New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section

[Kaptain K]

The idea is less work for the moderators, not more!

[Jim]

Obfuscating - great word, but didn't we leave out deceiving & inveigling?

The list was beginning to take on a life of its own.

[peteshimmon]

Does anyone want to give examples of any ATM
thread they thought exemplary? That is
excluding mine, I remember Antoniseb already
made some kind words at the time. (after about
30 days as it happened

[01101001]

Does anyone want to give examples of any ATM thread they thought exemplary?

Do you mean:

1) worthy of imitation
[just a few of them]

or

2) emblematic: being or serving as an illustration of a type
[almost all of them]

(Edit: I forgot one) or

3) admonitory: serving to warn
[I'm not going there]

[RussT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Not that someone(s) would actually say..."Yes, you must be right, that has to be the way that it is working", BUT just,... ... your idea does deserve due consideration and 'could possibly' be a valuable contribution to our knowledge of our universe.

I think you and I agree on this.

It certainly seemed reasonable enough to me when I first came to BAUT.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
SO, how much *GR* numbers, maths, & equations is this Housewife, Taxi Driver, High School Student, supposed to bring to the table...

And we are close here.

I would not expect the average whatever to have all the math skills necessary, or all the research at hand, to firmly establish an idea as a theory. Nice, but not really required.

Again, seemed reasonable. However, I will say that once I learned the real difference between "theory" and 'hypothesis', I agreed that theory was too strong.
And again, not even necessary to agree on hypothesis definitively, BUT that a concept 'might' deserve further consideration/investigation.

If a promoter cannot present the math or the research or answer the technical questions, just say so. I don't think anyone here would fault her/him for saying, "I don't know" or "I don't have that skill set." Most here would be thrilled to discuss it with him/her in a reasonable manner; both parties might learn something.

Again, sounds reasonable...BUT, this is the real disconnect, from what Fraser's paragraph says and what the Pro's expect/require.

Once a concept gets to a certain point, they *demand* the math, and when the answer you suggested is given...'I can't do that math', then that idea is immediately deemed to be 'hand waving', 'word salad', and worse.

She wants to see if her idea has merit, so she searches Google, finds BAUT and posts her idea. Scientists and amateurs who understand the math and evidence can give her feedback. Maybe her idea has enough merit that one of them decides to submit a paper to Arxiv. Then she wins a nobel prize in physics.

Which really makes me wonder if any of the Pro's agree with the bold part here. What level of a verbal description would qualify for this (certainly anything put in question form would not)

Besides, ATM's rules of 'attack with glee and fervor' certainly is not condusive
to the original paragragh's intentions in the first place!

SO, maybe a two section ATM is a good idea. 1 where papers that include numbers, maths, & equations can be evaluated, and a 2nd section where well thought out, self consistant, critically developed concepts can be explored
"Without the Attack Mode", which I have suggested before and dgruss23 and numerous others have also suggested more than once.

[antoniseb]

Does anyone want to give examples of any ATM thread they thought exemplary?

The Arp thread is gigantic and rambling, and thanks for those that tried to index it, but in the last year (roughly) we tried to coordinate it as an experiment on how the ATM section could run better, and some really good things happened.

So I do not point to the Arp thread in its entirety as a good example to imitate, but those who were part of it know what about it is worth imitating. I think that in the future we'll have smaller shorter topics like "Arp - Red Shifts of Satellite Galaxies", or "Arp - Proper Motions of Quasars On Bridges", and these will run 30 days, and if they still are making progress, maybe get extended.

The Arp thread is a special case however becuse there are some active researchers publishing papers about the Arp model. Most ATM ideas don't have this, and can't imitate the new input. If we look at someone like Coldcreation, whose idea is basically his own, how do we use this idea for how the forum shoud work? I'd suggest again, breaking it into specific small topics that can possibly show the difference between his idea and mainstream for specific sets of observations such as "Coldcreation - Time Dilation in Type 1a Supernovae" or "Coldcreation - CMB Polarization".

Sometimes we get people posting an ATM idea that is outside the bounds of what can be observed or measured. I have no answer for how we should best handle these, except to get as much clarity from the poster as possible about what he or she means in 30 days.

[Jim]

Once a concept gets to a certain point, they *demand* the math, and when the answer you suggested is given...'I can't do that math', then that idea is immediately deemed to be 'hand waving', 'word salad', and worse.

Well, once a concept reaches a certain point, math is a requirement.

We have a pair of competing problems going on here. Some BAUTers do get (perhaps overly) insistent on seeing the math; some ATMers get (perhaps overly) insistent that their idea doesn't need it.

What both parties need to do is back off a bit and hit a compromise... it may be a good idea, but it cannot progress beyond that stage w/o the math. And no idea has ever displaced or disproven a working theory; only another theory can do that.

As for Fraser's comment, maybe the ATM forum could achieve that goal if an ATMer would actively seek help developing an idea into a theory, rather than simply claim it solves everything and doesn't need math to prove it and everyone but an idiot can see that so there.

[HenrikOlsen]

Once a concept gets to a certain point, they *demand* the math, and when the answer you suggested is given...'I can't do that math', then that idea is immediately deemed to be 'hand waving', 'word salad', and worse.

I've yet to see any ATM thread where the proponent answered a question with "I don't know" or "I don't know enough to do that."

Please note that since I've essentially given up on ATM because reading there gives me flashbacks to Arch~Angel's SDC thread¹, so it's entirely possible I may have missed a case where it happened.


1) I've deliberately not linked to it to protect innocent readers

[Uclock]

Kaptain K

The idea is less work for the moderators, not more!

I am sure that other member would contribute to the critiques not just the moderators. It will give those who have used the ATM section a feeling of belonging to BAUT instead of being shoved out after thirty days.

Tony

[peteshimmon]

I have looked in the Arp thread once or twice
but it does not seem to cover my few thoughts
on the subject. But I have wondered if, say,
Quasars are a protected species then will all
disenting opinion will be "ghettoised" in one
place? Now with the new regime all comment will
be easily indexed in short sharp 30 day threads!
Great!

[Van Rijn]

What both parties need to do is back off a bit and hit a compromise... it may be a good idea, but it cannot progress beyond that stage w/o the math. And no idea has ever displaced or disproven a working theory; only another theory can do that.

Right. It might be an interesting idea, but it won't go very far without math to back it up. Without something solid, there just isn't that much to discuss. Someone can always say that they don't have an answer to math questions, take the various advise, and develop a credible hypothesis. In practice, there are usually complaints suggesting that math isn't needed, and (far too often) "look at the picture" arguments. Or if math is presented, is rarely is meaningful in context.

[GDwarf]

Whee! Stepping into heated debates!

A disclaimer: I only read up until the end of the 4th page, I'm hoping that nothing critical was posted after that, though that's usually a safe assumption.

The problem with the 30-day rule is that it assumes that it is impossible to have a good discussion last for more then 30 days. This is, quite obviously, not true.

However, the problem of treadmill threads is an issue, as is people bumping threads.

I've looked at how a few other forums handle issues like this, I'd say a better change might've been making 'bumping' of threads and double posting against the rules. If someone has something to add they can edit their post, which doesn't move it up on the page.

Now, is that a perfect solution? No, of course not, people aren't alerted to any new developments (should there be any) and it can still allow "treadmill" threads. However, people who are serious about their ideas and have invested time in them should be willing/able to PM people for comment on their newly-edited post, and provided that people simply stop posting when a thread starts going in circles, you end up with a solution.

The best part is, the moderators simply have to look for a person that has posted twice in-a-row in their own thread. Then they can simply delete the post, the thread will be 'un-bumped', and everything returns to as it was before the post.

[Fraser]

I've looked at how a few other forums handle issues like this, I'd say a better change might've been making 'bumping' of threads and double posting against the rules. If someone has something to add they can edit their post, which doesn't move it up on the page.

I think this is a good suggestion, however, it always allows the ATM theorist to have the last word. In fact, it kind of enforces it. I'd like some way that it's clear to see the debate. On the plus side, it lets discussions last longer if they're really productive. This is one of the better suggestions I've heard so far.

[RussT]

some ATMers get (perhaps overly) insistent that their idea doesn't need it.

While this has been the case in far to many instances, this is NOT true in my case. I have always agreed wholeheartedly that the Maths (SR, GR, & especially String/"M" Theory), once applied to the correct correlations will be even greater and more powerful than E=mc^2.

