Internalizing a complex issue.

[pzkpfw]

...
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".)

...
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.

[Shaula]

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

[Luckmeister]

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

[Hornblower]

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.

[Swift]

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.

[Gillianren]

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.

[publiusr]

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.

[Selfsim]

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

[pzkpfw]

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.)

[slang]

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?

[Luckmeister]

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.