supports Mainstream Science. What would you have us do?

As we always say, if you want a board that will allow uncontrolled proposal of non mainstream ideas and unsupported speculation then you are in the wrong place.

The theory is that this board is supportive of science, I originally thought. The practice here, as I have come to realise, is probably as you state. I don't see the two ideas, science and mainstream-science, as being the same, the latter being a threat to the former. Perhaps it is an unavoidable threat, the friction which science needs to rub against, but the idea of mainstream needs to be kept in check, if kept at all, not used as a measuring stick for truth. "Mainstream Science" is a nonsensical term, used for political reasons rather than scientific ones. This forum uses the idea of mainstream in two different and distinct ways, switching from one to the other when it suits itself. When the illusionary nature of the narrower definition is exposed, this forum hides behind the idea of "mainstream" meaning peer-reviewed, but that is not how it is used to control members whose ideas are not favoured.

[Luckmeister]

Canis Lupus, If I remember correctly, you are now (or are soon to be) a member of the legal profession. To compare, judges favor legal precedent in presiding over a court case and BAUT moderators favor scientific precedent in presiding over a science forum. Neither are truly objective venues nor should be a free-for-all.

[ToSeek]

There are broadly two sets of subtle unwritten rules here: one for the conformists, who give the ironical impression sometimes they imagine themselves extremely intelligent and gifted. This group are given plenty of scope to snipe aggressively, basically doing the moderator's work to control ideas to conform to their own idea of "mainstream".

I will admit that we had one member who fit this description to some extent, but he was punted over three months ago. I have seen few if any reports since then of similar behavior. Since I seldom enter the Proving Grounds area of the forum, the only way I'll know about such behavior is if I'm alerted to same by reports or another moderator.

[R.A.F.]

"Mainstream Science" is a nonsensical term, used for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

The reason it is "labeled" mainstream science is to differentiate it from fringe science.

It's not "political" in any way.

[Canis Lupus]

Canis Lupus, If I remember correctly, you are now (or are soon to be) a member of the legal profession. To compare, judges favor legal precedent in presiding over a court case and BAUT moderators favor scientific precedent in presiding over a science forum. Neither are truly objective venues nor should be a free-for-all.

It's an interesting analogy, one I use as the basis of my criticism. The comparison breaks down quickly because common law countries have a well defined system of precedence and legal reports, determining which courts are binding, which are persuasive etc. Even then, it is fertile ground for debate, distinguishing obiter dictum from ratio decidendi, and even when that is determined there is still plenty of leeway on how a principle might apply to a new circumstance. There is much more which has been well defined over the centuries to make the system of precedence work coherently in common law countries.

There is no similar system in science, nothing approaching it, making the idea of "mainstream" (an idea which is roughly equivalent with binding precedent in law if it had validity through such a system) unworkable, lacking in credibility, and practically meaningless, except on a forum and few other situations.

I have opposed counsel attempting to persuade a court of a principle without a specific reference to a judgment or law report, which could be duly considered by all parties, and argued appropriately. The position counsel left the court in attempting to apply the purported principle was hopeless. He was rightly condemned by the judge in the harshest of tones for ever trying such a stunt.

To the extent that one can make comparisons with the legal profession, it would be that type of advocacy which reminds me most of the way the term "mainstream-science" is used. It is a bluff of sorts, pretending there is certainty when there is none. Yes, I see the advantages of not giving every lunatic oxygen to sprout their pet theories endlessly, but I also see the price paid with this idea of mainstream-science.

[R.A.F.]

It is a bluff of sorts, pretending there is certainty when there is none.

Why would you "doubt" the certainty of scientific findings which have been proven by conclusive evidence??

First it was "political", and now it's a "bluff". Neither claim is convincing.

[korjik]

It's an interesting analogy, one I use as the basis of my criticism. The comparison breaks down quickly because common law countries have a well defined system of precedence and legal reports, determining which courts are binding, which are persuasive etc. Even then, it is fertile ground for debate, distinguishing obiter dictum from ratio decidendi, and even when that is determined there is still plenty of leeway on how a principle might apply to a new circumstance. There is much more which has been well defined over the centuries to make the system of precedence work coherently in common law countries.

There is no similar system in science, nothing approaching it, making the idea of "mainstream" (an idea which is roughly equivalent with binding precedent in law if it had validity through such a system) unworkable, lacking in credibility, and practically meaningless, except on a forum and few other situations.

I have opposed counsel attempting to persuade a court of a principle without a specific reference to a judgment or law report, which could be duly considered by all parties, and argued appropriately. The position counsel left the court in attempting to apply the purported principle was hopeless. He was rightly condemned by the judge in the harshest of tones for ever trying such a stunt.