What both parties need to do is back off a bit and hit a compromise... it may be a good idea, but it cannot progress beyond that stage w/o the math. And no idea has ever displaced or disproven a working theory; only another theory can do that.

Actually this all JUST very circular!!! I have read and been involved with the "without the maths" threads, and I have no doubt about why it is needed, as per my above statement, BUT until the "IF" is put back into the current paradigm and 'some' of the 'perceived' evidence, then Fraser's Housewife, Taxi Driver, is NEVER going to happen when the rules say "Attack with Glee and Fervor".

I am NOT whining at all here, just pointing out that I have said many times..."I can't do that math" and "I don't know the answer to that...it definitely needs to be considered/explored by scientists".

My biggest concern is that I am dealing with the fundamentals of all of cosmology, so the 30 days is not long enough, and THEN...

Who decides IF a "new" thread can be explored based on previous exploration of an idea, AND what constitutes 'enough' new data/insight/application ETC!!!

[Moose]

I think this is a good suggestion, however, it always allows the ATM theorist to have the last word. In fact, it kind of enforces it.

It also means the ATMer has the (enforced) license to pick and choose posts to which to respond and which to evade, basically saying "I've already answered this (softball) post, I can't answer anybody else's objections until someone posts again!"

It means folks can't press a carousel ATMer for proper answers.

[Coldcreation]

...snip...

The Arp thread is a special case however because there are some active researchers publishing papers about the Arp model. Most ATM ideas don't have this, and can't imitate the new input. If we look at someone like Coldcreation, whose idea is basically his own, how do we use this idea for how the forum shoud work? I'd suggest again, breaking it into specific small topics that can possibly show the difference between his idea and mainstream for specific sets of observations such as "Coldcreation - Time Dilation in Type 1a Supernovae" or "Coldcreation - CMB Polarization".
...snip...

You have some good ideas, especially breaking up a cosmology into sections (SNe Ia...CMB, etc., redshift z, material creation, galaxy formation, evolution of the large-scale structures are others). The Arp case is indeed unique, as are many other cases.

The Coldcreation model is actually similar to the Arp case in that both make very presice predictions that (at the very least) can be tested in principle, and in many case, at the telescope.

I wanted to add, primarily for the record (since this is not the ATM section I will not elaborate much), that the CC model is based on Einstein's general relativity (the de Sitter metric, c. 1916-1917), QM and thermodynamics. Above, you had written "whose idea is basically his own" and I just wanted to explain the 'basically.' My contribution was to fuse known physics into one cosmology, not to re-invent it (as might be interpreted from your 'his own').

Finally, I like your suggestion, again, breaking topics into specific small topics that can possibly show the difference between ATM ideas and mainstream for specific sets of observations such as "Coldcreation - Spacetime Dilation in Type 1a Supernovae" or "Coldcreation - CMB Thermalization".

The SNe Ia data show spacetime dilation (not just time dilation) and I added thermalization rather than polarization for the CMB (details, details...).

More soon

CC

[antoniseb]

You have some good ideas, espaecially breaking up a cosmology into sections

Thanks. We do want to understand what ATM proponents are suggesting. We are trying to find ways to get to the meat without a lot of circling around outside the real comparisons. I used you as an example, though in reality, you might be more capable of thriving with this kind of analysis than most of our ATM supporters, so perhaps I was cherry-picking. We'll see how it goes.

[nutant gene 71]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't the original idea behind 'Against the Mainstream' forum's goal was to debunk bad science. In effect, pseudo-science, which is 'against the mainstream' of good science, what leads students of astronomy and astrophysics astray. The ATM's goal is then to redirect, or correct, bad thinking back to good science. At least, that's how I understood the 'bad' in the original Bad Astronomy.

What happened instead, I suspect to the chagrin of Mods, as well as Phil and Fraser, is that instead of debunking bad science, the ATM forums became a platform to do the opposite of what was intended, and instead became a 'debunking' of mainstream science. Therein lies the conundrum, that what was conceived as a self correcting mechanism became the engine of promoting exactly what this mechanism was supposed to correct. Is that about right? If so, I can see why the new ATM rules need apply, if it is to return to the forum's original intent, which is to correct bad science, back towards good science such as taught by the Mainstream.

