Rules discussion

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

There's no such rule, it's every pertinent question.

As has been stated repeatedly and will be stated every time this claim is made:
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
"I can't answer that yet" is an acceptable answer.
"Please tell me why that question is pertinent" is an acceptable answer.

"I won't answer that" isn't, and never will be.

The word pertinent could put a whole new perspective on things. Could we have a definition of pertinent and could there be a limit to how many pertinent questions one can reasonably be expected to answer. It only takes one question or one answer to decide the correctness of an issue but it usually takes several questions and answers to discover that point. No one is disputing that many questions may be necessary but there has to be a sensible limit.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Jot down your questions to keep your thoughts organized, however, focused on One Question at a time in a thread?
Keep the ATM'er on track and stick to that one question until that issue is resolved, then move to the next?

If only everyone could do that the problem would be solved.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

(bold added)

It seems I was insufficiently clear; let me try again.

To be biased against non-science means to come down, hard, on ATM claims which are defended in ways that are non-science.

For example, suppose a simple yes/no question like this:

"In [theory X], is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?"

is answered like this:

"Since I do not adhere to this formulation I do not adhere to this solution."

Clearly*, the exchange no longer has science as a common denominator!

You see, you - or any mod - may know nothing of theory X, or apparent speed, apparent distance.

Note, too, that there's nothing which concerns "Mainstream" or "ATM" here.

Now I grant you that there may be some dissonance wrt the nature of science, but AFAIK everyone would agree that it includes things like this^:
-> reliance on objective, independently verifiable evidence
-> internal consistency.

So, with this clarification in hand, do you still think mods should not be biased in favour of science?

* In addition to yes or no (with or without caveats, amplification etc), answers within the bounds of a science-based discussion might be "I don't know", or "I don't understand the question". The answer above might be appropriate in a discussion of religion, perhaps.
^ of course, there may be some differences of opinion over exactly what these mean!

I totally agree. Mods should be strongly biased in favor of science.

As for your example of a reply devoid of science,"Since I do not adhere to this formulation I do not adhere to this solution." I agree the statement has no science and the answer is evasive. Apparently the person either has another interpretation or they are just running off at the mouth. What they are saying is simply that they do not support your formulation [theory X] as valid. They don't like your theory- you don't like theirs. But no matter how you may appeal to authority, your explanation will not fly with them and to push your view is throwing eggs at a stone. If the person has previously expressed an alternative point of view, you can look at the problem from that point of view and point out where they are wrong or you could ask how they would interpret the problem and point out their error. I admit this is not easy but if you want to correct their science I don' know of a better way.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

If only everyone could do that the problem would be solved.

It strikes me that, in my experience, the ATM proponent seldom takes the simplest, most obvious questions into consideration before presenting their ideas, and it further seems that many of them think changing the subject will help, not hurt, their cause. After all, if you stick to one subject, there are fewer subjects to be discussed!

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

Do you think if FN wanted to start an ATM thread he would have picked a topic far, far better than the one you stuck him with and asked him to defend? Or, considering its origin, it should be held to the same standards. Or that badgering people with endless questions is not your way of getting rid of those who may not adhere to the mainstream point of view? This a group for skeptics or have you forgotten?

Thanks for your vote of support wrt the alternative view (that fn was unprepared).

What I think about the extent to which fn would have chosen topic X or Y is irrelevant; he chose to attempt to hijack a thread by posting an ATM idea*, and chose to respond to a direct question as to whether he was prepared to answer questions on it with a non-answer.

Clearly, you do not like BAUT's ATM rule.

What continues to puzzle me is why you think asking direct, pertinent questions about the ATM idea presented (as presented) is "badgering".

(to be continued)

* an anti-science one IMHO, as I think is already clear

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

Can you demonstrate that FN's terms were not sufficiently clear in the first place.

Yes.

Start with the two which are perhaps the most central to the ATM claim (as presented); namely, "on par with" and "wrong".

I thought your request for clarification was a pointless obfuscation and a waste of his time to respond.

[...]

You are, of course, free to think anything you wish.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

I said bad science is better countered with a single good argument than shutting the presenter down with more questions than he can answer.
[...]

Actually, this is what you said: "bad science is better countered with a single good argument than with a hundred questions that never give the presenter a chance to present his case."

As has been pointed out, many times in this thread alone, there are simple, straight-forward ways of handling "a hundred questions".

It has also been pointed out, many times in this thread alone, that the express purpose of the ATM section is different than countering bad science.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

I don't consider someone expressing their subjective opinion as a passing remark in a thread to be “bad science” can you demonstrate that it is.

[...]

It is important to keep the specific context before us here, especially given how easy it is to distort what has actually been written.

Here is what you actually wrote: "There was no bad science in what little I saw".

Now, no one but you can say what you had seen by the time you wrote your post.

However, a great deal more than "someone expressing their subjective opinion as a passing remark in a thread" had been posted before then ... and it is that corpus of dozens of posts I was using as my reference in the part of my post that you are quoting.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

With two exceptions, can you demonstrate that your questions were pertinent to to the ATM claims?

Yes.

And if the mods permit it, I would welcome the opportunity to do so, starting from post #26.

I thought they were superficial and missed the point. They were introductory material and you never let him get to the point.

[...]

You are, of course, free to think whatever you want.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

Are you prepared to support your claim that this has been noted several times in several different threads.

[...]

Yes.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

This is the group.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/C..._Astrophysics/
[...]

Thanks.

I note that this information was not presented earlier.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

I explained in the thread that I had reconsidered my answer and agreed with FN but, even if we did have mutually incompatible differences in our opinions about the BB theory, it made no difference because the BB had nothing to do with my comments and my “help” was not hijacking. Can you demonstrate by easily convincing, objective, independently verifiable evidence that my “help” could be better characterized as thread-jacking.

[...]

Yes ... simply read post #31 of that thread (and no, I do not wish to discuss the particulars of a mod's actions).

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

You offer a lot of alternative views devoid of support.

[...]

Indeed.

That was deliberate.

However, the phrase "and this alternative view could be easily, and convincingly, demonstrated using objective, independently verifiable, evidence" (or something like it) was used.

Many times.

Post #549 contains a lot of views devoid of support.

However, the phrase "and this view could be easily, and convincingly, demonstrated using objective, independently verifiable, evidence" (or something like it) was not used.

Many times.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued, and very likely concluded)

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

FN made some broad generalizations expressed in inexact language and he may have been going somewhere with his statement or he may have just been expressing an opinion with no interest in elaborating the point. It is my understanding that you called his statement ATM and made it a thread of its own (at his reluctance) with his statement as an OP that he was expected to defend.

(bold added)

If that is your understanding then I invite you re-read at least the pertinent parts of both threads, again ... carefully.

I am not a mod.

I cannot split posts out from one thread and make them a new thread.

I cannot move threads from one section of BAUT to another.

And so on.

But I challenge you to convincingly demonstrate using objective, independently verifiable evidence to show that he was unprepared. Preposterous!

[...]

Sure thing; are you ready?

The objective evidence is the set of posts in the two threads in question, plus the BAUT rules, plus an older ATM thread in which fn presented an ATM idea (some other posts, or threads, may also be needed).

The independently verifiable part is straight-forward: all the objective evidence is open and available to anyone with an internet connection to read.

Consider posts #110 and #116 (in the fn ATM idea thread); clearly the time fn states he has available to answer direct, pertinent questions on the ATM ideas he has presented, as presented, is inadequate. This demonstrates that he was unprepared.

However, perhaps the questions he has been asked are not (mostly) direct, pertinent questions on the ATM ideas he has presented? As almost all questions asked - by Nereid at least - are framed entirely within the bounds of fn's own claims, this clearly is not the case.

Perhaps fn did not appreciate that there might be so many direct, pertinent questions on the ATM ideas he has presented, as presented (and so it could be said that he reasonably underestimated)? fn's reference to "my last thread", clearly shows any such underestimation would have been unreasonable.

Perhaps the BAUT rules permit the BAUT member presenting an ATM idea to demand, and get, a limit on the number and scope of direct (pertinent) questions they must answer? The relevant BAUT rule ('the ATM rule') does not permit such a thing.

This leaves only "convincingly" ...

[captain swoop]

I requested that the thread by FN was not discussed here, This is not the place to talk over the wrongs or rights of indivilual threads it is for the general discussion of the rules of BAUT.
Bob Angstrom please drop the FN thread and stick to rule discussions, the readsons for the creation and closure of that thread have been posted and explained. It is over

[mugaliens]

Why would a discussion on the Rules be moved away from the Rules being discussed?

<shakes head slowly, wondering...>

[captain swoop]

It was moved by ToSeek a while ago, as he posted at the time

Thread moved from "Rules and Information" to "Feedback" since the former is intended for things people should feel obliged to read, while the latter is for discussion about how the board is or should be run. This thread has definitely become more the latter than the former.
__________________

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

It was moved by ToSeek a while ago, as he posted at the time

Now that I see where it was moved, that makes sense, Captain Swoop.

Thanks.

[Swift]

I have split off the latest discussion about ATM rules into this thread

[Neverfly]

Scrolling up after reading Swifts last post- I'm even more confused. So much fissioning off here...

[Kaptain K]

Better to fission off than to fission on.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Nereid

(continued)
Actually, this is what you said: "bad science is better countered with a single good argument than with a hundred questions that never give the presenter a chance to present his case."

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Angstrom's quote, and note that those "single good arguments" are rare on this board; rarer still in the ATM section.

As has been pointed out, many times in this thread alone, there are simple, straight-forward ways of handling "a hundred questions".

Except the simplest way, ignoring them, which is particularly effective when the questions do nothing to clarify the situation, derail the thread, or obfuscate the issue, is not allowed. All questions are wrongly treated as valid.

That's not real-world at all. It's a BAUTism, a fallacy, and one of the principal causes of the long-erupting contention on these issues here at BAUT.

[SolusLupus]

Responding with "You're obfuscating the issue" and then explaining why is not against the rules, as far as I know.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

Responding with "You're obfuscating the issue" and then explaining why is not against the rules, as far as I know.

Time for another split to that ATM-rule discussion?

Just a thought.

[HenrikOlsen]

We currently have five active whining threads, I don't think we need another.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

Responding with "You're obfuscating the issue" and then explaining why is not against the rules, as far as I know.

Responding to logical discourse with comments such as "trains leaving the station," a euphamism for stupidity, a personal attack at best, and an ad hom in this context, is a clear violation of Rule #2.

Why resort to such a base course of action, SolusLupus? Why not instead simply discuss the issue in the spirit of Civility and Decorum which has long been a hallmark of BAUT?

[captain swoop]

Why not report posts you think violate the rules or are rude rather than arguing with each other in the thread?

[SolusLupus]

I didn't realize I was arguing with anyone. I brought up a point, and was not attempting to be rude at all.

If I think that someone is obfuscating an issue in a debate, I should be able to point that it's an obfuscation and not a legitimate point, should I not? That had to do directly with Mugalien's issue with others obfuscating the issue in a debate.