Why CosmoQuest?

[Moose]

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...

[dapifo]

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

It is no the main objective of this forum..please read the first post of the present thread:http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...51#post2041751

There is clear that the initial objectives of this forum was..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

[Moose]

There is clear that the initial objectives of this forum was..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

That refers to Moon Mappers, Ice Investigators, any other official projects. If you have a project in mind you would like Pamela to consider, assuming she'll accept unsolicited proposals...

[mutleyeng]

It is no the main objective of this forum..please read the first post of the present thread:http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...51#post2041751

There is clear that the initial objectives of this forum was..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

That dosnt mean anyone intended Cosmoquest to be an internet version of the Perimeter Institute. Clearly it is about data analysis, not theoretical physics.
ETA
now that said, i do sometimes find it difficult to decide where the best place would be to discuss theoretical physics subjects myself. I certainly dont have any intention of ever starting an ATM thread as i am not advocating anything, and they are not subjects where there even exists a mainstream. (some may call it philosophical science)
Most people seem to place such topics in the science QandA section, but that dosnt seem to be the right place to me.
So to some extent i do actually agree there is a gap in Topics headings for discussing the more philosophical aspects of theoretical physics for which there is, by nature, no mainstream.

[Cougar]

"...to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

That refers to Moon Mappers, Ice Investigators, any other official projects. If you have a project in mind you would like Pamela to consider, assuming she'll accept unsolicited proposals...

Why couldn't/doesn't it apply to the entire site, including the forums?

[caveman1917]

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.

True, but a debate to argue whether an idea is consistent or not is very much a part of science. And a good part of ATM ideas already fail on that point, even without having to take any evidence into account. Also there are many ATM ideas that are simply too vague to have a meaningful way to put them to experimental testing, or that rely on fallacious reasoning, issues that must be resolved through debate before they can be taken to the next step. So while i'm not sure if adding such a section to the forum is a good idea, i don't think it would be antithetical to science either.

[Moose]

Why couldn't/doesn't it apply to the entire site, including the forums?

If the question is "why couldn't it apply to the ATM forum"? Because of the stunning series of abuses since BABB/UT's individual foundings largely forced the issue. The brief history I wrote, that Swift links above, explains in more detail. Otherwise, it does, to an extent, within the established rules.

Several of the board's programmers used to collaborate on Project Euler, although that was more for fun than any serious work. (Speaking of which, that might be fun to stir up again.)

I'll point out that the PM facility, and Visitor messages, both provide largely unrestricted mechanisms to allow that sort of discussion. There's probably no special reason why you couldn't ask for permission to start a user group along those lines.

[HenrikOlsen]

It is no the main objective of this forum..please read the first post of the present thread:http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...51#post2041751

There is clear that the initial objectives of this forum was..."to build a community where scientists, programmers, and citizens can work collaboratively to do science and learn about our universe together."

And this was one of the main fears of many BAUT Forum members when we were told we were about to get swallowed.
That the purpose of the forum which had vastly more members and had single threads with more posts than the other forum had in a year in it's entirety, would get subsumed by the one which provided the name, simply because that one was the one that kept its name.

[Gillianren]

True, but a debate to argue whether an idea is consistent or not is very much a part of science. And a good part of ATM ideas already fail on that point, even without having to take any evidence into account. Also there are many ATM ideas that are simply too vague to have a meaningful way to put them to experimental testing, or that rely on fallacious reasoning, issues that must be resolved through debate before they can be taken to the next step. So while i'm not sure if adding such a section to the forum is a good idea, i don't think it would be antithetical to science either.

If they are too vague to be put to experimental reasoning, what's the point of debating them? Isn't the actual next step having the person whose idea it is in the first place figure out what they're talking about? Perhaps do some research into the current state of the mainstream? And in general, if they lie in fallacious reasoning, that isn't solved by having the person defend their idea. They just claim that everyone else is confused.

[SRH]

What is the best way to find like-minded people, with whom you could discuss a half-baked ATM idea offline (via PM)?

[caveman1917]

If they are too vague to be put to experimental reasoning, what's the point of debating them? Isn't the actual next step having the person whose idea it is in the first place figure out what they're talking about? Perhaps do some research into the current state of the mainstream? And in general, if they lie in fallacious reasoning, that isn't solved by having the person defend their idea. They just claim that everyone else is confused.

