Hi all,

The following proposal relates to the thread "All New N00bs" which I think implicitly calls for discussion of modifying registration at BAUT so that new registrants are asked to read the BAUT rules sticky and also a carefully worded sticky offering/explaining items of good advice such as these: read the FAQ, give your post a good title, try to write clearly, cite your sources, strive for good terminology/notation.

I'd like to add to this discussion two more concerns, both based on the assumption that many lurkers or new posters at BAUT are young persons with a serious interest in astronomy/cosmology/physics who are trying to supplement their formal education here--- or even more disturbing, trying to bypass formal education under the (terribly mistaken) assumption that participating in BAUT will result in knowledge comparable to formal academic training.

[EDIT: I propose to discuss one concern in this thread and the other in a second thread; see "Should anyone ever cite Wikipedia at BAUT, and if so how?" in this subforum.]

My concerns are founded upon occasional lurking at BAUT over the past year, plus one week of posting here. They are merely an instance of a wider concern about similar forums where public discussion of cosmology/physics/astronomy/math/science by posters with a wide variety of knowledge and background occurs.

I have noted that in forums like "Questions and Answers" and "ATM", and also similar forums at Physics Forums website, many discussions concern issues in cosmology and therefore (perhaps without posters quite realizing it) invoke general relativity, which is a very beautiful and coherent theory, but one which contains many subtleties, including issues arising from highly technical mathematical issues which are not easily explained to anyone lacking the standard mathematical prerequisites for a solid graduate level gtr course.

Unfortunately, [b]in these threads[b], "answers" offered to questions are IMO most often seriously misleading, incorrect, or vapid, yet the inquirers often seem to treat such responses seriously. In another thread, struggling to quickly convey some sense of how typical discussions BAUT (and similar public internet fora) concerning gtr/cosmology relate to the actual scientific issues currently discussed by the best contemporary researchers, I put it something like this:

(EDIT: Note blue/true, one/won, blue,true; this metaphor is my crude attempt to suggest how relying upon verbal shorthands found in many popular books rather than the close study and wise appreciation of the actual mathematics in which genuine gtr is expressed, inevitably leads to posters confusing multiple distinct but crucial concepts which are unfortunately often discussed in popular books using similar verbal formulae.)

(I think at least some BAUT old-timers already know this, for those who don't: I have good reason for believing that I know gtr pretty well. I have acquired the mathematical background in formal coursework and from my own reading. I have studied dozens of standard sources, read many classic papers, and regularly follow eprints in the gr-qc section of the arXiv and other papers appearing in journals such as Gen. Rel. Grav. and Class. Quant. Grav. In addition, I have solved the EFE thousands of times and have the database of exact solutions to prove it. I frequently work within gtr and thus have a working familiarity with many mathematical techniques which are often used by researchers in classical gravitation.)

(I trust that I hardly need state that the self-quotation above was not intended to mock BAUT or BAUT posters, both of which I consider potentially valuable resources in building support for public support of Big Science. As Bogie recognized following my use in another thread of a cruder version of the above metaphor, I was simply trying to make sure that participants have at least a vague sense of how far typical BAUT discussions are from well-informed and thoughtful discussion of genuine scientific issues. Indeed, I mostly agree with the points Bogie made; in this post I am trying to explain why I think my concerns are in fact not inconsistent with the more positive view of BAUT which he expressed.)

My first concern then, is this: I fear that a great deal of miseducation could be occuring in BAUT. This is surely not the intention of the founders of this website!

Now there are several obvious responses one could make here, as I am well aware, including these:

a. Many BAUT regulars who engage in such free-wheeling discussions (unfettered by mathsci accuracy or sound scientific judgement) are no doubt sympathetic amateurs who are simply treating BAUT as an extension of their living room, and have no intention of offering "education" to youngsters, much less contributing to science itself. I have no problem with that, so long as an effort is made to ensure that youngsters understand that BAUT discussions are no substitute for studying standard textbooks and hopefully taking formal coursework.

b. Youngsters will a serious interest in math/physics/cosmology will most likely be motivated to attempt to acquire a formal education, e.g. by majoring in physics at a good university. Here, one may hope, any and all misconceptions they have acquired at BAUT will be promptly corrected. But those of us with university teaching experience may not be so sanguine that this will happen. Quite frankly students who enter coursework with many misconceptions are carrying a substantial burden which is likely to greatly hinder their ability to keep up and to follow along in lectures.

