Indeed, I contribute to the Thunderbolts Web site, and it is my name on the pages. That it is displayed publicly allows readers to note conflicts of interest. I note Nereid that you 'hide' behind a pseudonym. We have no idea whether you have quoted your own material, and as such are unaccountable. A bit like peers in the peer-review process, but that's another issue. But I've never questioned your identity, or your credentials.

That I contribute to the Thunderbolt Web site is no indication of what I contribute; my own pet theories? reporting the theories of others? reporting peer-reviewed theories?

So are we saying:

• News headlines may feature new theories that are not peer-reviewed.
• News headline comments on new theories must still be (a) "mainstream" (b) verifiable by peer-reviewed citation?
• News headline comments may not cite Peratt (or just the one paper mentioned by Nereid) because he (or is paper) is considered against the mainstream
• You can't refer readers to Web sites to which you contribute yourself, even if the Web site declares that oneself is a contributor, (unless you're an anonymous contributor to BAUT).
• You can't cite Web sites such as Thunderbolts because they are not considered "mainstream". How about Wikipedia?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what speculative comment are allowed, but are not "against the mainstream", since I have two official warnings against me, and I don't want to risk being banned.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Are you referring to the "Universe Today Story comments" forum on this board?
Avoiding ATM proponents to propose their ideas in that forum is only to avoid these people to spread all over the board and keep some order.

The news that appear to be ATM usually have a much better footing in modern research than many of the ATM ideas presented on this board.

Referencing peer-reviewed sources does not mean that the ATM proposal is actually a well-founded speculation.
I have seen many ATM proponents referencing the valid theory of Maxwell, without proposing themselves valid research.

Brown's paper has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and he is a professional astronomer.
The preprint is available online, so you could check for yourself if his work is a valid bit of research.
Brown's work is not considered ATM because: It is not trying to go against established theories, it simply presents a new phenomenon.
If you want to propose an alternative interpretation of the observation, the ATM forum is available.

__________________
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 have read some of the entrees on this thread, unusual because I do not often read or post in the ATM forum. I am not on or against any "side." I do not feel that my various points of view result from membership in any particular category.

I do enjoy the fact that the various forums have boundaries. The division helps me more quickly identify the discussions that I want to read and participate in. My time is limited and precious. Just as the threads have titles which help me zero in on just those that I find interesting, so the enforcement of forum boundaries helps keep the discussions more focused on what the titles lead me to believe will be talked about.

I think the term "mainstream" refers to views that at least some sizeable portion of the people in the field find plausible. I suppose that the boundary might be a bit vague, but I think that, in most cases, it is pretty clear what qualifies and what does not.

I agree with you. But where do you see the boundaries in the "Universe Today Story" comments?

I see the "Against the Mainstream forum", as having the most speculative posts, with the rest of the site the least speculative; But the "Universe Today Story comments" I invisage as having a little more latitutude because the news stories feature new theories that may be speculative themselves.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Again, you are looking at it from it from the point of view of a potential poster, and I am looking at it from the point of view of a potential reader.

I sometimes encounter the attitude that the practice of science rewards conformity and lack of imagination. I suppose that that may be true in some instances. But I have a lot of experience with the educational system at various levels. At each level, some students who succeeded at the previous levels can no longer do so. Contrary to what one might think from reading some of these threads, the students who drop by the wayside tend to be the ones who cannot think creatively and innovatively enough. One can get through a freshman math or physics course by knowing how to plug numbers into formulas, but subsequent courses demand more and more ingenuity. The very system weeds out those who cannot "think outside the box" in more and more creative ways.

Plus, if you come here as an interested layman with a question, the owners (admins) of the site want you to get the mainstream answer, because they want to give correct information to people that don't have the knowledge, time, perhaps intelligence to recognize mainstream from ATM.
Thus, if someone comes on the BAUT and asks "what is the Sun made of", his question will probably be moved to Q&A (if it wasn't there yet) and he will get the mainstream answer. If someone else would answer "it's a neutron star with a solid iron shell", then that would rightly be removed to the ATM forum, as that is not the answer the layman needs to get from a forum run by professional astronomers.

This board is made by scientists as a place where people can look for info, discuss new findings, share their enthusiasm... As a courtesy, they have decided that ATM ideas are welcome as well, but in a separate place, so things don't get confusing. I don't see the problem with that.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Boy, that penalty box was no fun, I was in with some hardened flamers, barely protected my virgility. Let me apologize to the group for maintaining the momentum I generated in alt.thrashmetal.slayer.shredz. I'll be good.

