This excellent question was posed by VanderL, here.

The general context is, in my own words: ATM rules include "People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do."; VanderL feels this is not 'constructive', and it 'obstructs many good exchanges where people could learn from each other’s input'. Instead of challenging ATM ideas, as presented, VanderL suggests "If the idea doesn’t have any merit in your view, just say so and leave it at that. A little restraint would work wonders."

Of course, you should check the primary sources yourself, to see the extent that Nereid's summary misses any key points.

But what do you, BAUT members reading this post, think?

Should BAUT have an ATM section? If so, why? If not, why not?

But it won't be possible to "leave it at that"! After all, logically, people will ask why you don't agree.

Besides, I would think any decent scientific mind would welcome the questioning they'll receive at the hands of the more knowledgeable BAUT members. It will enable them to improve their ideas. If you don't want questions asked about your idea, why tell anyone about it at all?

__________________
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!"

But if we didn't have the ATM section, where would I get my daily laughs from? I love seeing the constant posting by certain people of ideas that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I know, I can always go to the Conspiracy Forum and read the 9/11 posts or the occasionally "We didn't land on the Moon" posts. But there's just something about the Electric/Plasma cosmology people that is really, really funny. And the various "Einstien was all wrong!" posts.

Few of the ATM people want there to be any type of reasonable discussion about their ideas, because so few of them actually have any evidence for their ideas. And they very rarely even understand how science works. There are a few that are willing to engage in a real discussion, and I have nothing against them. But the rest should get exactly what they do in the ATM section, and that is having their ideas torn apart by people who actually know what they are talking about. If the ATMers don't like this, too bad. Don't post your idea then.

__________________
DOOM Master

If we were to squelch ATM, what exactly would we do with the existing traffic in that forum? Would you prefer ATM posts in General Astronomy? Questions? Censor ATM threads outright? Let ATMers post willy-nilly?

Personally, I think ATM (the forum and the participation) does have a valuable place here, but the logistics pretty much require a separate area with a separate ruleset. It seems to me ATM's been working fairly well as it is. Why mess with a good thing?

Edit to add: We've had similar threads before, and the common factor in all of them seems to be the desire for the ATMer to avoid being challenged. Although it's possible I'm misjudging VanderL's request, it seems to be in that vein. I can only repeat what I've repeated so often: this is BAUT. Nobody gets a free ride here. Not me. Not the mods. Not even the admin get a free ride here. If Phil and Fraser get challenged when they've made a mistake, why should ATMers expect to be coddled?

In any case, if an ATMer's idea is a good one, it will survive challenge just like all other good ideas. And the longer it survives, the better it is, the more it will become accepted. Just like any good scientific idea has undergone.

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

I guess it depends. Do the ATM proponents actually wish to learn from their mistakes and improve upon their ideas, or do they want a forum where only those who agree with them can discuss those ideas? Is it possible (and this doesn't solely apply to ATM proponents) that sometimes the presenter of the idea is unable to separate criticism of the idea from criticism of the presenter? From my own experiences in peer review, you need to develop a pretty thick skin but you also need to realize that an attack on your ideas is not an attack upon yourself. If the ATM section does adopt the "fluffy bunny" approach to the critique of ATM ideas, then it seems to me that it would also be incumbent upon ATM proponents not to attack the "Mainstream" in exchange. After all, fair is fair.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

People attack arguments with glee and fervor in all the forums. That is what science and scientists do. It seems to be a sore point with ATM proponents because they are either actually unconvinced of their own ideas, yet assert them anyway, or they are unable to communicate the reasoning that got them there.

People who encounter questionable assertions in the other forums rarely just say so and leave it at that. Why should they behave differently in ATM? Are ATM ideas so fragile that they need special treatment?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

I think that the ATM proponets need to wake up and smell the cookies. Regardless of who it is, any new theories are attacked and shredded by science, that's how it works, if experimental data shows that you're theory is wrong, then it gets tossed on the scrap pile. The trouble is that most of the ATM crowd have so much invested in their pet topic they aren't willing to listen when it's shown their system falls over and they dig their heels in. If they reaqlly were to approach it with an open mind and ready to extend and work on their theory, they'd take each failure and question as an opportunity to broadedn and modify their ideas into a workable form.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I'm not even sure why this question has to be asked. In the past, and even recently, many threads in general science get highjacked by posters with pet theories--someone will ask a question about relativity, and a few oldtimers will answer to the best of their ability, and then an ATM poster will barrage the thread with ATM objections.

Without banning ATM entirely (and how would we really know?), the only option is to have a separate forum in which the moderators can sequester the ATM posts. Most ATM content is self-identifying, so it isn't too hard. Some stuff does get through.

OTOH, I've seen some unfair treatment of ATM posters, and I've complained about it. Instances like that can get blown out of proportion. Vandert may have experienced something like that.

I made an ATM thread on JREF once and someone made an counter argument based, I thought, upon nothing but an appeal to authority(their own in this case). I think that this may be common in the ATM forum, but I don't know because I don't go there much partly because I find the ATM ideas generally too annoying.

