Although the BA doesn’t make it absolutely explicit, BAUT is avowedly science-based in its approach to space and astronomy. Fraser has reinforced the centrality of this foundation, today, as well as earlier.

Yet, as I said above, one of the main reasons – perhaps the most important reason – why the ATM section hasn't yet lived up to Fraser's hope is ignorance, or misunderstanding, of what 'astronomy as a science' means.

Some aspects of this ignorance are readily seen; for example, in the confusion of 'theory', meaning a 'scientific theory', with the everyday meaning of 'guess', or 'speculation', or 'idea'. So, if in the OP (opening post) of your ATM thread you say you are going to present a 'theory', but all you have is some speculative idea, then you've failed to communicate very effectively (and it may take a page of posts before this rather basic misunderstanding gets cleared up).

Another easy example is confusing the content of press releases, from NASA, or the ESO, or some university, with the science that those PRs refer to. That many of the marketing folk who are responsible for such PRs feel that a link to a preprint on ArXiV - or even a reference to the name, author(s), and publication in which a forthcoming paper will appear – detracts from the impact of the PR is perhaps a sad commentary on their own understanding of science. So, if your ATM idea is based on little more than a reading of some of these marketing pieces (selectively quoted), then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this rather basic deficiency gets acknowledged).

Then there's the confusion about scientists and science. We're all familiar with this confusion I'm sure – "here's what Einstein [or Newton, or Planck, or …] wrote; he was a great scientist, so his idea, expressed here, must be right!" Not always expressed so starkly, of course. So, if your ATM idea is based on little more than a stringing together of bits and pieces from the writings of various scientists, then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this is fully identified).

Related to this is the confusion about the words written and what those words mean, science as dogma, science as something frozen, immutable, even sacred. That there are many people who believe science to be like this can be easily demonstrated. And it is certainly an ATM idea, worthy of being presented, questioned, challenged, defended, and (above all) attacked! However, it's not really within BAUT's scope. If your ATM idea is based on little more than a set of science words from the past, frozen in time, then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this shortcoming is fully identified).

However, the four most important misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science', in terms of why ATM ideas haven't realised Fraser's hope, may be summed up as the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the primacy of observational and experimental evidence, and the role of alternatives.

Before I address each of these, starting in the next post, let me enter a few caveats and make a few qualifications.

First, there is one ATM thread to which most of my comments about science are not applicable – More from Arp et al. Although the Arp-Narlikar VMH was mentioned in that thread, it was never put on the table. So at least the posts in that thread, from September 2005 (when BAUT started), are about 'empirical science', in which the role of theory is quite different than in any other of BAUT's ATM threads.

Second, there are some ATM threads which are not really about science, but are about philosophy (perhaps they shouldn't be in BAUT at all?). The key distinction is that no observation or experiment, even in principle, could ever be inconsistent with the (ATM) philosophical idea being presented.

Third, several threads on global warming and climate change have been either started in the ATM section, or moved to it, from other BAUT sections. My comments about science may not be applicable to those threads. Why? Most basically, because I've not read any of them; more generally, there is likely little space and astronomy in them.

What about the ~30 threads that were still active on 6 March? I'll get to them, promise.