Why CosmoQuest?

[PetersCreek]

Wipe your feet next time you walk through my head.

[dapifo]

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

What do you mean with "advocary"?

[Strange]

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 I think one problem is that people who have just come up with their own "wacky" idea might not realise just how vast the community of people with their own crazy ideas is. They may think they are the first person to come up with this idea (rather than the 10,000th this month). They may think there aren't enough "alternative" theories out there to combat the hidebound and sterile "mainstream" (when there are probably millions; most of them variations on a small number of basic ideas).

There are thousands of websites, journals (many online), blogs and forums dedicated to this sort of stuff. Some of them for a single idea; many open to any hypothesis at all, as long as it is non-standard.

There are also, of course, many serious science websites and forums out there (one would hope more than there are crackpot sites, but I'm not sure). As far as I know, BAUT/CQ is the only one that applies some rigor to the discussion of such ideas, which I think is incredibly valuable. (There are a few which just ban any such discussion.) It makes it a very useful resource, for those not sure of what real science has to say on a given subject, for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

I have learnt a huge amount from discussions on the ATM and, even more so, CT forums. Which is the main argument for keeping them going - with the current rules. (I know that contradicts what I said earlier...)

[R.A.F.]

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

Well, it's obvious that both of you understand what this board is about....that's why you get the "big bucks". (ironic smilee face)

[Gillianren]

What do you mean with "advocary"?

"Advocacy" is claiming that an idea is correct, not just discussing its merits or--far more frequently--lack thereof.

. . . One would hope more than there are crackpot sites, but I'm not sure.

The difference is that you can get quite a lot of people to discuss science, therefore they tend to congregate. There are probably more crackpot sites simply because each variation on a crackpot idea probably has its own site. Once you get beyond "the mainstream is wrong," you get into all the variations on how people claim it's wrong, and they have less in common than they think they do. There's even more psychology involved, but there will always be more small crackpot boards. It's just that the big ones tend to be either mainstream or deeply fragmented.

[Noclevername]

What do you mean with "advocary"?

People often start insisting that their ideas are as valid as mainstream ones, despite not having been through the same rigorous process of testing and re-testing. It happens a lot here even though the ATM rules are clear; with a wide-open Crackpot section, the problem would become much worse.

[Strange]

What do you mean with "advocary"?

Advocacy is saying:

• my idea is right and important;
• it must be right because I thought of it;
• it must be right because it is rejected by established scientists;
• it must be right because I spent a long time thinking about it;
• it must be right despite the evidence;
• it must be right because your mainstream theories are wrong/incomplete;
• it must be right even though I can't do any math;
• it must be right if you can't prove me wrong;
• it must be right because they laughed at Galileo
• if you don't see that it is right, you just haven't understood it

On the other hand, there are frequently threads discussing non-mainstream ideas ("what do you guys think of this?, "wouldn't it be interesting if this turns out to be correct?", "look at this crazy idea!"); I have even started some myself.

But as soon as you go from, "have you seen this" to "this is correct, you are all wrong/ignorant" then it is under the ATM rules.

[R.A.F.]

But as soon as you go from, "have you seen this" to "this is correct, you are all wrong/ignorant" then it is under the ATM rules.

It really is that "clear cut" when it comes to unevidenced ideas.... Speculation fine, advocacy, ATM.



edit to add...I completely missed Noclevername, and Gillianren's posts....I share their opinions.

[mutleyeng]

just curious
Has the idea of having a formal debating section ever been floated on here?
They can be very effective and draw a crowd when done well

[R.A.F.]

Has the idea of having a formal debating section ever been floated on here?

Problem is... how do you get the ATM proponents to follow the strict rules of debate?....most can't follow the rules for just posting here.

[mutleyeng]

its actually not that difficult. The thread is only open to two people, and only alternative posts. It actually makes it quite easy to moderate. It also dosnt have to be restricted only to ATM - it could be "SLS is never going to happen", or "MSL is a waste of resources", but yes, you could have that guy from youtube that is always after phil plait put his money where his mouth is.

[R.A.F.]

....you could have that guy from youtube that is always after phil plait put his money where his mouth is.

I repeat...how will you get ATMers to follow the relatively strict rules of debate, when they can't even follow the relatively lax rules for just posting here??

[mutleyeng]

because it is formal and not lax. Ive seen it used quite well with others that have equally whacky ideas of reality
Im not suggesting everyone that has a ATM idea has a debate instead, you have to apply in the first instance, but the facility to have them is a great asset to a forum.

[R.A.F.]

because it is formal and not lax.

