Rules discussion

[iantresman]

edit: moved to this thread from the recent story comments thread about Swift observing a lot of water-xrays from Tempel 1.

Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen

It could be argued that this article is ATM:

I pointed out elsewhere that many new discoveries require new theories, which by definition are Against the Mainstream.

How do we ascertain whether such discussion is acceptable without breaking forum policy?

I've argued that the basic criteria is peer-reviewed verification, which demonstrates that an idea has at least been reviewed by peers, and reached the discussion necessary to be appear in the mainstream literatures.

I'm still waiting for confirmation or claification.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[antoniseb]

Hi Ian,

I'd like to move this post to the rules discussion thread. Let me know by PM when you've read this.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by iantresman

I've argued that the basic criteria is peer-reviewed verification, which demonstrates that an idea has at least been reviewed by peers, and reached the discussion necessary to be appear in the mainstream literatures.

Hi Ian.

It seems to me that for there to be an Against The Mainstream idea, there has to be a mainstream for that idea to be against. Early speculation such as the Swift observation you've mentionned is not by any means the same thing as proposing a theory, or even the raw conjecture that makes up most ATM ideas.

[Kootenaistar]

Simple comment here. When I recently logged in again to check on comments on a recent article, I read the rules and celebrated. When I logged onto forum, it asked why it had been so long since I had been there. Well, two reasons. First, I read slowly these days and don't have a great deal of time to waste online. therefore (secondly), the longterm bickerings and aside discussions not for thought of that thread were a waste of my time and a little too common at times.Now I may be back on forum a bit more again. I say thank you.

[TheBlackCat]

I think it may be a good idea to have a rule regarding the discussion of dangerous and/or illegal behavior.

Sure a hypothetical discussion of, say explosives or flammable materials or something like that might be interesting, but this board is frequented by kids and kids have been known to do stupid things. If some kid gets injured or, heaven forbid, killed doing something they learned on the board even if there was a warning not to try it at home the board and those who own it could be held legally and financially responsible. I think it is important that any discussion on potentially dangerous activities be kept general enough that the behavior could not be reproduced or even attempted with the information available.

Discussion of illegal acts is merely to keep the board from being held as a party to any such acts.

[Kaptain K]

When I was in high school (mid-60s), I had a spiral notebook full of formulas and recipes for making both low (gunpowder, etc) and high (TNT, etc) explosives! If a H.S. student were caught with a similar notebook today, expulsion from school would be the least of his worries!! My, how the world has changed!

[01101001]

Originally Posted by TheBlackCat

I think it may be a good idea to have a rule regarding the discussion of dangerous and/or illegal behavior.

Sure a hypothetical discussion of, say explosives or flammable materials or something like that might be interesting, but this board is frequented by kids and kids have been known to do stupid things.

What dangerous things? Making rockets? Explosive and flammable.

Driving automobiles? Motorcycles? Shooting guns? Shooting fireworks? Eating mushrooms? Using lasers?

Balancing eggs on their end? (They break sometimes, and can cause slips and falls.)

The world is a dangerous place.

[TheBlackCat]

Yes, but someone will have a heard time suing BA if his or her kid breaks an egg and slips on it after hearing about the egg-balancing thing on this board. They will not have a problem suing BA if their kid burns down their house after hearing about various ways to blow up their microwave on this board. The world is a dangerous place, yes, but there is no need to make it any more dangerous by explaining how to do dangerous things that most people wouldn't think of trying on their own. A good rule of thumb is if something is easy to do but will likely or inevitably cause property damage and/or loss of life if actually attempted it is probably not a good idea to be discussing it. There is no point giving inexperienced young people or adult crazies any more ideas than absolutely necessary. I can tell you it wouldn't make my day to discovered that someone got the instructions that earned them a Darwin Award off this board.

It just responsible for a forum that is visited by kids and people with a great deal of technical knowledge that the people with technical knowledge not give the kids information that is very likely going to hurt them or someone else if they use it.

[Gillianren]

My cousins used to jump out a second-story window when they were kids because one of them fell out once and it looked fun to the rest of them. Believe me, if there's something that's a bad idea, some kid somewhere will think of it on their own. What's more, in general, kids who show up here are smart enough to realize that burning their houses down is a bad idea.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by TheBlackCat

I think it may be a good idea to have a rule regarding the discussion of dangerous and/or illegal behavior.

The existing rules, and the strong moderation of the board, probably already covers that.

It's hard to imagine how anything like that would be astronomy related .

PS: Ah, you must be talking about this discussion.

[Donnie B.]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone successfully sued an internet bulletin board (either its owner/operators or a contributor) for liability after this sort of incident?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Donnie B.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone successfully sued an internet bulletin board (either its owner/operators or a contributor) for liability after this sort of incident?

Or, even sued, successfully or not? A new revenue source? Probably the only thing holding them back is ... the revenue. Someone could sue my website, but it's gonna cost them!

[VanderL]

Hi all,

I've hesitated a long time to post this, but I think the ATM rules as they are imposed right now, are a sure way to get controversy and banning. The general rule on the forum, the most important one, is to be polite. The rules in the ATM forum invite impoliteness. They make sure that the proponent of an alternative idea/theory has to defend claims personally. While it is obviously necessary that the alternative is questioned and explored fully, the challengers are asked to attack with "glee and fervor" which only adds to the possibility that people will call into question the proponent, and his/her ability to show the necessary evidence, instead of the theory or idea (this has happened on several occasions). I think a more balanced approach is called for where civilised conversation is the rule and not any potentially flaming posts that I've seen in some threads.

There are several threads where recently people commented on the ATM rules, and I think it is time to review these rules and also clarify BAUT's purpose with the ATM section. Moderators suggested to ask questions on ATM papers in the Q&A sections, but usually they are rapidly transferred to the ATM section, where subsequently the question is turned into a claim that needs to be defended with all the problems I mentioned above.

Any comments?


Cheers.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Hi all,

I've hesitated a long time to post this, but I think the ATM rules as they are imposed right now, are a sure way to get controversy and banning. The general rule on the forum, the most important one, is to be polite.

I agree and would add that most of the additional rules boil back down to politeness. It is polite to answer questions asked in a timely fashion. It is impolite to be asked questions and repeatedly not answer them or even acknowledge them. It is impolite to hijack an active discussion for your own purposes.

However, I am unclear as to who these rules actually apply to. It seems that in the course of some discussions it is only the ATM proponents that are expected to answer direct questions. Apparently a mainstream supporter challenging an ATM idea is not obligated to answer direct questions in a timely fashion even if they choose to engage in the debate.

The defense seems to be that the mainstream supporter is not proposing an ATM theory and therefore is not obligated to answer questions. But isn't it impolite if a mainstream supporter that has engaged in an ATM discussion does not answer direct questions? After all this is a discussion board. It is not a discussion if only the mainstream supporter gets to ask questions that must be answered.

If a mainstreamer challenges something an ATMer has argued. The ATMer should - as part of rational dialogue - be able to ask a question of the mainstreamer. And the mainstreamer - having chosen to engage in that discussion, should have the same obligation as an ATMer to answer the question or say "I don't know."

This should be a common sense approach to ATM discussions - but I've lost faith that the expectations go both ways for every BAUT poster.

The rules in the ATM forum invite impoliteness. They make sure that the proponent of an alternative idea/theory has to defend claims personally.

If I follow your point, the problem you see is that someone might want to post a link to an article that discusses an ATM idea - not to advocate it, but to see what people think about it. But then the person linking to that paper is immediately asked if they will defend it. I agree that this invites more heated debate and can stifle exploratory dialogue.

Nor do I think moving those discussions to Q&A is the answer because as soon as someone chooses to defend the paper on the ATM idea, then the discussion must be moved to ATM. A person ought to be able to link to a controversial paper in the ATM section and say: "I saw this and it seems interesting. Does anybody have any thoughts."

