Why CosmoQuest?

[IreneAnt]

CosmoQuest was started by a group of like-minded people, who want to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together.

Like other citizen science projects, we want to tap into the amazing potential of crowd-sourcing --- that's YOU! But, we also want to give something back in return; the opportunity to learn.

Learning will be the main focus of CosmoQuest; learning by the scientists, learning by the programmers, learning by you... learning collectively about the universe through the research we do together. We encourage collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas between the various research components that make up CosmoQuest, be it Moon Mappers, Saturn Investigators, or anything else this community decides to pursue. Our programmers are keen to find out how best to maximize our science, be it a new widget, a faster interface, or a bold new project. And, we hope that you are looking to learn as much as you can about our universe. To help you, we promise to provide as many learning opportunities as possible, including tutorials, educational programs, and eventually free on-line classes. We have even partnered with NASA to make sure you get the most exciting and up -to-date data to look at. See our About Us page for more details on what's to come.

We hope you join us for this ride. It promises to be an exciting one.

[MikeSimonsen]

Looks like spam filtering id still a work in progress. Good luck.

[astrostu]

Looks like spam filtering id still a work in progress. Good luck.

Indeed. We're working on it ...

[chrys]

Thank you for the opportunity to learn.

[Shigeru]

Thanks for all, for the opportunity to learn and contribute. I will looking forward to see all that is coming!

[GeorgiaB]

Welcome Shigeru! Thank you for joining us!

[hsapiens]

Hello everyone! It is a great idea for collaboration and learning! My childish dream and some possible way for escape. Good luck!

[GeorgiaB]

Welcome, hsapiens! Glad you're here!

[kmasterdo]

Welcome from me, too!

[hsapiens]

: D Regards for all: Stardust of Nad

[Shigeru]

Welcome ^^

[DaleSpace]

My last comment was worded too strongly. I certainly enjoy and learn from Astronomy Cast and the Moon Mapping is challenging and is helping science. I noticed Pamela had a MoonMapper up on her screen Sunday but I wasn't able to stick around. If every couple of weeks some tutorial thing like that could be announced to show members what CosmoQuest is learning from the Moon Mapper exercise, I know I'd be able to do a better job at Moon Mapping.

[Tranan]

Hi DaleSpace

Its good that you are able to help. and your effort is needed, and practice make perfect.

And welcome to the team.

[DocBlitzbottom]

Happy to be here.

[dapifo]

CosmoQuest was started by a group of like-minded people, who want to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together.

Like other citizen science projects, we want to tap into the amazing potential of crowd-sourcing --- that's YOU! But, we also want to give something back in return; the opportunity to learn.

Learning will be the main focus of CosmoQuest; learning by the scientists, learning by the programmers, learning by you... learning collectively about the universe through the research we do together. We encourage collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas between the various research components that make up CosmoQuest, be it Moon Mappers, Saturn Investigators, or anything else this community decides to pursue. Our programmers are keen to find out how best to maximize our science, be it a new widget, a faster interface, or a bold new project. And, we hope that you are looking to learn as much as you can about our universe. To help you, we promise to provide as many learning opportunities as possible, including tutorials, educational programs, and eventually free on-line classes. We have even partnered with NASA to make sure you get the most exciting and up -to-date data to look at. See our About Us page for more details on what's to come.

We hope you join us for this ride. It promises to be an exciting one.

I think that you do not fulfill your initial objectives ..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

[slang]

I think that you do not fulfill your initial objectives ..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

dapifo has opened a thread in the Feedback forum, "Why I can not have a free discussion with free people from the forum ?", please respond to this post there so we don't get the same discussion in two places.

[DoggerDan]

CosmoQuest was started by a group of like-minded people, who want to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together.

Like other citizen science projects, we want to tap into the amazing potential of crowd-sourcing --- that's YOU! But, we also want to give something back in return; the opportunity to learn.

