Why CosmoQuest?

[R.A.F.]

(...e.g. the ATM section may be axed entirely).

I just can't imagine that happening...I've certainly have seen no rational reasons to think it would.

[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.

[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.

[Nereid]

(...e.g. the ATM section may be axed entirely).

I just can't imagine that happening...I've certainly have seen no rational reasons to think it would.

At the time, I wrote that simply to illustrate the fact that it was premature to infer (speculate, etc) anything about how well - or not - the merged forum was behaving consistently with IreneAnt's post (the current CosmoQuest is a quite different beast from either the pre-merger CQ - which had a far broader scope than just a discussion forum anyway - or the pre-merger BAUT).

Subsequently, I think it's worth having a discussion about.

BAUT was unique, with regard to its ATM (and, to a lesser extent, CT) section; as far as I know, no other (English-language) internet discussion forum has claimed to offer a well-moderated, science-based discussion forum (for astronomy and space science) AND something like an ATM section; even better, BAUT lived up to its claim*.

But the ATM section has always been a huge headache. I think I'm correct in saying that of all the sections in BAUT, the ATM one generated by far the most heat, and required the most mod attention (OK, maybe that should read 'ATM+CT sections', and not counting spamsters). It has been the source of more new threads in this, Feedback, section, possibly than all other aspects of BAUT, combined. And there's no reason to think it'll be any less of a headache now that it's the CQ forum.

Just a couple of weeks' ago, Galaxy Zoo celebrated its fifth anniversary, and I wrote a post on the fifth anniversary of the associated forum. While I can't really speak from any authority, or deep knowledge, it's my impression that the GZ forum has never had anything like the sort of headaches BAUT had, over "ATM topics" (in fact, I can recall seeing only one "ATM thread" there, something on "thermodynamic stability and energy in a confined volume"). Yet it's got thousands of members, and hundreds of thousands of posts, and the part of astronomy it focusses on is a favourite of a great many of the ATM ideas that have appeared in BAUT.

Another forum - somewhat similar to BAUT and to CQ - I have had experience with, Physics Forums, attempted to address "the ATM question" by an approach not totally dissimilar to BAUT's; they established a very weak form of screening, requiring that all ATM submissions met a very basic standard concerning format and content (and all other ATM stuff would be locked and possibly deleted). The experiment didn't last long; essentially no one promoting ATM ideas was able to meet the very basic standards! Result? The return on effort was seen as far too small to be worthwhile.

So, given that CQ's intent may be more like Galaxy Zoo's than JREF's, given the huge headaches the ATM section generates, given that a prime motivation for having the ATM section (i.e. Fraser) has gone, ... perhaps it's time to lock the ATM section for good, and put it into the archive?

* JREF's Science (etc) section is about the closest that I know of.

[Nereid]

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."

Again, thanks for your response, DoggerDan.

After my earlier post, I realised that I missed a key aspect!

Do you have any examples - at all - other than the ATM section and AGW-related stuff? Oh, and I guess I should also add CT section/related stuff (not that I have followed any of it, but that it's likely very similar to the ATM section/related stuff).

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about examples outside these two/three areas ... (well, as long as they are also directly part of the explicit scope of BAUT and CQ; this is not a general science forum, rather one restricted to astronomy, astrophysics, and related topics).

[Swift]

<snip>
But the ATM section has always been a huge headache. I think I'm correct in saying that of all the sections in BAUT, the ATM one generated by far the most heat, and required the most mod attention (OK, maybe that should read 'ATM+CT sections', and not counting spamsters). It has been the source of more new threads in this, Feedback, section, possibly than all other aspects of BAUT, combined. And there's no reason to think it'll be any less of a headache now that it's the CQ forum.

I'd say at one time this was definitely true, that ATM + CT required the most moderator attention, but I'm not sure it is still true. CT is actually pretty quiet now. ATM still requires some attention, but that seems quieter than it has been at times in the past.

[Jim]

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." ...

Have you ever bothered to read the Rules for Posting?

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea that goes against or beyond commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do though, read the specific advice threads linked below. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct pertinent questions must be answered in a timely manner.

