Sounds like Questions and Answers, to me. Unless, you know enough about the subject and are fully aware that it is against the mainstream already.

Sorry that I'm not responding quickly, I'll try to find an "example" thread, but I'm too busy at the moment, I'll respond later. What I would like to hear more about is what you think of the suggestions I made; irrespective of the results of the search for examples of bannings/closings, I think those additions would also add to the knowledge-base here at BAUT.

Cheers.

Probably more the latter. I can think of a specific example off the top of my head: dark matter and dark energy.

I've got a pretty vague conception of dark matter, and the theories as to why it must exist (rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by some galactic clusters, etc.), but it's the form that it takes that I'm not clear on.

If I want to ask, "Hey, what's the current theory on the composition of dark matter that has the most evidence?" that clearly would go in the Q&A board, but if I were to want to ask, "Hey, could we simply be wrong, and there's a lot more baryonic matter out there than we thought, it's just not in positions where it can reflect light?" that seems to belong more in ATM, right?

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

Well, I'd tend to argue that when it comes to dark matter, it might be a bit early to be talking mainstream to begin with. The question you've asked could fit, I suppose, in either forum. Ironically, human nature being what it is, which ever forum you posted it in, I'd suspect it'd end up being moved to the other.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Well, as far as my opinion is worth, I've never been a fan of making changes merely for the sake of making changes. It tends to set a bad precedent. Could we first demonstrate that there's a problem that needs fixing before we talk about ways we might address it?

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

I would think that would be a perfectly reasonable question for Q&A, and you could expect answers discussing why it isn't thought to be baryonic matter. Now, if you really weren't interested in the answer, but your intention was to argue for an ATM concept regarding dark matter then it would belong in ATM.

In other words, asking questions and getting or discussing "mainstream" answers is what the Q&A section is all about. It isn't about debate of ATM concepts.

__________________
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

I tried to explain what I perceived as the problem:it is not possible to discuss the validity of ATM papers or anomalous observations without being forced to abide by the ATM rules, which expects you to adopt the paper/anomaly as if you were the author/proposer. Whever people argue in favor of such a paper (become a proponent), they should be defending the content, or drop the subject if they are unable to provide answers in a "timely manner".

Btw setting a precedent is not necessarily bad.

Cheers.

Could you please provide a clear example of where this has taken place? As I said, I don't mind working towards a solution, but you first need to demonstrate that the problem exists.

As I understand the rules, it expects no such thing. Saying "hold on, there might be some merit here" does not in itself make one a proponent subject to ATM rules. Defending an ATM thesis, on the other hand, means actually defending the thesis. That means providing evidence and not hand-waving away valid objections. It means not to waste everybody's time with half-measures.

All ideas considered mainstream have had to undergo the same process we subject ATM ideas. Surviving peer-review is precisely what makes them mainstream. If what some might term a "mainstream proponent" strays away from what has been successfully defended, then that proponent must become subject to peer-review before the idea can be accepted.

Anyway, I'm getting away from my point: you really haven't demonstrated there's a problem to be solved, just suggested a hypothetical that doesn't really seem to be happening in practice. Why fix what isn't broken?

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

An example would be helpful.

I can think of a few possible situations where a person starts a thread with a question in the form of "What do you think of X?" In many cases, the idea has been discussed here, so the thread is closed with a pointer to older discussion (iron sun, for instance) or it is about a CT (moon hoax, planet X, etc.) and is moved there. In some cases, there are ongoing discussions, like MOND, that continue in the ATM section so they are pointed there.

Are you talking about a situation where someone says something like "I heard about this guy called Velikovsky and was wondering what people thought about his ideas?" If that's the case, from what I've seen it usually goes two ways. Either posters point out issues with the ideas, provide some references, and after a bit of discussion the thread fades away. Or, the questioner wants to debate the subject and it becomes a typical ATM thread.

__________________
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

As others have already said, more likely Q&A than ATM.

However, how do you write the question?

Suppose, for example, that you come across a website which claims that 'the speed of gravity' is ~10 million c. You're curious, and want to find out more, by asking a question.

You could write (something like) "The speed of gravity is 10 million c; why do scientists still think that nothing can go faster than light?"

Or "{person} says that the speed of gravity is 10 million c - is he right?"

Or "How do we know that the speed of gravity isn't 10 million c?"

Or "How do scientists measure 'the speed of gravity'? What is 'the speed of gravity'?"

And so on.

The first of these will likely get your new thread moved to the ATM section (but not for certain); the others will likely stay in the Q&A section (even the second one).

But which one do you think will produce the most informative posts, in reply to your question?

