How do I approach the board without being labelled a "Woo Woo" ?

[DJ Barney]

woo-woo adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

This is obviously a Scientific board, so I want to
approach the members in the right way.

I think I have some important things to say and don't
want to fall into the trap of AUTOMATICALLY being
discounted as a "Woo Woo" (LOL!).

Now, I DO fall into the above definition, but regard
the term "Woo Woo" as somewhat offensive, as it
sweeps aside a whole, planet wide, pursuit of
humanity! Millions of people, the world
over, would be lost without religion, or the
"mysterious". I regard it as the height of arrogance
that "Science" sweeps that all aside.

But I can live with that.

Now, I start here with a "hopeless task. with an agenda
set by idiots"...ie...NOT this board...but the, what
are generally called, "Anomalists".

They fail, fail and FAIL again to see why a scientist
might sweep aside their "discoveries". Any critical
answer to their posts is often met with an extreme
emotional reaction (huh, no wonder we have the term
woo woo), and cries of "conspiracy" and "government
agent". LOL!

I think this a SERIOUS problem. Young, inventive
mind's who could be contributing new blood to
Mars research, or whatever are often put off, not
by Scientists, but by the "Anomalist" idiots who went
before them. It is THEY who fail to understand
science and why there is a RIGOROUS critique of
"theories" or "discoveries". (Don't these people
know that the Aircraft they fly in had to go through
this process, or they would CRASH!?).

I could make this into a much longer discussion
but maybe I'll see what the answers are first.

Suffice to say I have NEVER blown up JPEG's and
pointed to "cities".

I have always tried to listen to the answers of critics
without shrinking away to the "defence" of "cover up"
and "attack".

What would be accepted as a genuine Scientific
analysis of a Mars image coming from a member of "the
public" ?

DJBarney

[DJ Barney]

Woops...just found the advice about this in the forum rules,
anyway...any other advice is appreciated.

DJBarney

[Swift]

Welcome to BAUT DJ Barney.
I see that you already looked at the forum rules, a very good start. You will note in there that discussions of politics and religion are not allowed, so even if it is the "height of arrogance" to sweep any of that aside, this is not the place to discuss them.

But all other topics, particularly relating to astronomy, physics, and science in general are welcome, even if your take on them is non-main-stream. Just be aware that, like good science everywhere, we will expect evidence for your ideas and they will be attacked with vigor. Some may even go a little overboard in their attacks, attacking the person, not the idea. You would be wise not to do the same, and if they are over the line, report it to a moderator (you can use the little red triangle in the corner of each post).

If you are particularly interested in Against the Mainstream ideas (ATM), you would be wise to post in those threads. There are specific rules there you should look at.

I know this probably all sounds harsh, but this really is a very good board. There are a number of members with alternative ideas, who have been around for years. I hope you will have a lot to contribute.

[Fraser]

Here's the thing. If you have an opinion, or an idea, or a hypothesis, post it to the board. Explain what kinds of evidence could be discovered that would validate your theories. Listen with an open mind when people challenge your ideas. If you think they don't understand them, feel free to sharpen your explanations.

And it's totally fine to say, "I don't know", when someone asks you a question. There isn't a conspiracy, there's only a large crowd of critical minds with plenty of astronomical and cosmological experience. They can spot the potential errors and mathematical mistakes in your theory. We're here to help you fine tune your theories. Most "woo woos" are here to sell their ideas. Your ideas should sell themselves.

And maybe, just maybe, you'll stump people. People will have to agree that your ideas have merit.

[DJ Barney]

Hello Swift! Nice Frog :-)

> You will note in there that discussions of politics and religion
> are not allowed, so even if it is the "height of arrogance" to
> sweep any of that aside, this is not the place to discuss them.

Well...unless it relates to cosmology and astronomy as it says
in the rules...so there are exceptions.

So there are on going threads about each ATM subject ?

It SEEMS harsh, yeah, but I'm educating myself, and it makes
a refreshing change from the "anything goes" forums
that run into their own problems.

Hello Fraser :-)

I'm willing to learn! And hopefully vica versa...as, of course,
I have knowledge of various areas myself.

Anyway....I'll keep on reading the guides...as I'm determined
not to give out all the "signals" that will send rational minded
people running away from my posts!

DJBarney

[djellison]

The only signals you can give out are basically what you think you've seen/identified or whatever, and your basis for that conclusion with evidence.

If your evidence is reliable, your methodology sound, and your results a logical conclusion from that - then you will be fine. The only further thing you should do is be prepared to offer sound defense of your case in response to people picking holes in your methodology and logic, and also offer some form of couter-argument against what might be considered current conventional ideas.

