Is even the mere mention of religion (or politics) forbidden?

[Swift]

Dogma is what is believed and asserted. If you believe
that objects are composed of atoms, and tell others that
objects are composed of atoms, the assertion is dogma.

I guess, if that is your only basis for "believing that objects are composed of atoms" then that would be dogma.

From Dictionary.com

1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

But, in that sense, I don't believe in atoms. I understand atoms exist and that objects are made of them, because I've seen abundant evidence of this. It is not a question of belief, nor is it dogma.

Unfortunately, conversational English uses "believe" for both dogmatic things, such as religious tenets taken on faith, and scientific principles for which there is proof, like "I believe in atoms". And to be honest, most of the people around here clearly understand the distinction, and I'm surprised you don't.

Instead of atoms, if you had said that the "belief" in science that the same set of physical laws apply everywhere in Universe, and called that "dogma" (see definition # 4 above), then I might go along with that.

By the way, what does this have to do with TooMany? Frankly, his problem wasn't religion, his problem was rudeness, thread hijacking, and a failure to behave nicely.

[Strange]

Dogma is what is believed and asserted. If you believe
that objects are composed of atoms, and tell others that
objects are composed of atoms, the assertion is dogma.

So if you tell someone that the sky is blue, they look up and see it is blue and then go and tell others that the sky is blue, then that is dogma?

[Tensor]

My impression of TooMany is that he is intelligent,
thoughtful, honest, interested in the advancement of
science, and caring about people. I think he showed
considerably better judgement and comprehension
than many of the people replying to him. .

Oh, you mean like his misuse of the term intensity at the beginning of the thread? I suggest you go back an read the threads again Jeff. He was given, the links, the explanation on how to do the calculations, and in one case, how to plot the results. None of it too difficult if you understood the math. Doing those calculations would have shown him his error. But, he didn't bother to do that. He just kept complaining no one was showing how he was wrong. He never said the calculations were too much to do, but he never got around to them, and kept on insisting that his assumptions and calculations were correct. He never got around to showing how his calculations matched any of the WMAP (the raw WMAP data). He flat out made statements that he didn't understand what some of the things were, when they were explained in the links. He completely misread a graph. You want to explain to me how you think this shows better comprehension than many of the others?

But because
he is wrong about some idea and persists in asking about
it, he is classified "not of the body" and reasons are found
first to label him as being obtuse, rejecting good answers,
and being influenced by ATM websites, .

This sounds suspiciously like dogma, since you're asserting this. If he was wrong, there is nothing wrong with persisting in asking questions. His problem was he continued to insist his contention was correct, after he was told his assumptions were wrong, and why. He was told if he did the calculations, on the given websites and links, he would find out why his calculations were wrong. He didn't do the linked calculations, but still continued to insist his way was correct. Why didn't he do the calculations before continuing to insist his way was correct? Also, he didn't link his calculations to the WMAP data to show his calculations were correct. And, after all that, he continued to insist that no one had explained why his contention was wrong. That wasn't it. No one could explain why his contention was wrong to a level meeting his satisfaction, which is something entirely different. And, before you say we have to explain everything to everyone's satisfaction, that's not true. Just look at any of the "Einstein and relativity is wrong" crowd for an example.

and eventually to
infract him and ostracize him. Prominent among which
reasons is the excuse that what he said was against the
"no religion" rule. It was not..

Well, can you point out what you think was proper in his statement?

The complaints against him may be numerous, but I think
they are seriously misplaced..

I would agree with you, if in the several cases he was given links, he had simply done the calculations we pointed out to him and then he showed where those calculations were wrong. He didn't. He didn't say they were too hard. The best indication that he was wrong was simply that he did not provide any link to any WMAP data that agreed with his own calculations. Why was that? He wanted us to disprove his contention, it doesn't seem he wanted to prove his contention. And I can give two examples of providing explanations showing why his contentions were wrong, that he accepted later in the thread. One, he completely misread a graph (but, according to you, he shouldn't have), and another, where he read a paper that was linked. Evidently not realizing that the paper had been linked three days before, and he didn't bother looking at it. Yet, he continued to insist, that we weren't providing any support or providing any explanations as to why his contention was wrong.

[slang]

My impression of TooMany is that he is intelligent, thoughtful, honest, interested in the advancement of science, and caring about people.

Not exactly rare qualities in BAUT posters, quite common ones even, I think. If you think we need more of those, in the sense that those are good qualities to have, then fine, I agree. If you think we need more of those, suggesting they are currently lacking, then I disagree.

I think he showed considerably better judgement and comprehension than many of the people replying to him.

Arguing a paper is wrong, and then admitting being unable to understand the paper, is not showing good judgement nor comprehension, IMO.

But because he is wrong about some idea and persists in asking about it, he is classified "not of the body" and reasons are found first to label him as being obtuse, rejecting good answers, and being nfluenced by ATM websites, and eventually to infract him and ostracize him.

