There have been a number of discussions lately that have not gone well. As someone that has supported a number of ATM ideas on this board I thought I might share some suggestions for those that are new at it. These are just my opinions and observations as to how you might have a more enjoyable discussion if you want to discuss an ATM idea. These aren’t “rules” either. The BA decides the rules on BABB. I’m just offering advice that I think will be helpful to those interested in ATM theories. So in no particular order:

1. You’re going to be challenged to defend your statements with evidence.
2. You’re going to be told you’re wrong when you make statements in conflict with published research. If you don’t agree with being told you are wrong. See statement #1.
3. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. Only your theory is attacked.
4. Throwing a tantrum because your theory is not accepted will not win you support.
5. Have a sense of humor, be friendly and be polite. Taking yourself too seriously usually leads to frustration.
6. People on BABB generally want to help – even when they disagree with you.
7. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation as to how that research supports what you are saying.
8. You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question – answer it. If you don’t know the answer – say so.
9. People on BABB will listen and discuss politely well reasoned arguments – even when they disagree.
10. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so.
11. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with one post.
12. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with two posts.
13. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it.
14. While some people may sound very dogmatic – the mainstream theories in astronomy and cosmology are not religion.
15. Peer review may not be perfect, but it is necessary.
16. Don’t accuse people of being close minded just because they disagree with you.
17. Don’t create cute little names for mainstream theories and astronomers. Sure they might be funny on some level, but they’re going to irritate people and distract them from the points you’re trying to make.
18. If you think you’ve refuted Newton, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang all in one post – you haven’t. Whole books have been written challenging those theories. You’re not going to do it single handedly in a few hundred words on an internet discussion board.
19. Be willing to modify your views.
20. Be realistic. You’ll have better luck trying to convince people your alternative is possible than you will have trying to convince everybody your idea is right – and everybody else is wrong.
21. You need more data. All scientists need more data.
22. Ask yourself – Is what you’re proposing proof against the Big Bang, or could it be something the BB theory can absorb?
23. Be happy if people are respectfully discussing the strength and weaknesses of your ideas. If you’ve reached that point then you’ve accomplished a lot more than most of the alternatives brought forward on BABB.

(That there are 23 tips on this list is not by design. )

Edited to fix three typographical mistakes.

I would venture to say this list holds true for anyone making any claim, not just one that is ATM. Extending scientific thought is sometimes by definition ATM.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Great post!
Now are we allowed to add to the list or is it set to 23? If so I've got another two...
24. Respect is a two-way street, and is proportional to how much you give others.
25. Reading the FAQ is not enough, you've got to follow it as well!!!

__________________
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.

I don't think any of us have at one point or another. Sometimes when a discussion goes bad the regulars here have to take part of the blame as we can get pretty liberal with things like dismissive remarks and use of: :roll:.
This can get the ATM poster riled up and the thread can spiral from there.

I think this is a good place to link to a very relevant thread from two years ago when there were a number of thread lockings.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Any theory that is Against The Mainstream.

Perhaps we have to add a rule (for everyone, not just ATM): don't use abbreviations when they may confuse people or be unclear.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I really hope new posters read these suggested guidelines, but I suspect they probably won't.

I really think that much of the arrogance we perceive in new posters who claim to have exciting new revelations is actually benign ignorance. It is often just a naive excitement that turns into anger when they hit the big nasty wall of peer review. Most people simply don't realize the truly enormous mass of legitimate research that exists on any coceivable topic. I deal with this a lot with my undergraduate students - they really think they've come up with something new, and I have to let them down gently when I tell them that there are 42 major books on the subject already. This happened to me when I was a freshman, and I always appreciated how nice my professor was about it.

Aporetic

I thought about that. In fact, I even had a couple of suggestions typed up. But then I decided it might destract from the message to ATM newcomers.

I suppose my big suggestion for ATM responders would not to be in too big a rush to declare an alternative idea wrong. Yes - sometimes an alternative is way out there. But if the ATM proponent doesn't have the opportunity to fully explain and try to defend the idea before they are told it is wrong, they are more likely to feel that they are not getting a fair hearing. It would probably be a good idea to ask probing questions before shredding the idea completely. Let the ATM supporter spell out a lot of their thinking - and then clearly explain where the idea fails.

And a very similar suggestion. If the alternative has an outside chance of being right, then it might be better to acknowledge that the slim chance does exist rather than insist the theories chances are so small as to not be worth discussing.