I'm just about the strongest anti-nutcase person I know. My #1 gripe is people who bring something to the table, stating something highly unconventional as fact, based on nothing more than "it looks a bit like...."

In brief....post something woo-woo and you'll get called a woo-woo. Post something that isn't....and you shouldn't.



Doug

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by djellison

...post something woo-woo and you'll get called a woo-woo.

Actually, if you post something "woowoo", we may think that you are a woowoo, but it is against the rules to call people names, or be impolite, so we wouldn't call you a woowoo...

...at least that's the way I understand the rules...

[DaveC426913]

I'm trying to follow your initial post, and frankly I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Some of it is rhetoric, some of it is reference to a thread we're not privy to and some of it is question. Can you boil it down?

[SAMU]

The bad news is that this is not a legitimate peer review forum though it does pretend to be. It has children, ignoramuses and woo woos, some of whom are moderators here, who will respond to your arguments with illegitimate arguments, miss quotes, ignorance of what you write and all manner of fallacy. Many of these are some of the most prolific respondants on this forum.
The best you can hope for here is, maybe, the occasional legitimate response. If you can weed through all the illegitimate noise replies.
The best advise I could give is to suck up to the owner and moderators (not something I do, but that's just me) to avoid having someone else who sucks up whining to them when they are losing an argument and getting them to take action against you. A moderator is not likely to take the time read a thread where an accusation against you is made and they have locked threads when the accusation is demonstrably false. Then they don't discus it except maybe through "private message" where their error or illegitimacy won't be exposed.

Good luck

[Josh]

Hi DJ Barney,

Welcome to the forum. What it all boils down to is being open minded and willing and ready to learn.

SAMU is obviously a bit of a disgruntled member of the forum. He’s still here, however, reading and posting when no one is forcing him to, so I guess that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Firstly, an important point of clarification. We do not pretend to be a peer reviewed site. BAUT forum members are a bunch of people giving our (often very well informed) opinions and passing on our knowledge. If anyone is serious enough about their work and ideas to want it peer reviewed, then they should go to one of the many applicable peer reviewed journal websites, download their style files and set about producing and submitting a paper to them.

Now ... there is – and I think justifiably – a tendency for most members of the forum to fall back on and defend the currently accepted science or more easily explained theory. More often than not, a theory presented here that’s against the currently understood or accepted theory is full of holes. Even more often, the proponents are completely unwilling to accept any criticism of their theory. Scientists of mainstream theories and people who hold against the mainstream ideas or believe in conspiracy theories are both guilty of not being able to accept that their ideas – their babies – could be wrong after having spent so much time on formulating them. Often, the more your ideas are attacked or criticised, the more likely you are to start aggressively defending yourself. What we’ve come to see here is that against the mainstream proponents and conspiracy theorists are simply unwilling to see – let alone admit – that there are problems with what they believe. They can’t see that their theory doesn’t explain some simple part of known science. They won’t rise to the challenge of answering questions about how their theory fits into known science or how they get around sometimes complex but usually simple problems. They don’t accept that there is a much more simple explanation of things. Besides, conspiracy theories are much more sexy even if they don’t hold any water.

Remember: You are not your theories. Our governing rule here is attack the idea, not the person. We (try to) judge each case on its merits and we (admin and moderators) do discuss each case or problem in the admin forum.

Ask yourself:
- Does something already explain my theories?
- Is there a more simple answer for what I’m saying happened?
- Does my theory fit into other widely accepted and well tested science?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by SAMU

The bad news is that this is not a legitimate peer review forum though it does pretend to be. It has children, ignoramuses and woo woos, some of whom are moderators here, who will respond to your arguments with illegitimate arguments, miss quotes, ignorance of what you write and all manner of fallacy. Many of these are some of the most prolific respondants on this forum.

Since I fall into the "prolific respondents" catagorie, I felt that I must respond...

Just a few random thoughts...

I don't know what you could possibly have against "children" posting here. Part of the reason that this board exists is to instruct those who might not know the truth about some astronomical misconception. Having "children" here is a good thing.

If you are really having as much trouble with other board members/mods as you say you are, then why haven't you found some other board to post to? I know that if I felt the same way that you do, I certainly would not be posting here.

But your biggest problem, SAMU, is the "ignoramuses" part of your post. You simply can not call other posters names. If you really think that is appropriate behavour for this board then you really do need to find another board to post to...

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by SAMU

this is not a legitimate peer review forum though it does pretend to be

I don't think we've ever pretended to be a legitimate peer reviewed forum. We are pretty open, and clearly people at all levels of educational background post here.

In the ATM and CT sections of the forum there is some moderation to try and keep discussions on track.

[SAMU]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I don't know what you could possibly have against "children" posting here. Part of the reason that this board exists is to instruct those who might not know the truth about some astronomical misconception. Having "children" here is a good thing.

But your biggest problem, SAMU, is the "ignoramuses" part of your post. You simply can not call other posters names. If you really think that is appropriate behavour for this board then you really do need to find another board to post to...

My biggest problem? I see that you are the one who has the problem with the word. (That is another illegitimate tactic often used here "OOOHHH he called me a name" when there really was no one called "a name", as in this case).
What should you call people who ignore the clear facts of a case as in the case I cited? Or who are ignorant of basic principles of legitimate discourse? What would you call a plurality of them?

I mentioned children to alert the reader to the fact that he should not expect everyone here to examine his posts with anything but what you would expect from children. Even the adults here are as ignorant as children in many basic principles of legitimate discourse. Of course there are many here who are not ignorant of the principles but simply refuse to apply them. They are called "unprincipled" not ignorant.

As to "instructing the children", I weep for the children for all the unprincipled behavior here and everywhere else.

By the way I consider the use of "we must protect the children" a repugnant unpricipled use of them as human shields to cover unpricipled behavior.

Still don't see a principled statement from moderator Antoniseb as to the locking of that levee thread.

A principled statement would be an apology and admission that he was wrong to ".I am closing this thread, and issuing a warning to SAMU....
...you have the burden to press the case, and it is not up to everyone else to find proof that you are wrong."

Which does not cite any specific "press" of the case that I did not address, Gives no warning or opportunity to discuss the issue prior to the locking unless you include the illegitimate warning from moderator wolverine.

I also think an apology from moderator wolverine to me (as the originator of the agrived thread), R.A.F. (as the originator of the question that was erroneously cited by moderator wolverine three times as unanswered even after R.A.F. acknowledged that it was answered.) and Antoniseb (as the hapless, but not entirely guiltless, moderator who took action against the agrieved thread, obviously without reading the merits of moderator wolverines false allegations) would be appropriate.

Obviously there are these who have problems with discussions of principles and legitimacy except in the abstract. Put them on point with specifics and they have dodged this case for months.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by SAMU

My biggest problem? I see[edit]without reading the merits of moderator wolverines false allegations) would be appropriate.

Good to see you have no problems with the BAUT BB.

Were it possible that all posts could be so positive!

So, on this note of support, I trust the BAUT BB will continue to journey forth into its realm of objectivity and egalitarianism.

Ad astra per aspera!

Komm! Hebe dich zu höhern Sphären!
Wenn er dich ahnet, folgt er nach.

Alles Vergängliche
Ist nur ein Gleichnis;
Das Unzulängliche,
Hier wird's Ereignis;
Das Unbeschreibliche,
Hier ist's getan;
Das Ewig-Weibliche
Zieht uns hinan.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by SAMU

That is another illegitimate tactic often used here "OOOHHH he called me a name" when there really was no one called "a name", as in this case

Ad-hom. Look it up and familiarize yourself with it. You claim not to do it, but let's just take a look at the ad-homs you throw out in just you one post there (your comments will be in italics):

"who are ignorant of basic principles of legitimate discourse? What would you call a plurality of them?"

"I mentioned children to alert the reader to the fact that he should not expect everyone here to examine his posts with anything but what you would expect from children."

"Even the adults here are as ignorant as children..."

"They are called "unprincipled" not ignorant."

"I weep for the children for all the unprincipled behavior here"

"Still don't see a principled statement from moderator Antoniseb..."

"and Antoniseb (as the hapless, but not entirely guiltless, moderator..."

Ya see, them there are examples of what we here in these parts call ad-homs. You're attacking, usually the integrity, honesty, and intelligence of fine, upstanding people. Ad-hom. Learn it. Avoid it.

[Nowhere Man]

Specifically, ad hominem, attacking the arguer and not the argument. "What he said is wrong because he's got a unibrow, and you know you can't trust them!"

Fred

[R.A.F.]

Pursue, the word is pursue...

[DaveC426913]

Originally Posted by SAMU

My biggest problem?
...Still don't see a principled statement from moderator Antoniseb as to the locking of that levee thread.
...A principled statement would be an apology and admission that he was wrong
...I also think an apology from moderator wolverine to me (as the originator of
...they have dodged this case for months.

Wait, you've got something on you there.
*brushes at Samu's shoulder*
Oh, it was a chip.

[Josh]

I think it's best that discussion of SAMU's rant take a seat for now. Further posts should be about the OP.

Thanks

[SAMU]

So DJ Barney,

As you see there will be many unprincipled noise replies even, and I might say especially, when you have clear and undeniable facts on your side.

You can and probably will still be called a "woo woo".

Just to illustrate the facts in short.

I wrote that I witnessed and heard explosions. R.A.F asked if I actually saw the explosions with my eyes. I replied Yes I saw them with my eyes and R.A.F acknowledged that I had answered his question. Wolverine demanded three times that I answer the question and ignored my repeted replies that I had answered in the afirmative.
Wolverine also included a lengthy cut and paste of an official stating that he became aware of flooding around 8:30-9:am and he attempted to claim that it was impossible for me to have seen flooding "when I claimed". He did not quote "before dawn". Obviously "before dawn" is also before 8:30 am.

I pointed out these errors but, as you see above, pointing out errors, ignorance or unprincipled discussion is characterized by frequent respondants here as "ad Hominem". Or, of course as you can see, with their own brand of ad hominem and other fallacy.

Just count the number of replies with no address of the facts of the case. I call that illegitimate, unprincipled noise.

This does address the Original Post (OP in case you don't know what that meens) Which was "how do I avoid being labled a "woo woo". To which I reply "you can't", and I support that contention with the above illustrations and which the "noisy" respondants here have helped illustrate.

To be sure you have these kind of people everywhere on the net in every bulletin board I have ever seen. There are lonely people out there who just want attention and do not have the intellect to address your facts legitimately so they will throw up a lot of "stuff" to keep you "dancing on the head of a pin". Some moderators here are no better. Which turns all the Badastronomer's "rules" of this board into mere platitudes.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Josh

Further posts should be about the OP.

You wish.

[Josh]

SAMU,

I tried to stop it coming to this ...

While you claim that your most recent post is on topic, we all see it for the derisive rant that it is. The OP asked “how to” and you showed him exactly what not to do. Well done.

I think we were pretty lenient with you in the first instance when you attacked members and moderators earlier in this thread. Since then, you have been warned via personal message to abide by the rules and post in the intended spirit of the forum and I asked that things get back on topic in this thread. You have disregarded these requests and continued to wilfully attack other members of this forum.

As a result you have been banned for seven days. Upon your return, please check your toxic attitude at the door and play nicely or you will be permanently banned.

It’s important to note that it is not your ideas that have got you banned, but your manner and your disregard for the forum rules.

[KingNor]

woo's have a tendancy to take criticism very personally, Barney. Responding well to criticism is a very difficult thing to do.

A lot of the "woo woo" which in of it self is sort of name calling, but generally people who post ideas that are very off the mainstream may be posting about something they don't know much about, so it is very emotionally charged for them...

like for example if someone sees a virign mary in the sky or in an object. that is a very emotional experience for someone so if they post here and are met with almost stone wall skepticism it's easy to take that as a personal afrtont to their faith or recolection or any number of emotional responces.

the very human thing to do is to want to turn around and criticise that person as harshly as they felt they've been criticised. Attacking the system is one way of doing that.

"You know i'm right you're trying to make me look stupid!"

"You're to dumb to understand my argument"

"I've been wronged before, now i'm being wronged again"
and so on.

In my opinion the term woo-woo would apply more to the way someone responds and much MUCH less with the content of that responce.

another example could be if i post like this:

"I saw a flying saucer/religious thing/light in the sky. I changed my life, what do you guys think about it?"
at this point no one is a woo

when the inevitable BAUT responce is:

"It was probably a bird/cloud/lightning"

That is the big chance to prove ones self.

"why do you guys always just discount anything that is outside your experience, are you too dumb to realize it changed my life?" will get you a woo woo lable real quick

instead be ready to address the obvious counter arguments and do your best to do so calmly and clearly, because posting here you just have to understand that people are going to want solid edvidence and not just storys and feelings.

Posting against the main stream ideas is serious buisness, you're usually confronting established theorys with mountains and mountains of edvidence. a three line idea with no good backup and highly emotional or attacking responces that don't adress the issue arn't going to get you very far.

Consider who you're talking to and the methodology employed by the people here. and at the same time remember when you're presenting something new, you're the one in the hot seat. Try to present yourself above and beyond what people throw at you. Even if your idea isn't accepted, YOU will be. :-)

[DJ Barney]

Wow... King Nor..very interesting...