To the extent that one can make comparisons with the legal profession, it would be that type of advocacy which reminds me most of the way the term "mainstream-science" is used. It is a bluff of sorts, pretending there is certainty when there is none. Yes, I see the advantages of not giving every lunatic oxygen to sprout their pet theories endlessly, but I also see the price paid with this idea of mainstream-science.

And you would be completely wrong. You know how science works about as well as I know how law works. That is to say, poorly with alot of assumtion.

Mainstream theory is very much a well defined system of precedent and experiment reports. That is what journals are. There is also very fertile ground for debate. As a matter of fact, science is far more open to new ideas than law. No one is ever going to say 'Redheaded people are allowed to shoot anyone they like in the face anytime they like' and no one is ever going to pay it a second thought. However, when someone says 'Neutrinos go faster than the speed of light' every one does pay attention and tries to see if it is true.

Guess what: a particle with a rest mass traveling faster than c is a far bigger change than redhead example I gave.

Another example is Dark Energy. It is only a bit more than a decade old yet it completely changed our understanding of the entire universe. Someone came up with evidence, that evidence was examined, the implications were discussed and the results agreed upon. An idea that two decades ago would have been a laughed at ATM theory became mainstream in only a few years. Why? Because it had to.

Mainstream isnt a bluff, it is a standard. If you cant cite your precendent, you get condemned in the harshest tones.

As a matter of fact, the FTL neutrino excitement shows that the mainstream does work. The experiment was published, the seemingly impossible results were given. The work was examined and it was shown to be up to standard. A possible error was found. You can bet that right now there are alot of physicists who are trying to wrangle the money and experiment time to confirm the result yea or nay tho. Should one of these experiments show that the original was correct, then mainstream will change, and an entirely new branch of physics will be born.

That is another assupmtion you seem to be making. Most physicists want the laws of physics to be wrong. They dont want the mainstream view to be the end result. I know my first thought when I heared about the FTL neutrinos was 'that's incredible!', and I doubt that my view wasnt the vast majority.

Mainstream isnt a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work.

[Nereid]

The theory is that this board is supportive of science, I originally thought. The practice here, as I have come to realise, is probably as you state. I don't see the two ideas, science and mainstream-science, as being the same, the latter being a threat to the former. Perhaps it is an unavoidable threat, the friction which science needs to rub against, but the idea of mainstream needs to be kept in check, if kept at all, not used as a measuring stick for truth. "Mainstream Science" is a nonsensical term, used for political reasons rather than scientific ones. This forum uses the idea of mainstream in two different and distinct ways, switching from one to the other when it suits itself. When the illusionary nature of the narrower definition is exposed, this forum hides behind the idea of "mainstream" meaning peer-reviewed, but that is not how it is used to control members whose ideas are not favoured.

It's an interesting analogy, one I use as the basis of my criticism. The comparison breaks down quickly because common law countries have a well defined system of precedence and legal reports, determining which courts are binding, which are persuasive etc. Even then, it is fertile ground for debate, distinguishing obiter dictum from ratio decidendi, and even when that is determined there is still plenty of leeway on how a principle might apply to a new circumstance. There is much more which has been well defined over the centuries to make the system of precedence work coherently in common law countries.

There is no similar system in science, nothing approaching it, making the idea of "mainstream" (an idea which is roughly equivalent with binding precedent in law if it had validity through such a system) unworkable, lacking in credibility, and practically meaningless, except on a forum and few other situations.

I have opposed counsel attempting to persuade a court of a principle without a specific reference to a judgment or law report, which could be duly considered by all parties, and argued appropriately. The position counsel left the court in attempting to apply the purported principle was hopeless. He was rightly condemned by the judge in the harshest of tones for ever trying such a stunt.

To the extent that one can make comparisons with the legal profession, it would be that type of advocacy which reminds me most of the way the term "mainstream-science" is used. It is a bluff of sorts, pretending there is certainty when there is none. Yes, I see the advantages of not giving every lunatic oxygen to sprout their pet theories endlessly, but I also see the price paid with this idea of mainstream-science.

I'm with korjik on this, Canis Lupus.

I do not know, of course, how familiar you are with how science is actually 'done' (or at least that part of it relevant to this forum), but your posts (which I have quoted) seem to suggest that you think you can surmise the salient features of 'the doing of science' from reading posts in this forum. Do you?

