Reflections on a year and a half’s experience with BAUT’s ATM section

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Tensor

Actually, Van, the densities in neutron stars are the result of the calculations using the equations of state based on either QED or QCD with a little GR thrown in) and have very little to do with astronomy, except tangentially. Now, if you want to claim that QED and QCD haven't been tested under controlled conditions in a lab and doesn't work as advertised, I'm afraid I (and many others) would have to disagree with you (and even GR, in measuring the constant g has been done under lab conditions). This is exactly the type of strawman argument that some ATM posters use.

Wonderful, you just restate the point I tried to make, what I would like to know is if matter can really be persuaded to behave as derived from the equations. I'm not arguing descriptive theories like QED and GR are incorrect, merely that we should be careful in taking abstractions too literal. How are neutron stars not astronomy?

Originally Posted by Tensor

Actually, I spend more time and am more interested in asking how the ATM ideas can explain current observations better than the poster's new ideas. That usually doesn't get very far either.

I don't understand what you say here, what are you asking?

Originally Posted by Tensor

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question. Why don't Alternate theory poster 1 attack the reasoning and ideas of Alternate theory poster 2? Expecially when Alternate theory poster 1's idea is in direct conflict with Alternate theory poster 2's idea.

Some do (or did, Jerry for instance), but I think ATM posters tend to concentrate on their own ATM threads mostly and are maybe too busy to keep up with many others.

Cheers.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by VanderL

...I think ATM posters tend to concentrate on their own ATM threads mostly and are maybe too busy to keep up with many others.

Then you should personally understand the need for changing the ATM forum rules...ie., there are a limited number of Mods. "chasing" after an ever growing number of ATM threads.

Something had to "give".

[jamini]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Btw, the point was not to argue specific examples (to answer Nereid's suggestion), merely make the point that we should be cautious with the theories in astronomy and astrophysics[emphasis added].

Then why bring it up, here? Why not start new topics for some or all of those things? i.e.:

- Who are the best scientists?

- Are there any mainstream variations to BBT?

- Are Astronomy and Astrophysics dangerous?

To say we must be "cautious with the theories in astronomy and astrophysics" implies that there is an inherent danger in accepting said theories. Who are we? What are the dangers? How is mainstream astronomy threatening us? Who or what specifically should we be the most afraid of?

Don’t feel compelled to answer these questions here; as I stated above, they would probably be better presented in their own respective and more appropriate topics. Personally, I'm looking forward to reading more of Nereid's reflections/observations.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Then you should personally understand the need for changing the ATM forum rules...ie., there are a limited number of Mods. "chasing" after an ever growing number of ATM threads.

Yes, you are correct I understand the reasons the ATM rules needed changing and I fully agree that the moderators shouldn't have to spend their time "policing" the ATM threads. I've tried to argue before how a different approach to the ATM could help, albeit unsuccessfully.

Btw, the "ever growing" number of ATM threads is only logical over time, when old ones aren't closed.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Something had to "give".

Well, something did give all right, I'm not so sure it "had to".

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by jamini

Then why bring it up, here? Why not start new topics for some or all of those things? i.e.:

- Who are the best scientists?

- Are there any mainstream variations to BBT?

- Are Astronomy and Astrophysics dangerous?

To say we must be "cautious with the theories in astronomy and astrophysics" implies that there is an inherent danger in accepting said theories. Who are we? What are the dangers? How is mainstream astronomy threatening us? Who or what specifically should we be the most afraid of?

Don’t feel compelled to answer these questions here; as I stated above, they would probably be better presented in their own respective and more appropriate topics. Personally, I'm looking forward to reading more of Nereid's reflections/observations.

I'm afraid you completely lost me with your logic, maybe this article helps to understand what I mean. Another is the recent book by Smolin about String Theory. I'll shut up for now and wait for more of Nereid's reflections.

Cheers.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Wonderful, you just restate the point I tried to make, what I would like to know is if matter can really be persuaded to behave as derived from the equations.

Well, it depends on what you will accept. Neutron star densities are usually around 8-10 times the densities of a nucleus (this is on average, there are some that have a larger densities and some that are smaller). Our particle accelerators can achieved 3-4 times the density of a nucleus. And, so far, up to the limits of our particle accelerators, the equations hold. What exactly would lead you to believe that the equations wouldn't hold to that 8-10 times the density of the nucleus if they hold to the limit (3-4 times) of our particle accelerators?

Originally Posted by VanderL

I'm not arguing descriptive theories like QED and GR are incorrect, merely that we should be careful in taking abstractions too literal.

I fully agree with you here, but I think there is a difference in what we accept from the abstractions. After all, if those theoires hold where we can actually measure them, and if our models of Neutron stars, using those theories, happen to match what we observe, why wouldn't you accept that the models, at some level, actually do describe what is happening.

Originally Posted by VanderL

How are neutron stars not astronomy?

Well, I suppose I was being picky, but you were asking about the densities of Neutron stars. Which, are more the province of QED and QCD more than astronomy. Observations of neutron stars, I agree, would fall under astronomy. It's an example how the different sciences interconnect.

Originally Posted by VanderL

I don't understand what you say here, what are you asking?

My fault for the confusion. Basically, I was making a statement that I usually ask posters how their ideas can explain or match certain observations at least as well as the mainsteam idea. The "that doesn't get very far either" is based on my observations that almost all of the time I don't get an answer for that.

Originally Posted by VanderL

Some do (or did, Jerry for instance), but I think ATM posters tend to concentrate on their own ATM threads mostly and are maybe too busy to keep up with many others.

Thanks for your answer. Makes sense in some cases. But, you would think that if someone proposes a new idea that directly contradicts your new idea, you would object to it, instead of cheering that person along for fighting against the ideas of the mainstream.

[Eta C]

Originally Posted by VanderL

I'm afraid you completely lost me with your logic, maybe this article helps to understand what I mean. Another is the recent book by Smolin about String Theory. I'll shut up for now and wait for more of Nereid's reflections.

Cheers.

But if you think Smolin is somehow rejecting mainstream BB cosmology complete with inflation, dark matter, and dark energy as well as the standard model (complete with Higgs bosons) you are vastly mistaken. Rather, he is looking at alternatives to string theory as a unification mechanism. This is still a "cutting edge" area of modern theoretical physics and it is no surprise that there are alternatives out there despite the "sexiness" of string theory. Given string theory's failure to make predictions so far it's no surprise that we're starting to see something of a backlash. Backlashers such as Smolin, however, are working entirely within the mainstream. They are not proposing to replace current BB cosmology and GR with MOND or, heaven help us, the EU/PU drek of Thornhill et al.

[Nereid]

Papers in peer-reviewed astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or planetary science (astronomy for short) journals typically have a structure something like this:

Introduction
Development
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

The introduction section usually contains a brief summary of the prior, key work done in the (usually quite narrow) part of astronomy that the paper covers and what questions or problems within this defined scope the paper seeks to address. This introduction section also contains references to other papers of direct relevance – similar work, work that serves as a starting point, etc.

The development and results sections present the ‘this is how we did our observations and this is what we found’ or ‘this is how we developed the model or theory (math, simulations, etc) and this is what we found’ or similar.

The discussion section, which you will find in only some papers, is distinguished from the previous section(s) in part by the line the author(s) draw(s) with their results (which should be sound); the content of the discussion section is more tentative, covers possible implications, points to how the results could be verified using a different approach or different observations, etc.

One advantage of this structure is that it allows you to see where the work being presented fits within the particular part of astronomy, both historically and in terms of the relevant theories. And you can, by following up on the references, check for yourself the consistency, the logic chain, accuracy, etc of the foundation on which the paper builds.

How does this compare with the ~500 ATM ideas* presented in BAUT’s ATM section in the last 18 months or so? Some of the presentations do have a structure somewhat like this, either in the BAUT posts themselves, or material referenced in those posts (e.g. webpages, papers, books). However, my OOM estimate is only 10% do.

Further, I estimate that at least half of the ATM ideas presented have no equivalent of an introduction section. This makes it almost impossible to place the ATM idea, as presented, into an appropriate context within astronomy, and leads to many posts, or pages of posts, tediously trying to clarify it. I would guess that many, perhaps most, of such ATM ideas would not even be presented had this introductory, background work been done properly, because it would have become obvious to the presenter that idea was woefully lacking in essential background, deeply flawed, or both.