I think you and i have a different perspective on what the debating section would be. It seems you are considering debate between "equal ideas" (for lack of a better term) as in having two people debate string theory vs loop quantum gravity. I was considering a section that would be more like the preparation stage for ATM, a debate to check on internal consistency, fallacious reasoning, clarity and such related issues. Where an idea that passes this stage can then be thrown for the full ATM experience. Something that would, i think, increase the quality of ATM itself.

I'm not saying one perspective is better than the other, just that i think our disagreement stems from a different perception rather than a fundamental disagreement.

[caveman1917]

What is the best way to find like-minded people, with whom you could discuss a half-baked ATM idea offline (via PM)?

I'd suggest asking the moderators if you can open a thread in ATM where you give some information in the OP and ask for people interested to discuss it by PM with you, and ask that they immediately close the thread after your OP. Though i could see a problem where everybody who has some ideas would want to open such a thread. But it would be a fair question as you can hardly spam the entire membership by PM to ask if someone is interested.

[HenrikOlsen]

I'd suggest asking the moderators if you can open a thread in ATM where you give some information in the OP and ask for people interested to discuss it by PM with you, and ask that they immediately close the thread after your OP. Though i could see a problem where everybody who has some ideas would want to open such a thread. But it would be a fair question as you can hardly spam the entire membership by PM to ask if someone is interested.

Giving people a place to describe their idea and immediately blocking the ability of everyone else to show how it's wrong is really going to be a great way to prevent this board from turning into a soapbox for crackpots. Really bad idea, next time try for one where it won't be quite so obvious how to game the system.

Incidentally, as a previous moderator I would suggest you think hard about whether any new proposal would require more active participation by the moderators, since it is likely to be rejected if it does.

[caveman1917]

And in general, if they lie in fallacious reasoning, that isn't solved by having the person defend their idea. They just claim that everyone else is confused.

It would block some of that sort of behaviour, there's no point in continuing to say that everyone else is confused if only person can respond to the thread who probably already stopped doing so by then.

[caveman1917]

Giving people a place to describe their idea and immediately blocking the ability of everyone else to show how it's wrong is really going to be a great way to prevent this board from turning into a soapbox for crackpots. Really bad idea, next time try for one where it won't be quite so obvious how to game the system.

There is still a difference between a post clearly stating that one is simply asking for help in development of a half-baked ATM idea and one that is making a public claim as to its validity.

Incidentally, as a previous moderator I would suggest you think hard about whether any new proposal would require more active participation by the moderators, since it is likely to be rejected if it does.

True, but i can certainly understand TOEfetish's predicament when being told that PM is the correct way to simply discuss ATM ideas without having a way to actually start such a discussion.

[Gillianren]

I think you and i have a different perspective on what the debating section would be. It seems you are considering debate between "equal ideas" (for lack of a better term) as in having two people debate string theory vs loop quantum gravity. I was considering a section that would be more like the preparation stage for ATM, a debate to check on internal consistency, fallacious reasoning, clarity and such related issues. Where an idea that passes this stage can then be thrown for the full ATM experience. Something that would, i think, increase the quality of ATM itself.

That's not a debate. That's a classroom. I also assume that you would have a hard time getting a lot of ATM proponents to agree to it, because they would not think they needed it. That would need to be mandated, and the administration would need to find people who were willing to take on that job, because again, you'd have to figure out who was going to do the "debating."

I'm not saying one perspective is better than the other, just that i think our disagreement stems from a different perception rather than a fundamental disagreement.

Well, there's the fundamental disagreement in that you think this idea would work and I do not, but that's probably in part because I've been around for some of the most notorious BABB/BAUT ATM threads.

It would block some of that sort of behaviour, there's no point in continuing to say that everyone else is confused if only person can respond to the thread who probably already stopped doing so by then.

Well, no; in one of the threads I was involved in when I still spent time in ATM, the guy was saying that the people who published the data he was relying on were confused about what their own images showed. "Everyone else" is not, in this case, "everyone else in the thread." Sometimes, it is literally just everyone else.

[caveman1917]

Well, there's the fundamental disagreement in that you think this idea would work and I do not

I didn't say it would work, i even said that i don't know if it would be a good idea. I merely stated that i think the concept isn't antithetical to science. And, if implemented, would increase the quality of ATM itself (which is a trivial consequence of such a structure since you'll just have all the low quality stuff in another section).