[snip]

13A. Against the Mainstream

READ THIS THREAD FIRST

People will vigorously challenge your arguments; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle a frank and critical examination of your theory, then maybe you need to rethink your theory. Remember: you came here. It's our job to question new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. All such discussions must be kept polite and respectful, by all parties.

[snip]

You must defend your arguments and directly answer pertinent questions in a timely manner. Honestly answering "I don't know" is acceptable. Evasiveness will not be tolerated.

[snip]

The ATM forum is not the place for speculative discussion. Whether you are presenting your own ideas or those of another, you are responsible for defending them according to the provisions above. If you have a question about an ATM idea, you may pose it in Q&A, but you may not advocate it there.

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

As for global warming,

New Global Warming Discussion Policy
1. Global warming is occurring and is Mainstream; anti-GW belongs in ATM.
2. Human activities (AGW) are a major contributor to GW; the specific contributors and their level of contribution may be discussed, but anti-AGW belongs in ATM.
3. There are other contributors besides AGW; these may be discussed.

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.

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

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.)

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

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

[R.A.F.]

...perhaps it's time to lock the ATM section for good...

That is one opinion...I do not happen to share that opinion.


The reason I came to the BABB was because of all the "junk science" out there, particularly the dopes spouting nonsense about the Moon landings being faked. (the CT section) The ATM section goes along with that as it is a place where ATM astronomical ideas (such as an "Iron Sun") face skeptical inquiry.


Remove one, and what is the purpose of having the other??...



No...if the proving ground section of the board changes in any substantial way, it will only "prove" that, as some of us feared before the merger, that the merger was the end of BAUT.

...and if that happens, I'll be the first one out the door.

[DoggerDan]

Thanks for the swift response, DoggerDan.

Hi, Nereid - glad to! I really had no intention of stirring up a can of worms. The responses seem to indicate it's a sore spot for a number of varying reasons, so perhaps some polite discussion might help either heal some wounds or perhaps even lead in a more productive direction?

There's a general comment to make here: the existence of the ATM section (and, to a lesser extent, the CT one) has a long history, and both previous owners - Phil Plait and Fraser Cain - several times wrote long posts on what they hoped (wished) it might achieve.

Might you have links? If not, that's ok - I'll look around.

Fraser also, after several years, put his foot down, very firmly, with regard to the way the ATM section was being used - cynically, coldly, deliberately - as a means of marketing certain crackpot ideas.

Are you saying he was for the marketing of such ideas, or are you saying he was observing that the ATM section was being used to market such ideas? I think the latter, but please clarify.

The mods - and yes, I was one once - collectively had immense difficulty with that section.

Was the difficulty due more to crackpots or to ambiguity in the rules, or poorly defined rules thereof?

Consequently the special ATM rule - and its application - have been changed, many times.

If I'm not too far out on a limb, here, it sounds like a bit of both?

How will the new owners treat the ATM section? We don't know, and are likely not to know for some time yet (there are many other things higher on their priority lists). Your concerns here may turn out to be moot (e.g. the ATM section may be axed entirely), or misdirected.

The same general comment applies to AGW.

Turning to the specifics: "... instead of being properly discussed, as they should be." (bold added)

Your comment seems to reflect an all too common misunderstanding of the ATM rules, as they currently stand. The ATM section is explicitly not about discussing ATM ideas!

Ok. I'm not an ATMer by either bent or trade. A little feedback, though - a section entitled "Against the Mainstream" seems to invite the discussion of ATM ideas. If that wasn't the intent, why title it as such? What was the original goal? To review ATM ideas for plausibility? That would be admirable. Or to serve as a denunciation ground for the rather large collection of ATM ideas out there which are clearly off their rocker. That, too, is admirable. Whatever brings ideas back to science is admirable, provided in so doing, that it's science that's adhered to, and not tenets of pseudo-science. Again, true science allows for the questioning of its precepts, while also allowing for their defense.

If you'd rather that the special ATM rule were modified, to permit collaboration on ATM ideas, or "proper discussion" of them (etc), then it would seem that your earlier comments are misguided, or misinformed (I'm being polite). In short, you can't fault BAUTians for acting in accord with an explicit rule...

I'm not sure what the explicit rule was. Is it one of the current rules? If so, which one?[/quote]

...nor fault the mods for enforcing that explicit rule; rather, you should be advocating that the rule be changed!