A distinction between development, results, and discussion is, I feel, also missing in most of the ATM ideas presented. That lack also leads to many posts, or pages of posts, tediously trying to elucidate which parts of the presentation are which.

If nothing else, ATM presentations that follow the common structure of astronomy papers would likely improve the clarity of those presentations, and allow BAUT members to get to the point of questioning, challenging, and attacking them a lot more effectively and efficiently.

*Covering practically all ATM astronomy posts, whether an alternative idea, an empirically-based idea, or a "mainstream astronomy is wrong!" presentation.

[nutant gene 71]

Well done Nereid, a very comprehensive analysis of BAUT forums, on ATM's failure to produce substantial science in the past year and half, in which I sense an underlying frustration that astronomy, as a science, is finding itself increasingly on the defensive within the context of ATM posts. There is a simple reason for this. Space science, especially astronomy and astrophysics, is least verifiable or falsifiable under laboratory like conditions. How can one verify science in astronomy, if all observations are done over immense distances of space and time? When we look into the universe millions and billions of light years away, we are forced to see it in terms of ancient history. And when we observe phenomena even at relatively close range, such as within our solar system, we are continually surprised by the fact that past theory of the planets is constantly being rewritten with better observations, especially with in situ observations as our spacecraft reach other worlds. Who would have thought Saturn's Titan is such a strange moon, or that Mars is the desert planet we found it to be? How many other surprises await us, from contact with cometary bodies to sending probes into Venus or Mercury? Even our moon was found to be an ancient piece of Earthly rock. We are only scratching the surface, since with each new space success comes a slew of new observations often invalidating past theory. So science itself is not at fault, since it is its purpose to correct past errors in theory, but the fact that astronomy is a science at a distance, very great distances, where laboratory conditions or taking of actual samples is largely impossible with our current technological knowhow, is inherently problematic. Is QED, or gravity ala MOND, the same in all of intergalactic space as it is here on Earth? Or how do we take a piece of a neutron star for analysis in the lab, for example? Or how do we go to the galaxy edge to collect some 'dark matter'? We cannot, so the frustration of defending 'theories' now acceptable as mainstream is inherent to astronomy. We can never rest easy with what we think we know, because what we know is merely a best guess scenario without real physical proofs. That is the nature of astronomy, as it had been since those early days of predawn history when our ancestors first gazed at the nightly heavens. We cannot ever be certain that we actually know what we think we know in astronomy, because by its very nature, it is too far away.

The fact that ATM has not produced any new meaningful theories in astronomical science is not to be faulted, since the task is well nigh impossible for a forum such as this. There are very fine minds at work here, bouncing around ideas, and that is all we can hope for, a discussion. Will any of these ideas someday gel into something more scientifically substantial? That is to speculate on speculation, so to answer is illusive. How can we know in advance without going the journey? Did Fraser expect too much from BAUT and ATM? We can't answer that either, since that is for him to say. What these forums offered, and I for one think they did so successfully, is to give a place to voice ideas, some speculative and not well developed, others more disciplined and better thought out, for others to research and exchange in dialogue. Is this fruitful? As an exchange of ideas, I think it is most definitely fruitful. Should it be allowed to continue as an exchange, even if the ideas are not totally fully developed suitable for publication in a science journal? Only BAUT's founders can answer that. To expect anything higher than an exchange of ideas, ideas that often challenge a science handicapped by the fact that until 'we get there' we cannot verify theory, is to expect something unrealistic, in my opinion. The ATM forums are just dialogue, not falsifiable science, by their very nature. The rules of engagement BAUT prescribes for such dialogue is its prerogative, since it is their forum. Is it productive to restrict dialogue within a very narrow range of what BAUT mods think is good science? Well, that's up to who pays the bandwidth bills, of course. The question boils down to: is it better to discuss with novel ideas, even flaky ideas, so that some inspiration may someday have some meaningful effect on astronomy, or is it better to limit such discussions to what is already known, and accepted as good scientific theory, without further speculations? What would 'father Science' think of this, if there were such a thing? And the answer to that will define what BAUT and ATM are really about: do they encourage free dialogue, or limited dialogue to the GR and BBT acceptable 'science' of today? Until we can get there to verify what we think we know, who knows!?