I must have missed where arguing for Plasma Universe and Tired Light outside the ATM forum became acceptable again. Not asking about it, arguing for it.

Prominent among which reasons is the excuse that what he said was against the "no religion" rule. It was not.

Perhaps you have a thicker skin than others, and more easily ignore insults. But IMHO this was among the least of the rule transgressions. We've certainly seen worse violations of the no-religion rule.

The complaints against him may be numerous, but I think they are seriously misplaced.

If a moderator tells you not to post in a thread anymore (as an alternative to just closing the thread and punishing everyone), and you do post in that thread, on the same page even, complaints against that are seriously misplaced? When you have been warned not to disrupt threads with a narrow topic with long rants about the scientific process, and you repeat it anyway, complaints against that are seriously misplaced? Sometimes I wonder if you even read the threads that lead to the infractions you protest against.

[Shaula]

Arguing a paper is wrong, and then admitting being unable to understand the paper, is not showing good judgement nor comprehension, IMO.

And that was the key problem. Most arguments were essentially done from incredulity, without doing the background work and then a game of pointing the arxiv firehose at people ("look at this - I think that this unreviewed, unpublished paper that I don't really follow says you are wrong, spend a hour or two delving into it to show me that I am mistaken. OK, thanks. Now what about this one? And this one?").

At first I would have agreed with Jeff, it was a harmless series of questions that challenged people to show why the mainstream was mainstream. But it just kept on going on and on without real content being presented from the other side. Too much "This sounds more reasonable to me, I dismiss the detailed simulations out of hand as unreasonable because I don't like their foundational ideas".

And then it started getting personal, frustration took over. That was the end of any chance of a civilised argument.

[Hornblower]

And that was the key problem. Most arguments were essentially done from incredulity, without doing the background work and then a game of pointing the arxiv firehose at people ("look at this - I think that this unreviewed, unpublished paper that I don't really follow says you are wrong, spend a hour or two delving into it to show me that I am mistaken. OK, thanks. Now what about this one? And this one?").

At first I would have agreed with Jeff, it was a harmless series of questions that challenged people to show why the mainstream was mainstream. But it just kept on going on and on without real content being presented from the other side. Too much "This sounds more reasonable to me, I dismiss the detailed simulations out of hand as unreasonable because I don't like their foundational ideas".

And then it started getting personal, frustration took over. That was the end of any chance of a civilised argument.

My bold. I have seen that sort of remark a number of times. My typical reaction is something like, "Quite frankly my dear, I don't give a hoot. The cosmos is what it its and does what it does, and it does not care whether or not we like it."

[Gillianren]

To be perfectly honest, I believe there are some ATM ideas you should not be able to hold if you are a mod here. I do not think a mod here should believe in tired light or plasma universe or creationism or Sitchin. I think there are some ideas which have been debunked here so frequently and so thoroughly that the only way you can still hold them is that you want to. It's not that no mod should be allowed to hold ATM ideas; for one thing, I do agree that it's how science develops. It's just that I think mods who have dumb ATM ideas just aren't intelligent enough to moderate the more esoteric threads. Or possibly just educated, but how much education does that take?

[Luckmeister]

To be perfectly honest, I believe there are some ATM ideas you should not be able to hold if you are a mod here. I do not think a mod here should believe in tired light or plasma universe or creationism or Sitchin. I think there are some ideas which have been debunked here so frequently and so thoroughly that the only way you can still hold them is that you want to. It's not that no mod should be allowed to hold ATM ideas; for one thing, I do agree that it's how science develops. It's just that I think mods who have dumb ATM ideas just aren't intelligent enough to moderate the more esoteric threads. Or possibly just educated, but how much education does that take?

I have mixed feelings about how much mods should be involved in advancing or even discussing ATM ideas. They should be able to moderate a discussion without much knowledge of the subject; in fact, it may help their objectivity to not have a deep understanding of it. After all, isn't their primary function to enforce forum rules rather than to take sides?

However, mods don't want to just be traffic cops. That's why they're allowed to take off the mod hats and just post opinions like everyone else. But that can be a touchy dual role at times.

[tusenfem]

Usually, in the mod section, if we feel that something is going wrong, but are too deeply involved in the discussion, we ask if non-involved mods can have a look at it.

[djellison]

But because
he is wrong about some idea and persists in asking about
it,........

And bingo - there you have it. He was warned, advised, cautioned, but he persisted. What do you do to someone who refuses to follow the rules? Let that one person get away with anything? No - you try to help them understand and follow the rules. If they can not - then their time here is over.

The complaints against him may be numerous, but I think
they are seriously misplaced.

Had he not continually go against the advice of admins, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you were in my house and continually broke the rules of my house, I would show you the door.