Something like ... "I'm not convinced and consider this idea very unlikely, but we need more evidence (possibly offer a few suggestions/examples) to be absolutely sure it is incorrect." ...should leave the rational ATM supporter feeling like at least their case was heard. It might even spur them to dig deeper into the knowledge base. I know I've seen the BA make statements like that before.

And from my own experience, my aggravation when discussing Arp's model/Intrinsic redshifts comes not from other people being unconvinced. That I understand and have no issue with. But I do get annoyed when some people express misconceptions about the model, then describe it as pseudoscienctific terms, and finally treat it as quackery unworthy of discussion.

I'd like to add one. When challenging an accepted concept with an alternate point of view, be sure you fully understand the concept you are trying to challenge. Sometimes, defending an ATM idea is as much effectively demonstrating why existing ideas are wrong as much as showing yourself to be right.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

That's really good! You should bold that one. A lot of times Big Bang critics come on with completely incorrect ideas about the BBT.

Hmm ... should I add some of these additional suggestions at the bottom of the original list (with credit to the author) so that they are right there for new people to see? I don't know if I want to do that because I really don't want to become a judge of whose ideas should be added and whose should not be added?

How about a 3 votes approach? If somebody proposes a new suggestion - and 3 other people think it should be added, I'll add it?

Just looking for suggestions here.

Ehm, I can defend a few aspects of science without a degree in any of them myself, and I'm standing my ground in a little debate with Lunatik having only a conversational background in Newton's Laws. I've picked up on the general concepts and used Google and Wikipedia to fill in the gaps. Maybe not flawless, detailed understanding of the topic at hand, but at least understood enough to be aware of the principle and its application.

No one is going to know everything about a subject they get into a debate with, but a working knowledge with adequate resources at hand at least gives you some idea of what it is your attempting to either defend or attack. Its a two-fold challenge. You have to demonstrate why your idea works and why the current idea doesn't.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

I guess that's one of the problems with many ATM'ers. They not only have a notion that the current theory iswrong, but they also have another one that is better.
Unless you are very certain (not in the ignorant way but in a way of 'I have done all the hard science, I understand the current theory completely, I have clear indications that the old theory is wrong, and I have done enough observations and calculations to make my new theory believable), wouldn't it be better to just question the old theory, full stop?

I mean (no offense to the people involved, I just use it as an example): instead of saying that because Pioneer 10 and 11 have an anomalous acceleration, Newton was wrong, just ask what could be the reason for that anomalous acceleration. Perhaps give some hints, but stay low profile, not anatgonistic: chances are that a perfectly reasonable answer will come forth, and everyone can move on without heated debates and bannings and whatnot. If no good answer comes forth, perhaps launch a 'what if', 'could it be that?', ...
What I mean is: don't come rushing in banging on the doors, but tread gently. There's much more chance that you can tear down a theory bit by bit than that you can give it a fatal blow in one post or thread

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

IS IT MERELY A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION?

I see a lot of words like "fight" or "proof" or "expertise", etc. But why is this seen in the spirit of competition, of a fight to win? Why not seen instead in the spirit of exploration? After all, this is an "alternative" board where one can freely ask questions and offer suggestions, nay even speculations, since "against the mainstream" has that implication even in its title. Yet, when people offer ideas, though some are really out there, there seems to be an innate resistance from the start, as if something big is being threatened.

My philosopher friend said to me recently that the reason people have an instinctive aversion to new ideas is because of our limbic system, which is the most primitive portion of the brain programmed to either fight or flee from new situations. Philosophically, I'd rather think that I have some conscious control over this urge, and that I am above the intellectual level of the animal, though they too may have some pretty good smarts. I am not against critique if it is in the spirit of counter-offers, but if it becomes a fight, then the idea of exploration is suppressed. If suppressed, I am philosophically disinclined to offer an idea. The fact that some ideas are so deeply ingrained in us that they constitute our body of belief is a fact. The other fact is that some ideas are truly irritating to others, even coercive. I'd rather look for constructive ideas on which agreement and consensus can be formed rather than antagonism. If an idea must be defended so fiercely that it almost always leads to a fight, then I philosophically must consider the idea flawed at some level. This happened to the dogmas of the Church, where their challenges were repelled aggressively, but when successful these new ideas launched the Renaissance.