For myself, I found past discussions on ATM and other BAUT forums most informative, mentally stimulating, a valuable source of referenced information, sometimes good science and clear reasoning, and other times amusingly silly stuff. I am glad to have had a chance to participate in some of the dialogues, especially where my errors in thinking or facts were pointed out to me. Okay, so my ego was bruised at times, but that's good! Though I wouldn't come to ATM for material for an Astrophysics Ph.d. thesis, I would certainly come here for refreshing and intellectually stimulating ideas, as this had been my experience. Is that enough cause to keep the dialogues going, even if those who participate are mathematically challenged? If good ideas are their own reward, ideas that had been hammered out through the process of intellectual exchange and dialogue, then the answer is yes. However, is this what BAUT wants? Is there more here that perhaps is challenging for other reasons unstated, such as perhaps a desire to be seen by the astronomy community as a legitimate discussion of 'acceptable' theory? If so, then perhaps ATM is the wrong thing. Whether or not alternative speculative ideas are freely discussed or limited is then entirely BAUT's call, and really nothing we will say one way or the other can influence such a decision. Either way, I enjoyed the discussions, and feel richer and more knowledgeable for them. In the end, it will be the physical evidence that will call the day on theory, not the other way around, even in astronomy. I think all astronomy 'theory' should come with a 'disclaimer' in my opinion.


Thanks, Ivan

[Nereid]

Recapitulation

This thread contains some of my reflections on BAUT's ~18 months' of experience with its Against the Mainstream (ATM) section, expressed within the framework of BAUT's stated scope (astronomy and space, as science) and Fraser's stated objective for the ATM section¹.

I feel the section has fared very poorly indeed in terms of the stated scope and objectives². The main reasons for this poor showing can, I think, be grouped under two headings: lack of familiarity with current results in astronomy and related fields of science; and ignorance, or misunderstanding, of the nature of astronomy as a science.

The former is an odd shortcoming, given the enthusiasm of so many knowledgeable BAUT members, including some astronomers and space scientists who work full-time in the areas of research that many of the ATM ideas seem directly related to!

There are, I feel, four main parts to the latter (misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science'): the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the role of alternatives, and the primacy of observational and experimental evidence. I have covered all but the last in earlier posts in this thread.


Primacy of observational and experimental evidence

Any number of books, articles, papers, etc contain statements, of varying degrees of specificity, concerning the centrality of objective, verifiable evidence to science. And few ATM ideas presented in the last 18 months or so explicitly deny the primacy of observational and experimental evidence.

But somewhere between an explicit or implicit acknowledgement of this primacy and the presentation of many of the ATM ideas, a funny thing seems to have happened …. the actual evidence is distorted, down-played, degraded, or even ignored or denied!

How?

"Look at this picture!" will serve as short-hand for perhaps the most common form of this curious twist.

The website Astronomy Picture of the Day "contains the largest collection of annotated astronomical images on the internet". But what are these astronomical images, or pictures, presented daily? Quite a few are of scenes on (or from) Earth, of the sky, that almost any of us can relate to directly as we've 'been there'. Quite a few 'look like' these sorts of images, or pictures, so we can easily imagine that if we just get to the same position as the camera, we'd see pretty much the same thing. Others are clearly not right – the colours are wrong, for example – but we've seen enough 'special effects' in books, in movies, etc that we think we can 'see through' the special effects to the underlying reality. And so on.

But for doing 'astronomy as science', the observations aren't the images (or very rarely so³) – what 'looks like' a picture isn't. What is it? Data, quantitative data. If the instrument used to obtain the image (data) were properly calibrated, each pixel in the picture is a quantitative representation of a number of photons within a filter's passband within a specified period of time from a particular direction, or the polarisation of those photons, or the ratio of photons in two filters, or ….

Yet the images are so beguiling, it's easy to let the superb pattern-recognition instrument that is the human visual system hook up with our intuitions to produce interpretations of the images that we feel must be right … never mind that the patterns our brains are wired with are of things earthly, seen in a very narrow band in the optical spectrum.

