[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
I think there´s nothing wrong about wanting someone´s help in developing an idea, as in #4, and it should be allowed [Nereid warned a poster about that in the "Barred Spiral" thread]. Many ATM ideas may have a merit. The revolution of the Earth around the Sun used to be ATM back in the day...
|
If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on ATM ideas that:
* are already strongly inconsistent with good, independently verified observational results?
* contain obvious mathematical or logical errors?
* contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
If a person has an ATM idea they wish to discuss, then that might mean:
(1) The person has read about* the idea and wants to know what others think about it.
(2) The person has read about the idea, thinks it is interesting, and wants to know if anybody else knows strengths or weaknesses about it.
(3) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody else knows the strengths or weaknesses of the idea.
|
As
01101001 has already said, these kinds of threads can be found in the ATM section, both today and as far back as you wish to examine.
AFAIK, they are mostly (nearly all?) very short threads.
Quote:
|
(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.
|
I am uncomfortable with this, if only because I feel BAUT is not, and should not be, an online collaboration forum.
Quote:
|
(5) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... but lacks the math background to defend calculation work.
|
In these cases, I feel the best thing we in BAUT could do is say (in effect): "go acquire the relevant maths skills; here are some suggestions for how you could do that: {list, including both traditional - colleges, universities - and non-traditional, e.g. online learning, 'homework help' fora}".
Quote:
|
(6) The person has read about the idea, and thinks the idea may be correct, and wants to discuss it as an advocate ... and has the math background and familiarity with the research literature needed to discuss some quantitative aspects of the idea.
|
This is where challenges are the most helpful, IMHO (just as it says in the ATM rule).
If you look at the responses/challenges in ATM threads where a BAUT member is advocating an ATM idea, and has the math (etc) capabilities to be comfortable with it, I think you'll see just how helpful they are, in terms of getting the ATM advocate to either abandon their idea or improve it.
And we should not ignore the objective evidence in cases where help was offered, very much in the manner of 'discussion' (many of
Grey's posts, in the ATM section, spring to mind, and he's just one of several regulars who engages in 'discussion mode') - the outcomes were, IMHO, much the same as if no such discussion had taken place and the ideas challenged outright.
Quote:
The description of the ATM forum says this:
Quote:
|
Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.
|
[snip]
It seems to me that Nereid is advocating that ATM discussion should be limited to item #6 and all other discussion options are forbidden. Isn't that what Nereid suggested with this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
However, the ATM section is not a good place to ask for such help, nor to expect to receive it, because it has been established with an explicitly challenging agenda:
* defend your arguments;
* direct questions must be answered in a timely manner;
* people will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here (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;
* keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them;
* hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
|
|
The subtitle of the ATM section is indeed as
dgruss23 has quoted it ... and the rules re the ATM section are indeed as I paraphrased them (it's not what
Nereid is suggesting, it's what the current ATM rules are).