[caveman1917]

That's not a debate. That's a classroom.

It's akin to the editor of a journal taking a look at the basic quality of an idea before deciding to send it into peer review or not. So that the people actually doing the peer review of ideas get at least somewhat decent and relevant stuff to work on. That's the way things are already done, so if ATM represents peer review it would be natural to include such a component. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do this with the forum as we have it, though.

[dapifo]

Well... I think that you got a lot of proposals and constructive criticism... this is now in your hands to do what you deem most appropriate according to the objectives and editorial line of this forum.

I will summarize here:
- To give a little more freedom to users (always respecting the rules and forms).
- Possibility of creating a space to develop new ideas and proposals which can participate people freely (could possibly be rated by participants, not the originator, to assess their interest... and posible close it if the rate - 0 to 10-is minor than 5 after...some days)

[Perikles]

I will summarize here:
- To give a little more freedom to users (always respecting the rules and forms).

Does this actually mean anything? If you respect the rules, then the freedom is there, constrained by the rules. How can you have more freedom?

Your signature makes no sense to me either.

[HenrikOlsen]

There is still a difference between a post clearly stating that one is simply asking for help in development of a half-baked ATM idea and one that is making a public claim as to its validity.

You know, I think I've identified the disconnect between how we look at this.

You're assuming good faith on behalf of the ATM proponents, while many of the rest of us have been stripped of that illusion through too many bad ATM threads when the rules were more lax.

[R.A.F.]

I will summarize here: - To give a little more freedom to users (always respecting the rules and forms).

"More freedom"? Users here already have the "freedom" to post elsewhere if they don't like things here...

Now if you had a good enough reason for changing how things here are done, then the admin/mods might take notice, But that (a good enough reason) hasn't happened.

- Possibility of creating a space to develop new ideas and proposals which can participate people freely.

In other words, a section where people could "freely" promote any unevidenced idea without the "worry" of having to back up their idea with evidence.

....and I just don't see that ever happening on this board. There is simply no reason for it.

[caveman1917]

You know, I think I've identified the disconnect between how we look at this.

You're assuming good faith on behalf of the ATM proponents, while many of the rest of us have been stripped of that illusion through too many bad ATM threads when the rules were more lax.

You may be right, and that is probably what Gillianren meant by

I've been around for some of the most notorious BABB/BAUT ATM threads.

However my experience with ATM hasn't been so bad, sure there have been a couple of bad cases, but overall i can't complain. However given that i've been here for only about two years, that begs the question as to who should update their view on it. I believe you that it was really bad when the rules were more lax, but now they aren't lax anymore, and it doesn't seem so bad to me.

Note that the proposal (the one about TOEfetish asking for PM contact on an idea, not the one about the debating section) doesn't change the rules at all. If you post clearly asking for some help in development without making a claim, the thread can be closed and anyone interested may contact you (you didn't, after all, make any claims). If you however post making an actual claim then you've just opened an actual ATM thread with everything in place as it is.

I'm not saying it's the best solution, but the predicament TOEfetish and others face wanting to do it the "right way" is real. There is no point in saying to take it to PM if you can't start such a discussion. And i certainly don't think we should deny those willing to do things the right way in good faith the means to do so just because there is a general disillusion about ATM because of problems in the past with those acting in bad faith.

[R.A.F.]

I'm not saying it's the best solution, but the predicament TOEfetish and others wanting to do it the "right way" is real.

Real, to him... the rest of us see no "predicament" at all.

There is no point in saying to take it to PM if you can't start such a discussion.

Then that idea dies on the vine. I personally would not put up with ATMers starting threads that are immediately locked. It just gives them another place to promote junk science.

This is a discussion board for crin' out loud.

And i certainly don't think we should deny those willing to do things the right way in good faith...

Why not? This board does not need to be all things to all people.


...and what do you mean by "the right way in good faith". To me, that means that as long as an ATM proponent believes what he says, he should be accomidated by this board.


....it ain't gonna happen.

[caveman1917]

Real, to him... the rest of us see no "predicament" at all.

Just because you don't encounter that predicament by not having an ATM idea that you want to, as suggested by the moderation team, take to a PM discussion doesn't mean that the predicament isn't real.

I personally would not put up with ATMers starting threads that are immediately locked. It just gives them another place to promote junk science.

(my bold)

You mean the part where i said that people promoting ATM ideas should be subject to the full rules of ATM without having their threads locked?

This board does not need to be all things to all people.

How exactly is that even an argument?

...and what do you mean by "the right way in good faith"

"If you simply want to discuss or develop an ATM idea, use PM".

To me, that means that as long as an ATM proponent believes what he says, he should be accomidated by this board.

With all due respect, have you actually read what i said?

[Nereid]

[continued]

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

Oops, in my earlier post-response I gave a link, but it was in answer to a later question of yours, not this one. Sorry. Anyway, I think others have included at least some of the relevant links ...

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.

I was referring to what you had written about BAUT and AGW ("The way BAUT handles global warming is another example -- "); in particular, your conclusion ("Again, that's political correctness, not science.")

You say "political correctness, not science"; I say "science, not political correctness".

Be that as it may, it's pretty much a sterile point; BAUT has a clearly-stated policy wrt AGW ...

...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...

It was in my last post, just in the wrong place: DoggerDan, I think you've added 2 to 2 and got 9,435! [...]

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.

Well, since you posted this, several others have jumped in; do you feel your question remains unanswered (even if only in part)?

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

I don't understand why not. I mean, the contents of the ATM section are ~199 parts garbage, ~1 part possibly science-based. Unless and until there's a feasible method of raising the ratio of science-based to garbage - by even just an OOM (i.e. to ~19 parts garbage, ~1 part science-based) - what's the point of keeping it?

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?

I can't speak for anyone else, so I suppose it makes sense for me to first ask if you consider my posts to have contained "hammering" of your "honest opinions". That would address my posts anyway.

For others, well, a subset: I think you deserved the hammering you got, to the extent that you posted without (apparently) having researched the ATM rules and their reasons (as has been pointed out, these are not hard to find). Wrt AGW, the other topic on which you based your honest opinion: maybe the hammering was richly deserved, maybe not.

Next: subsequent posts, of yours and others ...

[R.A.F.]

Just because you don't encounter that predicament by not having an ATM idea that you want to, as suggested by the moderation team, take to a PM discussion doesn't mean that the predicament isn't real.

The only predicament is people trying to change this board into a pseudo-scientific haven.

...it ain't gonna happen.

How exactly is that even an argument?

How is that a rebuttal?


I posted that this board need not be all things to all people. It is after all A SCIENCE BOARD, not a clearing house for ATM ideas.

"If you simply want to discuss or develop an ATM idea, use PM".

It'll never see the light of day without evidence, so really what is the purpose? You can go to any number of boards and do the same thing openly.

Why do you have to do it here??

With all due respect, have you actually read what i said?

Sorry that any criticism of your idea must be my fault/my inability to read.

If you expect to be taken seriously, insults are not the "way" to go...simple as that

[Nereid]

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

Almost exactly such a suggestion was made, many years' ago ("Crackpots' Corner" was the name, IIRC).

It was pretty much DOA (dead on arrival), for reasons that are partly described in Moose's excellent post on this (I assume you've now had time to read it, and deeply consider what it says).

It may be that the new owners will re-consider this; however, I would be astonished if they allowed such a thing (a Crackpots' Corner), without at the same time introducing a new team of mods and/or some radically new rules ...

[dapifo]

Does this actually mean anything? If you respect the rules, then the freedom is there, constrained by the rules. How can you have more freedom?

Your signature makes no sense to me either.

But the rules has to be respected always !!!... but they also can be changed !!!

Think about my signature...you are a clever man and you will understand !!!

[R.A.F.]

I don't understand why not. I mean, the contents of the ATM section are ~199 parts garbage, ~1 part possibly science-based. Unless and until there's a feasible method of raising the ratio of science-based to garbage - by even just an OOM (i.e. to ~19 parts garbage, ~1 part science-based) - what's the point of keeping it?

I thought the answer to this was obvious/had been explained. The main purpose is to clear up other forums from ATM posts. Having it all in the same place must be easier to manage, than if everyone posted anything, anywhere on the board.

As it stands right now, there are people who must be reminded not to promote ATM ideas on other parts of the board. Removing the ATM section entirely would only complicate an already complicated situation.