However, all this leaves a nagging question: Why did so many people, myself included, feel that there was some sort of inherent error in Mainstream science?

To make matters worse, why such a chorus of dissenters? I know science is not up to a vote, but it must be disconcerting to science practitioners to find so many who would challenge much of what is believed today as good science, saying that it is not good science, but mainstream infatuation with pseudo-science passing as good science. I think this may be confusing to participants on ATM, that they think they are supposed to present their visions of what are alternatives to the now contested mainstream in science.

Should the ATM be renamed, perhaps, as "Alternative To Mainstream" of science? This would make more sense if in fact this is a platform from which to find fault with current scientific ideas. However, if it is meant to be as mentioned, a self corrected mechanism of bad 'pseudo-scientific' alternatives to good science, then the forum rules and restrictions must make that clear from the outset, to exactly define what is ATM.

Am I seeing this right? Thanks.

[Fazor]

Well, I can't speak for them but I think the mods would agree that the "debunking of mainstream science" isn't a bad thing...if that's what you are actually doing. An idea that has facts and evidence and can be tested/proven is great, expecially if it goes again "mainstream" and therefore teaches us something new.

Problem was, too many "theories" were being, for lack of a better word, advertised without any supporting evidence or facts, and the people posting these theories often do little if anything to actually back up thier claims (mostly becase most of them were "bad" claims that could not possibly be backed up). That's what is trying to be controlled here; baseless claims and uneducated unfounded arguments.

It's one thing to think "agaisnt the mainstream" because of something you've discovered (or think you've discovered). It's another to go against conventional views just because you wish the mainstream was wrong.

[nutant gene 71]

Well, I can't speak for them but I think the mods would agree that the "debunking of mainstream science" isn't a bad thing...if that's what you are actually doing. An idea that has facts and evidence and can be tested/proven is great, expecially if it goes again "mainstream" and therefore teaches us something new.

Problem was, too many "theories" were being, for lack of a better word, advertised without any supporting evidence or facts, and the people posting these theories often do little if anything to actually back up thier claims (mostly becase most of them were "bad" claims that could not possibly be backed up). That's what is trying to be controlled here; baseless claims and uneducated unfounded arguments.

It's one thing to think "agaisnt the mainstream" because of something you've discovered (or think you've discovered). It's another to go against conventional views just because you wish the mainstream was wrong.

Very good point, Fazor. Those who thought they were debunking mainstream science were doing so without good enough evidence to be of worth. If they presented actual empirical evidence, or had some way to test their 'theories' for predictability, that would be one thing. More often, at least from my observation, the ideas presented were too weak to pass any kind of scientific muster. As Einstein was to have said: "Experimentum summus judex". In the end, it has to be proven experimentally to be of any real worth as science. Thanks.

[Coldcreation]

...

Should the ATM be renamed, perhaps, as "Alternative To Mainstream" of science? This would make more sense if in fact this is a platform from which to find fault with current scientific ideas. However, if it is meant to be as mentioned, a self corrected mechanism of bad 'pseudo-scientific' alternatives to good science, then the forum rules and restrictions must make that clear from the outset, to exactly define what is ATM.

Am I seeing this right? Thanks.

This is a good idea. The name change should take place immediately. The good news is that the initials ATM remain the same. I never liked Against... (or Bad Astronomy for that matter: That's why I had originally gone to the Universe Today site). Many ATMer's (myself included) are not at all against the mainstream (not against mainstream physics anyway). I'm against the use of new physics, something which is not physics (yet).

CC

[GDwarf]

It also means the ATMer has the (enforced) license to pick and choose posts to which to respond and which to evade, basically saying "I've already answered this (softball) post, I can't answer anybody else's objections until someone posts again!"

Not really. Since they would be expected to edit to add on to their post.

Besides, is that such a bad thing? If you have to press them repeatedly for answers, is there any point in waiting for an answer?

The largest flaw this plan has is that it requires people to judge who has the correct view based on what they've posted, not on who posted last.

Besides, if it is a carousel, then the point in the final post would, presumably, have been addressed earlier in the thread, so no-one replying wouldn't matter. If it's a new point then it isn't a carousel, so nothing is lost.

[jamini]

Problem was, too many "theories" were being, for lack of a better word, advertised without any supporting evidence or facts, and the people posting these theories often do little if anything to actually back up thier claims (mostly becase most of them were "bad" claims that could not possibly be backed up). That's what is trying to be controlled here; baseless claims and uneducated unfounded arguments.

From what I’ve seen this pretty much sums it up. With the advent of the internet, everyone with a modem and an idea now has the ability to air their opinions. What used to take years of research, experiment, study and peer review to publish can now be accomplished with a few keystrokes. Hence, we find ourselves with a profusion of highly opinionated individuals with high school level physics abilities comparing themselves to Einstein! I am the last person who would encourage the stifling of creative ideas but to see amateurs deliberately misrepresenting mainstream theories in an attempt to lend credence to their own abstract thoughts is (at the very least) exasperating. If it annoys me, it must infuriate some of those who have dedicated entire careers to their work and I think that is where a lot of the animosity originates.

The solution would seem to be striking an accord between encouraging fresh new ideas, without undermining the integrity of the professional scientific community. I think a prudent first step would involve some process of qualification for the ATM proponent on several levels, not the least of which being to measure their physics acumen and understanding of any theories with which their ideas may conflict.

[01101001]

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're wrong.

Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

"To have a beef" means disagree. To have an argument against. To have complaint.

I've never seen ATM's main purpose being to debunk bad science. I've never seen it used that way. Other subforums did that, in the Bad Astronomy Forum days, and now in the BAUT Forum.

Edit: I checked the Internet Archive (wayback machine), for the earliest snapshot of the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board and ATM forum I could find. I shoulda taken notes. I think it was early 2002 (just went back there: wayback to badastronomy bulletin board, 2002, Feb 20) when the subforums appeared, and the description tag of the ATM subforum then was the same. Other subforums existed for discussing space and astronomy (where I'm certain reports of actual bad astronomy would be welcome), or bad astronomy in the media (the BA's shtick; fodder for the main site, or next book), or lunar conspiracies. It's clear to me that several other forums other than ATM existed for the purpose of discussing bad science.

I see no hint there that ATM was for debunking bad science. I wasn't a member then, but as I recall old-timers sayng its main purpose was to get typical ATM (attacking mainstream ideas, usually without much backing evidence) corralled into one place and not happening in all the other forums. Anyone who was there at establishment know different?

[Gillianren]

The largest flaw this plan has is that it requires people to judge who has the correct view based on what they've posted, not on who posted last.

I'm sorry; how is that a problem? Isn't that what we should be doing?

[magman]

Should the ATM be renamed, perhaps, as "Alternative To Mainstream" of science? This would make more sense if in fact this is a platform from which to find fault with current scientific ideas. However, if it is meant to be as mentioned, a self corrected mechanism of bad 'pseudo-scientific' alternatives to good science, then the forum rules and restrictions must make that clear from the outset, to exactly define what is ATM.

Here here, I second the name change!

It would help stop "mainstreamers" getting thier knickers in a knot, by being threatened by a new theory.

Why do I choose to hang out here? it is I love everyones "view" wrong or right, left field or "mainstream". It gives me greater scope on sorting the (to me a least) "junk" <attempted expletive removed> from the facts.

I realy enjoyed ATM but now its just a quick pop in now and then for a laugh!

[Moose]

Besides, is that such a bad thing? If you have to press them repeatedly for answers, is there any point in waiting for an answer?

Good science had to be challenged, poked, prodded, spindled, mutilated, pointed at, and made to run consecutive marathons in 90+ degree weather before it could dare to even think of itself as "accepted" in broad daylight. Good science earns its acceptance the hardest way.

You're suggesting we let bad science get a free ride? No way. Never. Not in a million years. The line in the sand is here. There's enough junk science out there without us "granting" tacid legitimacy through sheer apathy. ("He says, while not especially caring.")

[Moose]

The largest flaw this plan has is that it requires people to judge who has the correct view based on what they've posted, not on who posted last.

Well, obviously since I've posted after you, I'm right and you're not. Doesn't matter about what. Doesn't matter what evidence either of us can bring to the table. Clearly, posting order is what counts here.