I offer that we do not get caught up in our limbic system's urges when contributing to discussion, but rather see others ideas in the spirit of a search, especially if it is ATM.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Related to this we could add:

Be sure that you understand meanings of the words you use. There are many experts on this board, and if you try to bluff your way by using fancy technical buzz words, someone can and will call you on it.

Edit to add because I hit submit instead of preview:

Cyrek1 gives a great example of what I mean in this post.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

This is an example of how difficult it can be to communicate an ATM concept. There is nothing wrong in the ATM world with proposing the existence of virtual electrons, or the conversion of a pile of photons into a real electron. (In fact I think it is fundamental) Three mainstream physicists were recently awarded a Nobel prize for explaining how an electron’s charge could be subdivided – Thus explaining observed Hall effect energy states without compromising this axiom. If an electron can be subdivided, it can also be heterodyned.

The purpose of introducing alternative physics is that the existing structure cannot explain all that we observe. Mainstream physics are horribly vague when it comes to explaining even the most common of natural phenomena – Lightening. But if we allow wave functions to separate charges in clouds, the mechanism is relatively simple and straightforward. Virtual electrons and positrons? Of coarse! Unfortunately, that also throws Ben Franklin’s theory on the pile of discards…

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Right, that's what I emphasized in the OP. But it was inspired by a number of bannings that resulted from some conversations that didn't go well. See the locked thread on electric cosmos.

So perhaps it would be better to say "basic working knowledge" as opposed to "fully understand".

And also be open to the idea that the problem with whatever theory one is trying to debunk may be in one's understanding of the theory rather than the theory itself?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The problem with the Cyrek theory was that it not only didn't do a very good job of explaining the targeted phenomena (in this instance a non-cosmological red-shift), but its predictions were also at variance with observation elsewhere. In addition he did not seem to understand the principles underpinning his theory. (To the extent that the equation derived as proof of the theory wasn't even dimensionally correct.)

Of course you can't expect everyone to have a degree level knowledge of current physical theory, but equally, if you don't have a reasonable understanding you wouldn't want to be too dogmatic in your assertions about it either.

We all need a little humility. The theory that was accepted yesterday is not always the theory that will be accepted tomorrow. On the other hand, an alternative theory does not earn the right to overturn science just because it is an alternative.

Well put. Doodler and DeGruss have BOTH posted good guidelines. I have one more: Question everything: There is so much more data available to us today than the theorticians of the last century held, better tools, in spite of Bill Gates. The Truth is out there!

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Perhaps it would be wise to add the rule that episodes of Star Trek do not constitute scientific evidence......

just a thought 8-[

__________________

It's also important to know what a "theory" actually is.

If I may quote the late Dr. Asimov (from his essay "The Armies of the Night")...

In that same essay, he goes on to say...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

What about the Hubble “constant” that the public was assured was a “constant” for 70 years, and now some of the astronomers are claiming they have “proof” it is not a “constant”?

So who is “guessing” and who isn’t?

What some people are talking about here is not “science” and not “proof” of a real theory, but “majority rules” among the scientists. It’s ok for them to guess and to promote the wrong theory for 70 years as long as the majority of them agree on the common guess.

Basically correct, though 'majority rule' I think puts more oomph behind mainstream theory than some of it deserves credit for. Take gravity as an example, the current "mainstream" theory, while crunchable with the numbers, is actually rather crude and unbeloved, even among its proponents, because the danged thing makes the connection between GR and QM all but unworkable. I'm sure there are "mainstream" scientists who would love nothing more than for someone to prove to them that the currently understood theory of gravity is wrong and show them how it works within those two frameworks.

ATM ideas aren't necessarily going to receive a hostile welcome when they're put forth, but if the presentation of the idea doesn't measure up to the observed reality, its going to be pigeonholed (however politely). The thing that turns the heat up that I've seen is either evasive answering of challenges, failure to produce unbiased support and outright handwaving.

ATM covers a lot of territory, really, from pure woowoo on up to legitimate debate about currently accepted theory. Its all fair game, all that's being asked to make for a better ATM debate is to be ready to rationally, cogently, and with supporting evidence and a modicum of critical thought, defend your position and have a little respect for the people who offer challenge to your idea.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Dr. Asimov is wrong. A theory is a guess, and should always be treated as such: A testable alternative that provides a better answer than a prevailing theory at any level of detail should be explored.

Even more important, if there are facts in evidence that cannot be justified within the prevailing theory, it should be censored. Evoking unsubstantiated Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill evidentiary gaps in the Einstein-deSitter universe has zero scientific merit.