Of course, one can train one's brain to interpret astronomical images accurately, if only qualitatively, but that interpretation rests on decades of painstaking work by thousands of astronomers, and one must always be prepared to go back to the data (not the picture) to confirm one's interpretation⁴.

So, an all too common misunderstanding in the ATM threads of the past ~18 months is conflating qualitative visual interpretation of 'images' with 'observational evidence'.

A related misunderstanding is an exclusive focus on observations in just one waveband, usually the spectrum between ~350nm and ~700nm. All parts of the sky have now been observed, at arcsecond (or better) angular resolution, down to quite low intensities, in large swathes of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ditto most large solar system bodies (and many smaller ones too). Such a wealth of observational evidence – in the form of quantitative data – is surely nearly always directly relevant to any ATM idea. Why is it so often ignored?

Next (and last of the reflections): the 30 or so ATM threads active on 6 March – how do the ATM ideas presented therein differ from the ATM ideas presented in the nearly 1,000 other ATM threads?

¹ "It's my hope that people with genuinely original ideas will have a place they can post their ideas. People with knowledge about the field of science will be able to spot the weaknesses in the theory."
² There are several important caveats that I have entered; see earlier posts in this thread for details.
³ 'photo-interpretation' of the geological kind, of images of Mars' erosion channels, or Io's volcanos, or the Moon's impact basis, etc involves (so I am told) a mixture of detailed quantitative analysis and visual interpretation of what's in the images.
⁴ And for publication, one nearly always has to present the data, alongside the images; analyses done, as part of the paper, also almost always rely upon the data, not the visual interpretations.

[Thanatos]

It is easy to become impatient with the rainbow that is science. The pot of gold often seems within reach - if you make a leap of faith. But reaching the other end of the rainbow is a shallow accomplishment unless you have built a sturdy bridge upon which others can follow.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Nereid

...snip...
Primacy of observational and experimental evidence

But for doing 'astronomy as science', the observations aren't the images (or very rarely so³) – what 'looks like' a picture isn't. What is it? Data, quantitative data. If the instrument used to obtain the image (data) were properly calibrated, each pixel in the picture is a quantitative representation of a number of photons within a filter's passband within a specified period of time from a particular direction, or the polarisation of those photons, or the ratio of photons in two filters, or ….

Yet the images are so beguiling, it's easy to let the superb pattern-recognition instrument that is the human visual system hook up with our intuitions to produce interpretations of the images that we feel must be right … never mind that the patterns our brains are wired with are of things earthly, seen in a very narrow band in the optical spectrum.

Of course, one can train one's brain to interpret astronomical images accurately, if only qualitatively, but that interpretation rests on decades of painstaking work by thousands of astronomers, and one must always be prepared to go back to the data (not the picture) to confirm one's interpretation⁴.

So, an all too common misunderstanding in the ATM threads of the past ~18 months is conflating qualitative visual interpretation of 'images' with 'observational evidence'.

...snip...

You bring up some good points in the quote above. It also occured to me that this observation - interpretation problem is one of the reasons why astronomy, and particularly cosmology are so prone to alternative views.

Indeed what we have, and I would say especially, in the mainstream are set of observed phenomena that are interpreted to mean something specific, generally based on the standard model. But as soon as one compares results with another model the original interpretation changes and often drastically:

1. redshift z (expansion or not?)
2. the CMBR origin and evolution (hot to cold, cold to warm?)
3. light element origin (primordial or not?)
4. the SNe Ia data (acceleration, time dilation, other?)

These are just a few examples for which there are potentially large factors of uncertainty in the interpretation.

Images and other data can be interpreted incorrectly very easily by anyone. It depends on the model, initial conditions, etc. Part of the problem of interpreting observational data is that there are usually two (sometimes three or four) ways of explaining it.

The classic case: Is it a particle, a wave, both, or neither?

That is what keeps us going.