But if you do that some people start in with "Are you willing to defend the claims of this paper? And if not then what is there to discuss." IMO that is not a very helpful attitude. It is not a waste of time to look at a paper and say - "I see these flaws in it."

Frankly, I'm a bit discouraged by some of the behavior in ATM. I do not think that mainstream supporters should be given a pass on the rule of answering direct questions in a timely fashion if they've actually chosen to engage in an ATM thread and made statements on that thread.

[Fram]

I'm quite happy with the ATM rules at the moment.
First of all, if they are used as an excuse to be impolite and to "call into question the proponent", just report the posts. But try to make the distinction between observations of the relevant knowledge (or lack thereof) someone has shown in a thread, and true ad hominem remarks. Some ideas are nonsense, and if supported by reasons why something is, then it should be allowed to say so. Continuing to say that the one posting them is an idiot, on the other hand, is not allowed, and should be reported.

Next: you are allowed to say: I don't know. This is mu opinion, but I don't have the time, the expertise, ... to back it up. That is fine. What is not allowed or allowable is then acting as if the objection (the question you weren't able to answer) is dismissed and the theory unshaken (I have seen some people do this).

Further: when you are attacking a theory, it is best if you know what you are attacking. Many ATM'ers come in with "this is not explained by mainstream", when they actually have no idea what the mainstream theory says, or for how long something is now (see e.g. the Electric Comets thread for a recent example, or the discussion on aurora's on other planets).

A few things can be helped by some change though (either by the rules, or just a change in behaviour): I don't think it is necessary that mainstream defenders have to do the work all over again (i.e., show why mainstream says this or that, with all evidence, ...): but when someone claims that mainstream says X, then he has to be able to show that that is indeed said (linking to a source, a paper, ...). Just saying that something an ATM'er says is against the mainstream, without backing it up (even after being asked to do so), is weak.

Finally: I understand an agree that many Q&A threads or particular posts get moved to the ATM section. When someone asks about Black Holes and someone else starts by saying that Black Holes don't exist and that it are all Black stars, gravitars, plasma pits, or whatever, then that should be moved to ATM, as those are largely unsupported ideas which may be worth discussing but which are, for the moment, not the standard astronomy answers to such questions. The Q&A is intended to give the standard astronomy reply (including the uncertainty there often is about an answer), not to have fundamental discussions.
On the other hand, some ATM discussions are not based on some intuition, wild idea, unevidenced hypothesis, or misunderstanding of physics, but focus around possible, more or less realistic explanations of serious observations (the bridges discussion in the Arp thread is as far as I know the best example). These discussions should be allowed in a general astronomy forum, where all sides have to present and discuss the evidence at hand, give their hypothetical explanation, and stay away from further, more ATM or unrelated ideas (i.e. in the bridges discussion: discuss the different kinds of redshift, but don't start on the creation of matter out of nothing or other more farfetched ideasn or don't start on unrelated ideas like tired light).

What I mean is: most ATM threads are perfectly at place in the ATM forum and under the ATM rules, but some of them are, well, based on reality , and discuss objective (though perhaps biased in the selection) evidence and possible scientific (but perhaps non mainstream) explanations of it. These discussions should be either held elsewhere (where they can have more participants and a more open atmosphere), or otherwise exempt from the ATM rules.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Fram

I'm quite happy with the ATM rules at the moment.

Great post Fram. I'm not unhappy with the rules. I'm just not clear whether or not - in the course of debate - the rule about answering questions in a timely fashion also applies to mainstream supporters. IMO it should apply.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Great post Fram. I'm not unhappy with the rules. I'm just not clear whether or not - in the course of debate - the rule about answering questions in a timely fashion also applies to mainstream supporters. IMO it should apply.

Of course. This always presumes the questions being posed are reasonable and not intended solely to bludgeon either the ATM proponent or the "mainstreamers" with the "timely" answer rule.

