Quote:
Originally Posted by galacsi
Quote:
|
I agree. When stating the mainstream position and debating the ATM one, the mainstream person should know WHY the mainstream position is accepted as mainstream and the evidence supporting it and the caveats in that evidence. 'Mainstream' science should not be defended as if it were religious dogma.
|
Very well said Paracelsus. When you are pleased , there is no reason not to say it also. |
Somewhat related, I think, to
this.
A long-time, high post count, BAUT member has oft said "
Get thee to a library!" (or something similar) in reference to a bald assertion that is, in that person's view, dreadfully ignorant of the basics of the relevant physics (it's usually physics).
If such a 'not even wrong' bald assertion is made in an ATM thread, it's easy to ask that it be supported.
But what if it's not? What if it's in the Astronomy section (and the bald assertion concerns astronomy)?
There are, of course, dozens of different ways to respond - a simple (bald) statement that {insert concise summary of mainstream here}, a polite question ('I'm not familiar with {insert misunderstanding here}; in which textbook or paper did you come across it?'), a suggestion that there is a misunderstanding and that a new thread in the Q&A section would be a good idea, attempt to squeeze 500 hours of physics lectures into 500 words and show the bald assertion is off-base, and so on - but what if the bald assertion keeps getting made, in slightly different guises?
You see the difference? On the one hand, we have a Q&A section, with lots of BAUT members only too pleased to offer their time and inputs to provide as full an answer as possible*. On the other, there are bald, confident assertions which seem - to those who know the topic - to reflect profound ignorance.
Maybe you could help,
galacsi? Maybe, when you see a response to a {insert suitable identifier here} post that seems to reflect the deep frustration of a professional astronomer, you could start a new thread in the Q&A section, with a pointer to that new thread when you quote the frustrated astronomer? That way you'd get to learn some astronomy (assuming you didn't already know it), and you'd helping all readers.^
*
Of course, sometimes there is misunderstanding, sometimes there is friction, etc ...
^
An example: here is a (set of) bald assertion(s); here is a response, here is another; here is a Q&A thread intended to address at least part of the apparent ignorance or misunderstanding.