I might, if I knew which rule... I might not, if the rule is appropriate.

Of course, if you were to take that stance, you'd be well-advised to check the history ... many before you have suggested, demanded, recommended, advocated, proposed, ... changing the ATM rule, to allow collaboration, "proper discussion", (and more).

My "proper discussion" comment was meant to counter the knee-jerk squashing (I believe I used the term "hammering") of any idea contrary to the mainstream. Irene's thread (this is her thread) mentioned fostering a learning environment. There's a significant difference between an environment where wayward ideas are hammered, and where those proposing them are brought into a learning environment.

Obviously, some folks are so far gone they'll just babble their craft until they're blue in the face, without accepting or responding to any feedback. That's the 99%. If you need to counter their fluff with roadblocks, so be it. When I mentioned opening discussions with the 1%, I was referring to those ideas which deserve further discussion.

This is where things bog down. Who decides? Those who vehemently defend what's know? Those who welcome new ideas and directions? Those who're stable, but who aren't really familiar with the subject matter? There are both benefits and problems associated with all three.

Consistent, perhaps, with its clearly stated stance on AGW? As clearly explained by its (previous) owner, Fraser?

To me, this too seems like an example of your, um, misunderstanding of the actual rules, rather than a legitimate complaint about their application.

On this, I hope that you'll respect my right to disagree, strongly.

I don't understand the meaning of what you've said, here. It's unclear. Respect your right to say it, or disagree? Certainly. Just confused.

...note, however, that you have been - up to now - totally silent on my first response to your post.

Link? I'll check and respond if I find it. Please stand by...

In this case, I look forward to your response to my post (this one), and, in particular, your concrete, specific suggestions/recommendations/proposals/etc concerning rule changes that would encode - in a manner that the mods can, realistically, act on - or align the noble ideals in the OP with your expectations concerning the conduct of science.

Wow, that's a tall order for a non-scientist such as myself! However, if you don't mind my bringing some group dynamics and systems theory into the mix, I think it might be worthwhile revisiting the original goals, as envisioned by the earlier owners/admins/mods for the ATM section. I'd next seek a list of complaints as to why it didn't work, and from there propose some changes as to how it might work.

I'm with R.A.F., though. Canning it outright isn't a very scientific approach.

I'm confused. Why do you think "honest opinions" should be exempt from being "hammered"? I mean, you seem to have no reluctance about "hammering" the "honest opinions" of plenty of other BAUTians, right? Or is it something about the content of your honest opinions that makes them immune from hammering? Maybe I've misunderstood your point, big time; if so, my apologies. I'd appreciate you setting me straight.

Oh, I think honest opinions should most definitely be hammered! If they're worth hammering, that is. What I've put forth as my honest opinions, however, are mere observation. I expected them to be given fair consideration. What I observed, however, was, mostly, mere knee-jerk hammering. That's not indicative of an environment conducive to the kind of discussion the original owners envisioned, is it not?

[DoggerDan]

Again, thanks for your response, DoggerDan.

After my earlier post, I realised that I missed a key aspect!

Do you have any examples - at all - other than the ATM section and AGW-related stuff?

Glad to help, if I've been any sort of help. Sometimes honest feedback for some feels like ranting to others. I've tried not to rant.

Other examples - No, not really. I've noticed that the forums are pretty much dead except for the off-topic-babbling section. Are there plans to get the hard science discussions off the ground?

[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?

[Swift]

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.

Please do not attribute things to me that I didn't say. That, and many other things you seem to attribute to me were posted by Jim in this post.

[mutleyeng]

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

So what you are saying is, that there are other environments where brainstorming is done more effectively than on a public internet forum. I dont think you will get much argument there.

[R.A.F.]

Please do not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Hey...he did the same thing to me.

[R.A.F.]

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

So it's just a matter of "degrees" of ATM that "bothers" you?

Why should this board "adopt" your standards as to what is acceptable, here?

...can we please continue this conversation in a more reasonable tone?

Why assume that we are the ones not being "reasonable"?

[Jim]

Please do not attribute things to me that I didn't say. That, and many other things you seem to attribute to me were posted by Jim in this post.

Well, in his defense, the names are so similar and the avatars look so much alike ...

[Jim]

Have you ever bothered to read the Rules for Posting?

Duh. Yes.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem so. You keep asking questions that could be answered by reading the Rules. You even asked Nereid for references when she mentions some of those Rules.

(With reference to Rule 13) I see "discussion" mentioned twice, once as a negative.

Why so? Why would you discourage rational discussion?

We don't. The point is - and the Rules again seem to be very direct about it - if you wish to promote an ATM, "outside the box" concept, you will defend it, not discuss it. There is a major difference.

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.

I really shouldn't have to substantiate beyond pointing out to you what is and is not allowed under the Rules. You say we don't allow the very things the Rules permit. That's like telling Steve Jobs that he doesn't like turtlenecks when evidence to the contary is plainly visible.

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.

You said quite clearly several times that this Forum does not allow speculation or discussion. We allow both within limits.

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 (sic) - 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.

And you're trying to make something out of nothing. Trust me, you haven't got me anywhere near a corner. And my statement was a general "you," not aimed at you specifically. Rather defensive on your part.

Oh, and it helps if you can attribute posts correctly.

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.

Be sure to check for rocks before diving off the deep end.

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

Swift (sic), 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 not sure if this is directed at me or Swift.

As for me, I love outside the box thinking. I have been known to engage in it myself. But when I do, I am prepared to defend my ideas, and to see them thoroughly destroyed.

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.

No, I'm simply following up on your assertion that this Forum doesn't allow such arguments. We do.

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.

If you want to pursue this, take it to S&T.

* 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.

We don't say, "We are correct." We take the stand that this Forum will present and promote what is accepted as Mainstream science. That doesn't make it or us "correct." It's the standard, a starting place, which "true science" acknowledges.

How can you think outside the box if you don't know and understand what the box represents?

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.

I think you may get it. We do not allow promotion of ATM ideas outside of ATM. That's a far cry from not allowing them altogether, as you seem to claim.

And speculation without promotion is allowed elsewhere.

What I'm trying to address, though, Swift (sic), 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?

(Green frog, bald referee ... easy to confuse them.)

I know you have no knowledge of the beginnings of ATM. Phil started it as a way to keep crackpot thinking out of the other parts of the Forum. Fraser expressed hopes it might lead to something sometime, but he recently said he'd go along with dumping it. Pamela agrees with them both. The Moderators want to keep ATM; it's often troublesome, but at least it's isolated.

This Forum is a place to discuss Mainstream science. It allows the promotion of ATM ideas, but that's not why we're here.

Again, you can speculate within limits.

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?

No one is "busting your chops." You demonstrated an unfamilarity with how this Forum works. I was trying to explain that to you.

Speculation is allowed in the appropriate forum. Promotion of ATM (or CT) ideas must be in that appropriate forum.

[Nereid]

Nice long post, thanks DoggerDan! {insert smilie here}

Am a bit rushed today, so just a quick couple of things (more later ... maybe).

Thanks for the swift response, DoggerDan.

Hi, Nereid - glad to! I really had no intention of stirring up a can of worms.

These worms have been squirming around in this can for a very, very long time. IIRC, there were lively discussions on ATM when I first joined each of the fora which later merged to become BAUT; and AGW has been a 'hot' topic in BAUT almost since its birth.

The responses seem to indicate it's a sore spot for a number of varying reasons, so perhaps some polite discussion might help either heal some wounds or perhaps even lead in a more productive direction?

Yes, that would be a good idea.

I myself would be especially interested in ideas on how to handle ATM ideas (in general), here in the merged CQ forum ... ideas which are new that is, and have not been discussed, proposed, advocated, etc at least once before (others may be new to these discussions, but I've essentially no interest in going over the same points, the same reasons, the same issues yet again).

Might you have links? If not, that's ok - I'll look around.

Oops, sorry; sure thing: DoggerDan, I think you've added 2 to 2 and got 9,435! [...]

Fraser also, after several years, put his foot down, very firmly, with regard to the way the ATM section was being used - cynically, coldly, deliberately - as a means of marketing certain crackpot ideas.

