Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
Well it turns out that this is a case of look (a little harder) before you leap, because quite soon after I posted my comment I did track down a thread that offered just the sort of debate I was searching for.
But seeing as you asked what I consider to be a propper debate, I may as well tell you. For me, a PROPPER debate is when person/group A present what they take to be the facts, and then person/group B attempt to show that the facts are in error in some sense. Perchance, group A will then demonstrate that it is in fact group B who do not understand the facts and that no error exists. This in no way establishes the absolute truth of group A's theory since group B may return with a different objection that group A can either find to be in error or admit defeat.
While no real ending may be reached, an individual may reach a conclusion based on how well either group use the FACTS to defend their position. But beware confirmational bias!
|
And as you no doubt have already discovered, this ATM section of BAUT is not a forum for any 'proper debate' as you have defined it.
You may not have yet discovered that mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science is (generally) subject to scrutiny far, far more intense than anything you will find here in BAUT's ATM section.
Perhaps you have a Ph.D. and remember (fondly or otherwise) the rigour of the testing that your thesis was subject to?
Perhaps you have written a paper for ApJ and remember (fondly or otherwise) the (anonymous) comments of the reviewers?
If not, no matter; a fairly quick read of a random selection of papers in ApJ (or other, relevant, peer-reviewed journal in the fields within BAUT's scope) should give you an idea at least of the minimum degree to which maths, numbers, equations and stuff (i.e. quantitative analyses, presentations, etc) are required.
Quote:
|
What I would rather be left OUT of debates are: Questioning the authority of a person defending a theory.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
|
Demonstrate their relative ignorance by exposing flaws in their arguments, don't say 'Puh! This chap does not possess a PhD so everything he says is bunk!' (such statements conveniently ignore the amount of 'truths' held by scientists of great repute, later proven to be wrong. See: The Sun is made of iron).
|
You've lost me here - can you clarify please?
Quote:
|
And I would rather the reader be left to make up their own minds as to what is good science and what is not. It is a cheap trick to label the opposition 'pseudoscientists'. Their views may well BE pseudoscientific but let a fair reading of all the FACTS be the judge. Enough of this namecalling!
|
(Qualified agreement).
If it can be convincingly demonstrated that the approach, methods, and techniques of a proponent of an ATM idea are seriously flawed, with respect to generally accepted principles of the modern sciences of astrophysics, cosmology, and space science, yet the proponent refuses to even acknowledge such flaws, then isn't it reasonable to summarise that proponent's approach as pseudoscience?
Quote:
The thread containing the EU/mainstream debate is a long one and I am far from through reading it. So far, though, the case FOR inflationary cosmology seems to read like this:
1: Far more well-qualified scientists accept this as our best understanding of the universe than any rival theory.
2: The opposition has not demonstrated sufficient mathematical skill to quantitively proove the worthiness of their hypothesis.
3: No electron drift has been detected by Ulyssees. This debunks ES.
|
I don't know where you are up to, so I am unable to make any pertinent comments.
However, in terms of the overall thread, I think this is a seriously flawed summary.
Let's see how you revise your summary once you've read the whole thread.
Quote:
|
All very compelling, but really all these arguments could be used by Tycho Brae to debunk MY conviction that the Earth orbits the Sun. Tycho would no doubt point out that all men of great authority hold HIS view (that it is the SUN that orbits the EARTH) to be self-evident and MINE to be heresy. He would ask me if I understood the extremely complex geometry required to chart the movement of the planets in accordance with the geocentric view (I am rather poorly educated in this branch of mathematics). He would claim the Earth cannot be in motion because no test ever conducted revealed this to be the case and would probably dismiss my insistance that Gallilean relativity predicts a state of constant motion to be equivilent to a state of rest as all too convenient.
|
To me, this misses the most important aspect, namely the extent to which the EU ideas can match,
quantitatively, relevant, good, observational and experimental results.
While I don't fully understand the foil you have sketched, if it were indeed the case that a) the alternative was internally consistent, b) the alternative was consistent with other, well-established theories, where their domains of applicability overlap, and (above all) c) the alternative could account for, quantitatively, all relevant, good experimental and observational results (within the domain of applicability of that alternative), then surely the alternative could be said to be a pretty solid theory, couldn't it
I'm mostly concerned about an implication - which I am also quick to say may be unwarranted; namely that it is not necessary for an EU proponent to defend any of their EU ideas
quantitatively, either in terms of showing derivations from the core (plasma) theory, or in terms of matching good observational results.
If this non-quantitative component of any 'proper debate', in your view, is acceptable, then I'd say we have a deeper issue - what constitutes science?