The only motive for an ATM section as well as a Conspiracy theory section is for
a better rating ie more peoples on board ....close them for a few weeks and the ratings will go down.

You're not from around these parts, eh pardner?

That's a pretty cynical (and erroneous) viewpoint there. I thought my explanation covered some of the historical perspective.

Speaking solely as a long-time member of this community, not attempting to wield my status as a moderator:

• Yes, we should have an ATM forum.
• This is a scientifically-oriented discussion forum.
• Parties who only wish to engage in idle speculation or the exchange of highly speculative ideas without the burdens of being asked to provide substantive evidence, calculations, or quantitative predictions for said ideas are under no obligation to participate here.
• The ATM section in general serves as an excellent educational resource; problematic ideas and/or models are aptly deconstructed and errant claims identified and refuted by volunteers with the appropriate backgrounds and experience, in group format, under specific rules mandating civility.
• The above demonstrate to readers/lurkers and participants alike the differences between mainstream science and pseudoscience while promoting sound fundamentals in physics and cosmology.

I think an ATM section is absolutely necessary, and you'd have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

In my experience, many ATM theorists don't entirely understand the scientific method, and have faith, not skepticism about their ideas. When scientists have a theory, it's their duty to find all the ways they're probably wrong, and then test them out, item by item. Many ATM theorists have skipped that step, and have convinced themselves that they're correct - if only they could get people to listen to them.

It's nearly impossible to change their minds. And if you deride, mock, or make light of their theories, it just fills fencesitters with doubt. Just look at how many people think that "intelligent design" should be taught with evolution as an alternative. It sounds reasonable on its face.

The only way to promote rational thought is to calmly and carefully challenge the theories, demonstrating how they're incorrect based on the evidence we have so far. The ATM theorists can be tricky and slippery, relying on many obnoxious tactics to bully people who challenge their theories.

But for every wild-eyed ATM theorist, there are dozens of spectators watching how we debunk and enlighten. And it's for their benefit that this section exists. I want it slurped up by Google, so that if someone types in "moon hoax", this forum should show up. Instead of believing some conspiracy theory, they'll get an opportunity to see it properly debunked.

So this and the CT sections are very important. And even more important is the methods we employ to debunk the theories.

And maybe, just maybe, a theory may come along that really does change our understanding of the Universe. And I hope we'll be openminded, not dismiss it out of hand, and help the theorist make connections to get theories validated.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Don't forget, there is always the one-in-a-million idea that has a bit 'o merit

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

A simple change to the rules of ATM discussions would make ATM forum far more better, in my opinion. Rule 13 says this:

I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads. I don't see any reasons not doing so. Doing that wouldn't take away anything from ATM proponents' responsibilities. And if mainstream proponents' arguments really have a point, then there wouldn't be any reason not to defend those arguments and answer direct questions about them.

Example situation where this might help is that sometimes it might happen that a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it. In that situation it then might happen that the argument doesn't really apply to the ATM idea. ATM proponents then might point that out. Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again. This doesn't have a positive effect to the quality of the discussion.

And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth? Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.

Unfortunately, examples above are not entirely hypothetical. I see it constantly in ATM forum, in the "More from Arp et al" thread for example.

There are some suggestions above that ATM proponents don't want to be challenged. While this might be true for some, there are lot of ATM proponents who welcome fair challenges, VanderL definitely belongs to latter group. It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics.

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

Remember that it is the ATM proponents that are making claims.
The information about mainstream ideas is available in the world and on this board (Q&A, Astronomy, General Science), but the info about the ATM idea usually is not. That's why the ATM proponent should answer direct questions.
How are critics supposed to understand the ATM idea, if its proponent is not answering questions about it?

The same rule works for the mainstream: if a scientist wants to publish a paper, he has to support his claims and respond properly to the critiques of the referees.

If an ATM proponent is not prepared to defend his claims against criticism, what is the point of posting in hte first place? How can his idea be discussed if he does not answer direct questions about it?


As I said above, most of the critiques are based on what is already known, and this info is already available. Should a critic spend time and effort to explain and defend a mainstream argument, if all the ATM proponent needs to do is to look up the relevant reference?


And ATM proponents refusing to answer direct questions or to look up relevant mainstream references does not help.

What if it is the ATM proponent who does not understand the relevance of an objection?


It should be reported to the moderators.


Do you think that dishonest behavior is allowed at all on this board?
You are basically accusing the board of double standard.


If you think that somebody has been dishonest, report the poster.


Unfortunately, many ATM proponents equate "fair" with "agreeing with me".

__________________
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)

I don't believe that the current rules allow that.

It may happen, and it should be reported. As papageno says.

Well, I had not given this much thought until I saw this thread. The arguments presented by Gillianren, DoomMaster, Moose, Wolverine, Fraser and Papageno seem to me to be both compelling and entirely relevant.