Well, I think it's high time we discussed this.

Obviously this board (if you read the FAQ) has a basic code-of-conduct cheerfully given to us by our fearless leader, the Bad Astronomer.

But it's also, at least in part, dedicated to really trying to eliminate "bad astronomy", that is, astronomy that isn't based on the evidence.

That means that there is something of a balance that needs to be struck.

The question is, how should we handle the truly bad astronomers? Or more particularly, how should one approach civility in discussions about the "way the universe is " or some threshhold of truth for understanding evidence when there are going to be people who just won't listen to reason? Ignoring them has been presented to me as an option, but I think that only lends itself to a climate of passive resignation and almost recognition that some of these people actually have legitimacy. When I post back retorts it's just as much for the readers of the thread as it is for the person I'm retorting. I think people who read this message board either as lurkers or as members deserve to be given the story of what is known to us through science.

I have gotten into "disagreements" on this board with Big Bang Deniers, Creationists, Anti-Relativists, Planet-Xers, and Geocentricists for better or worse. My fuse is probably not as long as it should be, and I realize I think I may offend some of those who post here. My question is: what are practical "rules of conduct" for trying to answer criticism?

For example, in a recently locked thread, I couldn't help but feel that unwarranted conclusions were being drawn left-and-right by those who had a different opinion from my own, and every time I tried to present my argument I was met with yet another erroneous argument. Now other people who had a less belligerent head on their shoulders might have walked away or basically declared the conversation over. Oh no, not me! It got to the point where I probably got a bit too snide and snippy with my remarks and, well, we are only human right?

So, here it goes... please people do NOT get into an actual debate over topics in this thread, it is for discussing ABOUT discussions only (think of it as a metadiscussion).

"Not exactly a soup question?" Finding Forester

I think that many people that enter into debates do not come from a scientific background and rely on experience as a guideline. The problem arises from a critically thinking scientist. If we are to convince anyone that our position is correct we have to present facts. The problem with facts is that no single person believes all of what has been proven. Why? I think that it is because what is proven and is yet to be proven do not always agree. This is the erroneous mistake I made in my previous posting of "the dangerous idea."
Related to that thread:
I do apologize to all in this forum for deliberately lying about my position. I am the person DaveOlden referred to as a friend.

With that said I would like to point out that another part of the problem is defined in science. If we, as scientists, are to carry out our experiments we must assume we are capable of recognizing objective truth. This is what generates debate amongst scientists.

I can't think of any better debater than our own JayUtah on the Lunar Conspiracies section. He keeps a cool head, generally ignores childish remarks, and politely debates the issue without stooping to personal attacks. Unlike most of us who have more ego than brains, Jay seems to have more brains than ego!

I'm one of those who really enjoys a good debate on any of the many subjects that interest me, but I can't stand the childish name-calling that we so often hear and see, particularly in other forums.

For some months before registering I lurked here on the BABB, read many of the old threads, and became very impressed by the way Jay not only debated, but informed all of us who read his posts. As a small thankyou I contacted him personally and pointed him in the right direction to solve the mystery of the Apollo 11 "Coke-bottle" incident.

Granted, debating philosophical or religious issues is more difficult than debating matters of fact, but we can still learn from people like Jay. If anyone can tell me of any bulletin boards where such subjects are debated politely, I would be very grateful.

The beauty of bulletin boards is that we can take our time over posting -- calm down, count to ten, take a deep breath, sleep on it, do some research etc. -- and so in some respects they are vastly superior to live debate. I often wish that many others could appreciate this.

In the good old days of amateur rugby there used to be a saying: "Play the ball, not the man." That's what JayUtah does.

Added: I sometimes wonder whether those who have out-of-control egos can say the same thing I can regarding the sort of live debates one can get into over a beer: "The best debates are those I lose." Why? Because if I lose, I can't help learning something.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2003-02-26 06:13 ]</font>

And at least one geophysicist. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
The BA has posted his standards, and he reiterated them early this morning, in a post to About the BABB. He's says he's tired of impoliteness, and he's "tempted to ban several people right now, including some regulars at the BABB."

That is exactly what I was going to say. In person I can get quite animated in debates and it's difficult to just attack the idea and not the person. On a BB time is on your side.

If I post on a thread that is starting to get heated, I write my post in Word, leave for 20-30 minutes, then re-read it when I've relaxed a bit. The re-read usually spots any uncivil statements and I correct them, then post it to the Board. As I've been involved in most of the recently locked threads I think this technique has likely saved me from being banned.

While I agree completely that one should avoid flagrantly personal attacks, I have often thought that some people don't recognize that occasionally a bit of a personal attack is unavoidable. In fact, every impersonal attack has a bit of the personal within it. If Person X is getting everything terribly wrong, and when given corrected data he/she still comes to wacky conclusions, it is reasonable to explore the possibility that Person X is one or more of the following: unintelligent, intentionally lying, nuts. There are some people on this board who, after several discussions, definitely seem to fall into one of the above categories, so it seems to me that the best way to deal with them is to, as they say, call a spade a spade. Of course, that can be done in a more or less academic tone, but it amounts to the same thing. Furthermore, it would appear to be a question of fact, a perfectly legitimate research question. If Person X keeps saying that the Van Allen belts make space travel impossible, and when presented with all the evidence he/she maintains that position, I suggest that that person is not smart. And of course, there is a tiny bit of that assertion in every disagreement. It lurks under the surface, but it is there - "Q is the proper conclusion, not Y, as you say it is." In every statement about a conclusion, there is a veiled attack against the person asserting the opposite. That is neither bad nor good. it is merely the structure of discourse.

Aporetic

Think it no longer, you can know it. Personal attacks are avoidable--it's not like we can't preview or edit our words here. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

My point is that personal attack is unavoidable due to the structure of discourse itself. For example, contained within your counter-claim, above, is the implicit claim that I have gotten it wrong. Why might I get it wrong? Well, due to something inadequate or otherwise negative about myself. Of course, I think I'm right. Therefore, I think there is something inadequate or otherwise negative about you that makes you too dense to agree with me. This is unavoidable. So if I keep getting things wrong, eventually you should really start to ask yourself if I am maybe just not that bright.

Aporetic

One of the things I most enjoy about this board is the style and quality of many of the discussions. I appreciate the ability of Jay Utah and others to maintain their composure when dealing with what I consider wackos, and, because I know that my own temper is not so calm, I avoid entering discussions with those wackos. I think there is little point in allowing yourself to slip into attack mode, no matter how looney or nasty the troll, because you are not going to change their minds. Better, I think, to "hijack" the thread into a legitimate discussion of the topic at hand and ignore nasty troll responses. Most of the folks on this board are polite to a fault, apologize immediately when offense is unintentionally given, and genuinely seem to want to "help" the misguided. Again, that's one big reason I like this board so much.

cyreks reply:
First of all, I would like to thank the BAD Astronomer for having this site. This gives the amateurs a voice on science.
The PhD's have their professional journals and other media to reach the public.
On this site, the amateurs have their work reviewed and we all learn.
But, there are certain established views that I cannot accept. They are:

Creation out of NOTHING. Do not explode JS
but this constitutes a free lunch.

Disembodied force fields where no matter exists. Force fields surround matter but not without any matter present.

A centerless 3 dimentional space.

An expansion of space which to me would be an expansion of linear dimensions because to me, space constitutes 'a dimension between objects' which is the customary way to describe it.

To all above, this is supposed to be an educational forum outside the classroom.
Therefore, we do not have to accept what we hear, read or whatever to get a diploma for recognition.

Anyway, thank you all for your comments on all my other posts.

Note, "implicit" means "unspoken"
Of course, that's the nature of disagreement. It's healthy.
That is an explicit personal attack. Unhealthy.
You could have erased it before you posted it, so I doubt that it was unavoidable.
Not only should I ask it, I should keep it to myself.

I think there's a sense of familiarity that develops among the participants that may make many of us a bit less careful in how we phrase a good-natured ribbing such that it can be read as a mean-spirited attack. I know I've had a few occasions where what I meant wasn't the way my post was read.

Sometimes what is intended as a humorous jab doesn't come across as humorous at all to the "jabbee". It speaks to the need to be careful in choosing how you trash someone's "stupid" argument. I'm going to be more careful in future - I'd hate to be banned.

Phil has taken that into account in the past. A little inspection is all it takes to see what the real intent was. Still, passive-aggression can be frustrating.

Isn't it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I defy JS to show why both geocentricity and Geocentricity are "bad astronomy" and "aren't based on the evidence"?!

Please read what JS wrote at the top of the thread.

If you want to talk about this topic, start another thread and go for it.

__________________
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

I agree that a counter-claim does have an implicit "you are wrong" message, but you can still word the post in a respectful tone.
compare:
"I continue to disagree with you. . ."

"I'm sick and tired of your nonsense . . ."

Both have the same implicit message, one is just more subtle than the other. It is that line between respectful disagreement and insulting attack which determines what makes a post 'civil'.

I hope BA has some comments on this thread. After all he is the ultimate authority on what constitutes 'polite disagreement' in a debate on the BABB.

I'm going to disagree. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

They don't have the same message at all--although both certainly indicate the basic disagreement. The second has an additional implicit message not so buried within it.

In fact, the first should be worded "I disagree with that," or "I disagree with your interpretation," rather than "I disagree with you." Avoids the personal attack completely.
He did post this.

Thanks everyone for responding...

Indeed, Jay Utah is a sight for sore eyes. It seems to me, though, that there is simply a difference of style and not necessarily of intent between his and my posts.

To wit, I tend to respond to a person in-kind, that is, I tend to respond the way they present their argument. Some people just don't want to see technical issues and what to see argumentation, others enjoy delving into technicalities. Still others get overly-excited about pet-ideas that they have. Others can't seem to follow directions. There's just a whole slew of different kinds of people out there, and they each require different ways of response.

I think if you look historically at my responses you'll find that they are scaled in kind. The problem becomes as discussions wear on and I think I have a rapport with the person on the other side of the fence from me when I don't. Suddenly the other person takes my presentation to be hostile and I thought we were on the same page.

I will say this, kilopi, some of your posts even in this thread seem to have an air of "I'm right and so that's the end of it." I think this is part of the reason we ended up getting into a grudge match back in your previous incarnation on this board. In some ways, though, I think our presentation styles are similar, but they run us both the risk of getting ourselves into battles rather than Jay Utah-type discussions.

But, to me, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Sometimes we need a little bit of argumentation to jumpstart a conversation. When witnessing generals, the best examiner I have seen basically did just that, FORCED the person being examined to take their position and defend it. It may have seemed rude, but it got right to the meat of the issue without treating it with kid gloves. I think when I see alternative theories I don't agree with I take the same attitude.

But perhaps this is the wrong venue for such an attitude. Should I change my tune? Should kilopi change his?

When I first signed onto the board there was an ongoing debate between two regular posters that had degenerated to a somewhat immature and unproductive state. It took me a few weeks of watching the board before I decided to post any comments. The difficulty is that you have a wide range of knowledge levels and views. But this is an "Against the Mainstream" forum. Those that hold discrepant views should feel comfortable posting here. I personally don't like seeing people labeled as this or that. Some people may be totally mainstream in their views on one theory and totally anti-mainstream on a different theory. Some people have considerable knowledge in one branch of astronomy and limited knowledge in other branches. To lump all people that doubt a particular theory into one group such as "Big Bang Deniers" misses the point that there is room for a variety of thought and interpretations. Even within doubters there are many nuances both in knowledge level and views. Ultimately, every post should be evaluated based upon the quality and content of what is said. Most people have genuine reasons for their different points of view - sometimes based in good science and sometimes not. But if the goal of this community of people with a love for astronomy is to learn from each other, then I think there has to be a certain level of tolerance for different views, different knowledge levels, and different rates of opinion change.

Because of their crystal clarity and difficult-to-rebut argument? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Grudge match? What is your definition of grudge match?
You mean I should include more personal attacks?

But see, dgruss, that's just it. I don't think you and I have ever gotten into an argument over your position even though we may not agree on particulars, we can still discuss the science involved. How does one address somebody who has their own personal opinions on a subject and just stubbornly sits by while the real science is discussed? I think such people need to be addressed and not ignored for the sake of those who do not know as much about the subject material at hand. Unfortunately, it can just come across as petty even when others find it somewhat informative. It's all sort of subjective, isn't it?

I think people behave well enough. There are exceptions, but the good thing is that they are exceptions and not the majority.

Some things I try to avoid:
1) Judging someone's point based on other points they have made in the past. If I do that, then I am assuming that people don't grow change or have an occasional off-day. Maybe they are leading to the same old thing but you can't be sure till that happens.

2) Judging someone's point based on their "papers". I can't assume that classrooms are the only places we gain knowledge. I can't assume that someone who doesn't work in an industry also doesn't know about the field. I also can't assume that someone well-degreed has retained all that knowledge. You know what they call the last student from grad school? "Doctor" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

3) Judging someone's intelligence based on their knowledge of astronomy. I can't assume that someone who says incorrect things about this subject knows little about all subjects. Nor can I assume that someone who is an astronomical geeeenius knows everything about all subjects.

4) Judging someone's point based on their grammar and spelling. Sometimes people have very good points but have trouble communicating them. Maybe English isn't their native language. Or maybe they are brilliant in visual thought but challenged in verbal. Or maybe their name is HUb'. Sometimes it is better to ask a question to get clarity before arguing.

5) I am always right. To think this is to assume that I can't grow or change!

6) Excessive force. If I don't agree with a point and others have already refuted it, then maybe I should just leave it to them. The person making the point can only debate so many opponents at a time. Also, writing "yeah, what he said!" doesn't add anything except bandwagon.

7) Guessing with authority. I think it is best to indicate that you are making a guess or speculating or stating an opinion unless you are regurgitating observations or experiences.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] Too many items. So I'll stop at 8 even though I can probably think of 100 more points. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Hehe... I tried to write the number 8 followed by a parenthesis and it made a [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]. Oh well...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: traztx on 2003-02-26 13:11 ]</font>

I always thought it was "grad school dropout."

But your point seems to be that everyone is fallible--I certainly can attest to holding up my end of those expectations.

Well, I can only thank you, kilopi, for illustrating what I'm talking about...

Now, normally I don't find this too hard to deal with, but I am beginning to see how someone might take this style of "back and forth" to be impolite and maybe even off-putting.

If I put too much thought into that post I'm not sure whether or not you're being tongue-and-cheek with all of your responses or whether you seriously want an answer to the questions you post. Saying something like, "You mean I should include more personal attacks?" to me indicates a statement dripping with sarcasm. Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but it makes me feel when someone uses turns-of-phrase like that that that's the way they like to discuss things.

Now to me, such a response is totally appropriate and fine, but does it perhaps stretch the bounds of civility? Personally, I can't decide, and so then I feel like, "when in Rome..."

However, I'm NOT in Rome, I'm on Phil's Message Board and should respect that. Right?

Excellent points.
I know I'm guilty of a few at one time or another. Aren't we all?

JS - You raise a tough one in your last post to me. I guess it depends on your objective. If you're objective is to change the mind of those who won't talk about the science, then you'll definitely get frustrated. If your goal is to make sure that incorrect statements are not left unanswered, then I think make the corrections. But remember - for some people, every time you respond, they'll shoot back. There have been some threads I've watched where it seems as if the same positions are being restated repeatedly in every increasing emotional tones and yet with little actual progress in thought. My advice to you would be when you feel the conversation turning that way simply cut it off on your end. If you don't say any more, it doesn't mean you've conceded to their points. It simply means that you've stated your point and there would be little value in restating it 10 more times.

Of course the issue of responsibility may also be what you're getting at. In some threads comments are bouncing back and forth so fast that there appears to have been little time for people to think about what the other person said and absolutely no time to have read references that have been suggested. If these threads are going to be actual "discussions" then participants might need to take a few days off from a thread now and then to think about what has already been discussed and read any references cited. I don't know if BA addressed that in his rules, but certainly we might all try to take that approach to keep the threads productive.

I seriously want an answer to the question.
It was in response to your suggestion that I should change. I'd like to know why.

I think that's an excellent point, dgruss.

I try to read every little thing that is posted as reference by those in the thread. Sometimes I don't know what to do with it and I'll mull it over or even ignore it. Sometimes it provides impetus for my own research.

Of course, it takes a while to go through all the webpages that are devoted to various (IMHO wrongheaded) ideas out there about life, the universe, and everything. There are posters in here that simply post references to webpages and upon my rebuttal post yet another. It does take a long time to go through them all, but I think it's the least rest of these folks deserve if I'm going to be in a discussion with them.

Thanks. Yes, mea culpa too!