Dr. Asimov’s definition discourages the challenge of existing theories, creates an unlevel playing field, and perpetuates the status quo. Bad astronomy.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

You don't seem to have much familiarity with scientific theories or with scientific research.

Wrong.
If it accounts for experimental results, it should be used as long as there is nothing better.
And even in that case it still can be used (engineers still use classical mechanics).

The model might incomplete: do you have actual evidence that disproves it?

You are not familiar with scientific research.

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

That said, any scientific theory must at least take the risk of simply being a guess.

eg
some caveman looking up at the Sun, oneday, and saying to himself, "I wonder if we are going around that thing....."
a guess!!

or "I wonder if I plant this small stone thing, that dropped off that plant, in the ground, will it grow?"

guess!!!


you have to start somewhere......

__________________

Here is my suggestion for the list: Just because it is ATM doesn't necessarily mean it is a woo-woo theory. I like to think of the two as completely unrealted. That's why the BA has an ATM board, and a PX board.

Also, the notion that the ATM proponent should understand the mainstream theory is a good one, but it goes both ways. I have seen several ATM threads where the "debunker" ignores what the ATM proponent is saying.

Also, it is unfair to characterize a person as mainstream or ATM. When it comes to the Big Bang, QM, and many other areas, I have a mainstream mindset, but I have an ATM view of MOND, Dark Matter, Dark energy, and I will never have a woo-woo mindset on anything.

I think this also goes along with the idea that just because an idea is "mainstream" that doesn't make it the only viable option. Sometimes you see the attitude something akin to the Michael Myers old SNL skit - "Everything Scottish" - "If its not mainstream its Cr*p!"

On the other hand some people take the opposite approach: "If it IS mainstream its Cr*p."


I think one of the reasons this is a problem is that it takes a considerable amount of time to read the relevant papers in support of any scientifically viable hypothesis. If an idea is ATM, the mainstream researcher has to make the choice as to how much time to invest exploring an avenue that is more likely to be a dead end than not. So that makes the hill that much steeper for those trying to communicate viable ATM ideas.

Another good point. Reality is that if you come out in support of an ATM idea, it is often assumed that you are confused, that you do not understand the mainstream theory, and/or that you are one of those woo-woo's. I've encountered this recently in discussions elsewhere.

I guess what is frustrating is when you establish your points and rather than acknowledge those points, the person you're debating simply ignores them or stops the discussion (item 13 on my list). Certainly some people supporting ATM ideas do this, but I've encountered it with supporters of mainstream positions too.

So...when Pasteur offered fairly substantial proof that flies do not originate in rotting bio-organics, we should have kept using this established theory until the discovery the role of DNA? Or should we keep believing in spontaneous generation until the creation of life from amino acids has been demonstrated?

Absolutely. Using correct scientific principles, it is possible demonstrate supernovae Ia expansion produces a null result of the Wilson hypothesis. But since there are no known celestial mechanics that can replace the Einstein deSitter model, supernova researchers are granted the liberty of tweaking parameters until they can come very close to matching the Einstein deSitter model.

Is is a poor precedent, very bad astronomy.

Wrong again.

Researchers, who are trying to help me get published, have encouraged me to reduce the size of my papers and add as many papered and well- known names to the author list as possible. They have also urged me to use outlier tests to trim up plots and reduce the scatter in data. Reviewers have cited Carl Sagen ("Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). All good advice for getting published. Bad advice for challenging and advancing basic scientific theory. This is retarded.

Let me tell you a story:

My daughter again, nine years old, putting together her first science fair project. There is a cave in the mountain above my house, and we explored there and found white cave crickets - we had explored there earlier, and she had written a report on these strange white crickets, based on the data from a book on bugs.

But the article puzzled her: The article said that these crickets emerged from the cave at night and fed near the entrance, but we found the crickets in the deepest, wettest part of the cave. The book said the crickets had great night vision, but if they emerged from the cave at night, why were they white and not black?

So she collected a bunch of cave crickets, and observed their behavior when exposed to light, verses the behavior of other crickets. She concluded they did not react to the light at all - that the tiny-eyed cave crickets were virtually blind. She is right, and she truly advanced scientific knowledge with a shoe box, a torch, and a bunch of bugs.

What is the point? The first step is accepting the fallability, challenging the credibility, of the experts.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?