Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doodler
I'd like to add one. When challenging an accepted concept with an alternate point of view, be sure you fully understand the concept you are trying to challenge. Sometimes, defending an ATM idea is as much effectively demonstrating why existing ideas are wrong as much as showing yourself to be right.
|
That's really good! You should bold that one. A lot of times Big Bang critics come on with completely incorrect ideas about the BBT.
Hmm ... should I add some of these additional suggestions at the bottom of the original list (with credit to the author) so that they are right there for new people to see? I don't know if I want to do that because I really don't want to become a judge of whose ideas should be added and whose should not be added?
How about a 3 votes approach? If somebody proposes a new suggestion - and 3 other people think it should be added, I'll add it?
Just looking for suggestions here. |
Bad Idea! I could never post anything about anything. It implies you need a relatively high level of expertise to challenge the status que, to join in the discussion. It also implies that you must be thoroughly versed in a subject in order to add something meaningful, or ask an insightful question. Quite often, just the opposite is true: a new prospective can provide new insights - especially prospectives from other disciplines. From the mouth of babes... |
Ehm, I can defend a few aspects of science without a degree in any of them myself, and I'm standing my ground in a little debate with Lunatik having only a conversational background in Newton's Laws. I've picked up on the general concepts and used Google and Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Maybe not flawless, detailed understanding of the topic at hand, but at least understood enough to be aware of the principle and its application.
No one is going to know everything about a subject they get into a debate with, but a working knowledge with adequate resources at hand at least gives you some idea of what it is your attempting to either defend or attack. Its a two-fold challenge. You have to demonstrate why your idea works and why the current idea doesn't.