But at the same time, and as you pointed out, the obvious defense is that the ATM proponent has the burden of proof simply by virtue of the fact that the ATM proponent is proposing an ATM theory.

Whatever mainstream viewpoint being disputed has already been stress-tested into wide acceptance through the peer-review process any scientific idea must undergo to achieve acceptance.

If a purely hypothetical ATM proponent were proposing variable G (which, actually, has been proposed here, but no direct link to this poster is expressed or implied by my post), the hypothetical proponent couldn't exploit this rule and demand we all prove gravity has a constant (adj) constant (noun), with no assumptions, or be in violation of this rule.

The fact is there is a wide body of literature and work supporting constant-G at a specific value, along with a tremendous amount of empirical work (artillary and interplanetary rocketry) which thoroughly validates the work.

A request/demand to prove the mainstream all over again just one more time would not have been intended to advance the discussion but instead to derail it.

I guess such an eventuality (sanctionning a "mainstreamer" for dodging reasonable questions) will ultimately come down to the judgement of the moderators/admin, as most things do.

I just don't see a reasonable, deterministic way to make such a judgement.

[Gillianren]

I don't venture into ATM--or, come to that, mainstream science--discussions much, simply because I don't have the requisite grounding in science to even understand most of the debate, much less make an objective decision about who's right. However, even I have been in the position of explaining mainstream science to people. What I believe in mainstreamers providing evidence is simple.

If a high school textbook on the subject, any high school textbook, would provide the answer, saying so is acceptable. You don't need to provide a link to a high school textbook. Likewise college. Such basic information should be understood before a mainstream argument is challenged; if you don't, what business do you have thinking you understand the theory enough to challenge it?

In fact, come to that, I can name several discussions where even a high school-level understanding of the science at hand isn't really necessary, because I learned things in elementary school that certain people don't seem to have. (Note: this is not aimed at anyone in this discussion, and is in fact largely referring to people who aren't here anymore.)

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Moose

Of course. This always presumes the questions being posed are reasonable and not intended solely to bludgeon either the ATM proponent or the "mainstreamers" with the "timely" answer rule.

Yes, that certainly applies by any reasonable standard. Questions must be reasonable - and if they're not, then the person they are asked of can simply explain how those questions are unreasonable.

But at the same time, and as you pointed out, the obvious defense is that the ATM proponent has the burden of proof simply by virtue of the fact that the ATM proponent is proposing an ATM theory.

Whatever mainstream viewpoint being disputed has already been stress-tested into wide acceptance through the peer-review process any scientific idea must undergo to achieve acceptance.

This is a very different type of scenario than what I'm talking about. In fact, I would argue that if an ATMer asked those types of questions - they would not be pertinent questions. Obviously the job of a mainstreamer is not to provide a complete education for the ATMer.

The scenario I'm talking about is one in which there is a debate between ATMer "ATM" and Mainstreamer "MS". If ATM makes a claim and MS chooses to engage in the discussion, we should expect MS to engage in fair rules of dialogue until that time in which MS chooses to disengage from the discussion.

Let me give you a scenario: ATM presents an argument for hypothesis X. MS engages in this discussion and eventually provides links to a series of papers claiming they are of relevance to the discussion. ATM looks at the papers and - having previously reviewed numerous research articles on the subject being discussed - sees immediately that the papers linked to by MS are unrelated to the issues being discussed - not even being on the same topic! At this point ATM asks MS to specify exactly how MS see these papers as relevant to the discussion.

Wouldn't MS be obligated to answer the question and provide even a brief synopsis of why MS thinks the papers MS linked to are relevant to the discussion? How else can the discussion move forward if MS doesn't justify why the papers selected by MS were selected?

Note that in this scenario ATM is not asking MS to defend the whole of mainstream theory. ATM is simply asking MS to clarify reason MS sees relevance in the papers MS linked to. It would be disingenuous for MS to say - "I don't have to answer that because ATM is the one making the ATM claim."

The risk of not holding MS to a standard of responding to questions asked in a debate is that a double standard is set. MS can ask as many questions as MS chooses and demand answers. But when ATM then responds to those questions and provides referenced counterarguments and legitimate questions - MS is not required to respond on the grounds that the whole of mainstream theory is well tested? That is not dialogue.

I'm not saying it happens a lot on BAUT, but when a legitimate ATM discussion results in an solid defense of the plausibility of an ATM hypothesis MS can find him/herself in the position of needing to defend his/her statements and claims too.

I guess it really doesn't matter. If MS runs from a discussion and refuses to answer legitimate questions - then MS is really conceding the points of debate.

[Nereid]

Some quick comments:

-> the ATM section is not intended as a place for one to learn some aspects of modern (mainstream) physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. IMHO, a great many posts (and threads) in the ATM section, containing 'ATM' ideas or views, display misunderstandings, misrepresentations, confusion, etc of (mostly) basic physics, astronomy, or cosmology. If someone suggests that some basic 'coming up to speed' is in order, and that the relevant ATM thread is not a suitable place to do that, then should a BAUT member choose to continue with ATM posts, in that ATM thread, the insistence on answers should become even clearer and more strict.

-> the Q&A and Astronomy (and General Science, and ...) sections are great places to address confusion, misunderstanding, etc. The folk who regularly post answers to questions, and step in to clear up misunderstanding, are, IMHO, pure gold ... knowledgable, articulate, helpful, etc. In fact, I'd guess many of these folk are only too delighted to have the opportunity to clarify and to educate. However, there is a pre-condition: if you come from a strong ATM perspective, and are unwilling or unable to take the time to write your questions is a clear, open-ended way, you will likely find your posts moved to the ATM section very swiftly indeed.

Another thing, be patient. Modern science has been built in centuries of the careful and exacting work of hundreds of thousands of people, some exceedingly brilliant, and most who've spend a whole lifetime on the task. The rigour of the testing of modern theories takes one's breath away - if some find the ATM section a little 'robust' (shall we say), then you may be interested to spend some time learning just how, in terms of 'robustness', much of modern astrophysics came to be mainstream.

Finally (on this topic), be prepared to accept a dense web of tightly interlocking support for mainstream astrophysics - the huge amount of work done on the distance ladder (for example) is rarely even mentioned in popsci and non-technical publications, yet it serves as backdrop for modern cosmology (putting this the other way, if you feel that the data on the CMB is misinterpreted - for example - any ATM claims that you make to that effect may well generate questions to you about the whole distance ladder).

-> reference has been made to the Arp et al. thread. As I think I noted elsewhere, this is quite unique here in BAUT. Not only is it long and (for the most part) quantitative; not only are there several BAUT members keen to present at least one flavour of the Arpian ideas; but it is AFAIK the only ATM idea claimed to be about an empirical relationship.

[Nereid]

That there are several different kinds of ATM threads seems obvious to me.

I'd like to discuss an approach to moderating the discussion on just one type of ATM thread*

There are quite a few ATM threads, some which became quite long and heated, that rest essentially on the ATM idea's proponent's poor understanding of one or more aspects of the basics.

Perhaps the (largely) wasted time and effort on these threads could be avoided, by requiring those who start 'new ATM theory' threads to unambiguously answer, in the OP or post #2, a simple question.

For example:
+> To what extent does {new ATM idea} include 'new physics' {this phrase could be defined}?
(if 'essentially none' is the answer, then at any point later in the thread where a mod feels misunderstanding of the basic science is confusing the discussion, they may call time out and request that the science be covered in a Q&A thread before the ATM thread can be resumed).

The intent is to steer discussions of ATM ideas that seem to be built more on misunderstanding than true ATM ideas towards a non-confrontational setting, where the underlying misunderstandings can be resolved (or at least better identified). A second intent is to reserve the 'attack(s) with glee and fervour' for those ATM ideas which have a firmer scientific basis.

I feel that ATM ideas which do contain 'new physics' can be addressed well, with the current ATM guidelines (no need for tweaking).

Thoughts?

*Examples of types of ATM threads outside the scope of my suggestion here:
-> 'philosophical' (ATM) ideas - non-mainstream theories and ideas which produce no observable differences (with corresponding mainstream theories), even in principle
-> 'mainstream must be wrong!!!' ATM threads - no ATM ideas proposed, just (perceived, proposed) illogical, inconsistent, discomforting, etc aspects of mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, space science, and cosmology
-> 'information about (famous) ATM ideas' threads
-> 'empirical ATM ideas' - no new theories proposed.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

For example:
+> To what extent does {new ATM idea} include 'new physics' {this phrase could be defined}?

Probably should be the first step. Do you have any possibilities now?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Probably should be the first step. Do you have any possibilities now?

I suspect that it won't be easy to come up with a clear and succinct phrase.

Some possible components; 'new physics' goes beyond, or changes one or more of the following:
- four (and only four) fundamental forces (gravity, EM, weak, strong)
- gravity works like GR says it works
- QED describes EM behaviour
- Standard Model (of particle physics) describes the weak and strong forces (plus some EM).

Or, it could be 'defined' by examples; the following include 'new physics' (they all have direct relevance to astronomy and cosmology):
- MOND
- Bekenstein's TeVeS
- Narlikar and Arp's VMH
- SCC

Quite a few examples could be taken from our own ATM section.

But perhaps the key method to distinguish would be operational - for example, if application of GR and/or QM could not, in principle, rule out the ATM idea being proposed, then there must be at least some 'new physics' in that idea.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Nereid

That there are several different kinds of ATM threads seems obvious to me.

I'd like to discuss an approach to moderating the discussion on just one type of ATM thread*

There are quite a few ATM threads, some which became quite long and heated, that rest essentially on the ATM idea's proponent's poor understanding of one or more aspects of the basics.

Perhaps the (largely) wasted time and effort on these threads could be avoided, by requiring those who start 'new ATM theory' threads to unambiguously answer, in the OP or post #2, a simple question.

For example:
+> To what extent does {new ATM idea} include 'new physics' {this phrase could be defined}?
(if 'essentially none' is the answer, then at any point later in the thread where a mod feels misunderstanding of the basic science is confusing the discussion, they may call time out and request that the science be covered in a Q&A thread before the ATM thread can be resumed).

The intent is to steer discussions of ATM ideas that seem to be built more on misunderstanding than true ATM ideas towards a non-confrontational setting, where the underlying misunderstandings can be resolved (or at least better identified). A second intent is to reserve the 'attack(s) with glee and fervour' for those ATM ideas which have a firmer scientific basis.

I feel that ATM ideas which do contain 'new physics' can be addressed well, with the current ATM guidelines (no need for tweaking).

Thoughts?

*Examples of types of ATM threads outside the scope of my suggestion here:
-> 'philosophical' (ATM) ideas - non-mainstream theories and ideas which produce no observable differences (with corresponding mainstream theories), even in principle
-> 'mainstream must be wrong!!!' ATM threads - no ATM ideas proposed, just (perceived, proposed) illogical, inconsistent, discomforting, etc aspects of mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, space science, and cosmology
-> 'information about (famous) ATM ideas' threads
-> 'empirical ATM ideas' - no new theories proposed.

I can see merit in trying to steer any discussion towards non-confrontational settings, not just some discussions. I think the "glee and fervour" should not be part of any discussion as it invites personal attacks; science means trying to find evidence and argue in favour of particular models/theories based on facts/observations (however difficult to interpret) and respect contributors.

The obvious basic premise is to ask for evidence, or clarifications. What you call "misunderstandings" and "wasted efforts" is actually one of the major contributions a site like this has to offer: the opportunity to learn. Asking questions should therefore be part of all threads dedicated to astronomy and science in general. Having a seperate Q&A section is ok, but don't restrict the exchanges in the ATM section to only the ATM idea itself; a great deal can be learned from them exactly in that place. It means letting the participants decide what to discuss unless it has been said before in other threads, where links would help. Why would repetition be a bad thing, the other rules are fine as they are, and cover most every problem already. No need to steer too much.

Cheers.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by VanderL

I think the "glee and fervour" should not be part of any discussion as it invites personal attacks; science means trying to find evidence and argue in favour of particular models/theories based on facts/observations (however difficult to interpret) and respect contributors.

"Glee and fervor" does not have to mean that there will be personal attacks. I think that they are separate issues entirely.

No need to steer too much.

I agree with that.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I suspect that it won't be easy to come up with a clear and succinct phrase.

Some possible components; 'new physics' goes beyond, or changes one or more of the following:
- four (and only four) fundamental forces (gravity, EM, weak, strong)
- gravity works like GR says it works
- QED describes EM behaviour
- Standard Model (of particle physics) describes the weak and strong forces (plus some EM).

Or, it could be 'defined' by examples; the following include 'new physics' (they all have direct relevance to astronomy and cosmology):
- MOND
- Bekenstein's TeVeS
- Narlikar and Arp's VMH
- SCC

Quite a few examples could be taken from our own ATM section.

But perhaps the key method to distinguish would be operational - for example, if application of GR and/or QM could not, in principle, rule out the ATM idea being proposed, then there must be at least some 'new physics' in that idea.

Nereid, forgive me, respect you, are you confusing new ways of thinking
by impying new ideas need new physics to support them?
The current theory of what we perceive as a black hole has had a body
blow, a new and different theory has been proposed, concept and
understanding is growing. The 'physics' doesn't change, our interpretation
of it does. Exploring new ways of thinking about a problem is not in contest
with science, but rather seeking new interpretations leads us to a better
understanding,
Nereid, cooked myself a great meal, have a great bottle of wine, love to
share with you, and explore your thoughts and ideas, mean it.:-)
Nokton.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

"Glee and fervor" does not have to mean that there will be personal attacks. I think that they are separate issues entirely.

I disagree; there are examples where "personalizations" led to disruptions and bannings/suspensions.

Cheers.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by VanderL

I disagree; there are examples where "personalizations" led to disruptions and bannings/suspensions.

Cheers.

I'm having trouble understanding your argument.

The particular rule for posting, really a prediction with advice, is:

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

What would you have the BA change about the "glee and fervor" sentence?

People will attack your ideas with sadness and apathy? People will not attack your ideas? What?

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by 01101001

What would you have the BA change about the "glee and fervor" sentence?

People will attack your ideas with sadness and apathy? People will not attack your ideas? What?

Just "critically" and without getting personal will do. "Glee" is just the wrong term, no one likes to be laughed at, even if they are warned this could happen. Furthermore all the other rules are adequate to prevent things getting out of hand (the "be nice" rule is the most important, also in the ATM section), the addition of a "gleeful" attack is quite unneccesary.

Cheers.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Just "critically" and without getting personal will do.

Where does it suggest getting personal? It's about attacking ideas.

Originally Posted by VanderL

"Glee" is just the wrong term, no one likes to be laughed at, even if they are warned this could happen.

Of course. When I present an idea and people laugh, I don't presume they are laughing at me, but with me. If they are laughing while attacking my idea, I certainly hope they are enjoying their attack. I don't want them to be sad about doing so.

People here do attack ideas with glee. The BA pointed it out. Should he have not pointed it out? Should they be reprimanded for doing so?

Originally Posted by VanderL

Furthermore all the other rules are adequate to prevent things getting out of hand (the "be nice" rule is the most important, also in the ATM section), the addition of a "gleeful" attack is quite unneccesary.

Yeah. So is your point is people shouldn't have any fun attacking ideas? No glee? No joy? They should do it out of a sense of duty, not because they enjoy it?

No. I wouldn't want that.

Keep having fun, folks!

Originally Posted by VanderL

Cheers.

That is the idea!