I'm replying to Papageno's post on this new thread begun by Ian because I feel that it contains something instructive. As she defines mainstream science she employs the term "observation" and in defining non-mainstream science, she employs the term "interpretation" I enjoy Papageno's posts, she has a refreshing rigor and a keen eye. This discussion seems to be starting off relevantly aware of definitions, a priority I would ascribe to the felt importance of understainding unseen social and psychological forces at work, forces which can unawaredly introduce bias; which is not scientific. Obviously we want to start off understanding things in the same way using the same semiotic calibrations.

So I'd like to hopefully generate comments on what we might feel to be the distinguishing features of the terms "observe" and "interpret" first off, and then apply that to possibly discussing what proportion of both constitute science, because I think this question strikes at the foundation of cognitive method- the inductive form of cognition intertwined with the deductive form of cognition. We obviously need and use them both, we both observe and interpret in daily life, and I'd propose that the lengthier process by far is the interpretive; that this is not so much a chicken and egg premise as may appear, that there is an intrinsic sequential structure of "observe" preceding "interpret", and further, that there is an engineered in societal bias in automatically elevating observation to a purer status than interpretation, as any lawyer will tell you.

I think that Papageno does what most interested people do regarding the dipole of science vs. pseudo-science. She makes the unfelt assumption that science's pillar is that of observation (intrinsically unbiased) and that of pseudo-science is that of interpretation (intrinsically imaginitive). But we know that both processes of mind work in concert. I've suggested that one is generally derivative of the other, tho deduced principles often color subsequent observation. We know that both working in some felicitous proportion result in the improvement of the human condition via the application of the fruits of cognition to every day reality.

So we have observation/data acquisition/inductive, and we have interpretation/data application/deduction. I'd like ask some question about data acquisition in astronomy, possibly using as an example the data acquisition which led to the interpretation that there is no flow of charge from the sun. Can someone tell me what that project's name was, or at least the first of the projects if there were several launched in an effort to follow some clue about that unknown, so I can have a look at how that data was collected. (Regarding this- how does the general public go about obtaining the published data on a project or experiment?)

I'm a layman with an interest in the kind of equipment that is used, the manufacture process of the equipment, The process of engineering or selecting the design of the equipment, the motivations for wanting the data that the instrument was designed to acquire, curriculum vitae on the project's designer staff, the colleges of affiliation and/or angencies involved, the sources of funding for the project, priorities in allocating funding stated by the funding agency, ie. potentially relevant variables which could introduce bias.

I'd also like to discuss the common evaluative parameters used in coming to conclusions about the data results of a project. How is it generally done- what happens to the data once the project has succeeded; starting with who gets first release of the data (tech staff, admin, project leader, funding sources?), who contributes to the conclusions, who does final edit for publication, what committees might be formed, how much of the data is to be published, are these results to be PR'd to the public, etc.?

I'm trying to get a feel for the way science is done and what biases might be overlooked due to cultural programming, potential for public consumption, organizational schematics, funding priorities, reputations, traditions, psychological expectations of project participants, project design, equipment design, and so on. These represent variables that need to be engineered out of an experiment and I'd like to know how this is done and get some idea of the theory of attaining objectivity, how it is applied and how the degree of that application is certified. For example, tobacco industry studies of smoking and cancer rarely found a link between the two, so the objectivity of industry funded science should be suspected, as should a socialist country's science of anthropology and psychology; there potentially being a built in bias against individualism in favor of collectivism, etc.

I also have questions about computer modeling. I want to apply all the above relevant questions to the process of creation and utilization of a computer simulation. I'd really like to know if the design of a computer simulation is considered to be anything metaphysical beyond the design of of a piece of equipment? I assume that Dr. Lens, black hole expert, works closely with Mr. Digit, expert simulation programmer, in some manner and I'd like to know more about that process.

As far as peer review journals go, I'd like to know if foreign peer review journals are considered equally good or if there is a pecking order. I'd also like to know why there is a bias against scientists who popularize their work in books meant for mass distribution, who picks the peers, has the process ever led to embarassment, are there cases in the history of peer review that demonstrate unfairness, why do journals go out of publication, do journals survive on their subscription fees alone, what criteria decide what gets published, are there enough journals to publish all current approved papers or is the number of approvals tailored to journal capacity, does review have to be unanimous, can a submitee request a re-evaluation of a rejected paper after further work, etc.?

I'm something of a McLuhanite/gestaltist in that I've seen it demonstrated that background factors often go unrecognized because, as background, they are fixed, and fixed phenomena tend to not register on the human sensoria with the intensity of figures playing upon said background, if at all. That this is a problem which begins even at the physiological level, is evident in the evolution of visual uptake, in that our eyes are programmed to move in a micro-nystigmatic manner (the eye and retina oscilating minutely under the visual pattern) to keep the optic receptors from experiencing stimulus exhaustion and not firing after the initial stimulus and thus going blind.

Xipe Totec

The Internet presents a tsunami of info and weeding out the junk is a relevant concern. But the case of a peer review journal (or any journal) rejecting or delaying publication of relevant science because there are only so many pages available in the journal, is itself a form of editing; or as the non-mainstreamers could legitimately conclude, a form of censorship.

Xipe Totec

Suppose it became a necessity to read more journals, that there was an intrinsic pressure due to the sheer volume of good science done by more scientists from a growing number of industrialized nations? Right now this pressure results in various filtration schematics, the assumption being that greater mental uptake is either undesireable or impossible. Do we not have a contemporary case for including some sort of speed reading training in modern pedagogy, starting in grammar school, but certainly offered in college?

Xipe Totec

Thanks.
But I'm a bloke (hence papageno and not papagena), so being referred to with "she" feels a bit weird.


Actually it is not so.
Scientists try to interpret all the observations available into an internally consistent theory, and try to provide predictions that can be tested experimentally.
Pseudo-scientists prefer cherry-picking the evidence to fit a pre-concieved conclusion.

__________________
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)

Science have become more complex then from past. Result is more specialization. Keep up to date in field always issue, however specialization help to manage. I believe more important issue is many worthless papers to wade through. Is already problem for journals. Many papers I read from author want to add paper to list for publication. Author spread single idea over too many papers. Now internet allow many to publish, but not increase amount of good science, mathematics.

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

You look like bloke

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

Jeez, what I know about Mozart you can put on the head of a pin. I plead a cultural background of contemporary gender fluidity. So sorry, old chap, the next round is on me.

But I'm wanting to say that in the case of _all_ the observations, if one is a joker card, what happens then? Ted Holden, author of an interesting non-published paper on sauropod scaling as a function of muscle mass delta strength vs. gravity, also did a layman's analysis of one of the Venus probes and discovered in the published paper on the experiment that some measurements which went counter to expectations were simply tossed out of the evaluation, something to do with temperature readings increasing as the probe neared the planet, when the expectation was that Venus is hot due to a greenhouse phenomenon in which the temperatures were expected to be higher in the gas layer doing all the reflecting of solar radiation, rather than the planet's surface. I've probably got it all bolloxed, but the author of the paper was quoted as determining that the temperature gauges must have been faulty. Tim Thompson recalls the case, I'm sure and can probably recall the title of the published results and provide some clarification on what was quoted.

I suppose that in the attempt to separate observation from interpretation, some interpretation is applied to the question of what constitutes an observation.

Xipe Totec

I would like to point out that there is a constant stream of ATM-papers published in "mainstream" journals. For example, during last five years The Astrophysical Journal has published seven ATM-papers by Halton Arp.

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

I can't believe that academia is composed of a number of professors, researchers and staff in the same proportion as there are worthless papers.

If say 10% of submitted papers are published, does that imply that 90% of the submittees are engaged in worthless investigation? Probably not, but I find it disquieting that the defense of few papers being published implying that a large percentage of the submitted work as worthless, makes it seem that academia might be largely composed of egocentrics, grand standers, pathological subjectivists, careless researchers, pressured researchers, researchers leaving most of the work to their assistants, etc. If there are so many bad papers out there, how should that weight our overall impression of the integrity and purposefulness of academic research in general!?

Xipe Totec

Instead of a new reply being posted (to follow this explanatory message) my previous post was duplicated somehow. Here is the intended reply to Ari:

Can we conclude that there is a built in semiotic bias in selecting the term "Against the Mainstream"; "against" implying conflict, opposition, countrariness in relation to consensus reality? I mean the entire progressive semiotic agenda is based on the premise that commonly used descriptions contain enough bias to motivate a huge movement, typified by the feminist position in eliminating gender bias in such culturally defining terminology as "mankind", "chairman", "manpower", etc. We see this semiotic biasing in the 6 o'clock news massively. Ojectivity is the aim, no?

My instinct wants to name the thread "Parallel Tendencies to Contemporary Mainstream Science" or something less magnetically orienting.

Of course, the point can be taken to ridiculous extremes thus: Is there a bias introduced in the attempt to reduce bias towards reducing bias? Not such a bad bias in this case. One day we'll have to invent a field free language based upon the bell shaped curve rather than the on/off, all or nothing switching typified by noun dominated discourse. Perhaps

Xipe Totec.