My concerns apply to all internet forums, not just to BAUT. Assuming experienced BAUTians (especially those with professional training) generally agree that my concerns have at least some validity, the question is: what can we do at BAUT to mitigate them, or at least to mitigate the contribution made by BAUT to the problem of miseducation on the net?

My modest proposal is to add a sticky explaining to n00bs some of the points made in the other thread (e.g. read the FAQ before asking a question), some carefully worded explanation of the points outlined above about the limited nature of most BAUT discussions and the limited utility of Wikipedia -as educational resources- (as opposed to, as forums for casual reading by persons who unconcerned with factual accuracy of the "information" presented). My idea is that registration could be modified to ensure that new BAUT registrants see a message strongly urging them to read this new sticky, as well as the existing sticky explaining forum rules. (Since I only registered myself last week, I know that currently new registrants can very easily fail to even find the rules, even if they suspect from prior experience in similar forums that such rules should exist!)

A more ambitious proposal would be to try to maintain similar FAQs at BAUT, Physics Forums, and at the Usenet Physics FAQs websites (as a former FAQ editor, I know how to contact the keeper of the FAQ and the mirrors, and as a former Physics Forums poster, I know how to contact the people who maintain the PF FAQ).

Several BAUTians who responded in posts or PMs to my comments seem to be struggling toward expressing an idea which has previously occured to me: again assuming that my concerns possess some degree of validity, there seems to be an unmet need for social mechanisms (perhaps a greater variety of fora) for segretating populations by knowledge, background, and goals. In particular, for separating the "everyone's living room" function of a forum like BAUT, particularly rants by non-scientists pursuing some anti-scientific poltical/religious agenda, from coursework related discussions and inquiries from serious students desiring accurate and well-informed responses.

[EDIT: to prevent possible misunderstanding: when I propose to discuss possible methods of "segregate populations" by education/intent, I certainly was NOT hinting that BAUT should only permit credentialed posters to participate at BAUT. I was actually suggesting that we discuss a variety of possible methods to ensure that everyone participating in forum F at BAUT be on more or less the same page concerning what they hope to get out of the discussion. In addition to stickies, one possible topic would possible reorganization of BAUT subfora.]

Comments?

(Comments from senior BAUTians with university teaching experience would be particularly desirable!)

I'm pretty much still a nubie myself, and none of my teaching experience involves University, more like yelling at privates.

But...


We did have a similar discussion a while back using the atom as an example.

In grade school science class, you are offered a representation of an atom that looks like a couple blue balls stuck to a red ball with a couple of wooden dowels.

When you get to high school chemistry class, they remind you of that representation and then say, 'Now unlearn and forget about that- it's more like this ____"

Once you move on to college, they remind you of High School Chem class and say, "Ok now unlearn that, It's more like this: _____"

Each time you move up the line, you are given more complex and more accurate representations of an atom.
When trying to explain something complex, teachers must often try to find an analogy that the student can first relate to. Once a concept is grasped, they then progress up the line getting more and more into detail.


BAUT can be very educating, but it is not an education. It is a Bulletin Board.

I think your concerns are well founded. Many of the discussions on BAUT go right over my head because I lack the background necessary to understand some of the concepts discussed.
Self education can be a good thing, but at the higher levels, any education requires guidance from one who is learned, otherwise the student will follow where they want to go in their education-reaching misconceptions without anyone to clarify them. That is part of why I commented to Chris Hillman that I look forward to his additional posting on BAUT.

I cannot imagine someone using BAUT to get an education.
But I do agree with what you propose.
I must admit, though... It seems very New Age to have Sticky's up reminding folks that internet discussions do not substitute a University Course.

To clarify my above post, on a public posting board in which you have all manner of educational backgrounds- a family board in which children also participate, the original analogy of the atom will still be used. Why?- because it is necessary. You find yourself still explaining things to someone who has yet to achieve the next level of education and you don't want to zoom right over their head and start describing things in such complicated detail that it will pass around them like a fog.

That is actually one of the very points I made. But I added that I am concerned that not everyone at BAUT may clearly realize the limitations of BAUT and similar forums as an educational resource.

I think we agree that no-one can acquire a solid scientific education or genuine appreciation of the more subtle issues in modern science simply from reading Wikipedia or participating in BAUT and similar fora.

My concern is that I see, or think I see, a lot of evidence suggesting that quite a few youngsters don't realize why this is the case, and even worse, that some may literaly be trying to supplement or even replace a formal education with participation in fora like BAUT.

