Before I comment on
VanderL's post, readers of this thread may be interested in some stats about ATM threads, since 1 October, 2005.
The first 20 pages of the ATM section has 600 non-sticky threads; the last post, on the bottom of the 20th page, is dated 4 October, 2005.
There are 73 moved threads (i.e. originally started in the ATM section, subsequently moved to another section).
There are 65 locked threads.
Of these 65, 12 were locked because there was already a thread on the topic, and 7 because the topic broke BAUT rules re content (all but two of these were re religion).
Of the remaining 46 locked threads, 24 were locked because a BAUT member was banned (not always because of what was in the thread - more later), and just 5 banned members accounted for all but 7 of those 24.
Of the remaining 22 locked threads, four relate to the EU/ES/etc, and five were locked at the OP's own request; the remaining 13 are pretty much each unique, though I guess ~three could be said to have got too OT or messy to keep going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL
Ok, this thread has just too many responses to start commenting on, so I just try to restate the original question and try to convey where my concerns are.
First off, the question "Why do we have an ATM section" was more a rhetorical one, but what I saw see happening in many ATM threads is that the discussions either end up in a shouting contest, or in banning of the proposer (or closing a thread bcause otherwise the banning would become effective), or it just peters out.
|
In light of the stats I presented above, it would seem that ~80+% of ATM threads 'just peter out' (any of the 49 'open' threads on the first two pages wouldn't count as 'petering out').
It might be interesting to check the other three categories ("
end up in a shouting contest, or in banning of the proposer (or closing a thread bcause otherwise the banning would become effective)"), but my impression is that there are fewer in all these combined than in violations which have nothing to do with
VanderL's thesis here.
And let's not pass too lightly over 'just peter out' - there are some memorable 'thread conclusions', where the ATM OP, having had the ATM idea shown decisively to be inconsistent, simply posted no more on BAUT*.
Quote:
I think that some changes to the ATM rules and ATM section can help. I wil be generalising many issues, while in reality many shades of grey exist, but I will do so to hopefully get the points across.
I think therethere’s 2 kinds of people posting to this forum: "professionals" and "amateurs". Most professionals do not propose an ATM theory in this board (I know of only 2 people currently active in ATM threads who do/did), if you do astronomy/cosmology/physics for a living the peer-reviewed journals are where those people would "post".
|
I have a quite different view on this: that there are independent researchers, in the fields of astronomy etc, is clear. There are also folk with a good grasp of the physics underlying astrophysics, who do not use these skills and capabilities in the 'day jobs'. There are also folk who have taught themselves, or gone back to school to learn.
In summary, I think the 'professional/amateur' division is too inaccurate to be much use in generalising about ATM threads.
Quote:
|
As a matter of fact there are many ATM-papers published, and personally I would like to discuss those papers along with anomalous observations, because I believe that much can be learned from the "edge" of science. Unfortunately there is no room here on BAUT for those discussions. If I want to know if some ATM-papers are valid, I am supposed to act as "stand-in author" and defend the paper with the possibility to get banned if I don’t answer in a "timely fashion". And contrary to what some people have asserted here’ "I don’t know" is not a valid answer for an ATM proposer. It can get you banned, or it can get the thread closed, or both.
|
While I've not gone over all 65 closed threads, nor checked how many folk who've been banned (since October 2005) were banned for some post(s) they made in the ATM section, my impression is that
VanderL's assertion would apply to only a tiny minority of cases.
Quote:
The problem in the ATM section is that non-specialists rise to the challenge and try to either advocate someone else’s ATM theory/model, or start with their own idea and "see what comes of it". They will encounter people who know a lot more about any subject than they do (I think this is a fact, ATM proposers, with a few exceptions, are generally amateurs, the challengers are mostly professionals). What happens next is crucial; as the professionals will point out the flaws in the models/theories it will depend on both the proposer’s and challenger’s skills to avoid a potential out of line argument.
Any ATM proponent can rest assured that there are flaws in his idea/model/theory; if he accepts these comments as true, it basically ends the discussions. The ATM proposal is invalidated, discussion ends or the thread is closed.
|
Just so that I'm clear on this - do you see this as an acceptable outcome?
Quote:
|
If he doesn’t want to give up easily, there is the possibility of a heated argument where the proponent needs to actually be a professional to counter the arguments. This won’t happen (with a few exceptions), so the thread ends with accusations of goal post shifting, handwaving and "typical pseudo-scientific behaviour" and generally flaming posts will occur. This will also end the discussions (sometimes they drag out for many pages until people loose their temper) and results in banning/suspensions.
|
I think there are very few such cases, so few in fact that trying to generalise may be pointless.
But surely the key is whether the ATM idea, as proposed, has been shown to have (fatal) flaws or been (otherwise) invalidated. If that is so, then what is the point of continuing any discussion (unless the proponent can fix the flaws)?
Or, to ask the question another way, in these circumstances, how would you propose that the discussion end (or be ended)?
Quote:
|
So unless the proposer is a professional (for all practical purposes), or if the challengers are able to restrict their gleeful attacks to the ideas and not the proposer, and I think that "It is obvious that you have absolutely no idea how real scientific research is done" is as close to a personal attack as you can get, nothing will be gained/learned by both sides.
|
As above - if the idea has been shown to be flawed, and the proponent refuses to recognise the flaws (for whatever reason), what do you propose re a resolution?
(to be continued)
*
PM me if you'd like some examples.