Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
[snip]
To come back to the alleged demolition of the "Electric Comet" PDF, it should now be clear that Nereid was disingenuously applying a set of conventions derived from one particular explanatory tradition (peer-reviewed papers) to another completely different tradition (vulgarizetion of complex scientific theory). Such an intellectual approach is quite simply invalid. A comparison might be found in the field of legislation. The laws of the land (any democratic land) are invariably couched in rather obscure, because necessarily technical, legal language. Fortunately, for all important legislation, there are newspaper artcles and talk-shows on radio and television to explain the actual implications of it for the man in the street. And when someone is accused of infringing the new law, his lawyer will hopefully also explain to him what the problem is in language he can understand. No-one would dream of criticizing the journalists or lawyers concerned for not respecting the linguistic or "orthographic" conventions of the law as it appears on the statute book. Yet this is precisely the sort of thing Nereid is purporting to do with the T&T PDF. She is applying to one particular area a set of rules and conventions which were designed to regulate an entirely different area. It’s as if you were allowed to use a soccer ball to knock down the pins in a ten-pin bowling alley.
|
Hmm ... let's refresh our memories, shall we, on what
Nereid actually wrote ... (
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here).
Start with the last (post #73):
Quote:
"The Electric Comet" document, by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, has the following at the bottom right of the first page:
Quote:
POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006
|
|
So,
pace ATKINS, it is T&T themselves who claimed the document should follow "
one particular explanatory tradition".
Further, it would seem that a strong case could be made that
ATKINS intended this 21-page PDF to be considered in "
one particular explanatory tradition (peer-reviewed papers)" rather than "
another completely different tradition (vulgarizetion of complex scientific theory)":
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by #50
Electrical engineering is another field of science, apparently unknown to mainstream astrophysicists, but which solidly underpins the EU theory thanks to the light it has shed on hitherto unexplained cosmological phenomena and the ability it has to test its own theories in the laboratory. The leading proponents of PC/EU theory, Anthony Peratt, Donald Scott, David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill et al. derive their theories from that corpus.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by #64
I support David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill's contention that the whole set of observed phenomena associated with comets can be accounted for by an EU interpretation. And it's not simply after-the-event rationalization: as you well know (we already crossed swords on this over a year back), the EU theory also allowed Thornhill to make very precise predictions regarding the Deep Impact collision the day before the event. To my mind, a theory which can both account for past and present observations (including the most recent, the latest findings concerning the asteroidal nature of Comet Wild 2) and predict future events can't be that far off the mark.
|
The other
Nereid posts
1 treat the 21-page PDF as if it is what T&T claim it to be.
Turning to the rest of
ATKINS' post:
Quote:
You and your peers obviously do not need this sort of vulgarization, just as a lawyer would not need to read an explanatory newsaper article or consult a lawyer if he were accused of infringing some new legislation. And you're perfectly entitled to despise it as being much too far below your own exalted level of expository power or even to get as "angry" as you like about it. But those are minor, circumstantial considerations which in themselves can do nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the observations and interpretations the PDF is putting forward.
To do that, you actually have to demonstrate that what is being said, however deliberately "vulgar" the terms being used are, is actually false.
|
Hmm ... let's refresh our memories of what
the BAUT rules re this ATM section are ...
Quote:
13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. 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 questions must be answered in a timely manner.
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately.
|
As I read it,
ATKINS' interpretation is almost exactly the wrong way around: those who choose to start threads in this ATM section must answer questions on, and address challenges to, the ATM ideas they present (as presented).
Of course, none of this kind of thing is new, and certainly not new to
ATKINS or
Nereid, as a read of old ATM threads on EU ideas will quickly show.
Similarly, it is not new that with regard to an "Electric Comet Model" there is no such thing in existence, within "
one particular explanatory tradition (peer-reviewed papers)" (the one which surely must count as the gold standard for any forum which is avowedly science-based!) ... despite a person
2 who claims to be a physicist having worked on just such a thing for 30 years.
Finally, there's even an explicit statement of policy (dated August 2006!) on just the kind of thing ATKINS is apparently seeking to promote:
Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here
1 Except, perhaps, #71 and #72, on 'rules of evidence'
2 and who is the co-author of a document which purports to adhere to just those conventions