Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Internalizing a complex issue.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ...
    I return to my OP just to ask that considerations be shown to the fact that I increasingly find a unfair slant

    or leaning on things that do not seem to be science based.. I do not willingly accept faith or belief..
    ...
    You still seem to think that because we allow a question about woo, that we are somehow supporting that woo.

    If so: no, we are not.

    Allowing people to make good coherent science-based answers to those questions is how we deal with the woo.

    (Not, by simply shouting "RUBBISH".)

    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ...
    but will endeavour to be less abrasive
    ...
    The issue with your posts isn't just the abrasivness, it's that you often are not even answering the question. A teacher can't just tell a pupil they are wrong, the teacher needs to help the pupil find the solution.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,382
    I may be remembering incorrectly, but what I remember is that the science was presented in vague and general
    terms, and nothing that could be understood by ordinary readers.
    It was a little bit vague because the full explanation requires undergraduate level (at least) mathematics. Which I don't have. Every now and then I read up on the topic and 'get' it for a little while but then it slips away again as I forget details. Because I don't work in that field. So I am sorry if teaching advanced physics in laymans terms is not my strong point - but it is not me you should be listening to. You, or anyone who wanted to properly understand a subject, should be listening and reading the work of the experts and leaders in this field before you have the right to voice strong criticism of their published works.

    And my basic point remains. Sorry but I still believe you cannot dismiss what you cannot understand. The inability of myself to explain something to your satisfaction does not give you the right to dismiss a large body of peer reviewed work because you don't like it.

    PS. Jeff, I regalled you with similar complaints many times? Three times at the very most. And the most recent time was when you asked me to. Please don't make me out to be trying to set myself up as some sort of self-appointed moderator here.

    I am going to back away now before this becomes me versus Astromark and Jeff. I will stick to my main point/belief. Anyone is entitled to an opinion but it should never be put up as an argument against peer reviewed work without an equivalent level of understanding and evidence. However speculative it is, science > opinion on this board... In my opinion
    Last edited by Shaula; 2012-Mar-28 at 09:22 PM. Reason: typos

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I may be remembering incorrectly, but what I remember
    is that the science was presented in vague and general
    terms, and nothing that could be understood by ordinary
    readers. For them it was not obvious that real science
    was being presented or that there was real science
    somewhere out there that supports the assertions in
    the thread.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    BAUT seems to be employing a dichotomy that I don't always agree with; that scientific thoughts are either mainstream or ATM with no grey area in between. String theory cannot be considered mainstream but is being discussed seriously by prominent respected scientists, and papers on the subject have been published in respected journals, but observation and experiment has not validated any of the competing theory variations to the point of mainstream acceptance.

    It should be noted that BAUT members posting details of any string theory variation are not automatically making "assertions" but rather are usually simply defining what that variation encompasses. They can be discussing it for clarity rather than personal subscription. I think that's an important distinction and one reason why string theory discussions should not be relegated to the ATM subforum as it would kill any productive (or at least educational) discussion.

    Mike
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    BAUT seems to be employing a dichotomy that I don't always agree with; that scientific thoughts are either mainstream or ATM with no grey area in between. String theory cannot be considered mainstream but is being discussed seriously by prominent respected scientists, and papers on the subject have been published in respected journals, but observation and experiment has not validated any of the competing theory variations to the point of mainstream acceptance.

    It should be noted that BAUT members posting details of any string theory variation are not automatically making "assertions" but rather are usually simply defining what that variation encompasses. They can be discussing it for clarity rather than personal subscription. I think that's an important distinction and one reason why string theory discussions should not be relegated to the ATM subforum as it would kill any productive (or at least educational) discussion.

    Mike
    My bold. I would not necessarily express it that way. Physicists in the mainstream know that GR and quantum mechanics are incompatible in their present forms, and are speculating about possible candidates for a theory of everything. They just are not going off half cocked and blowing off theories that work well in rather ample domains without compelling evidence for the new ideas.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    BAUT seems to be employing a dichotomy that I don't always agree with; that scientific thoughts are either mainstream or ATM with no grey area in between.
    On the one hand, we have to. The reality is that if we allow for a gray area, then every ATM advocate will use it to back-door their ideas into this gray area. As long as we manage ATM differently, there has to be some sort of line drawn.

    On the other hand, as long as people keep the discussion reasonable and within the realm of at least "mainstream speculation" (for lack of a better term - Hornblower describes it well in the previous post), I think we have generally allowed those discussions to go on. A couple of example threads have already been mentioned in this thread, IIRC (the Edge of the Universe thread for one).