"I saw a flying saucer/religious thing/light in the sky. I changed my life, what do you guys think about it?"
at this point no one is a woo

when the inevitable BAUT responce is:

It was probably a bird/cloud/lightning"

That is the big chance to prove ones self.

"why do you guys always just discount anything that is outside your experience, are you too dumb to realize it changed my life?" will get you a woo woo lable real quick

Yes...it's that "jump".

When the inevitable responses come that don't agree.

I guess it comes down to handling one's emotions. If you know who you are and are a well rounded personality then you don't HAVE to have other people verify everything about your experience/theory to know that it has some validity to you as a person (even if it IS wrong it adds to the learning experience).

I think it is the minority who see mainstream, Planetary Science (for example) as full of a load egotistical personalities skulking in the shadows ready to shoot you down.

But I have come to believe that it is a damaging minority to the unwary.

They fluff up this business about a "space conspiracy" to ridiculous proportions, which looks increasingly like an inability to LISTEN to what they are being told.

I think the situation has become very serious with Art Bell / Coast to Coast with an infinite regress of "they won't agree with us so they must be lying" kind of mentality, that gives some people the elite access to "special information" about NASA "lying to us" and so on. This sells radio shows, CD's, DVD's Books, ad infinitum !

Frankly I find it sad...why ? Because I WAS (and I say was) one of those people "lapping up" all this stuff. Interestingly JUST after a MAJOR crisis in my life that I won't go into here. They prey on the damaged and unwary...I really do find it most repulsive...LOL!

Thanks for the replies :-D

DJBarney

[Moose]

There was a recent thread on Fark where someone posted a photo of what she'd claimed was a UFO (well, she hadn't identified it, anyway, but she'd meant "flying saucer-like" object.)

There were many hundred rapid posts, pretty much all identifying the blurry object as a street light, taken through a window and washed out because of the contrast settings. (That was my "guess" at first glance, as well, even before I'd seen the thread.)

Well, the poster argued and swore up and down that it couldn't Poooosibly be a street lamp, for various reasons, that it haaaaad to be a flying saucer.

The next morning, she came back after examining the area in daylight and sheepishly agreed it was indeed a street lamp. More accurately, a street lamp that was reflected in the window she was shooting through. Sometimes we just want to believe.

If you're willing to accept that extraordinary claims/explanations require extraordinary evidence, and that the most mundane explanation is usually the right one, you'll do just fine here.

[Serenitude]

That reminds me of something that happened in December of last year. It was late at night, and I was still up, and decided to go outside and get a breath of fresh, cold air, so to speak. Standing on my front porch, I saw a person watching me through thier front window. I stared at them, gaze locked to gaze, for several minutes to let them know I was aware of their presence. When that failed to work, I went so far as to begin walking closer to the house, possibly to ask the person why they were watching me.

Except, on the way to their house, the person turned out to be a wreath

[Thanatos]

Poor guy hasn't even offered his idea yet and is getting pummeled. Anticipate the objections and address them is my suggestion - and avoid even mentioning 'free' energy.

[Moose]

26 replies in five months is pummeling? Looks to me like he had his question answered in a reasonable, polite tone.

Must be that "new math"...

[Doodler]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Actually, if you post something "woowoo", we may think that you are a woowoo, but it is against the rules to call people names, or be impolite, so we wouldn't call you a woowoo...

...at least that's the way I understand the rules...

Eh, I dunno, more than a few people have come in asking about wooism's without being tarred, feathered and tattooed. The ones who defended wooisms vigorously, well, hey, we can't save'em all.

[mugaliens]

The "ad hominem" defense is often misused by those who attack a particular position held by another.

Put simply, an ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."

Therefore, any attack on the person's character, intelligence, his credentials, background, country, race, creed, or sex, can be considered an "an hominem" attack.

On the other hand, what's most often seen in ad hominem attacks are supposed, rather than real, references as to a person's references.

One example is to say, "well, you're gay, else why would you be supporting gay rights?" to someone who is decidedly not gay, married with children, etc., but simply supportive of gay rights.

By the way, I chose that example because I do not support gay rights, so please don't ad hominem attack me on the basis of either my example, or on the basis of my personal beliefs.

The key to avoiding the ad hominem (and many other philisophical snafus) is to focus on the topic at hand. Consider the information which is presented, and address it in it's own right, in the light of known science, without reverting to any sort of personal or otherwise disingenuious or off-topic remarks.