OTOH, if you've already made up your mind that the speed of gravity is 10 million c, then why would you want to ask any questions anyway? If you were sufficiently interested, you may consider starting a thread in the ATM section on this topic - but I strongly recommend that you read the relevant BAUT rule first (it's #13).

ATM is necessary because it serves as a very level playing field for ideas that challenge current scientific knowledge and understanding. Such ideas would be a bad fit in any of the other fora, etc.

ATM is also appropriate because the ideas that ATMers present will be subject to analyses and criticisms similar to what one experiences when defending a thesis. This is how higher education and science work. From I've seen of most ATMers, they either haven't had this experience or if they did, failed to learn from it.

The fact that many ATMers find this process frustrating isn't the fault of the persons doing the analyses and criticisms. Instead it lies with the ATMers themselves, who don't have a basic comprehension of how this system works. They present their new ideas with fervor and glee, then can't seem to understand why these new ideas are attacked scientifically, logically, and rationally with fervor and glee. Hence all the bannings.

I find the various rules which apply to how new ideas will be critiqued to be quite fine. Also the rules as to what the ATMers need to do and provide to defend their ideas to be right on the money.

It's all about the exchange of ideas, where each party acknowledges the right of the other to critique their ideas. As long as ATMers come here with the attitude that they are not only going to present their new ideas in ATM, but will see these ideas critiqued (and probably stand to learn something), things will be fine. Those who don't are those who wind up (as they should) getting booted.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I'm suggesting something additional to what already exists, so your "why fix what isn't broken" doesn't apply, it is more akin to broadening the options.

I do not want to reopen the discussion of the specific examples I will give here, this will only lead to a fruitless exchange of opinions. Otoh, it might just substantiate the point.

Speficfic examples are buried in the mass of threads, of two instances I remember being involved in, is one in the original EU thread, where the question was to come up with an OOM estimate of the radial electric field expected by the EU model. While I couldn't provide a calculation I made an effort to come up with a guess. In effect I said: "I don't know, but here is my guess". The thread was closed because no new evidence was provided.

The other instance was in the "BB is wrong" thread somewhere (I think), where a paper by Lieu et al showed that the BB failed the SZE test (some clusters do show it, and some don't). While I wanted to discuss the validity of the paper, the challengers asked which part I was prepared to defend (several other occasions where anomalous evidence was presented met the same "burden of proof" shift). What is questioned by the challengers is not the content of the paper, but the proponent's specific knowledge of the subject, and lacking that (as mostly happens to the amateurs), dismissal of the evidence. This is frustrating.

Again, please do not go further into these specific examples, I merely want to stress that, yes it happens, and the solution would be to have a section discussing these puzzles without putting the onus on the proponents "or else" (meaning: stop the discussion, or provide all the details even if you are an amateur).

To respond to Maksutov's point: the bannings result from frustration by both proponents AND challengers. Don't forget that challengers often accuse the proponents of handwaving, dishonesty and "pseudo-science" behaviour, that's what really hurts, and then the flaming posts start flying. I think challengers should be made aware that there are limits to the way they express their disagreements with the proponents. Merely asking for a "thick skin" from the proponents is not enough, imo.

Exchange of ideas is not what the ATM section seems to be about (it might be what it should be about, and it is in some instances), it is about showing who is wrong: the proponent with his new theory, or the mainstream. What I miss is openminded discussions of the new models proposed in mainstream articles, and detailed discussions of anomalous observations.

Cheers.

There are ATM ideas that simply do not exist in reality. If the onus is not on the "proponent" to demonstrate that an idea is in fact real, then it would fall to the "challenger/mainstream" to prove that it is not real...and that's not how science "works".

I'm really having trouble seeing this "proposal" as anything other than an attempt at shifting the burden of proof...

Given VanderL's inability or unwillingness to demonstrate that a problem exists, I have no basis with which to disagree with you, R.A.F. For what my opinion's worth among the admin, the status quo works fairly well. I see no reason at this time to change it.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Could explain what you mean by this?If there is no onus, it is possible to discuss the contents of the paper without getting into trouble for it. And science is as much about showing that things work, as it is in showing that things don't work. Actually, positively proving something in science (except in math) is even thought to be impossible.

So, clearly I'm not proposing a shift of burden of proof here towards the challengers, just not putting it solely on the proponent, but also on the author and quality of the paper.

Cheers.

Where did you get that idea, did you miss my earlier post (102)?

Thanks for your opinion, but I beg to differ.

Cheers.

Yeah, VanderL, I did read your post 102. Here are the salient points: