Propose a New BAUT Sticky

[Chris Hillman]

Hi all,

The following proposal relates to the thread "All New N00bs" which I think implicitly calls for discussion of modifying registration at BAUT so that new registrants are asked to read the BAUT rules sticky and also a carefully worded sticky offering/explaining items of good advice such as these: read the FAQ, give your post a good title, try to write clearly, cite your sources, strive for good terminology/notation.

I'd like to add to this discussion two more concerns, both based on the assumption that many lurkers or new posters at BAUT are young persons with a serious interest in astronomy/cosmology/physics who are trying to supplement their formal education here--- or even more disturbing, trying to bypass formal education under the (terribly mistaken) assumption that participating in BAUT will result in knowledge comparable to formal academic training.

[EDIT: I propose to discuss one concern in this thread and the other in a second thread; see "Should anyone ever cite Wikipedia at BAUT, and if so how?" in this subforum.]

My concerns are founded upon occasional lurking at BAUT over the past year, plus one week of posting here. They are merely an instance of a wider concern about similar forums where public discussion of cosmology/physics/astronomy/math/science by posters with a wide variety of knowledge and background occurs.

I have noted that in forums like "Questions and Answers" and "ATM", and also similar forums at Physics Forums website, many discussions concern issues in cosmology and therefore (perhaps without posters quite realizing it) invoke general relativity, which is a very beautiful and coherent theory, but one which contains many subtleties, including issues arising from highly technical mathematical issues which are not easily explained to anyone lacking the standard mathematical prerequisites for a solid graduate level gtr course.

Unfortunately, [B]in these threads[B], "answers" offered to questions are IMO most often seriously misleading, incorrect, or vapid, yet the inquirers often seem to treat such responses seriously. In another thread, struggling to quickly convey some sense of how typical discussions BAUT (and similar public internet fora) concerning gtr/cosmology relate to the actual scientific issues currently discussed by the best contemporary researchers, I put it something like this:

I would have to characterize many of the threads at BAUT and other forums as resembling the following:

Poster A: "one plus three = blue". Poster B: "Won = true". Poster A: "no, the sky is blue". Poster C: "Why, whatever".

(EDIT: Note blue/true, one/won, blue,true; this metaphor is my crude attempt to suggest how relying upon verbal shorthands found in many popular books rather than the close study and wise appreciation of the actual mathematics in which genuine gtr is expressed, inevitably leads to posters confusing multiple distinct but crucial concepts which are unfortunately often discussed in popular books using similar verbal formulae.)

(I think at least some BAUT old-timers already know this, for those who don't: I have good reason for believing that I know gtr pretty well. I have acquired the mathematical background in formal coursework and from my own reading. I have studied dozens of standard sources, read many classic papers, and regularly follow eprints in the gr-qc section of the arXiv and other papers appearing in journals such as Gen. Rel. Grav. and Class. Quant. Grav. In addition, I have solved the EFE thousands of times and have the database of exact solutions to prove it. I frequently work within gtr and thus have a working familiarity with many mathematical techniques which are often used by researchers in classical gravitation.)

(I trust that I hardly need state that the self-quotation above was not intended to mock BAUT or BAUT posters, both of which I consider potentially valuable resources in building support for public support of Big Science. As Bogie recognized following my use in another thread of a cruder version of the above metaphor, I was simply trying to make sure that participants have at least a vague sense of how far typical BAUT discussions are from well-informed and thoughtful discussion of genuine scientific issues. Indeed, I mostly agree with the points Bogie made; in this post I am trying to explain why I think my concerns are in fact not inconsistent with the more positive view of BAUT which he expressed.)

My first concern then, is this: I fear that a great deal of miseducation could be occuring in BAUT. This is surely not the intention of the founders of this website!

Now there are several obvious responses one could make here, as I am well aware, including these:

a. Many BAUT regulars who engage in such free-wheeling discussions (unfettered by mathsci accuracy or sound scientific judgement) are no doubt sympathetic amateurs who are simply treating BAUT as an extension of their living room, and have no intention of offering "education" to youngsters, much less contributing to science itself. I have no problem with that, so long as an effort is made to ensure that youngsters understand that BAUT discussions are no substitute for studying standard textbooks and hopefully taking formal coursework.

b. Youngsters will a serious interest in math/physics/cosmology will most likely be motivated to attempt to acquire a formal education, e.g. by majoring in physics at a good university. Here, one may hope, any and all misconceptions they have acquired at BAUT will be promptly corrected. But those of us with university teaching experience may not be so sanguine that this will happen. Quite frankly students who enter coursework with many misconceptions are carrying a substantial burden which is likely to greatly hinder their ability to keep up and to follow along in lectures.

My concerns apply to all internet forums, not just to BAUT. Assuming experienced BAUTians (especially those with professional training) generally agree that my concerns have at least some validity, the question is: what can we do at BAUT to mitigate them, or at least to mitigate the contribution made by BAUT to the problem of miseducation on the net?

My modest proposal is to add a sticky explaining to n00bs some of the points made in the other thread (e.g. read the FAQ before asking a question), some carefully worded explanation of the points outlined above about the limited nature of most BAUT discussions and the limited utility of Wikipedia -as educational resources- (as opposed to, as forums for casual reading by persons who unconcerned with factual accuracy of the "information" presented). My idea is that registration could be modified to ensure that new BAUT registrants see a message strongly urging them to read this new sticky, as well as the existing sticky explaining forum rules. (Since I only registered myself last week, I know that currently new registrants can very easily fail to even find the rules, even if they suspect from prior experience in similar forums that such rules should exist!)

A more ambitious proposal would be to try to maintain similar FAQs at BAUT, Physics Forums, and at the Usenet Physics FAQs websites (as a former FAQ editor, I know how to contact the keeper of the FAQ and the mirrors, and as a former Physics Forums poster, I know how to contact the people who maintain the PF FAQ).

Several BAUTians who responded in posts or PMs to my comments seem to be struggling toward expressing an idea which has previously occured to me: again assuming that my concerns possess some degree of validity, there seems to be an unmet need for social mechanisms (perhaps a greater variety of fora) for segretating populations by knowledge, background, and goals. In particular, for separating the "everyone's living room" function of a forum like BAUT, particularly rants by non-scientists pursuing some anti-scientific poltical/religious agenda, from coursework related discussions and inquiries from serious students desiring accurate and well-informed responses.

[EDIT: to prevent possible misunderstanding: when I propose to discuss possible methods of "segregate populations" by education/intent, I certainly was NOT hinting that BAUT should only permit credentialed posters to participate at BAUT. I was actually suggesting that we discuss a variety of possible methods to ensure that everyone participating in forum F at BAUT be on more or less the same page concerning what they hope to get out of the discussion. In addition to stickies, one possible topic would possible reorganization of BAUT subfora.]

Comments?

(Comments from senior BAUTians with university teaching experience would be particularly desirable!)

[Neverfly]

I'm pretty much still a nubie myself, and none of my teaching experience involves University, more like yelling at privates.

But...


We did have a similar discussion a while back using the atom as an example.

In grade school science class, you are offered a representation of an atom that looks like a couple blue balls stuck to a red ball with a couple of wooden dowels.

When you get to high school chemistry class, they remind you of that representation and then say, 'Now unlearn and forget about that- it's more like this ____"

Once you move on to college, they remind you of High School Chem class and say, "Ok now unlearn that, It's more like this: _____"

Each time you move up the line, you are given more complex and more accurate representations of an atom.
When trying to explain something complex, teachers must often try to find an analogy that the student can first relate to. Once a concept is grasped, they then progress up the line getting more and more into detail.


BAUT can be very educating, but it is not an education. It is a Bulletin Board.

I think your concerns are well founded. Many of the discussions on BAUT go right over my head because I lack the background necessary to understand some of the concepts discussed.
Self education can be a good thing, but at the higher levels, any education requires guidance from one who is learned, otherwise the student will follow where they want to go in their education-reaching misconceptions without anyone to clarify them. That is part of why I commented to Chris Hillman that I look forward to his additional posting on BAUT.

I cannot imagine someone using BAUT to get an education.
But I do agree with what you propose.
I must admit, though... It seems very New Age to have Sticky's up reminding folks that internet discussions do not substitute a University Course.

[Neverfly]

To clarify my above post, on a public posting board in which you have all manner of educational backgrounds- a family board in which children also participate, the original analogy of the atom will still be used. Why?- because it is necessary. You find yourself still explaining things to someone who has yet to achieve the next level of education and you don't want to zoom right over their head and start describing things in such complicated detail that it will pass around them like a fog.

[Chris Hillman]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

BAUT can be very educating, but it is not an education. It is a Bulletin Board.

That is actually one of the very points I made. But I added that I am concerned that not everyone at BAUT may clearly realize the limitations of BAUT and similar forums as an educational resource.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I cannot imagine someone using BAUT to get an education.

I think we agree that no-one can acquire a solid scientific education or genuine appreciation of the more subtle issues in modern science simply from reading Wikipedia or participating in BAUT and similar fora.

My concern is that I see, or think I see, a lot of evidence suggesting that quite a few youngsters don't realize why this is the case, and even worse, that some may literaly be trying to supplement or even replace a formal education with participation in fora like BAUT.

[EDIT: I forgot to suggest that experienced BAUTians who know which old-timer BAUT members possess advanced degrees in physics/astro/math -and- university teaching experience should take an informal poll among that population, by PM, and also put up a public poll open to all at BAUT, asking: "Can internet sites such as BAUT or Wikipedia be used as educational resources? If so, can they be used only to -supplement- a formal education? Or can they -replace- a formal education?" It would be interesting to compare the results of the two polls.]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

But I do agree with what you propose.
I must admit, though... It seems very New Age to have Sticky's up reminding folks that internet discussions do not substitute a University Course.

Strange indeed. If you hang around faculty lounges you may hear some discussion of a related concern: do our students ever read -books- any more?

There was a relevant NOVA episode recently which explored how high school and college teachers are reacting to the advent of internet "resources" such as Wikipedia. Some of the things being said are IMO utterly appalling.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

That is actually one of the very points I made. But I added that I am concerned that not everyone at BAUT may clearly realize the limitations of BAUT and similar forums as an educational resource.

This I agree with completely. And I understand too, that many people use that fact to portray themselves in a better light.

On a Mars forum, I got caught up in 'intelli-speak' arguments with folks trying to 'act like the learned scientist' when assessing visible 'fossils on Mars.'

Also the TU24 forum was a good example of this.

I do think BAUT is a cut above the rest however.

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

I think we agree that no-one can acquire a solid scientific education or genuine appreciation of the more subtle issues in modern science simply from reading Wikipedia or participating in BAUT and similar fora.

My concern is that I see, or think I see, a lot of evidence suggesting that quite a few youngsters don't realize why this is the case, and even worse, that some may literaly be trying to supplement or even replace a formal education with participation in fora like BAUT.

Strange indeed. If you hang around faculty lounges you may hear some discussion of a related concern: do our students ever read -books- any more?

There was a relevant NOVA episode recently which explored how high school and college teachers are reacting to the advent of internet "resources" such as Wikipedia. Some of the things being said are IMO utterly appalling.

Part of teaching includes expression.

I remember one of the smartest professors I ever knew- an MIT graduate- once told me that a true sign of intellect is when a person could express the increasingly complex on a simple level.

The reason being, a person will not learn a complex lesson in a moment. Like adding bricks to build a wall, it takes time and study.

My roommate was trying to get a customer to understand a complex computer operation. After a while she said , "Think File Cabinet!" The customer exclaimed, "OH! Limited space!"
Click*
Without going into the details of the complicated computer workings, they used a simple analogy that served the purpose.

When it comes to the learning of another, I think that it's all about the baby steps and we cannot always barrage people with the Full Knowledge until they have the foundation to support it- Self Included.
If someone starts talking to me about certain things, I'll end up drooling with a thousand yard stare and trying to play with a ball of lint I found on my shirt.

[Chris Hillman]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

On a Mars forum, I got caught up in 'intelli-speak' arguments with folks trying to 'act like the learned scientist' when assessing visible 'fossils on Mars.'

Yes, stuff like that is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I do think BAUT is a cut above the rest however.

Agreed. Physics Forums is too.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I remember one of the smartest professors I ever knew- an MIT graduate- once told me that a true sign of intellect is when a person could express the increasingly complex on a simple level.

Yes. In my own field, one of the most noted expositors of a previous generation was Paul Halmos. He once said something to the effect that a good talk should consist of four parts: the first comprehensible to the janitor, the second to undergraduate students, the third to graduate students, the fourth to ones professional colleagues. Many of John Baez's This Week postings exhibit this, for example.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The reason being, a person will not learn a complex lesson in a moment. Like adding bricks to build a wall, it takes time and study.

Exactly. That's actually what I was trying to tell tommac: real science is really fun, in part -because- it is so complex and subtle. The real fun is in mastering enough details to begin to perceive the subtleties.

used a simple analogy that served the purpose.

Or: a metaphor or simile. (I recently provided a notorious[?] example in another thread).

Of course, these are only useful in the first quarter. In the second quarter, one must begin to appeal to undergraduate level mathematics.

Not sure where this thought belongs in this discussion, but one idea I have often tried to express in similar discussions, and which I wish were better appreciated by the public, is that all teachers at times fall back upon verbal formulas or shorthands which attempt to partially capture one aspect of a far more complex issue. Similarly, in gtr many appeal to pictorial images such as "ball rolling on rubber sheet" or "pennies stuck to the surface of an expanding balloon" or "Flamm paraboloid" (embedding of a certain spatial hyperslice in the Schwarzschild vacuum) or any number of less known visualizations. In all of these cases, bright students or amateurs often discover for themselves that these representations/characterizations cannot be fully accurate. Should they fail to appreciate that the real science is far more complex, trouble then ensues.

Perhaps we can summarize our discussion so far like this: we all agree that much discussion in BAUT is at the level of the first quarter of a talk by Halmos (only rarely so witty or clearly expressed). My concern is to ensure that everyone understand that there are three more quarters beckoning the true searcher ever onwards.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

Not sure where this thought belongs in this discussion, but one idea I have often tried to express in similar discussions, and which I wish were better appreciated by the public, is that all teachers at times fall back upon verbal formulas or shorthands which attempt to partially capture one aspect of a far more complex issue. Similarly, in gtr many appeal to pictorial images such as "ball rolling on rubber sheet" or "pennies stuck to the surface of an expanding balloon" or "Flamm paraboloid" (embedding of a certain spatial hyperslice in the Schwarzschild vacuum) or any number of less known visualizations. In all of these cases, bright students or amateurs often discover for themselves that these representations/characterizations cannot be fully accurate. Should they fail to appreciate that the real science is far more complex, trouble then ensues.

Perhaps we can summarize our discussion so far like this: we all agree that much discussion in BAUT is at the level of the first quarter of a talk by Halmos (only rarely so witty or clearly expressed). My concern is to ensure that everyone understand that there are three more quarters beckoning the true searcher ever onwards.

I agree, and I have issues with reporters or scientists that use simple words too far- that allow readers/listeners to apply meanings that are not relevant.
For example:
"Life adapted to this setting."
This implies intelligence and a desire on "life's" part to Adapt itself by a force of will...
If I had better examples I would provide them but that's the best I can come up with at the moment.

Chris Hillman, are you proposing the possibility of a method to better structure or organize how ideas are expressed?

[Kaptain K]

I agree with what you (Chris) have said, but I don't think it will work! I am not a noob, far from it. My listed "start date" is actually the date that BABB and UT merged. I was posting on BABB when it was a simple threaded board and it took less than half an hour to read the whole thing and comment on any topic I found interesting. That was about 1996!

The reason I don't think it will work is that first and foremost, this is an open forum. There are no restrictions on membership. So we have the gamut from those whose only knowledge of astronomy is that it has something to do with the sky, through people like me with more than a smattering of knowledge about the subject (I majored in astronomy in college but, unfortunately, didn't graduate. 3 1/2 years doesn't get you a degree!) to those with Ph.Ds in the field. There's simply no way one board (no matter how many fora and sub-fora it has) can adequately serve such a broad audience. No sticky, no matter how worded is going to reach the ones who need it most. Even making it a mandatory read before first posting wouldn't work. Many would just jump through any and all the hoops and go on about their merry way.

[Chris Hillman]

Heh, another oldster (I created a home page soon after Mosaic appeared, c. 1992, so I have been thinking about the social implications of the World Wide Web for a long time.).

There's simply no way one board (no matter how many fora and sub-fora it has) can adequately serve such a broad audience. No sticky, no matter how worded is going to reach the ones who need it most. Even making it a mandatory read before first posting wouldn't work. Many would just jump through any and all the hoops and go on about their merry way.

Yes, these thoughts already occurred to me and sadly, I suspect you might be right. I am rather hoping someone will come up with a suggestion I haven't thought of which has a better chance of reaching, as you say, the young and hyperactive types who most need some good advice of the kind I'd like to offer. Possibly I should have mentioned my previous experience posting at Physics Forums, where the same issues arise; this partially explains why I have thought about more ramifications than I had time to explain in the first post in this thread.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

My first concern then, is this: I fear that a great deal of miseducation could be occuring in BAUT. This is surely not the intention of the founders of this website!

In general I think people worry way too much about this. First, if someone makes an egregious error in fact, there is usually someone there to correct it.

Second, it is idealistic to think that we can prevent people from being mis-informed. Just as people often hear things incorrectly, people will often read things incorrectly or carelessly - and as a result come away from this board thinking they learned something they actually mis-read. It is much harder to be mis-informed if you are a careful consumer of information. People will not be mis-educated on this board if they care enough to verify what they've read by looking at other sources.

Third, If someone comes away from this board mis-educated, they probably came into the board mis-educated or lacking the reasoning skills or background knowledge needed to recognize bad information.

The fact is many young people do not understand the subtlety of language -and they are prone to being mis-educated by their own lack of mastery of language.

As a teacher I see this every day. I just finished grading a unit exam for my chemistry classes this afternoon. One of the questions asked why reaction rates increase when concentration increases. The answer is that with a higher concentration there are more reactant particles a given volume and therefore there are more frequent collisions because there are a higher number of reactant particles to collide. I had numerous students sort of get this, but they stated in their explanation that there is "less space" when there is a higher concentration.

Most of them simply do not understand subtlety with language at all. To many of them saying there is "less space" means the exact same thing as saying that the number of particles per unit of volume has increased.

You're not going to be able to fix the problem of people mis-educating themselves on BAUT if those people fail to understand language.

Now there are several obvious responses one could make here, as I am well aware, including these:

b. Youngsters will a serious interest in math/physics/cosmology will most likely be motivated to attempt to acquire a formal education, e.g. by majoring in physics at a good university. Here, one may hope, any and all misconceptions they have acquired at BAUT will be promptly corrected. But those of us with university teaching experience may not be so sanguine that this will happen. Quite frankly students who enter coursework with many misconceptions are carrying a substantial burden which is likely to greatly hinder their ability to keep up and to follow along in lectures.

There is such a thing as natural selection in education too. A few misconceptions should not hinder their ability if they are intelligent, have reasoning skills, and are willing to work to correct their own mis-understandings. If they lack those characteristics then they will fail -and that will not be the fault of BAUT or the education system - it will be the fault of parents that did not instill in them a sense of valuing education.

For example, I will walk into class, hand back that test, and explain to my students all the subtlety involved in understanding their mistakes. Those that care and have parents that demand performance in school, will learn from those mistakes and not repeat them (actually those students did not make the mistakes in the first place because they actually care enough to be precise and study). But many of my students will put the exact same wrong answers on the state exam when similar questions are asked in June - despite the fact that I will carefully explain how to avoid those mistakes.