CC

[Robert Tulip]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Two words are almost certain to generate an emotional response from working scientists (usually negative) – 'paradigm' (as in shift) and 'falsify'. They are almost universally associated with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, two 20th century intellectuals whose main works relate to the philosophy of science. Although their names may not be well known, to the general public, these two words are widely used in connection with science. Sadly, neither term¹ helps much to understand what science is or how it works

Originally Posted by Nereid

there are some ATM threads which are not really about science, but are about philosophy (perhaps they shouldn't be in BAUT at all?). The key distinction is that no observation or experiment, even in principle, could ever be inconsistent with the (ATM) philosophical idea being presented.

Nereid is probably right that Kuhn and Popper’s theories do not help much to understand how science works. However, what Kuhn especially did do, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was open a discussion about the socio-political position of science. BAUT does not see itself as the place for such discussion, and that is a valid decision on your part. However, it is mildly ironic that your theme of debunking ‘bad astronomy’ has a strong socio-political agenda, especially with the entirely legitimate frustration at how to deal with the popularity of wrong thinking. Science places total value on facts, and rejects ideas which are false. The social question of how to expand support for facts and evidence-based thinking is a legitimate one which I would hope would be of interest to BAUT members. In this context, ATM is pushing the boundaries of what is accepted as factual, hence Fraser’s ideal of it being a place where scientists can show how invalid inferences are in error and help promote sound thought. BAUT should not under-value the importance of this rational function.

A big problem for Kuhn’s paradigm theory was his term “incommensurability”. To ‘commensurate’ is to measure two things against each other. Kuhn suggested that people argue past each other because they hold unstated assumptions about what their words mean, so conflicting ways of thought cannot be measured against each other – they inhabit different paradigms. I find this claim hard to grasp, because, in general, truth claims can be measured – which is why modern physics has such a strong framework of objectivity. Physical astronomy is not just ‘a way of thought’ among others, but a method of objective truth. We are not going to see a ‘new paradigm’ which is in conflict with the well established facts of science. However, where paradigm talk has some use is where claims are unmeasurable - when they move away from facts and talk about values. A big one here for BAUT is what value do we place as a society on scientific knowledge?

Is science a paradigm? Objectively speaking, science is not just a ‘way of thought’ or mere opinion, but in socio-political terms it very much is a way of thought, given that many people reject scientific thinking. This aspect of science creates social conflict, especially regarding areas of proto-science where the assumptions of scientists are deeply sceptical about the potential for factual research. An observation in this regard is that the experience of working in a purely quantitative scientific environment brings with it some unstated value assumptions, and these assumptions can narrow scientists’ perspectives on the boundaries of reasonable factual research, suggesting that in practice the scientific paradigm is not 100% objective. So it is possible to have a useful discussion about paradigms regarding the social role of astronomy – how it links to other human activities and scientific disciplines (eg biology & psychology?). It is here that paradigm discussion can be useful, in asking what value society should place on science. I would be interested in views about whether these sort of themes regarding the socio-political place of astronomy have any place in BAUT.

[Nereid]

There are 21 of them¹, and they are to be found on page 3 of the ATM section, today (from Galaxy Generator to Water on Mars²).

The first thing that's obvious about these is that they are much longer than average: 15 contain >100 posts (2 have >1,000 posts). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they were much more active than most.

The second thing that's obvious is the dominance of BAUT's 'ATM regulars': 12 of the 21 are threads started by, or on ATM ideas actively defended by, these BAUT members³.

What about the content of these threads? How does it differ from that of the ~500 ATM ideas I commented on in my earlier posts in this thread?

"Same old, same old" and "it doesn't" are the succinct answers to those questions.

Going to one level of greater detail, the Arp et al. thread – the longest one in the ATM section – is again unique, and the rest of this post should be read with 'other than the Arp thread' as a caveat.

Several of the other 20 threads could serve as poster children for the reasons why the ATM section has had essentially no success in meeting Fraser's stated objective: ignorance, or misunderstanding, of the nature of astronomy as a science; and lack of familiarity with current results in astronomy and related fields of science⁴.

What makes many, perhaps, most of these 20 threads different from the ~900 other ATM threads is the ferocity with which the ATM ideas were presented (though several of the other ~900 threads also had ATM ideas presented ferociously). Being staunch in one's defence is, of course, not necessarily a bad thing. However, in the case of many of these 20 threads, I feel the manifest energy of the posters was misplaced; if it could have been somehow channelled into gaining a more appropriate familiarity with current results in astronomy and related fields of science, or understanding better the nature of astronomy as a science (or both), I feel the threads would have been much shorter.