    But lastly, as pzkpfw has already pointed out, none of that has anything to do with the thread for which astromark was warned about. It was not about string theory, it wasn't some sort of speculative physics. It was a member in good standing asking for help in debunking some ATM/CT, seeking out the purely mainstream answers. It wasn't a complex issue, and the problem was that astromark wasn't internalizing.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,442
    There are several people here whose knee-jerk reaction to anything woo is to call it garbage. Which is great unless what's being asked is why it's garbage. Or "can you help me debunk this garbage?" Often, the context in which these things get presented get ignored. I know it's something I've struggled with myself--a tendency to dismiss out-of-hand. But as I said before, that isn't how you educate.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    I think we all get hot a time or two. I know a lot of folks at MSFC. And what I hear often gets my goat--and I do tend to bear down a bit heavily at times. That's one good thing about the off-topic babbling section--its playful and helps ease things.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,355
    Well, I've been thinking carefully about the matters raised by Luckmeister (post #33) and Swift (post #35).

    Whilst I appreciate the need to handle ATM differently at BAUT, it seems that the moderation criteria adopted over the years here, may have inadvertently left some members with impression that Theoretical Physics is somehow not science!

    IMHO, such a misconception requires some degree of official correction.

    The role of theory is to facilitate the exploration of the unknown. This requires fundamentally different considerations, especially if the science behind it, is perfectly sound, has momentum in the scientific community, and even if it presently lacks testability. Debates about the strengths and weaknesses of such theoretical approaches, is a very positive contribution to any serious science-based website. Exploration of the unknown, is also at the heart of the science of Astronomy. Interpretation of astronomical observations, is critically dependent on theory ... and its continued development.

    In some cases, ATM may also have a sound theoretical basis, (ie: be verifiable in theory), and may also not be presently testable. As long as it requires no mainstream theory (or Laws) to be ignored or changed, why should this represent a problem to the extent that it somehow constrains consideration of Theoretical Physics at BAUT ..?.. And then somehow, results in Theoretical Physics being flagged as something unworthy for the purpose of global education ?

    In my view, moderation rules are invaluable for managing dogmatic behaviours, held as being incontrovertibly 'true'. I seriously question its usage as a means for interpreting what science is, or isn't. It is evident that its sustained usage in this way at BAUT, has clearly left some folk with major misconceptions about science, overall.

    As mentioned in a previous post, I'm also querying whether such dogmatic behaviours, also exhibited by mainstreamers, actually generates the pseudo-science frequently evident in the ATM forum, and elsewhere on the net (??)

    Regards

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    There's a difference between posting:
    a: "X causes Y!"
    and
    b: "Could X cause Y?"

    Understanding that difference has a direct impact on what happens to a thread.

    People posting b: in the Q&A section should be fine.

    Sadly we do get people who start with b: but quickly show that they really want to post a: - and that sees their thread shifted to ATM. Perhaps seeing a: too often makes members expect it when they see b:.

    (Sometimes, if a thread is on a more "theoretical" topic, it may get shifted to the Science and Tech forum, as Q&A is meant to be for a "simpler" sort of level; threads on less concrete topics tend to be a bit more wide ranging and less direct than suits Q&A.)
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Apr-01 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Ooops. Got things backwards, Thanks Jeff.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Whilst I appreciate the need to handle ATM differently at BAUT, it seems that the moderation criteria adopted over the years here, may have inadvertently left some members with impression that Theoretical Physics is somehow not science!
    Would you include in that definition the umpteenth repeat of Comet Elenin causing earthquakes, or the plasma universe folks?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Would you include in that definition the umpteenth repeat of Comet Elenin causing earthquakes, or the plasma universe folks?
    That's why the ATM designation is a judgment call. I think one important distinction is whether the theory is primarily math-based. I don't recall ever seeing maths or even the understanding of basic physical forces as part of an Elenin-earthquakes proposal whereas many successful theories have started with the maths and questioning whether experiment and observation can validate them. ATM proposals filled with "I think" and "I believe" instead of substance have little hope for serious consideration at BAUT or any other scientific venue.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

Similar Threads

  1. Complex four-vectors
    By thomheg in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-09, 02:11 PM
  2. which complex do you think that this is complex
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-08, 05:12 PM
  3. Complex Particles
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-18, 08:51 PM
  4. Superbubble Complex N44
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-06, 04:33 AM
  5. Complex time
    By Glom in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-06, 02:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: