Rules discussion - Page 11

hhEb09'1 · #**301** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Too terse, try again.

Try what again?

Quote:

Ban, or strongly discourage, purely speculative ATM ideas ... unless they are presented according to guidelines not dissimilar to PF's IR section.

But these are not the physics forums. I think this is a case of, if you got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Quote:

b) attack any such ideas which do meet those standards, with glee and fervour, once they have been presented (and, perhaps, clarified).

What we do

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Too late, it's dead

Exactly.

Nereid · #**302** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 12:37 AM

[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Too terse, try again.

Try what again?

Nereid, you were too terse; Nereid, you should try again.

Quote:

Ban, or strongly discourage, purely speculative ATM ideas ... unless they are presented according to guidelines not dissimilar to PF's IR section.

But these are not the physics forums. I think this is a case of, if you got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[snip]

(my bold)

Too bad we are, as yet, unable to continue that discussion in the ATM section ...

I think this is a case of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) today being essentially a branch of physics (except for those parts which are more like geology, chemistry, or biology) ... but there is some strange reluctance to acknowledge it.

Nereid · #**303** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 01:00 AM

[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

To Swift and Moose: What you write, at one level, is how I got into PF's TD in the first place (before I discovered either UT or BABB).

However, the objective evidence* is hard to ignore - the kind of ideal example you cite is rare to almost non-existent.

And, the evidence of PF's IR section is a good counter-example: the quality of the threads there is high, and where there are holes, the 'ATMer' seems to have no difficulty writing focussed, non-ATM questions, in the appropriate (non-IR) part of PF, to get advice, support, and good suggestions.

Also, you'll see that the IR guidelines are actually quite generous to ATM ideas ... those that are filtered out are only those 'which contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science', which are 'already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments' (observations, in BAUT's astronomy case), which do not 'contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two', and so on.

*i.e. those hundreds and hundreds of TD threads, and, dare I say it, almost all BAUT ATM threads. I did a rough estimate once; even being quite generous, no more than ~1-2% of threads are close to your ideal example.

hhEb09'1 · #**304** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

I think this is a case of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) today being essentially a branch of physics (except for those parts which are more like geology, chemistry, or biology) ... but there is some strange reluctance to acknowledge it.

some people are strangely reluctant to acknowledge the exceptions

Moose · #**305** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

However, the objective evidence* is hard to ignore - the kind of ideal example you cite is rare to almost non-existent.

I don't disagree. I have to say that I'm actually pleasantly surprised: 1%-2% seems a little high to me.

What I'm failing to understand, however, is why we are proposing to explicitly throw out the rare "baby" while going out of our way to keep the "bathwater", metaphorically speaking? Don't we like "babies"?

dgruss23 · #**306** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 12:37 PM

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.

I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

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.
(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.
(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.
(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.

Of course we could probably add other shades to this list of meanings but I hope that captures the range of possibilities we're talking about when the word "discuss" is used.

*Or developed the idea his/herself.

In the old BABB days any of the above was acceptable discourse as long as you were polite and answered direct questions. Yet since the merger into BAUT it seems that this range has been increasingly narrowed with Nereid as a driving force. This is not meant to be an attack on Nereid. I was active in ATM on BABB long before Nereid was involved, so I'm simply describing what I see.

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.

Discussion options 1-3 listed above have nothing to do with "defending" - simply learning. Discussion options 4&5 certainly involve "defending" the idea, but Nereid has argued that such non-quantitative discussions are not science.

Do not misunderstand, I'm fully aware that many ATM proponents have difficulty following the rules, but I'd like to know just what the scope of acceptable discussion in BAUT' ATM section is. At the minimum there is heavy pressure in the ATM section to limit all ATM discussion to item #6. But I fail to see why the first 5 discussion options should be off limits. They were always acceptable in the old BABB days. For example, I fail to see why something like this cannot simply result in discussion. Why can't someone link to an ATM paper seeking to know if someone else has knowledge that would allow them to understand if the ATM idea in the paper is viable?

Argos · #**307** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 01:16 PM

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...

VanderL · #**308** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

The description of the ATM forum says this:

I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

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.
(4) The person has read the idea, likes the idea and wants to know if anybody can help him/her develop the idea further.
(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.
(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.

Of course we could probably add other shades to this list of meanings but I hope that captures the range of possibilities we're talking about when the word "discuss" is used.