Or, as Celestial Mechanic has said, on numerous occasions, "get thee to a library!"

I do have one more post I want to write in this thread, before commenting on posts by others; I would like to say a few words on methods one can use to show an ATM idea doesn't have legs.

¹It depends on how you define 'active'; here I count only those closed on 6 March and with a last post no earlier than 2 March.
²These are just location markers
³Counting EU-related threads as 'ATM regulars'
⁴As I described in the first few posts of this thread.

[Nereid]

(source) Until/unless somebody comes out with a version 2.0, I concede defeat on this one.

(source) Specifically, I will concede that the best current evidence does not indicate that the CMB is a helopause phenomenon […] In any case, I would like to thank the above named, and everyone else who has contributed to this thread. It has been a little heated at times, but a lot can be accomplished when there is constructive 'holler'n science'. I hope everyone walks away a little better informed.

In my experience, this kind of conclusion to an ATM thread is extremely rare. In fact, these two are the only ones I can recall that are so clear¹.

Of course, there are many ATM ideas that cannot be shown to be inconsistent, either internally, or with well-established scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap the ATM idea's, or with good observational or experimental results², even in principle. For example, if the ATM idea is so vague or general that even internal consistency cannot be ascertained … or if the ATM idea is purely qualitative … or if all potential observational or experimental tests are beyond what's feasible with current technology …

For these ATM ideas – and there are several (up to ~100? more??) among the ~500 in BAUT's ATM section – I think there is no way to show the idea has no legs … other than suggest to the proponent that more work be done on it.

What about the rest? How can an ATM idea be shown to have no legs?

Internal inconsistency is perhaps the easiest to show, though it has been, in my view, one of the aspects of an ATM idea that is least often questioned or challenged. Of course, it requires that one takes the time and effort to understand the ATM idea sufficiently well so as to ask questions about it within its own framework³. And it can be quite unrewarding if the ATM idea is so ill-formed that modifications can be made 'on the fly' to paper over inconsistencies found.

Inconsistency with well-established scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap the ATM idea's is, I think, the most common approach used to question or challenge an ATM idea. I think this approach is used particularly often by BAUT members who have particular knowledge or expertise in the area covered by the ATM idea.

Unfortunately, this approach often fails.

And it does so largely because of the misunderstanding of astronomy as a science that I referred to in an earlier post in this thread – the ATM thread becomes educational (ideally), or a downward spiral of miscommunication (where the ATM idea proponent continues to rely upon misunderstood aspects of the particulars, or basics!, of the area; this is all too common).

Fortunately, showing inconsistency with good observational and experimental results is both the most certain way to show an ATM idea has no legs, and in some ways the easiest to do. It is a certain method because few, if any, ATM idea proponents dispute the primacy of observational and experimental results⁴.

Unfortunately, it may take a lot of time and effort to so show.

For starters, identifying, and getting agreement on, what observations or experiments could, in principle, be applicable to the ATM idea, can be quite difficult (for a variety of reasons).

Second, I've noticed that some ATM idea proponents seem very reluctant to have their idea tested in this way, and while 'Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner' is a pretty certain tool to get answers, it works slowly and can be very painful.

Third, many ATM idea proponents seem unaware of what the relevant astronomical observations might be, and even of how to go about finding them.

Fourth, this approach, if only for the above reasons, is often highly asymmetrical – the ones doing the questioning and challenging may put in far more time and effort (to pose their questions and challenges) than the ATM idea proponents do in answering them … or the time and effort to do a decent job of questioning and challenging is thought to be simply not worth it, given the apparently lack of time and effort that has gone into the development and presentation of the ATM idea (so no such questioning or challenging is done at all).

In the end, suppose a serious inconsistency (or three, or ten) is shown – either internal, with well-established scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap the ATM idea's, or with good observational or experimental results – does the ATM idea proponent concede? In at least two cases, yes (as I cited above).

I'd like to conclude my reflections with two examples of a much more common resolution, and leave you, dear reader, the pleasure of seeing a) how long it took to show the ATM idea had no legs, and b) what the ATM idea proponent's response was (to having the lack of legs clearly shown): a Gedankenexperiment; an ATM idea with cosmological implications.

¹ If anyone can point us to any others, I for one would be grateful.

²This is my shorthand for criteria for testing an idea which claims to be scientific; if an ATM proponent has a different view of how to do such a test, then these criteria are secondary to establishing common ground on what constitutes science, wrt astronomy.

³This is often quite difficult; many ATM ideas are very poorly presented, as I noted earlier.

⁴Though disagreements over what the astronomical data actually are can be hard to resolve, even if they are clearly put on the table.

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Nereid

(snip)

Fourth, this approach, if only for the above reasons, is often highly asymmetrical – the ones doing the questioning and challenging may put in far more time and effort (to pose their questions and challenges) than the ATM idea proponents do in answering them … or the time and effort to do a decent job of questioning and challenging is thought to be simply not worth it, given the apparently lack of time and effort that has gone into the development and presentation of the ATM idea (so no such questioning or challenging is done at all).

(snip)

This is one on the unexpected benefits of ATM threads. I learn more doing research to refute silly ideas in ATM than I do off of UT mainstream or APOD. (Maybe not S&T, but that's another format.) Also some of the mainstream posters are quite good at explaining complex ideas, I find ATM very educational.

And it's fun.

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Nereid

[b]

There are, I feel, four main parts to the latter (misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science'): the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the role of alternatives, and the primacy of observational and experimental evidence.

[/size]

As I said in the previous post, some of the the mainstream posters have a marvelous gift of explanation.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'd like to conclude my reflections with two examples of a much more common resolution, and leave you, dear reader, the pleasure of seeing a) how long it took to show the ATM idea had no legs, and b) what the ATM idea proponent's response was (to having the lack of legs clearly shown): a Gedankenexperiment; an ATM idea with cosmological implications.

Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhh, and here I thought I was able to forget those threads.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Why so little success?

There are many reasons, I think, but the main ones can be grouped under two headings: ignorance, or misunderstanding, of the nature of astronomy as a science; and lack of familiarity with current results in astronomy and related fields of science.

The second is relatively straight-forward – many, perhaps most, presentations of ATM ideas were apparently blind to easily accessible material directly pertinent to those ideas; someone just didn’t do their homework first.

I have some difficulty understanding this shortcoming...

It's simple, really - BAUT is by no means the first, or only, avenue of presentation. Many thousands of times more ideas have run the gauntlet of more traditional peer-reviewed avenues either to be shot down (almost all), or incorporated into the main body of science (the select few).

If ATM's only goal was to catch a rare fish, it's doomed to 99.9999% failure, with a 0.0001% chance of success.

And you're suprised by this? Common sense and simple statistics dictate this will be the case.

The key point, however, is that there is that slight chance BAUT's ATM section will either:

1. Turn up a valid, as of yet unheard of concept, or...

2. (and far more likely) Yield a new perspective on an ages-old problem that those who're well-versed in that area might make use of.

I say keep it going. It's like mining for gold - 99.9999% of it's just rock, but what you get after processing all that rock is indeed, pure gold.

[RussT]

Originally Posted by Mulligans

2. (and far more likely) Yield a new perspective on an ages-old problem that those who're well-versed in that area might make use of.

You are vastly underestimating the power of denial, and what the consequences are of 'going against mainstream'!

<Moderator note>
Large section deleted, as talking about an ATM theory in a matter that in inappropriate outside ATM.

Please keep this discussion about the ATM section, not about ATM theories.
</Moderator note>

[Thanatos]

The ATM threads have been very entertaining and educational for all who seriously participated. I have spent many an evening reviewing links, looking for 'fatal' flaws and getting frustrated because the questions are not as simple as I assumed. One night I even considered the possibility that people who do not agree with me are not necessarily wrong - albeit there was wine involved. Seriously, some of the ATM threads here have been fascinating. Toss out the occasional bickering, and many have been both provacative and educational. The quality of discussion has been very good at times. People sometimes get too passionate about issues, but without passion there are no interesting issues. I've learned more from people who disagree than those who do.