Are you saying he was for the marketing of such ideas, or are you saying he was observing that the ATM section was being used to market such ideas? I think the latter, but please clarify.

Yes, the latter (sorry for the ambiguity)

The mods - and yes, I was one once - collectively had immense difficulty with that section.

Was the difficulty due more to crackpots or to ambiguity in the rules, or poorly defined rules thereof?

IIRC - and I may well not be - there were difficulties of many kinds.

Perhaps the most common (or perhaps just the one I remember most vividly) was the inability of those promoting ATM ideas to understand/accept/adhere to/etc the central requirement that they respond meaningfully to all questions posed, questions that were direct, and directly pertinent to the ATM ideas presented, as presented, and in a timely fashion (you may - correctly - infer from the multiple qualifiers that each is important). For sure there were cases where the rules may have seemed ambiguous to the ATM idea proponent, but mostly it was the proponents' inability, or unwillingness, to accept the rule

A related difficulty: a great many ATM proponents were exceedingly ill-prepared, and instead of responding (when they realised they were so ill-prepared) by withdrawing (and taking the time to get better prepared), lashed out at the mods (for suppressing the next Einstein, or quashing free speech, or whatever).

There was one problem that I was directly involved in: being an active participant in an ATM thread and, at the same time, a mod. Myself, I think the only solution to that is for mods to not post content to ATM threads, i.e. mods cannot be ordinary members (wrt ATM threads), they can only act as mods. IOW, the reality of 'conflict of interest' is trumped by the perception.

Consequently the special ATM rule - and its application - have been changed, many times.

If I'm not too far out on a limb, here, it sounds like a bit of both?

That, right there, is another giant worm! Rules can never be explicit enough, and they can all too easily grow to be ten, 42, 999, ... pages long. How to get the balance just right?

How will the new owners treat the ATM section? We don't know, and are likely not to know for some time yet (there are many other things higher on their priority lists). Your concerns here may turn out to be moot (e.g. the ATM section may be axed entirely), or misdirected.

The same general comment applies to AGW.

Turning to the specifics: "... instead of being properly discussed, as they should be." (bold added)

Your comment seems to reflect an all too common misunderstanding of the ATM rules, as they currently stand. The ATM section is explicitly not about discussing ATM ideas!

Ok. I'm not an ATMer by either bent or trade. A little feedback, though - a section entitled "Against the Mainstream" seems to invite the discussion of ATM ideas. If that wasn't the intent, why title it as such? What was the original goal? To review ATM ideas for plausibility? That would be admirable. Or to serve as a denunciation ground for the rather large collection of ATM ideas out there which are clearly off their rocker. That, too, is admirable. Whatever brings ideas back to science is admirable, provided in so doing, that it's science that's adhered to, and not tenets of pseudo-science. Again, true science allows for the questioning of its precepts, while also allowing for their defense.

Your suggestions on how to make the intent of the ATM section clearer would be most welcome, I'm sure.

If you dig around a bit, I think you'll find that the mods (and admins) have tried mighty hard to make the intent crystal clear (did you, perchance, miss that?)

Again, true science allows for the questioning of its precepts, while also allowing for their defense. - if it's a deep discussion of the history and philosophy of science you're interested in, then I don't think CQ is the place (there are other fora whose scopes are explicitly that). For the small part of science that is the focus of this forum, it's hard to see how any such questioning could be anything other than evidence-based and quantitative.

But maybe you had something else in mind?

...

Of course, if you were to take that stance, you'd be well-advised to check the history ... many before you have suggested, demanded, recommended, advocated, proposed, ... changing the ATM rule, to allow collaboration, "proper discussion", (and more).

My "proper discussion" comment was meant to counter the knee-jerk squashing (I believe I used the term "hammering") of any idea contrary to the mainstream. Irene's thread (this is her thread) mentioned fostering a learning environment. There's a significant difference between an environment where wayward ideas are hammered, and where those proposing them are brought into a learning environment.

Obviously, some folks are so far gone they'll just babble their craft until they're blue in the face, without accepting or responding to any feedback. That's the 99%. If you need to counter their fluff with roadblocks, so be it. When I mentioned opening discussions with the 1%, I was referring to those ideas which deserve further discussion.

Which brings us back to my first post in response to yours (see link above).