*Or developed the idea his/herself.

In the old BABB days any of the above was acceptable discourse as long as you were polite and answered direct questions. Yet since the merger into BAUT it seems that this range has been increasingly narrowed with Nereid as a driving force. This is not meant to be an attack on Nereid. I was active in ATM on BABB long before Nereid was involved, so I'm simply describing what I see.

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:

Discussion options 1-3 listed above have nothing to do with "defending" - simply learning. Discussion options 4&5 certainly involve "defending" the idea, but Nereid has argued that such non-quantitative discussions are not science.

Do not misunderstand, I'm fully aware that many ATM proponents have difficulty following the rules, but I'd like to know just what the scope of acceptable discussion in BAUT' ATM section is. At the minimum there is heavy pressure in the ATM section to limit all ATM discussion to item #6. But I fail to see why the first 5 discussion options should be off limits. They were always acceptable in the old BABB days. For example, I fail to see why something like this cannot simply result in discussion. Why can't someone link to an ATM paper seeking to know if someone else has knowledge that would allow them to understand if the ATM idea in the paper is viable?

It seems Nereid is singlehandedly trying to get her beloved PF back through moderating BAUT into the same mold. I've suggested before that restricting ATM to exclude any discussions of ATM ideas or papers would make the ATM section obsolete (or only for a very small "elite"), plus it leads to unnecessary antagonism. Why have an ATM section at all?

Cheers.

Janie Axtell · #**309** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 04:20 PM

"Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread), giving a chance to explain. We will take further action only if proven necessary."

The above construction suggests that the offending pronoun may not be needed for clarity.

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

Tensor · #**310** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janie Axtell

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

There is no formal introductions area. You could use the Off-Topic Babbling or About BAUT to introduce yourself as others have.

The other rules (and a bunch of other good stuff) can be found under by clicking on FAQ (next to teh User CP heading) on the header of each page on BAUT.

Welcome to BAUT and enjoy your stay.

Serenitude · #**311** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 04:37 PM

I would like to put in a vote of confidence to the moderator team for their integrity. While not every single thing I've asked for has been granted, I must say that it has all, nonetheless, been fair. In specific, two personal examples in the past give me confidence that a flexible, situationally specific rule can be enforced with integrity and restraint:

I can vouch for the moderators giving you the benefit of the doubt. Once, in the Off-Topic Babbling forum, I posted a remark that, while innocent on my side, could have been read rather badly from a certain point of view. Once it was pointed out, and I explained the innocent origin of the remark, ToSeek retracted the warning but encouraged me to think about unintended interpretations. I can only describe this as completely fair.

Also, on another occasion, in the CT forum, I was posting about an incident that had happened in the Army, and as any former serviceman or woman can tell you, once you start reminiscing, certain terminology can spontaneously re-enter your vocabulary that you would normally not use. Tinaa spotted this, realized it was out of character and probably not intentional, and graciously PM'd me, pointing this out. Horrified, I immediately changed the word in question. The situation was taken care of without a beating. Again, I can only describe this as completely fair. It was handled in private, the mod tried to give me the benefit of the doubt, and all was well.

As a mod on another board (video game related), I know what a task moderating can be, and have to give a big thumbs-up to the mod team here.

SAMU, your continued persual of that issue, where you were indeed in the wrong and had ample opportunity to correct it, verges on slander and is also very inappropriate to the discussion. The rules charge you to take this matter up, in private, with a mod or admin should you feel justice has yet to be served. This thread is simply the wrong place to do so.

01101001 · #**312** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I'm trying to understand what the scope of acceptable topics in the ATM section is. It seems pretty clear that any mention of an ATM idea belongs in ATM. However, the description of ATM says "Post here if you want to discuss ...". That was a very good description of how it was in the old days of BABB.

Yet it seems that now Nereid has altered the rules of this forum. I say Nereid because I don't see any other moderators attempting to define such a narrow range of what is considered acceptable discourse in ATM.

Well, I just took a look at the recent couple of pages of ATM topics and I don't see it. Maybe I didn't read them carefully enough, but I think I saw topics where someone was just asking about something ATM and they were allowed. I'll list some below.