It's been said - many times, by many forum members - that the scrutiny (if that's an appropriate word) given to ATM ideas, in the BAUT section so-named, is mild in the extreme compared to the scrutiny ATM ideas receive at the hands of peers, in the fora in which the relevant science is debated, discussed, challenged, disputed, etc. An outsider may not, of course, always recognise just how ferocious an attack on an ATM idea is (in the appropriate fora), nor how vigorous the response; in any case, the depth of scrutiny of a new (ATM) idea which subsequently becomes 'mainstream' is so many OOM (orders of magnitude) greater than anything you've ever seen, in any ATM thread in this forum, that I doubt you'd quickly appreciate the difference.

korjik gave the example of Dark Energy; may I ask you, directly, how familiar you are with the thousands (yes, there's that many) of papers on the subject, in the decade which followed the publication of the two landmark (observational astronomy) papers? And taking just one, randomly selected, of those papers, how familiar would you say you are with the effort that the reviewers put in, to critically examining the draft, before recommending (to the editor of the journal) that it be published?

Perhaps I've misunderstood the thrust (or intent) of your posts; if so, I'd appreciate reading your clarifications.

[Jim]

This discussion seems to warrant its own thread. Canis Lupus, if you don't like the "throwdown" title, Report this post and tell us what you prefer.

[Strange]

The theory is that this board is supportive of science, I originally thought. The practice here, as I have come to realise, is probably as you state. I don't see the two ideas, science and mainstream-science, as being the same, the latter being a threat to the former.

I don't see any such distinction out in the real world. It is only on popular science forums like this that there is a need to distinguish science from all sorts of fringe/crackpot ideas that pose as science. To make this clear, the "real" science has been given the title "mainstream"; i.e. the science that is used, studied, developed, criticized, revised, speculated about, overthrown, etc by working scientists. Or others who are not professional scientists but who follow something close to a scientific method; e.g. So You Want To Be A Scientist? - I'm sure they had all sorts of crank applications that they had to filter out but they also got some good, novel, off the wall ideas.

The "mainstream" title is just to distinguish it from ideas which are not scientific at all; whether that is because they are fringe-, pseudo- or anti-science. People like to propose ideas that they have made up on a completely ad-hoc basis with no observational support, or ideas that "must be true" because some book or website says so. They then ignore or dismiss any evidence to the contrary. That is not science.

Popular science magazines and websites have to make similar judgements to maintain their credibility. But even so, they will occasionally publish something that is totally wrong, or even non-scientific. Perhaps just to provoke and encourage sales. Perhaps through an error of judgement.

There is no total consensus or conformity in "mainstream" science. Everything is up for grabs. As long as science is used to do the grabbing and not metaphysics or mumbo-jumbo.

There are often discussions in the mainstream science sections of BAUT on some pretty speculative, far out, unlikely, unproven, ideas that have been floated by scientists (or philosopher or other non-specialists). This has included people discussing the pros and cons, the evidence for and against, etc. There is no problem with that as long as no one starst saying: this must be true because I want it to be or because the universe is square or whatever.

used to control members whose ideas are not favoured

Do you have a specific example of a scientific idea which has been suppressed in this way?

[Perikles]

I don't see the two ideas, science and mainstream-science, as being the same, the latter being a threat to the former.

Exactly as Strange expressed it.

Also, I hate this idea of a fringe idea (=non-mainstream science) being a threat to mainstream. In fact, the ability to argue against non-mainstream ideas only serves to reinforce mainstream, so where is the threat? If ideas cannot be dismissed, then they become part of mainstream. The only way fringe ideas become any kind of threat is when time and energy is spent arguing with proponents of wacky ideas who are unable to defend what they say, for whatever reason. This threat is merely an annoyance.

[Strange]

Also, I hate this idea of a fringe idea (=non-mainstream science) being a threat to mainstream.

Actually, Canis Lupus was suggesting that mainstream science is a threat to science; presumably to "real science"?

I assume the idea is that "mainstream science" is so stuck in a rut, so convinced that it is right, so resistant to challenge and new ideas that the proper pursuit of science has been abandoned in favour of adhering to some dogma.

[Apologies to CL if I have grossly misrepresent their opinion; please feel free to correct me if I have erected a strawman]

But that just isn't true for many reasons. There isn't a single mainstream dogma that all scientists accept. There are always a range of theories and new hypotheses (in some subjects more than others). This very fact was used as an argument by an ATM proponent recently; something like: "how can I argue against big bang theory when there are so many big bang theories I can't even know what is mainstream". An exaggeration, certainly, but not without some truth (although not a valid argument for other reasons).

Many of the "mainstream" theories that fringe/pseudo-science types argue against have only become mainstream relatively recently: quantum physics, relativity, dark matter, dark energy...

Again, this is often used as an argument by those with fringe theories: "quantum theory was rejected even by Einstein, therefore my theory must be right because it is rejected".

[Perikles]

Actually, Canis Lupus was suggesting that mainstream science is a threat to science; presumably to "real science"?.

