Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbo-1
That's a valid question. Some of the people on the "bridges" sub-topic on the "More from Arp et al" thread seemed to want to learn more about the strength of bridges as evidence for interaction (even if the redshifts are discordant), but don't want to be categorized into one camp or another;
|
And that's what this board is supposed to be about - learning and testing what we think we know. People can be mainstream in one topic and ATM in another. And people can be undecided. It is counterproductive to demand that a person defend a certain position or remain quiet when the person might be genuinely undecided about the controversial idea.
That's why IMO the best approach is just to let the discussion unfold. Someone ought to be able to say: "This paper looks interesting. It seems to support alternative X. Any comments." Then someone who sees flaws in the paper can simply say: "The problems with this paper are A,B,and C."
Instead of that we keep getting: "Will you Joe and you Frank and any of you other Xians be defending this paper?" And those that were just curious may decide it is not worth their time and aggravation.
Quote:
|
I think that the last month or so on the "More from Arp et al" thread is an example of how scientific inquiry should be conducted. At the least, we have gotten the encouragement of some people who have been pretty quiet until now, and who seem to want us to continue.
|
Yes - and notice that the only moderation that was needed during that entire discussion was the times antoniseb needed to remind some people that we were for the time being focused on bridges. Outside of that people behaved themselves, defended what they said, and both sides offered some give and take. Good stuff.