It seems possible to me that in the cases where you might see the range getting narrowed, it is similar to the problem I pointed out above of many of the ATM-based threads in Q&A. After the comments are received, or the questions answered, then it doesn't stop there. The presenter then becomes the proponent. The defense of the idea commences, the arguments for, the attempts to persuade.

And, because the idea is too fresh, not well understood, or the curious-turned-advocate hasn't even convinced himself, because it's half-baked, the discussion quickly devolves to pointlessness.

Again, I don't spend much time in ATM. I much more see the ATM bits that slop out of it. Perhaps you could lead me to a few existing examples of an ATM topic where someone was just-asking, expressing an interest, curious, and -- without the interesting idea treatment moving from discussion to advocacy -- the topic was shut down.

Is that what's happening? Is that the problem you see? Topics just inquiring into ATM ideas are not allowed?

===

From the second page of topics, the second 30 most recent topics, ones that have had a few days to get sorted out if they didn't fit, these seem to just be inquiries into ATM ideas, that were (so far) accepted, not prevented:
On Rindler horizon, black holes, and singularities
Universal Accelerating Expansion
Science vs. Psuedoscience (drawing the line)
Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism
Paul LaViolette and Pulsars as ETI Beacons -- a question
What is a gravitational field ?

I'm stopping halfway though. There are more.

Moose · #**313** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janie Axtell

(By the way, I can't find either the "introductions" area or the list of the other 13 rules, so I pretended I had read them, hoping they were typical.)

Hi Janie. There's no introductions forum, but there is a stickied thread specifically for introductions in Off-Topic Babbling. That would be the best place to go for this.

You also need to be aware that the rules are most definitely not typical. Although they are all based on the rules of politeness and common sense, they're much stricter than you'll find on other message boards. You very much need to become familiar with them.

You can find the full listing of rules by following the well marked links in the FAQ (which you'll find on the blue toolbar immediately above the thread.)

If you have trouble finding them, let me know and I'll provide links to either page, but I've always felt the journey is as important as the destination. Following the directions I gave you above should make it easy for you (or anyone else within the sound of my net-voice to find your way back to them should you ever need to.

Welcome, and I'll see you around.

Serenitude · #**314** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 05:30 PM

I must say that I support Neried's attempts to put a strict onus on the OP's in the ATM section, and applaud the direction it's taking. As a section meant for the presentation of ATM ideas, I think the "narrowing" is a step in the right direction. I think the concept of attack and defense of ideas is crucial, and I think the ATM section needs to keep it's focus in precisely the direction Neried is taking it.

I agree, though, that there can be a problem with posts/inquiries that don't conveniently fit into that pattern, but I think, then, it's more a problem of posting to the right forum section than Neried's strict (and just) insistence of "backing it up".

Nereid · #**315** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 06:19 PM

[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

I think this is a case of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) today being essentially a branch of physics (except for those parts which are more like geology, chemistry, or biology) ... but there is some strange reluctance to acknowledge it.

some people are strangely reluctant to acknowledge the exceptions

FWIW, if we restrict the scope to detection and analysis of photons from the sky (i.e. no in situ measurements or testing) and cosmic rays, from beyond the solar system, then what else is there but physics (and some chemistry, e.g. ISM molecular species, reactions on the surface of cold dust)?

Within the solar system, studies of the IPM (whther in situ or not) are just plasma physics, there's no chemistry on the Sun (much less geology), ...

Nereid · #**316** (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 06:32 PM

[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose

I don't disagree. I have to say that I'm actually pleasantly surprised: 1%-2% seems a little high to me.

It uses a fairly liberal criterion ... but it's not inconsistent with BAUT's ATM section.

Assume ~1000 ATM threads, then can we say there are ~10 that seem to be free of obvious mathematical or logical errors? not already strongly inconsistent with good observational results? free of obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science? (and so on)

I think we can. Not wishing to pick favourites, there's some good stuff in the Arp thread, POAMS seems it might show promise, perhaps some of grav's or john hunter's material?

Quote:

What I'm failing to understand, however, is why we are proposing to explicitly throw out the rare "baby" while going out of our way to keep the "bathwater", metaphorically speaking? Don't we like "babies"?

What I'd like to do is throw out the bathwater, and keep these ~1-2% babies.

My impression is that they (the babies) would greatly benefit from more focussed attention ... including fervid and gleeful attacks, as well as support and encouragement (should any BAUT member wish to offer it).