In fact, they already do it. Every year when I teach net ionic equations in chemistry, I explain to my students that the subscripts for ions in formulas cannot automatically be transferred to the product side of the reaction. New subscripts must be generated based upon the charges of the ions being combined. But when I graded the test I still got this:

K2CO3 + FeCl3 --> K2Cl3 + FeCO3

Instead of the correct product formulas:

KCl + Fe2(CO3)3

And I emphasized repeatedly that they should not make this exact mistake - and yet about 20% of them made that mistake anyway.

My second concern, closely related to the first, is that many posters cite Wikipedia articles and appear to believe that Wikipedia constitutes a reliable source of information. This is simply not true even as a first approximation. The reasons for this are manifold and far too complex to attempt to explain here, but let me point out that I was one of the most active editors in the physics pages at Wikipedia in 2006 (in fact at one point I was ranked as the 444th most active Wikipedian), so I know the Wikipedia physics articles, Wikipedia culture and Wikipedia's technical/software environment very well. Thus, my characterization of Wikipedia as inherently unstable and unreliable and vulnerable to politically motivated "slant" and to unrestricted propogation of misinformation (intentional or otherwise) cannot be glibly dismissed as being based upon inexperience at Wikipedia, or upon lack of sympathy with the goals of the Open Information movement, since as should be clear neither of these are the case.

I absolutely agree. Wikipedia is a waste of time. You have to verify everything you read there. And any time a subject is controversial you have people that attempt to control it. Literally something can be modified and within 30 seconds some addict with nothing better to do than stare at their computer screen 24-7 waiting for an edit, changes it right back to the way it was before.

As I said, both of these concerns apply to all internet forums, not just to BAUT. Assuming experienced BAUTians (especially those with professional training) generally agree that my concerns have at least some validity, the question is: what can we do at BAUT to mitigate them, or at least to mitigate the contribution made by BAUT to the problem of miseducation on the net?

My modest proposal is to add a sticky explaining to n00bs some of the points made in the other thread (e.g. read the FAQ before asking a question), some carefully worded explanation of the points outlined above about the limited nature of most BAUT discussions and the limited utility of Wikipedia -as educational resources- (as opposed to, as forums for casual reading by persons who unconcerned with factual accuracy of the "information" presented). My idea is that registration could be modified to ensure that new BAUT registrants see a message strongly urging them to read this new sticky, as well as the existing sticky explaining forum rules. (Since I only registered myself last week, I know that currently new registrants can very easily fail to even find the rules, even if they suspect from prior experience in similar forums that such rules should exist!)

A more ambitious proposal would be to try to maintain similar FAQs at BAUT, Physics Forums, and at the Usenet Physics FAQs websites (as a former FAQ editor, I know how to contact the keeper of the FAQ and the mirrors, and as a former Physics Forums poster, I know how to contact the people who maintain the PF FAQ).

Several BAUTians who responded in posts or PMs to my comments seem to be struggling toward expressing an idea which has previously occured to me: again assuming that my concerns possess some degree of validity, there seems to be an unmet need for social mechanisms (perhaps a greater variety of fora) for segretating populations by knowledge, background, and goals. In particular, for separating the "everyone's living room" function of a forum like BAUT, particularly rants by non-scientists pursuing some anti-scientific poltical/religious agenda, from coursework related discussions and inquiries from serious students desiring accurate and well-informed responses.

(Comments from senior BAUTians with university teaching experience would be particularly desirable!)

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to post a reminder that this is an internet forum and that caution should be used when reading posts and effort should be made to verify information shared by other posters. But that is just common sense for information consumers. Of course many people lack common sense so ...

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

Unfortunately, in these threads, "answers" offered to questions are most often seriously misleading, incorrect, or vapid, yet the inquirers often seem to treat such responses seriously.

"most often"??

(I trust that I hardly need state that the self-quotation above was not intended to mock BAUT or BAUT posters, both of which I consider potentially valuable resources in building support for public support of Big Science. As Bogie recognized, I was simply trying to make sure that participants have at least a vague sense of how far typical BAUT discussions are from well-informed and thoughtful discussion of genuine scientific issues.