So you just "expect" those with "alternative ideas" to cooperate?...really??



I have a bit of experience with ATM proponents, and cooperation just isn't in their "nature".

[mutleyeng]

if you are asking if someone will avoid answering a specific question put to them in a formal debate, then yes, of course they will. The point being it is much easier to identify who is being dishonest, for moderator to interject and so forth, in a formal pre agreed structure.
Would i expect them to stick to the posting format...frequency and strictly alternate...then yes i would expect that. Again, point being it is very easy to enforce.
I wouldnt expect the vast majority of ATM threads to be considered warrant a formal debate, or the people considered capable of such debates. It isnt something that is automatically given on request. Thats how it works - and even though questions may be avoided, they do work quite well.
If you dont agree with me, thats fine...i was just asking a question after all

[Noclevername]

if you are asking if someone will avoid answering a specific question put to them in a formal debate, then yes, of course they will. The point being it is much easier to identify who is being dishonest, for moderator to interject and so forth, in a formal pre agreed structure.

Sounds like it would mostly be the same as ATM, Ask a question, not answered; ask a question, not answered --repeat until thread closure.

[R.A.F.]

if you are asking if someone will avoid answering a specific question put to them in a formal debate, then yes, of course they will. The point being it is much easier to identify who is being dishonest, for moderator to interject and so forth, in a formal pre agreed structure.

This board has a reporting system in place for doing just that.

If you dont agree with me, thats fine...i was just asking a question after all

It's not that I disagree, it's that I know from experience the "mind set" of ATMers/CTers, and formal debate is completely foreign to them. They are not interested in making a rational "point"...they simply "want" to promote whatever ideas suit their "fancy".


Sorry, If it seemed like I was "picking" on you..I apologize as it certainly was not my intention.

[R.A.F.]

Sounds like it would mostly be the same as ATM, Ask a question, not answered; ask a question, not answered --repeat until thread closure.

You forgot the best part....the banning. (smile with big ears*)




*I know there are more "pressing" matters, but it sure would be nice if we had the smillee's back....just sayin'.

[chrlzs]

So you just "expect" those with "alternative ideas" to cooperate?...really??

No, but why would that be a problem? If they misbehave (and everyone sees that..), they get a public warning. The debate continues, and if they do it again, either a last chance warning or suspension/banning, just as happens elsewhere here. Their behavior and inability to properly debate is there for all to see - a good thing, I reckon...

If it's done well, then the reason they are taken out of the debate (and therefore lose it unless perhaps another person is willing to step into their shoes and take it over) is very clear and in my opinion that would be a useful addition to the body of information available for public purview.. A couple of forums do it, and it seems to work. I'll see if I can find a good example..

The problem isn't so much about whether it can work, it's more about having available (and willing and interested) moderation capacity, and coming up with the rules...

From my own perspective, I think it would be a good thing.. sorta like a cut-down, forum-based version of JREF's $1m challenge.. And as an example, I think some of us here will know that a certain 'debate' at IMDB gets rolled out from time to time, to point out a certain person's 'methodology'. That's a useful 'data point' but suffers because it is on what is essentially an offtopic arena, isn't a recognised forum, and some of the important posts were removed. Having such a forum available here would mitigate almost all of that..

Only problem is, due to the dwindling number of, say Apollo-deniers, I'm not sure there would be many takers..

[mutleyeng]

It dosnt have to be restricted to ATM/CT though - personally i would be more interested in more mainstream debate just of differing views...but i do expect id be in a minority there.
Rules are easy - you just nick them wholesale from where they have it working well. Resources (and forum code) is another matter.

[R.A.F.]

The problem isn't so much about whether it can work, it's more about having available (and willing and interested) moderation capacity, and coming up with the rules...

Nail, head...


I have no "problem" with you (or anyone) convincing the mods that this is a good idea.



Good luck...

[Swift]

just curious
Has the idea of having a formal debating section ever been floated on here?
They can be very effective and draw a crowd when done well

Problem is... how do you get the ATM proponents to follow the strict rules of debate?....most can't follow the rules for just posting here.

Yes, it has been proposed and discussed among the moderators. There have also been related proposals of ways to narrow or limit the discussion

And no, the problem we had with it wasn't the question of of getting ATM proponents to follow the rules of debate. I actually don't see that as any more of a problem as getting them to follow the ATM rules.

The problem is that it is against the spirit of an open forum, where all members can contribute. It blocks the multiple interactions that are part of what a forum is about.