[EDIT: I forgot to suggest that experienced BAUTians who know which old-timer BAUT members possess advanced degrees in physics/astro/math -and- university teaching experience should take an informal poll among that population, by PM, and also put up a public poll open to all at BAUT, asking: "Can internet sites such as BAUT or Wikipedia be used as educational resources? If so, can they be used only to -supplement- a formal education? Or can they -replace- a formal education?" It would be interesting to compare the results of the two polls.]

Strange indeed. If you hang around faculty lounges you may hear some discussion of a related concern: do our students ever read -books- any more?

There was a relevant NOVA episode recently which explored how high school and college teachers are reacting to the advent of internet "resources" such as Wikipedia. Some of the things being said are IMO utterly appalling.

This I agree with completely. And I understand too, that many people use that fact to portray themselves in a better light.

On a Mars forum, I got caught up in 'intelli-speak' arguments with folks trying to 'act like the learned scientist' when assessing visible 'fossils on Mars.'

Also the TU24 forum was a good example of this.

I do think BAUT is a cut above the rest however.

Part of teaching includes expression.

I remember one of the smartest professors I ever knew- an MIT graduate- once told me that a true sign of intellect is when a person could express the increasingly complex on a simple level.

The reason being, a person will not learn a complex lesson in a moment. Like adding bricks to build a wall, it takes time and study.

My roommate was trying to get a customer to understand a complex computer operation. After a while she said , "Think File Cabinet!" The customer exclaimed, "OH! Limited space!"
Click*
Without going into the details of the complicated computer workings, they used a simple analogy that served the purpose.

When it comes to the learning of another, I think that it's all about the baby steps and we cannot always barrage people with the Full Knowledge until they have the foundation to support it- Self Included.
If someone starts talking to me about certain things, I'll end up drooling with a thousand yard stare and trying to play with a ball of lint I found on my shirt.

Yes, stuff like that is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Agreed. Physics Forums is too.

Yes. In my own field, one of the most noted expositors of a previous generation was Paul Halmos. He once said something to the effect that a good talk should consist of four parts: the first comprehensible to the janitor, the second to undergraduate students, the third to graduate students, the fourth to ones professional colleagues. Many of John Baez's This Week postings exhibit this, for example.

Exactly. That's actually what I was trying to tell tommac: real science is really fun, in part -because- it is so complex and subtle. The real fun is in mastering enough details to begin to perceive the subtleties.

Or: a metaphor or simile. (I recently provided a notorious[?] example in another thread).

Of course, these are only useful in the first quarter. In the second quarter, one must begin to appeal to undergraduate level mathematics.

Not sure where this thought belongs in this discussion, but one idea I have often tried to express in similar discussions, and which I wish were better appreciated by the public, is that all teachers at times fall back upon verbal formulas or shorthands which attempt to partially capture one aspect of a far more complex issue. Similarly, in gtr many appeal to pictorial images such as "ball rolling on rubber sheet" or "pennies stuck to the surface of an expanding balloon" or "Flamm paraboloid" (embedding of a certain spatial hyperslice in the Schwarzschild vacuum) or any number of less known visualizations. In all of these cases, bright students or amateurs often discover for themselves that these representations/characterizations cannot be fully accurate. Should they fail to appreciate that the real science is far more complex, trouble then ensues.

Perhaps we can summarize our discussion so far like this: we all agree that much discussion in BAUT is at the level of the first quarter of a talk by Halmos (only rarely so witty or clearly expressed). My concern is to ensure that everyone understand that there are three more quarters beckoning the true searcher ever onwards.

I agree, and I have issues with reporters or scientists that use simple words too far- that allow readers/listeners to apply meanings that are not relevant.
For example:
"Life adapted to this setting."
This implies intelligence and a desire on "life's" part to Adapt itself by a force of will...
If I had better examples I would provide them but that's the best I can come up with at the moment.

Chris Hillman, are you proposing the possibility of a method to better structure or organize how ideas are expressed?

I agree with what you (Chris) have said, but I don't think it will work! I am not a noob, far from it. My listed "start date" is actually the date that BABB and UT merged. I was posting on BABB when it was a simple threaded board and it took less than half an hour to read the whole thing and comment on any topic I found interesting. That was about 1996!

The reason I don't think it will work is that first and foremost, this is an open forum. There are no restrictions on membership. So we have the gamut from those whose only knowledge of astronomy is that it has something to do with the sky, through people like me with more than a smattering of knowledge about the subject (I majored in astronomy in college but, unfortunately, didn't graduate. 3 1/2 years doesn't get you a degree!) to those with Ph.Ds in the field. There's simply no way one board (no matter how many fora and sub-fora it has) can adequately serve such a broad audience. No sticky, no matter how worded is going to reach the ones who need it most. Even making it a mandatory read before first posting wouldn't work. Many would just jump through any and all the hoops and go on about their merry way.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Heh, another oldster (I created a home page soon after Mosaic appeared, c. 1992, so I have been thinking about the social implications of the World Wide Web for a long time.).