And I'll bang on here a bit more about my last post ... why is it that the CQ forum, per-BAUT merger, had no* ATM posts, let alone threads? Why does the Galaxy Zoo forum have so few?

I did a study of ATM posts (I'll dig up a link later), and found the relevant percentages to be closer to 99.5% and 0.5% (and that's being exceedingly generous). Have you done a quantitative study, or are 99%/1% just guesses?

This is where things bog down. Who decides? Those who vehemently defend what's know? Those who welcome new ideas and directions? Those who're stable, but who aren't really familiar with the subject matter? There are both benefits and problems associated with all three.

Perhaps you could help, greatly, by proposing something explicit, objective, and implementable?

Start, say, with what you would do if CQ were your own forum ...

[to be continued]

* as far as I know; I did a quick check, but may have missed such a thread/post

[Gillianren]

Actually, it's my understanding that most studies show that board meetings are terrible places to actually accomplish anything.

[dapifo]

I totally agree with the well-intentioned criticism DoggerDan ... only took a few days in this forum and I have been severely hammered mercilessly, both inside and outside the ATM to propose ideas outside the box: That I agree possibly are a little bit "out of common"..but I think that they, and me also, we deserve better treatment and respect.

You can have a look how works ATM (if there were any stones there, I'd be now dead !!! ):

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...e-a-3D-Rainbow

I was already being beaten severely in other threads, and got in ATM because it suggested to me a moderator
I thought it was a place to openly discuss issues ATM, and with "open mind" and ATH people!, that is why I ased for:

"I would like to discuss following idea with "Against the Mainstream" people...please, refrain persons who are staunch supporters and deffenders of Mainstream science."

The thing of it is, learning doesn't happen inside the tiny box of political correctness. [...] 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. [...]

[...] If you want to achieve your goals, this site will need to start encouraging such thinking instead of hammering it.

[...] 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.

[...]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.

[R.A.F.]

...we deserve better treatment and respect.

You can't demand respect...respect is earned.

[Luckmeister]

You can't demand respect...respect is earned.

Yes but, in fairness, there are two levels of respect in question here. One is the earned respect required for the idea presented and the other is the tacit respect for the proponent that should exist with the first response, not just a condescending "Oh no, not this again" tone. After all, everything we now know, we were once unaware of at some point in our lives. It's easy to unintentionally insult people with instant dismissal of their idea, or by simply saying "Prove it." As my life progresses, I find it harder to be patient with ideas that have already been shot down many times in the past. I have to continually try to reinforce my patience (and I'm not always successful).

[SRH]

I love this place. I really really do. I try and read and think about these fascinating topics as much as time allows.

That said, and I mean this in the most respectful way...
I do wish that there was a sub-forum here dedicated to "non-scientific randomness and babbling".

I don't think it would be that difficult to add another sub-forum here - where people can talk about stupid stuff without fear of getting banned.
I know that I would be able to share some of my more wacky theories, nearly all of which are wrong and some of which are just plain silly, but they are just ideas...they won't cause any harm to other users, nor would they cause harm to the
reputation of CosmoQuest. Others could contribute their non-scientific ideas as well.

You could call it the "Crackpot" sub-forum. People would be able to discuss and speculate without having to defend. People could collaborate and develop their ideas with others. Theories that are not fully developed could potentially be able to develop into full working theories over time, given the input of many contributors. Although not likely, it is possible that the users on the CosmoQuest website could come up with huge breakthroughs in science, and this forum could reap tremendous rewards.

***I think it is too difficult to ask someone to defend a half-baked idea, which was never given the chance to become fully-baked, because people can't develop ATM theories anywhere on this website...b/c they can't discuss a half-baked idea openly without fear of being punished. I know that I would be personally DEVASTATED if I was banned from this website.

If these types of threads are all located in a dedicated sub-forum, then other forum users who are more scientifically rigorous could EASILY not waste their time, b/c they could just never enter those threads. And you could probably even set it up so that any threads in the non-scientific/crackpot section do NOT show up on the "What's New?" section of the website.
Just a suggestion.

Again, thank you CosmoQuest and thank you mods for a most wonderful place on the internet!!