[mutleyeng]

ok, thats fair enough.
The only counter to that i would have is that where i have seen it used well, there are two threads. One the debate, restricted to only the participants. The other is a comments thread open to everyone except the participants.
I appreciate that may not be sufficient for everyone's idea of an open forum though

[Swift]

What do you mean with "advocary"?

"Advocacy" is claiming that an idea is correct, not just discussing its merits or--far more frequently--lack thereof.

Advocacy is saying:

• my idea is right and important;
• it must be right because I thought of it;
• it must be right because it is rejected by established scientists;

<snip>

Actually, I disagree with Gillianren, Strange, and others who have defined advocacy this way. To me it has nothing to
whether one uses evidence or not to prove their idea is correct, nor does it have anything to do with whether the idea being advocated is mainstream or not. I can advocate The General Theory of Relativity as much as I can advocate The Magic Fairy Theory of Gravity.

To advocate is simply to speak (or write) in strong favor or support of an idea and to urge others to support it to.

Note that our rules governor advocating non-mainstream ideas; they make no general restriction on advocating.

Let me show by example....
Here is something that would be a perfectly acceptable question that one could post in, for example, Q&A:
Did the Mayans predict the world is going to end on 21 December 2012?

Here is an example of advocating a non-mainstream idea, which we only allow in ATM and CT:
The Mayans predicted the world is going to end on 21 December 2012.

If one started a thread in Q&A with the first version (the question), but argued with every mainstream answer to the question, you are no longer "just asking", and you have started to cross the line into advocating.

[R.A.F.]

...the problem we had with it wasn't the question of of getting ATM proponents to follow the rules of debate. I actually don't see that as any more of a problem as getting them to follow the ATM rules.

Which they don't do now....which was my POINT.

The problem is that it is against the spirit of an open forum, where all members can contribute. It blocks the multiple interactions that are part of what a forum is about.

I was answering given the parameters of the question...2 people debating...guess that was ill advised, eh?



Sheesh....

[Gillianren]

The other, more obvious problem with debating is that you have to decide who is going to argue the mainstream side.

But more to the point, science isn't a debate. It isn't about talking points. It isn't about who can argue better. It is about where the evidence lies. Having a debate implies that science can be argued into correctness instead of having to demonstrate correctness (or more accurately, fail to demonstrate incorrectness) through repeated testing. A debate to argue whether an idea is right or wrong is antithetical to science.

[dapifo]

Advocacy is saying:

• my idea is right and important;
• it must be right because I thought of it;
• it must be right because it is rejected by established scientists;
• it must be right because I spent a long time thinking about it;
• it must be right despite the evidence;
• it must be right because your mainstream theories are wrong/incomplete;
• it must be right even though I can't do any math;
• it must be right if you can't prove me wrong;
• it must be right because they laughed at Galileo
• if you don't see that it is right, you just haven't understood it

On the other hand, there are frequently threads discussing non-mainstream ideas ("what do you guys think of this?, "wouldn't it be interesting if this turns out to be correct?", "look at this crazy idea!"); I have even started some myself.

But as soon as you go from, "have you seen this" to "this is correct, you are all wrong/ignorant" then it is under the ATM rules.

Strange .. I see that you've had many discussions on this line ... But it would be nice you wonder if the problem could be also yourself... that you are not able to explain clear yous opinios and believes...and you are too agresive by discrediting, mocking and hammering the proposals ... possibly as a reflex of your own frustration.

When I ask you reviews of "Universe is like a 3D Rainbow" I expected one of the following responses:

1. - Yes, this is the Theory X and :
1.1.- It is one of the multiple possibilitis the science is handeling...but there are not enough evidences.
1.2.- It has been refused by this and this problems... with the current evidencies and theories.
2.- OK, it seems to be a new idea and:
2.1.- OK..we could develope better, although it has some inconsistencies...
2.2.- But it is absolutly wrong by this and this problems....with the current evidencies and theories.

But I did not receive any of these response...I only hear from you "asking to me for evidences !!!!". It is all the arguments you gave me.

[dapifo]

Problem is... how do you get the ATM proponents to follow the strict rules of debate?....most can't follow the rules for just posting here.

Why do you see it as a problem?---you donīt like that people post here his ideas?.... although it was for promoting...I think that one of the objectives of the forum is divulgate the science... in all the aspects. It is obvious that it has to be clear posted ....what is mainstream and what is a proposal or new idea.

[dapifo]

I think that you didnīt know to me...I heve been camming for cooperation and team work !!!... but nothing !!!...

[Noclevername]

This is a meanstream science site, it is not for working out "other" ideas. It is for discussing mainstream theories.