Yes, these thoughts already occurred to me and sadly, I suspect you might be right. I am rather hoping someone will come up with a suggestion I haven't thought of which has a better chance of reaching, as you say, the young and hyperactive types who most need some good advice of the kind I'd like to offer. Possibly I should have mentioned my previous experience posting at Physics Forums, where the same issues arise; this partially explains why I have thought about more ramifications than I had time to explain in the first post in this thread.

In general I think people worry way too much about this. First, if someone makes an egregious error in fact, there is usually someone there to correct it.

Second, it is idealistic to think that we can prevent people from being mis-informed. Just as people often hear things incorrectly, people will often read things incorrectly or carelessly - and as a result come away from this board thinking they learned something they actually mis-read. It is much harder to be mis-informed if you are a careful consumer of information. People will not be mis-educated on this board if they care enough to verify what they've read by looking at other sources.

Third, If someone comes away from this board mis-educated, they probably came into the board mis-educated or lacking the reasoning skills or background knowledge needed to recognize bad information.

The fact is many young people do not understand the subtlety of language -and they are prone to being mis-educated by their own lack of mastery of language.

As a teacher I see this every day. I just finished grading a unit exam for my chemistry classes this afternoon. One of the questions asked why reaction rates increase when concentration increases. The answer is that with a higher concentration there are more reactant particles a given volume and therefore there are more frequent collisions because there are a higher number of reactant particles to collide. I had numerous students sort of get this, but they stated in their explanation that there is "less space" when there is a higher concentration.

Most of them simply do not understand subtlety with language at all. To many of them saying there is "less space" means the exact same thing as saying that the number of particles per unit of volume has increased.

You're not going to be able to fix the problem of people mis-educating themselves on BAUT if those people fail to understand language.


There is such a thing as natural selection in education too. A few misconceptions should not hinder their ability if they are intelligent, have reasoning skills, and are willing to work to correct their own mis-understandings. If they lack those characteristics then they will fail -and that will not be the fault of BAUT or the education system - it will be the fault of parents that did not instill in them a sense of valuing education.

For example, I will walk into class, hand back that test, and explain to my students all the subtlety involved in understanding their mistakes. Those that care and have parents that demand performance in school, will learn from those mistakes and not repeat them (actually those students did not make the mistakes in the first place because they actually care enough to be precise and study). But many of my students will put the exact same wrong answers on the state exam when similar questions are asked in June - despite the fact that I will carefully explain how to avoid those mistakes.

In fact, they already do it. Every year when I teach net ionic equations in chemistry, I explain to my students that the subscripts for ions in formulas cannot automatically be transferred to the product side of the reaction. New subscripts must be generated based upon the charges of the ions being combined. But when I graded the test I still got this:

K2CO3 + FeCl3 --> K2Cl3 + FeCO3

Instead of the correct product formulas:

KCl + Fe2(CO3)3

And I emphasized repeatedly that they should not make this exact mistake - and yet about 20% of them made that mistake anyway.

I absolutely agree. Wikipedia is a waste of time. You have to verify everything you read there. And any time a subject is controversial you have people that attempt to control it. Literally something can be modified and within 30 seconds some addict with nothing better to do than stare at their computer screen 24-7 waiting for an edit, changes it right back to the way it was before.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to post a reminder that this is an internet forum and that caution should be used when reading posts and effort should be made to verify information shared by other posters. But that is just common sense for information consumers. Of course many people lack common sense so ...

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

"most often"??I for one am glad you stated that, otherwise I'm sure I would have left with the wrong impression. Conversely, it should be obvious how easy they are to find (FAQ -> Rules for this board -> They can be found here). Although I agree there will always be those who insist on stumbling into things.We have a lot of those. I are one.Not true, but you're abaut as old as me, so we've probably forgotten those details. I had to look it up: the merger of UT and BABB occurred almost four years later.
All I can say is, we must be reading different articles! I find wikipedia very useful.And include a reminder that they are reading English!

When, of course, the post is in English.

My bad! I guess it was the date that BABB switched from a single thread to a multi-forum board (like BAUT).

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

That's the way I remember it

Just after 9/11. A new world.

A lot of times when I google something, I get a wikipedia hit that is useful for my purpose. But the problem I have with Wikipedia is that it is basically a d