Learning will be the main focus of CosmoQuest; learning by the scientists, learning by the programmers, learning by you... learning collectively about the universe through the research we do together. We encourage collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas between the various research components that make up CosmoQuest, be it Moon Mappers, Saturn Investigators, or anything else this community decides to pursue. Our programmers are keen to find out how best to maximize our science, be it a new widget, a faster interface, or a bold new project. And, we hope that you are looking to learn as much as you can about our universe. To help you, we promise to provide as many learning opportunities as possible, including tutorials, educational programs, and eventually free on-line classes. We have even partnered with NASA to make sure you get the most exciting and up -to-date data to look at. See our About Us page for more details on what's to come.

We hope you join us for this ride. It promises to be an exciting one.

These are admirable goals! The thing of it is, learning doesn't happen inside the tiny box of political correctness. It happens when people expand their horizons. I've only been here (from BAUTforum) a year, yet it's painfully obvious any comment falling outside the box of political correctness gets unbelievably hammered by one or more mods who probably are scientists, but poor ones unwilling to think outside the box. I made a fortune by ignoring the experts who kept telling me "it can't be done," so I don't have a lot of respect for people who can't think outside the box.

You'll need a whole lot more of that "can do" attitude among the mods before I'd ever float an idea on which I'd like to collaborate with others. This remains a great place for sharing one's weather and talking about science fiction, though!

Again, IreneAnt - your statements are admirable! While I'm sure your inside-the-box learning will happen as planned, and I have high hopes that it will, "collaboration and cross fertilization of ideas between the various research components" will never happen in an oppressive atmosphere that hammers everyone who dares challenge the status quo. If you want to achieve your goals, this site will need to start encouraging such thinking instead of hammering it.

Just my $0.02...

I wish you all the best in your collective learning efforts -- great idea to partner with NASA!

[Swift]

These are admirable goals! The thing of it is, learning doesn't happen inside the tiny box of political correctness. It happens when people expand their horizons. I've only been here (from BAUTforum) a year, yet it's painfully obvious any comment falling outside the box of political correctness gets unbelievably hammered by one or more mods who probably are scientists, but poor ones unwilling to think outside the box. I made a fortune by ignoring the experts who kept telling me "it can't be done," so I don't have a lot of respect for people who can't think outside the box.

Frankly, I find that more than a little insulting. I am more than a little tired of people using the term "political correctness" as an insult and I am more than a little tired of being accussed of being closed minded.

In the sense that we do not tolerate rudeness and that we demand that people treat each other kindly and with respect, yes, we are politically correct and proud of it. I do not think learning happens in a rude and painful environment.

But as far as our science, I do not see that "political correctness" has anything to do with what goes on here. We are demanding when it comes to our science; that is exactly how science works. Some of the most creative people I have ever met have also been the most rigorous with their methods. Imagination without rigor is just randomness and babbling. It is easy to dismiss that rigor and that demand for evidence and critical thinking by accussing others of a lack of imagination, but frankly, it is a tired, old, undemonstrated complaint.

[DoggerDan]

Frankly, I find that more than a little insulting.

I'm sorry you find honest, heart-felt feedback "insulting." It's feedback. It's not personal. Take it or leave it.

I am more than a little tired of being accussed of being closed minded.

I never accused you of being close-minded.

...yes, we are politically correct and proud of it.

That's the problem. Political correctness is "a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent." - Wikipedia (I added the italics for emphasis)

"Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization." - Eugene V. Debs. Innovation does not survive in an environment of political correctness, for it's very nature tends to upset the apple cart. PC doesn't tolerate upsetting the apple cart.

"Political correctness is communal tyranny." - Phillip Atkinson, source.

We are demanding when it comes to our science; that is exactly how science works. Some of the most creative people I have ever met have also been the most rigorous with their methods. Imagination without rigor is just randomness and babbling. It is easy to dismiss that rigor and that demand for evidence and critical thinking by accussing others of a lack of imagination, but frankly, it is a tired, old, undemonstrated complaint.

I agree with you 100% on this statement. What I've observed in these forums, however, is adherence to political correctness in lieu of science. Not all the time, mind you. But some of the time, yes. True science always questions it's own conclusions, and allows for open discussion of the same.

