No...it's not just you...

I can think of specific examples where the ATM proponent showed lack of knowledge pretty much across the board in basic science, to the point where they flatly didn't understand questions or responses to their own questions. While many issues were pointed out and discussed in detail, the lack of knowledge was so extreme, there simply was no substitute for their own study. At some point, the only reasonable answer is "Go read a book and here are some suggestions."

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Oops.

FWIW, I was replying to the second part of the rule 13 extract you quoted - "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner", pointing out that the way it actually works is considerably more complex than the way it's written.

So, if you are proposing a similar kind of rule, wrt statements on current mainstream, textbook, or consensus positions in astrophysics (etc), then I feel such a rule would likely also be complex, in its use.

And I'm not sure it would be very helpful anyway - it's pretty useless making a statement about mainstream astrophysics (etc) unless a reference can be supplied (upon request). In fact, that's pretty much how the Astronomy, General Science, and Q&A sections already work - inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, incomplete (etc) statements about astrophysics (etc) are often (nearly always?) corrected in later post(s).

Do you have a particular reason for suggesting that (mainstream) support/reference material may be lacking?

As to defending arguments, well, as has already been pointed out, if it's become mainstream, then it's almost certainly got a great weight of defence, in dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of peer-reviewed papers. Indeed, there are probably a PhD thesis or twenty in there, and the doctors who wrote the theses certainly faced scrutiny far, far more intense than any ATMer posting in BAUT ever had to worry about.

And as to loopholes, well, why not address them when they arise? After all, between them, BABB, UT, and BAUT have hundreds of thousands of posts, thousands of members, and several years' of experience.

Finally, wrt miscommunication ("a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it") - that certainly happens, and likely rather too often. However, I don't see how changing the ATM rules would address this. Could you elaborate please?

I agree with that

If that's the case, then why isn't word "pertinent" just added to the rules? It seems to me it would clarify things.

I'm proposing no such thing. I am simply proposing that everyone are held responsible of their arguments, not just ATM proponents, as long as the critique and questions are pertinent.

Where did I suggest that???

I am addressing one right now. I think the proper way to address loopholes is to correct them in the rules, not to let them exist and deal the situations one by one without proper rules for them. If I report a post, I want to be quite sure that I have a real issue before I make the report.

If there's known loophole, why not fix it?

In that example, that part wasn't the problem, it was just setting up the example. Problem was "Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again."

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

How much is "way more"?

If it's not against any rule, what's the action that can be taken?

I said that according to the rules they aren't.

Yes, in many cases things go well even without rules, but not always.

[Skipping the rant about ATM proponents]

If the person argues against some ATM-idea while doing that, then that person is mainstream proponent which probably is not best of terms but it's commonly used in this context.

I've seen some instances where some fair minded mainstream proponent corrects another, but I haven't seen a single instance of moderator making an intervention and demanding mainstream proponent to support their sayings when that mainstream proponent is repeating false arguments.

Yes, and I'm talking about what to do in the situations where those queries for clarifications are just ignored.

Current rules don't hold mainstream proponents responsible of their sayings besides insults and other such things. The fact that sometimes things work out even without rules is besides the point.

Yes, I meant basically that, but I think that generally anyone who is making an argument should be held responsible for that argument. Sometimes that responsibility might not be more than just pointing out a basic physics text, but I think that the responsibility should be explicitly mentioned in the rules for everyone, not just ATM proponents.

And I do think that questions (and challenges, critiques, etc) should be, as Nereid says, pertinent in order to fall under this rule. Question attempting to shift a burden of proof is not pertinent I think.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

Not according to the rules.

And I have pointed out examples, couple of them in the same post you were responding to, where it is irrelevant whether mainstream ideas have been critically examined or not.

Presence of a rule makes it easier for moderators to deal with the situation. Presence of a rule also makes incidents where the rule in question is violated less frequent, because people tend to avoid to violate the rules. That means less work for moderators, and more enjoyable discussions.

Why have rules at all if we can just "let the moderators deal with it"?

We have plenty of rules for some special occasions (such as copyright violations), so I don't see that as a
reason not to make a rule.

In that case you would be ATM proponent, and rule 13 would apply to you. Those who would argue against your idea would be mainstream proponents, and they would have no rule holding them responsible of their sayings.

How do you determine that an ATM proponent is equating "fair" with "agreeing with me"?

It matters because you used it in an argument belittling my comment. Furthermore, I'm ATM proponent on some issues, so your argument seems to be targeted to me also. Therefore I think I'm entitled to know the specifics of your argument in order to find out the correctness of your argument. So how many ATM proponents are equating "fair" with "agreeing with me"?

Well, I think most relevant here is what I meant by "fair" when I said it, because other ATM proponents didn't decide my meaning for it. But I admit that it wasn't best possible choice of words when I said "we", I shouldn't have tried to speak for anyone else.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

Yes, it is difficult. That's why I think that it is better to just make a rule that holds people responsible of their sayings instead of making a rule about dishonesty. It is usually relatively easy to handle the situation with probing questions when you know that the other person has to answer your questions (or be punished of not answering).

Which rules apply to a person who is wrong and is not an ATM proponent?

Well, some worst situations might be able to be handled with some existing rules, rule 2 might be applied to some situations, and rule 9 might very roughly fit to some situations, but I still don't see reasons not to extend rule 13 (or at least parts of it) to cover everybody, in which case we would be able to cover all these situations without a need to ponder which rule, if any, fits to certain situation.

Thing about rule 14 is that I don't know what it covers when I'm thinking of reporting some post.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

The short answer is "all of them" of course

In my experience, for the most part, that has been true. People are asked to defend their positions.Thinking of reporting the post for what?

Yes, that's exactly my dilemma. You see that there's something wrong, but when you check the rules you just have to conclude that apparently there isn't anything wrong.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

What is it that you see is wrong?

Are you still talking about the non-atm proponents being held to a different standard? How do the rules not apply to them?

PS: I'm going to have to read the rules (again) to follow up on this, unless you can point me to a specific area of the rules. OTOH, ATM proponents are held to a slightly different standard of course--that's what makes them ATM, right? After all, mainstream ideas have been vetted and accepted already, to an extent. ATMs don't have to go through all that, to get to this point.

Yes, I'm still talking about the same thing.

Rule 13 is relevant specific area. Like I have said in my previous posts (with examples), level of acceptance of mainstream ideas are not relevant in all occasions.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

You can be fairly sure that in that case others will catch it and attack it gleefully as well.

For me and probably many others there's so much more satisfaction in catching and correcting eg. Nereid in an error of physics than there is in catching eg. Arch~Angel since it's both much harder to find one and much more likely that the correction will be accepted.

__________________
An emperor without enemies, a king without a kingdom, supported in life by the willing tribute of a free people.

I like that one.
I think the mathematical formula for the phenomenon is that the IQ of a crowd is the IQ of the stupidest member divided by the square root of the number of people in the crowd.

__________________
An emperor without enemies, a king without a kingdom, supported in life by the willing tribute of a free people.

No, that was not a rant about ATM proponents. That was an unemotional description of my experience with a number of ATM proponents. You've presented your case, I presented mine. If you don't want to listen, so be it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Rule 14 is designed to cover any inappropriate or disruptive behavior that we didn't think of when crafting the other rules. If you find a post you think meets that description, you are welcome to report it with a note along the lines of, "This doesn't seem to violate any specific rules but seems sufficiently inappropriate/annoying/disruptive th