Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
So a rule was needed that propose an ATM idea, you must be prepared to defend it. But what is happening here is that the rule about defending your claims and responding to questions is now subtly (or perhaps not subtly) if you were going tobeing shifted to mean that you cannot even discuss ATM ideas unless there is a defender of the idea. Nereid's own words to David Zelenka were that it was inappropriate to ask for help developing his ATM idea. Someone links to a paper about the Wolfe effect and the first question is "I hope someone will defend it so that we can attack it." I don't understand why the paper can't just be discussed!!!!
|
Quoted and emphasis altered for truth. This is what I'm trying to get at, Nereid.
If you can only discuss an ATM thread if someone has jumped (or will jump) to a conclusion, it's reinforcing what would normally be considered bad or outright non-science. If a thread where someone is attempting to get assistance to carefully consider an ATM idea before committing to it is to be locked, then critical thinking is being actively discouraged.
If there is any narrowing of the discussion to be had, it should be against ATM ideas that are full of obvious holes
where a proponent has actually committed to a position without sufficient evidence to do so reasonably.
But if you narrow the scope of ATM at all, you'll need to spend considerably more time policing the Q&A forum. Pie-in-the-sky enthusiasts are going to post their ideas somewhere. I (and I'm sure others) have learned the hard way that it's always more effective to redirect undesired behavior to more appropriate outlets than to try to restrict it outright.
And in any case, the only cure for bad speech is better speech. And by your admission, good speech (at least among thread starters) is not exactly abundant in ATM.
My advice is to take the good stuff where you can get it, and not get too caught up enforcing the finest details of an over-complicated and inflexible rule.