[mutleyeng]

its all down to how you present your silly idea Toefetish.
There are many threads about silly ideas, just kicking around an idea. The rules are not as restrictive as you are making out. I fail to see how you could look at the life in space section and think idle pondering is somehow banned.

[dapifo]

I like and agre with the "Crackpot" sub-forum"...really I thought that ATM was this...

But I donīt know if it is within the BAUT policy

[R.A.F.]

People would be able to discuss and speculate without having to defend.

Speculation is allowed on this board...the "problem" only arises when those "speculations" turn into advocacy.

[R.A.F.]

I fail to see how you could look at the life in space section and think idle pondering is somehow banned.

You "stole" my example. (big smile face)

[PetersCreek]

I do wish that there was a sub-forum here dedicated to "non-scientific randomness and babbling".

[...]

You could call it the "Crackpot" sub-forum. People would be able to discuss and speculate without having to defend. People could collaborate and develop their ideas with others. Theories that are not fully developed could potentially be able to develop into full working theories over time, given the input of many contributors. Although not likely, it is possible that the users on the CosmoQuest website could come up with huge breakthroughs in science, and this forum could reap tremendous rewards.

This idea has been floated and discussed by the moderation team on at least one occasion. One of the main objections I recall is that the proposed forum would be a magnet for people who can't cut it in the ATM forum and want to advocate their theories any, without those pesky rules. Another (and I think greater) objection would be that it's just not what this site is about. The establishment of the ATM forum was (in my opinion, at least) a concession of sorts, to allow a place for some (but not all!) ATM content and to keep it all in one place. Given that some of the owners/admins/mods indicated that they'd be okay with removing the ATM forum entirely, I doubt that another forum allowing for yet more of it would be well received.

***I think it is too difficult to ask someone to defend a half-baked idea, which was never given the chance to become fully-baked, because people can't develop ATM theories anywhere on this website...b/c they can't discuss a half-baked idea openly without fear of being punished. I know that I would be personally DEVASTATED if I was banned from this website.

I think it's entirely fair to ask someone to defend a half-baked idea if that's the condition in which they present it in the ATM forum. As for giving it a chance to fully bake...well, that doesn't have to happen here. <Hitchhiker's Guide>The Internet is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the Internet.</Hitchhiker's Guide> But let's say a proponent wants the input of certain members from this board. They could (and some have) discuss it via PM or take the discussion off-site. There are alternatives.

[Swift]

You could call it the "Crackpot" sub-forum. People would be able to discuss and speculate without having to defend. People could collaborate and develop their ideas with others. Theories that are not fully developed could potentially be able to develop into full working theories over time, given the input of many contributors. Although not likely, it is possible that the users on the CosmoQuest website could come up with huge breakthroughs in science, and this forum could reap tremendous rewards.

Such a thing has been considered several times, at least during the BAUT years. The moderation team has spent a lot of time debating changes to the ATM forum.

First, anyone who has not done so, and is interested in why the ATM forum is the way it is, should read the excellent Brief History of the ATM forum, written by Moose.

Second, one problem with your so called "Crackpot forum" is that such a forum literally attracts every crackpot on the Internet. It becomes a free vehicle for them to promote their ideas, no matter how crazy they are. And in the age of Google, people find such threads and go straight to them. Thus, CQ becomes a forum for promoting crazy ideas, which is not what we want. And don't kid yourself, there are vast numbers of people looking for such an unrestricted platform for promoting their ideas.

Third, I know our membership well, and even without a stated requirement that people need to defend their ideas, many of our members would try to get them to do so. Both sides will get frustrated and upset and all sorts of unpleasantness will be generated, which will spill into the rest of the forum. Heck, Space Exploration gets that way sometimes, and that's basically mainstream.

Fourth, one of our owners has pretty much explicitly stated that this is what he wants for ATM. Given what I just said, I am not going to work to change his opinion.

But I'll repeat something I've said many times before. If someone wants to change/modify/add-to ATM, instead of just the often stated "I don't like what you folks are doing", come up with a very well thought out proposal, with rules and structure that address ALL the issues listed here and the linked history document, and is consistent with the rest of our rules and CQ's mission, and we'll look at.

P.S. - I find it interesting and telling that Peterscreek and I just posted essentially the same thing.