... GDwarf, would you like to amend your thought now, before I'm forced to point and laugh for the rest of the week?

[Bogie]

I think I am the typical culprit, i.e. the target of the new rules. I may represent all that has gone wrong with ATM. Now I admit that there are worse culprits, those who promote their own book, or their own website that gets advertising dollars based on number of hits. But really, at least on ATM they are few in number. I think it is my kind of promotion, my lack of credentials, my history of not letting improper word usage get in my way, my habit of adding to the idea without any response from the community, and my imaginative speculation that is seen as the problem with ATM.

The way I used ATM has been causing consternation with those who prefer strict adherence to the scientific method every since I imagined that there was a unifying particle and decided to describe it by examining what it must be like to allow the universe to be as we observe it to be. That was well over a year ago on my thread about the Elementary Energy Particle (EEP) that I proposed as the unifying particle.

I did get a lot of response to my idea early on and every response was weighed, researched and my idea was periodically updated based on learning.

I felt that if there was such a particle that it’s entire resume would have to be consistent. It would have to work from an initial period of expansion from t=0 right on through matter formation, gravity, CMBR, large structure formation and it would have to be consistent with any and all observations.

So maybe I got carried away but I envisioned the characteristics necessary for such a particle. It took me over a year and a variety of threads to develop my idea to where it is now, and all along the way I was encouraged to come up with a way to test it or some predictions that would support it.

That has been a bad experience for many of you. I’m sorry. I believed in what I was doing. I think there is such a particle. I have now made some predictions that can lead to testing and falsification. But I can’t figure out how to proceed with the idea here on BAUT.

Simply tell me that BAUT is not the place for my kind of idea development and I will try to find somewhere else (though I have no idea where). Please come right on out and say that I am a typical culprit and I should go if I can’t do any better than I have.

I'm talking to all of you. Am I the typical culprit?

[GDwarf]

Good science had to be challenged, poked, prodded, spindled, mutilated, pointed at, and made to run consecutive marathons in 90+ degree weather before it could dare to even think of itself as "accepted" in broad daylight. Good science earns its acceptance the hardest way.

You're suggesting we let bad science get a free ride? No way. Never. Not in a million years. The line in the sand is here. There's enough junk science out there without us "granting" tacid legitimacy through sheer apathy. ("He says, while not especially caring.")

Actually, what I'm saying is that if you have to keep pressing the people for an answer, odds are they haven't thought it out, and don't plan on doing so. As such their theory can probably be disregarded, or ignored until they fix it, at which point the thread can continue.

Well, obviously since I've posted after you, I'm right and you're not. Doesn't matter about what. Doesn't matter what evidence either of us can bring to the table. Clearly, posting order is what counts here.

... GDwarf, would you like to amend your thought now, before I'm forced to point and laugh for the rest of the week?

It would appear that you are proof against my sarcasm.


Mayhaps I should clarify what I'm saying:
The big downside to the "No Double-Posting Rule" is that it does let the 'carouselers' get the last word. However, if they're arguing in circles then what they're saying in their last post was, presumably, covered earlier, as such anyone who reads the thread through would know that it, as a claim, doesn't work.

If it's something new then the thread isn't on a treadmill, and people would respond, keeping the thread active.

Essentially it requires a bit of 'self-moderation' from one of the sides in the debate, they simply stop posting in threads that are poorly thought-out or that are endlessly repeating themselves.

The plus side is that:

1. This self-moderation reduces the burden on the mods somewhat, locking threads doesn't become superflous, but it has to be done far less often.

2. If people aren't allowed to post multiple threads on the same topic, then the one bad thread on it simply dies down, and no new threads on it can be opened for x amount of time/posts (Posts tends to work better then time, since the issue isn't how old the idea is, but how hard it is to follow the discussion from page 1). However, if someone with a new take on it shows up, they can post in the 'dead' thread, it comes back, discussion continues, no loss. If they've got the same view then it's temporarily revived, then it dies down again.

Now, if having the last word does matter, then this system won't work, I agree, since quite a few of the...less-intelligent ATM posters won't leave out of boredom, which some of the better members are likely to do.

However, I'm saying that having the last word probably doesn't matter in these threads. If it does then feel free to keep the system you have now.