Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.
The
Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:Let's see if some recent misunderstandings can be clarified, by reference to these rules.Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'. (turbo-1 chose to make his intention to not so argue public ("I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point."); there is no requirement whatsoever about making any such intentions known).ATM threads are (or should be) focussed; discussion in each thread should be limited to the ATM claim being made by the OP (and any other directly relevant ATM claims raised during the course of the discussion)*
It follows that if there is no ATM claim, there is nothing to discuss.
BAUT has a very good Q&A section, where you may ask questions about astronomy and space science. So, for example, if you are curious to know what (scientific) flaws the Bell&McDiarmid paper has (if any), you can ask such questions in that section.
Some things that this ATM section is NOT about
:
1) it is NOT about trying to convince those who hold ATM beliefs that their beliefs are inconsistent (internally, with good scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap, or with good observational results) ... except if you choose to present those beliefs here in an ATM thread, so they may be challenged.
2) it is NOT about educating readers on modern astronomy, mainstream cosmology, etc; BAUT has several other sections devoted to those ends.Anyone may attack the Bell paper, but there is no requirement that they should.
However, if anyone thinks it is sound, and says so here in this thread, then they may be challenged to defend their thoughts and claims.There is no requirement that we go through any such process.
However, it is totally legitimate to ask a poster if they are presenting and ATM claim (if so, then such claims can be challenged; if not, then there is nothing to discuss), and to ask them to state the claim(s) they are prepared to defend clearly (this is efficiency, if nothing else - what's the point of challenging a claim no one is prepared to defend?)
When in doubt, read the rules ("
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. [...]
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here")Of course not.
However, if no one is prepared to present an ATM case that they also prepared to defend, then what is there to challenge?
If all you wish to do is read some papers and discuss them, why post in this ATM section at all?If someone takes something personally, rather than seeing things in terms of the ideas, then they should think again, or use the Report a Post button.
If you think that challenging
ideas is 'detrimental to real science', then I suggest that BAUT is not the place for you. Here's what the rules say: "
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."I sometimes wonder too, which is why I spend time pointing out the differences between the ATM section of BAUT and the General Science, Astronomy, Q&A, etc sections.
OTOH, if no one is prepared to present 'some of the controversial topics', with the intent of defending them, what has BAUT lost?
Look at this way: other than the Arp et al thread, which 'controversial topics' have legs?Indeed. It's also the intent of the ATM section ... interestingly, the rules for this section are very mild, compared with the intense scrutiny that professionals' ideas are exposed to, every day of their working lives; the ATM rules seek to provide a (gentle) copy of the process of doing astronomy.Because it's an ATM idea - ATM ideas need to be defended.AFAIK, neither Bell nor McDiarmid are BAUT members, and even if they are, they did not present the paper in this ATM thread.Yes it does ... but what has that got to do with this thread?Because no BAUT member is willing to defend the paper (read the rules).The logic of this ATM section is: A BAUT member who wishes to present an ATM idea does so. Claims made by that member can be challenged, by any member.
(to be continued)
*
This does not include those ATM threads which are about 'a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang'