I think we are on the same page. Thanks for the tag line thought.

Nonsense. A statistically significant group depends on your definition, for one, but there are a lot of wrong ideas espoused by statistically significant groups no matter how you define it.

There is, ultimately, value in some ATM concepts. Great ideas can start that way. However, there are ideas that aren't great. They aren't good. Heck, they aren't, shades of Pauli, even bad. They're just awful, full of errors in science that a basic fourth-grade science textbook would explain.

I firmly--and I hope incorrectly--believe that "a statistically significant group" even in the most educated countries are just flat ignorant of a lot of basic science. The difference comes when ignorant people decide they know better than those who aren't.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

By that logic scientists should take seriously even astrology or the dogma of a faith.

What matters is not how many people are convinced of something, but why they are convinced of it.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

yup, science isn't a popularity contest

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I am missing something Ari, so I've constructed some toy models. In the following, "N" is not presenting an ATM idea, nor defending such an idea; "{A}" is an ATM idea, previously presented in the ATM thread (and which has nothing to do with SR or muons).

1) N: "{A} is inconsistent with good observational results."

2) N: "{A} is inconsistent with good observational results concerning the relationship between the observed half-life of muons and their speed."

3) N: "{A} in internally inconsistent because {words}."

4) N: "{A} is inconsistent with the SR, the theory."

5) N: "in SR, muon half-lives are a function of the (perceived) speed of the muons."

Is your proposal, re a rule change, that N needs to be held accountable for answering questions about the following classes of (N) statement: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, none of the above}?

(to be continued)

Part of the problem is, some people are never satisfied with the answers.

It depends on what you call rude. Is not answering direct questions rude? Is ignoring relevant arguments rude? "Rude" is mentioned in the rules only in the context of private messages, see rule 5.

No, rule 2 covers that.

Yes, there is no rule against that.

I'm not talking about direct questions to the mainstream. I am talking about direct questions to individuals who are presenting arguments against ATM ideas in "Against the mainstream" section of BAUT forum. They are not always a same thing.

I'm not saying that. Argument against an ATM idea in ATM forum is not always the same thing as mainstream idea.

Ahh, so you agree with me, it's better to have it as a rule than to let moderators deal with it.

Then there's nothing special about general obligation to answer direct, relevant questions, and to back up arguments.

Those mainstream proponents (i.e persons arguing against your ATM idea) might not present mainstream ideas at all. They might be completely ignorant about mainstream ideas. ATM proponent is obligated to answer direct questions and defend his/her idea, so he/she would have to deal with the arguments of those mainstream proponents even if they would be just nonsense. Now, if those mainstream proponents would be especially nasty, they might just repeat those nonsense arguments ignoring ATM proponents' counterarguments. That kind of behavior is not explicitly forbidden in the rules for people who argue against ATM idea in ATM forum. Still the ATM proponent would be obligated to respond to those arguments.

Oh, you are afraid that you would have to give education to some ATM proponent if rules would change according to my proposition. I think you wouldn't have to do that. If you don't want to give ATM proponent any extra information, you can just give reference to the ATM proponent to fulfill your obligation, and "go read basic physics" is some sort of a reference.

Ahh, so you were stating your own opinion as a fact.

But you didn't use your comment in the context of the special occasions, you used in the context of my comments about ATM proponents willingness to be challenged (at least that was the part you quoted there), and since you especially concentrated to the word "fair", it is safe to assume that you addressed this comment of mine: "It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics". You might not want to call that belittling, but to me it appears to be just that.

Because you didn't present any specifics that would allow me to conclude that you are not seeing that in me too, and "many" might mean that there is a good chance that you are seeing that in me too.

And since you are just repeating the same argument with different words, there doesn't seem to be much specifics in your argument.

Shouldn't be that difficult and time consuming if there are "many" of them. But I didn't ask for specific examples, I only asked how you determine it, and how many there are.

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

In my opinion, when an ATM proposal is rebutted and the response is, "No, listen to me," the ATM proponent is equating fairness and agreement. We did. It's wrong. That's fair, right?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

All of them, and any other you might come up with. In other words, I think everyone should be obligated to answer relevant questions about their arguments. Sometimes answer might just be "I don't know", or "read basic physics textbook", but answer should be given in timely manner.

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

Sorry, I don't have time to respond to everyone discussing my rule change proposal.

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

Questions raised by A which N should be accountable for answering is In My Higly-biased Opinion:
1) A: Could you give me a reference to those results?
2) A: I can't see how my idea will influence muon half-life under SR, please clarify.
3) This one depends entirely on {words}
4) A: Please show me how my theory is connected to SR.
5) A: I can't see how my idea will influence muon half-life under SR, why do you think that observation is relevant?
Or the short one:
1) Why?
2) How?
3) Why?
4) How?
5) So?

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

Rude is the opposite of politeness. See rule 2:

2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

1). This answer indicates the proponent hasn't done their research.

2). Same as 1 with the addition of "or doesn't understand the mainstream theory."

3). Yeah, it would depend on what makes the ATM idea inconsistent.

4). Same as 2

5). Again, same as 2.

This basically goes back to Gillianren's statement about understanding what's actually wrong with the mainstream idea, not what you think is wrong or because you don't like the implications of the mainstream idea.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Rule 2 and 3 do not apply just to PMs.


Touche'.

Of course, in order to advocate a change of the rules, you need to show that it is a general behavior, and not just a few special occasions.


If the critiques are not based on mainstream ideas, then the critic is either hijacking the thread to promote his own ATM idea -- in which case there are rules to deal with it--, or the critique is simply not pertinent to the ATM idea under discussion -- in which case the original ATM proponent can simply point it out and ignore it.
If the non-mainstream critic still insists, there is rule 14 for disruptive behavior.


See above: there are rules against thread hijacking and disruptive behavior.


The rules already include articles that let the moderators deal with unforeseen cases.
And I see that you did not address my point about the workload of the moderators.

Unless you can show that the rules as they are now overwhelm the moderators with exceptions, then you have no case to call for a change of the rules.
From what I can see, most of the work of the moderators comes from clear violation of the existing rules, not from exceptions (just look at the "Banned posters log").


By your own admission, you are not referring to a general behavior, but to special occasions.
And "general obligation to answer direct, relevant questions, and to back up arguments" can easily fall under rule 14 about disruptive behavior, with the exceptions dealt with by the moderators.


Then they can be dealt with with the rules about ATM proposals and thread hijacking.


What you have described is disruptive behavior, which falls under rule 14 and can be dealt with by the moderators, if the posts are reported.


And this is what usually happens, not just on special occasions.
You, on the other hand, want to change the rules based on exceptions.


I was referring to reading comprehension and experience.


So, you are stating your own opinion as a fact.

You made a generalization about ATM proponents wanting a fair and honest discussion, which does not fit my experience in the ATM forum. I pointed that out and you interpreted it as belittling your argument.
I simply think that you are wrong in your generalized characterization of ATM proponents.


I don't understand why you are taking my comment personally.
Exactly because I did not give any specifics, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that I was pointing my finger at you.


And why would you need specifics?

You are trying to blow out of proportion a comment I made on the side of the main issue, because you mistook it as a reference to your person.