As a side not - he's not being silenced or censored etc. He is free to continue his discussions elsewhere, start his own blog, takes his ideas, write them in 10ft high letters and fly them thru the streets of Paris. There's even that other forum for the terminally BAUT infracted.

However, the way he wanted to conduct business was incompatible with the way BAUT conducts business. It is that way of doing things that makes BAUT so very popular. It can not be all things to all people.

[Swift]

If they can not - then their time here is over.

This is not aimed at djellison, or anyone else, but just so it is clear, TooMany is currently suspended (a two week suspension, with about six days to go), not banned.

[PetersCreek]

I have mixed feelings about how much mods should be involved in advancing or even discussing ATM ideas. They should be able to moderate a discussion without much knowledge of the subject; in fact, it may help their objectivity to not have a deep understanding of it. After all, isn't their primary function to enforce forum rules rather than to take sides?

Yes, that is our primary function. However, especially in the case of ATM, we sometimes need some of understanding of a subject (or ready access to it) in order to determine which side of the line a member is on. There have been not-infrequent cases where one member argues a position as mainstream while another asserts that it's ATM, so some expertise comes in handy. It may help to know that the mod team is about as mixed as your feelings. Our knowledge and skill sets are pretty varied with some being crackerjacks in physics, mathematics, etc. Me, I'm almost as dumb as a bag of hammers regarding some threads and sadly, my expertise in scotch and cigars is sorely underutilized. While I have other strengths as a mod, I appreciate having knowledgeable colleagues to call upon.

[Tensor]

... my expertise in scotch and cigars is sorely underutilized

So, if I want to tell everyone about my great new ideas that whisky comes from running water over tape that comes from a plaid package and the long, skinny, fruit flavored things, made from tobacco, at my local mini mart, are from cuba, you should be the guy in deciding whether it goes into ATM. Well, at least I know who to PM now.....

[Nereid]

Thanks for your response, Jeff Root.

Why do you think BAUT needs people like TooMany?

BAUT has taken on a reactionary attitude to ideas which
it corporately considers to be ATM.

I think we may have different opinions on this, you and I.

Even if some individual
moderators are naturally easygoing, as a body they, and
the "rank and file" of posters, come across as hostile to
any ideas they don't already accept.

I cannot argue with your perception.

What I can do, however, is ask you how the mods, as a body, and the rank and file of posters could change their posting style, so as to not "come across as hostile to any ideas they don't already accept".

Consider also that we don't want anyone - among these BAUTians - to be shy about saying what it is that "they don't already accept" (I assume you'd agree with that).

That is a bad thing.

Why, may I ask?

New people with fresh attitudes are needed to keep BAUT
from imploding in an excess of staid conservatism.

Hmm, interesting.

There seems to be an assumption buried in here, one that may be getting in the way of meaningful discussion. Myself, I always thought that BAUT, at bedrock, was all about science*; in particular, astronomy, astrophysics, etc. Why should anyone care if BAUT implodes "in an excess of staid conservatism", as long as it maintains its avowedly science-based approach?

I'll leave the "New people with fresh attitudes" for later.

TooMany could be one such person. He alone might not
make a sufficient difference, but three or four such people
almost certainly would.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Well, here I must say I disagree with you. Strongly.

I'm curious what those who insist that all astronomical observations must be verified in the lab think about our observations of *21cm emission in other galaxies and the 500.7nm narrow emission line in some nebula and galaxies. Neither of these lines has ever been produced in a lab setting, nor do we have any feasible mechanism to create them in any currently imagined lab. Does that mean that they are not produced by the spin-flip transition of atomic Hydrogen and the ¹D₂->³P transition of doubly-ionized Oxygen, respectively?

Also, TooMany, if you think that this forum has any real bearing on astronomical results, I've got a bridge to sell you. People come here to talk about things that interest them, and I think maybe one peer-reviewed paper was written via a collaboration created on this forum. But there's a very good reason that the ATM section is what it is: nearly all proponents of ATM theories have neither the math nor the physics background to understand most objections to their ideas, let alone to fully flesh their own ideas out. Words don't get you far in astrophysics: quantitative predictions do.

That post, by parejkoj, points to one reason why I've often wondered why TooMany has posted here in BAUT at all. For me, one of the essential elements of science (or at least those parts within BAUT's scope) is consistency. Yet TooMany seems to be bothered not the slightest by the many inconsistencies, at multiple levels, in the ideas he posts (I measure his lack of concern by the fact that he seems to have not responded, meaningfully, when I - and others - have brought up questions about it).

You may say that there is misunderstanding about the inconsistencies, or about the fundamental need for consistency, or some other meta-aspect. And that'd been valid. And I, for one, would love to have a discussion on just such things. However, as I - and others - have pointed out, TooMany does not seem to share such an interest, or accept such a necessity. Crudely, then, what BAUT most certainly does not need is people who reject one of the essential foundations of science (that's what I think).

* well, except for the explicitly non-science parts!