Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
To respond to Maksutov's point: the bannings result from frustration by both proponents AND challengers. Don't forget that challengers often accuse the proponents of handwaving, dishonesty and "pseudo-science" behaviour, that's what really hurts, and then the flaming posts start flying.
|
If the ATMer has a real case to be made, then none of these responses should dissuade the ATMer from continuing to argue the point, and, most importantly, providing objective evidence that shows what they are proposing has merit. Re "flaming posts", fortunately those have a very short half-life here on the BAUT BB. |
How can you continue to argue points after being banned for loosing your temper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
I think challengers should be made aware that there are limits to the way they express their disagreements with the proponents. Merely asking for a "thick skin" from the proponents is not enough, imo.
|
Cites, please? Or is objective evidence the equivalent of "thick skin" in your lexicon? |
Sorry? I don't understand what you mean here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
It's all about the exchange of ideas, where each party acknowledges the right of the other to critique their ideas. As long as ATMers come here with the attitude that they are not only going to present their new ideas in ATM, but will see these ideas critiqued (and probably stand to learn something), things will be fine. Those who don't are those who wind up (as they should) getting booted.
|
Exchange of ideas is not what the ATM section seems to be about (it might be what it should be about, and it is in some instances), it is about showing who is wrong: the proponent with his new theory, or the mainstream. |
It's not wrong or right. It's a scientific analysis of the case at hand. Such analyses don't result in "wrong or right". Instead they result in probabilities, i.e., which hypothesis or theory (if it's advanced to that stage) is more likely to describe accurately what's observed and predict results. If the ATM idea is flawed such that it doesn't match what it proposes to describe, then it either gets tossed out or receives a recommendation that it be modified. |
I think you're describing a hypothetical ATM thread that does not exist in the real world. I think in many threads other things seem to be more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
What I miss is openminded discussions of the new models proposed in mainstream articles, and detailed discussions of anomalous observations.
|
I don't miss those at all, since they're continually occurring in the ATM forum. But one must realize that most new models tend to be flawed when compared to current theories and the results of new experiments which see if such models can predict the particular behavior under study. If not changed, these models will not be considered as legitimate. |
In effect you restate the original concern: "why do we have an ATM section" if most new models suffer these flaws, why not wait until some of them have become "legitimate" (mainstream) and just accept what comes our way. Actually, why have a forum at all, why not go to libraries and lectures and learn what amazing stuff the experts have found?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
Cheers.
|
Bull And Finch to you sir! |
That's spam! Moderators to horse!
Cheers.