Business is about getting people to give you money. Science is about accuracy and checking facts. They aren't just apples and oranges, they're apples and postgrad thesis.

In the business I was in, lack of facts and accuracy got you killed. No one died on my watch.

[Nereid]

We are demanding when it comes to our science; that is exactly how science works. Some of the most creative people I have ever met have also been the most rigorous with their methods. Imagination without rigor is just randomness and babbling. It is easy to dismiss that rigor and that demand for evidence and critical thinking by accussing others of a lack of imagination, but frankly, it is a tired, old, undemonstrated complaint.

I agree with you 100% on this statement. What I've observed in these forums, however, is adherence to political correctness in lieu of science. Not all the time, mind you. But some of the time, yes. True science always questions it's own conclusions, and allows for open discussion of the same.

(bold added)

Would you be kind enough to give some examples please?

[DoggerDan]

Would you be kind enough to give some examples please?

I'd be happy to respond to your request, Nereid. The way BAUT handles ATM issues is one example. Sure, the vast majority what's proposed there is absurd, conflicting with proven science. A few tidbits, however are intriguing. They get hammered with equal passion simply because they're ATM, instead of being properly discussed, as they should be. The way BAUT handles global warming is another example -- no open discussion there! While some of it is proven science, other aspects are not, so much so it's detractors don't have just one Wikipedia entry -- they have three (global warming controversy, global warming skepticism, and global warming conspiracy theory). The controversy article is extremely well-written, with a very large number of references (endnotes) -- 246 as of today. The accuracy of IPCC AR4 has been called into question (article and references), yet BAUT takes a very hard line against any discussion of it. Again, that's political correctness, not science. As I mentioned before, science invites discussion: "True science always questions it's own conclusions, and allows for open discussion of the same."

Hey folks, let's not derail this thread. I stand by the observations I shared in my post. I like IreneAnt's OP, and hope it comes to fruition. It won't happen in an oppressive environment, which seems to me to be common here on BAUT, as amply demonstration by how rapidly and forcefully my honest opinions were hammered in this thread alone, thereby proving my point. Case closed.

Now, if you would, let's please get back on topic. Thanks.

[R.A.F.]

It's not personal.

You insulted anyone who doesn't "think outside the box".

I never accused you of being close-minded.

So the "poor (scientists) who can't think outside the box" was a comment on our "openmindedness"? Really??

Political correctness is "a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."

Still don't see the "connection", between that, and this board.

What I've observed in these forums, however, is adherence to political correctness in lieu of science. Not all the time, mind you. But some of the time, yes. True science always questions it's own conclusions, and allows for open discussion of the same.

You're gonna have to provide "examples" before I'll go further.

In the business I was in, lack of facts and accuracy got you killed.

Where is this "lack of facts/accuracy" on this board??


Examples, please...

[Ara Pacis]

What I've observed in these forums, however, is adherence to political correctness in lieu of science. Not all the time, mind you. But some of the time, yes. True science always questions it's own conclusions, and allows for open discussion of the same.

Are you familiar with Group Dynamics theory? Sure, that which is a functional rule or even a shibboleth can seem like an instance of "political correctness", but it's not quite the same thing. Political Correctness is about not just about stifling discussion but about defining conclusions regardless of the evidence, which is different than establishing procedures for discussion of evidence, or rules about it's non-discussion as non-discussion does not necessarily demand public adherence to a preferred conclusion. One of the problems is that Political Correctness as applied to science is that science is empirical, which is different than a social contract not to call certain ethnic groups by certain names, which is more a matter of society and politics or a historical narrative. In science, engineering and mathematics there is a preferred correctness implicit in the methodology, so calling it political because it happens to be an issue about which some people create and defend partisan issues is a bit of a misnomer. Not all correctness is political.

Also, this site is not as much a mission-oriented endeavor as perhaps your business was. There's been a recent move to make it such, but again... group dynamics is a process.

[DoggerDan]

Are you familiar with Group Dynamics theory? Sure, that which is a functional rule or even a shibboleth can seem like an instance of "political correctness", but it's not quite the same thing. Political Correctness is about not just about stifling discussion but about defining conclusions regardless of the evidence, which is different than establishing procedures for discussion of evidence, or rules about it's non-discussion as non-discussion does not necessarily demand public adherence to a preferred conclusion. One of the problems is that Political Correctness as applied to science is that science is empirical, which is different than a social contract not to call certain ethnic groups by certain names, which is more a matter of society and politics or a historical narrative. In science, engineering and mathematics there is a preferred correctness implicit in the methodology, so calling it political because it happens to be an issue about which some people create and defend partisan issues is a bit of a misnomer. Not all correctness is political.

I get it, 100%. As I said, in the more risky professions, people die. It's not PC. It's just physics.

Also, this site is not as much a mission-oriented endeavor as perhaps your business was. There's been a recent move to make it such, but again... group dynamics is a process.

Ok, so it sounds like things will take time to come around. Got it.

DoggerDan, can you give an example of a science-based forum you feel is better run than this one?... one that allows the free outside-the-box exchange you don't see here without becoming mired in unsupported pseudoscience and childish flaming?

Sure, but not that I've found on the Internet. Successful businesses are full of them, and usually term them "board meetings."

Have you ever bothered to read the Rules for Posting?

Duh. Yes.

I see "discussion" mentioned twice, once as a negative.

Why so? Why would you discourage rational discussion?

As for global warming, Note #2 and #3; discussion is certainly permitted. If you wish to discuss the accuracy of data, there is no prohibition of that. Either you have never read these, or you don't understand them. Either way, you argument tends to fall apart under its own weight.

Yes, I've read them, but again, how so? You make claims about my arguments falling apart under their own weight without any substantiation of your claims.

ATM was never intended to be for speculative discussion*; it says so quite clearly.

I never mentioned any such "speculative discussion," and I said so quite clearly.

It has always been an informal "dissertation defense" section where there are no kid gloves. If you don't like it, don't post an idea there.

Good grief, Swift - you're acting like I backed you into a corner. Why? I've never posted an ATM theory, and I have no immediate, or for that matter conceived, intention of doing so.

GW and AGW are considered Mainstream. You are free to discuss them, but if you want to deny them, go to ATM. (See preceeding paragraph.)

Well, if that's your stance and you're so certain you're correct, you need to shut your doors as a discussion forum and turn this website into a reference library. Work on codifying what you know to be certain, instead of opening your doors to discussion of what's not entirely certain. On the flipside, if you're intending to be a discussion forum, then open the doors to discussion.

But calling yourselves a discussion forum then slamming the doors on discussions is disingenuous, deceptive, and disenfranchises those of us who read whats written here and are lead to believe you're actually a discussion forum.

"Outside the box," speculative thinking has always been allowed on this Forum.

Swift, with all due respect, you just stated otherwise, not once, but three times, including your comment the other day about preferring to think inside the box. Perhaps that wasn't you, and I might be mistaken in thinking it was. If so, please forgive me.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed the many, many examples of that. However, when that thinking takes the form of denying the Mainstream, we will not allow that to go unchallenged. And that is necessary.

Of course it is. How could it not be? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone who actually and routinely posts in the ATM and CT sections.

How can you have a serious discussion on, say, aircraft design with someone who refuses to accept Bernoulli and says s/he has a "better idea" that will "revolutionize everything"?

Bernoulli's equations were brilliant and allow us to examine the behavior of fluids with remarkable clarity! Even more remarkable are the Navier-Stokes equations. Still, when it comes to describing the lift of a wing, Bernoulli was an idiot. It's a simple matter of displaced fluid. Mass velocity flow rate equals thrust. Doesn't matter whether it's a pump or an aircraft's wing. It's what results in force. In an aircraft, that force equals the mass of the aircraft. In a ship's screw, that force equals the thrust imparted by the screw to the ship in the form of thrust.

* Speculative discussion is allowed in other fora, as long as no promotion of ATM results.

Again (how often must I repeat this?): True science invites discussion and even dissent. Science postulates. It tests. In testing, it's asking, "am I correct?" Your approach, "as long as no promotion of ATM results," is contrary to the discipline of science. You're saying, "I am correct." That's not science.

Obviously, there are some practical limits. If someone comes along and says, "I think the Earth is stuck in a black hole," this statement would be a prime candidate for ATM, and the postulator should be required to substantiate his claim.

What I'm trying to address, though, Swift, is what I see as knee-jerk reactions by perhaps embittered, if not battered moderators who're tired of dealing with the riff-raff. I understand! BAUT's been under assault from the fringe for a while. According to R.A.F., however, there's still some nuggets to be found, and I agree. They'll not be found here, though. Not in this current environment. Perhaps it's time for a changing of the guard? Perhaps installing some folks who fully understand what you're trying to accomplish, at least according to the original owners, but who aren't so jaded?

Again, I'm not one of your ATM or CT posters. My background is in Mech E. I was a commercial diver for thirty years, and I'm retired. I'm well-grounded and not apt towards flights of fancy.

So, can we please continue this conversation in a more reasonable tone? i.e. please stop busting my chops as if I were some sort of atm-er or ct-er myself?

[Noclevername]

I made a fortune by ignoring the experts who kept telling me "it can't be done," so I don't have a lot of respect for people who can't think outside the box.

Business is about getting people to give you money. Science is about accuracy and checking facts. They aren't just apples and oranges, they're apples and postgrad thesis.

[R.A.F.]

....it's painfully obvious any comment falling outside the box of political correctness gets unbelievably hammered by one or more mods who probably are scientists, but poor ones unwilling to think outside the box.

I'm with Swift on this...I don't see where "political correctness" has anything at all to do with what this board is about...perhaps you could clarify?

[Nereid]

DoggerDan, I think you've added 2 to 2 and got 9,435!

IreneAnt is (was) clearly referring to the CosmoQuest of January 2012, not the post-BAUT-merger CosmoQuest.

The "research components" at that time were rather narrow, and focused on the sort of Citizen Science that Moon Mappers is a good example of.

My take? CosmoQuest seeks (sought) to do the sort of thing that Galaxy Zoo - and later the Zooniverse - did, but in a different way (different approach, different platform, etc)*. In that regard, the kind of research envisioned is (was) of the hands-on variety, dealing directly with the vast sea of high quality astronomical data that the community is awash with today (if I may mix metaphors somewhat) ...

In my many years here in BAUT, I've come across very few (but > 0) BAUTians who've been willing to roll up their sleeves and test their "out of the box" ideas using even a tiny fraction of the data that's freely available. In fact, I'd say almost none have had any real idea of what the data are, how it was obtained, how to access it, etc.

Perhaps you're one of those few? Or perhaps your "can do" refers to theoretical astrophysics?

* If you're not familiar with Galaxy Zoo, check out this post of mine, and the links in it.

[R.A.F.]

Personally, I like to think inside the box, because that's where all the evidence is. (big grin face)

[Luckmeister]

DoggerDan, can you give an example of a science-based forum you feel is better run than this one?... one that allows the free outside-the-box exchange you don't see here without becoming mired in unsupported pseudoscience and childish flaming? If this one is so bad, you must be able to point out a better one where you feel at home, where real science is acheived and where your participation is welcomed. I hope you have one like that you can retreat to after you've bashed us here. If you don't, and you still hang around here, maybe we aren't as bad as you seem to think.

ETA: Outside-the-box thinking is of great value for forming ideas but adherence to scientific method is essential for establishing validity for those ideas. This forum does not try to be everything for everybody and it's focus is not primarily as a brainstorming venue. Yes, it has a bias towards mainstream theory because the owners feel that is necessary in a world where bad science is so rampant. I agree with that focus.

[Swift]

As this has turned into a feedback thread, I've moved it to Feedback.