Yes, I noticed that but decided it made no sense whatsoever, so tried to guess what he might have meant. Apologies if I have got it wrong.

[Paul Beardsley]

As I see it, mainstream science simply means the description of reality that is generally considered to be the least wrong one.

If someone has a description of some aspect of reality which is even less wrong than the current one, they are invited to present it, along with the relevant evidence.

[Moose]

As I see it, mainstream science simply means the description of reality that is generally considered to be the least wrong one.

That's a good way of putting it. The least inaccurate model (or the most useful one, or the simplest one that's within your stated tolerances) is the one you use.

[jlhredshift]

I certainly agree with the facts reported by the mainstream, I sometimes wonder about the "therefore" parts.

In one case of accepted mainstream science a group that are not scientists have grabbed the mainstream viewpoint as justification for their political/economic viewpoint. This board does not allow any contrary discussion to that mainstream viewpoint and so, in my view, are supporting a particular political/economic viewpoint by the disallowing of contrary discussion.

[Strange]

That's a good way of putting it. The least inaccurate model (or the most useful one, or the simplest one that's within your stated tolerances) is the one you use.

Yep, that is good. and the trouble with most ATM (pseudo/fringe/wevs) theories is that they either don't match reality at all or they are useless. Or both.

[R.A.F.]

This board does not allow any contrary discussion to that mainstream viewpoint...

This board does not allow contrary discussion without supportive evidence.

Why would you neglect to include the part I boldened??

[jlhredshift]

Because the "supportive evidence" will not exist until after the fact, unfortunately.

[R.A.F.]

Are you saying that this board should "entertain" all manner of speculative ideas and not demand evidence to support those ideas?...or that the only "supportive evidence" occurs after a speculative idea becomes mainstream?


Could you clarify what you mean??

[jlhredshift]

No and no. I only wonder about the "therefore". For instance, I reject the plea "don't you think we should, just in case".

[grapes]

I certainly agree with the facts reported by the mainstream, I sometimes wonder about the "therefore" parts.

In one case of accepted mainstream science a group that are not scientists have grabBbed the mainstream viewpoint as justification for their political/economic viewpoint. This board does not allow any contrary discussion to that mainstream viewpoint and so, in my view, are supporting a particular political/economic viewpoint by the disallowing of contrary discussion.

We don't condone political discussion, nor opposition, therefore we support democans, republicrats, royalists, communists, breatharians, etceterals.

Love ya all

[R.A.F.]

I only wonder about the "therefore". For instance, I reject the plea "don't you think we should, just in case".

Perhaps it's only me, but I don't have a clue what it is you are trying to saying...

[Selfsim]

No and no. I only wonder about the "therefore". For instance, I reject the plea "don't you think we should, just in case".

The precautionary principle ?

[Tensor]

In one case of accepted mainstream science a group that are not scientists have grabbed the mainstream viewpoint as justification for their political/economic viewpoint. This board does not allow any contrary discussion to that mainstream viewpoint and so, in my view, are supporting a particular political/economic viewpoint by the disallowing of contrary discussion.

Science can't control who usurps the science for their own political/economic viewpoint. If a group started using Relativity (the OPERA experiment not withstanding) for their own political/economic viewpoint (as has been done), should the fact the board considers relativity mainstream count as support for that viewpoint, because they don't allow contrary discussion on Relativity? I would point out that contrary discussion of both points would be allowed in ATM, but support would have to be provided.

[Robert Tulip]

In one case of accepted mainstream science a group that are not scientists have grabbed the mainstream viewpoint as justification for their political/economic viewpoint. This board does not allow any contrary discussion to that mainstream viewpoint and so, in my view, are supporting a particular political/economic viewpoint by the disallowing of contrary discussion.

This comment appears to be about climate science. Global warming is scientific fact. What to do about global warming involves political and economic factors, as well as scientific factors, and provides great room for debate. Within the board rule of non-discussion of politics, there is abundant scope for discussion of different strategies to respond to global warming. Everything from nuclear power to carbon taxes to new technology gets discussed on BAUT. What is not allowed except in ATM is the argument that mainstream science is wrong about global warming. That does not equate to BAUT "supporting a particular political/economic viewpoint by the disallowing of contrary discussion". It is purely support for mainstream scientific consensus.

[jlhredshift]

Science can't control who usurps the science for their own political/economic viewpoint. If a group started using Relativity (the OPERA experiment not withstanding) for their own political/economic viewpoint (as has been done), should the fact the board considers relativity mainstream count as support for that viewpoint, because they don't allow contrary discussion on Relativity? I would point out that contrary discussion of both points would be allowed in ATM, but support would have to be provided.

I agree, but see my thoughts in response to Robert.