I for one am glad you stated that, otherwise I'm sure I would have left with the wrong impression.

(Since I only registered myself last week, I know that currently new registrants can very easily fail to even find the rules,

Conversely, it should be obvious how easy they are to find (FAQ -> Rules for this board -> They can be found here). Although I agree there will always be those who insist on stumbling into things.

(Comments from senior BAUTians with university teaching experience would be particularly desirable!)

We have a lot of those. I are one.

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

I agree with what you (Chris) have said, but I don't think it will work! I am not a noob, far from it. My listed "start date" is actually the date that BABB and UT merged.

Not true, but you're abaut as old as me, so we've probably forgotten those details. I had to look it up: the merger of UT and BABB occurred almost four years later.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I absolutely agree. Wikipedia is a waste of time.

All I can say is, we must be reading different articles! I find wikipedia very useful.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to post a reminder that this is an internet forum and that caution should be used when reading posts and effort should be made to verify information shared by other posters. But that is just common sense for information consumers. Of course many people lack common sense so ...

And include a reminder that they are reading English!

When, of course, the post is in English.

[Kaptain K]

Not true, but you're abaut as old as me, so we've probably forgotten those details. I had to look it up: the merger of UT and BABB occurred almost four years later.

My bad! I guess it was the date that BABB switched from a single thread to a multi-forum board (like BAUT).

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

I guess it was the date that BABB switched from a single thread to a multi-forum board (like BAUT).

That's the way I remember it

Just after 9/11. A new world.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

All I can say is, we must be reading different articles! I find wikipedia very useful.

A lot of times when I google something, I get a wikipedia hit that is useful for my purpose. But the problem I have with Wikipedia is that it is basically a discussion board in which it is difficult to know who the content should be attributed to.

There are people that just sit at their computers waiting for someone to edit an entry they are interested in - and if that person thinks that there is "point of view pushing" the new edit is immediately reverted back to the old form - sometimes within 30 seconds.

For non-controversial topics Wikipedia is probably ok most of the time, but if there is any sort of debate - forget it. You get people with agenda's that disagree fighting over what it should say and it gets nasty.

I also don't like that many of these entries change daily. At least when I pull up a 2 year old research article - it still says the same thing it said when it was published 2 years ago. Wiki may not say the same thing it said 2 minutes ago. It cannot be used as a reliable reference for student research. What students can do with it is use it as a first check on information - but then they have to verify that information with a reliable reference.

Stephen Colbert exposed the problem with Wikipedia several years ago in his Wikiality segement! [/url]

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

For non-controversial topics Wikipedia is probably ok most of the time, but if there is any sort of debate - forget it. You get people with agenda's that disagree fighting over what it should say and it gets nasty.

Why would you expect any controversial subject to be set in stone?

I don't see how you can use anything as a single reference, for contrversial subjects.

What students can do with it is use it as a first check on information - but then they have to verify that information with a reliable reference.

But does that make it a "waste of time"?

That was my point. If you're using it to look up country statistics, for instance, there's not going to be a lot of controversy. But if you're expecting the final word on ATM theories--well, where would you find it?

[hhEb09'1]

Chris Hillman

Just a quick question about your entry at the Numericana Hall of Fame: it says "Sadly, Hillman lost faith again in June 2007". Is that a reference to wikipedia, or to the Relativity website? I'd not usually pry, but you mentioned it earlier in this thread.

I'm going to go wander through the website now!

PS: I guess I posted too soon. The note at the website explains everything.

[grant hutchison]

Isn't it just an error to assume that an open forum (like this one) can be a reliable educational tool? Does anyone who posts here regularly think that BAUT is now, or could become, such a tool?

Posters who turn up with a single question, anticipating a guaranteed reliable answer, are just making a mistake. Is it our role to teach people how to avoid such mistakes?

Grant Hutchison

[John Mendenhall]

Based on a modest few years of experience, the most important thing for frequent posters (FP's?) is to know what one doesn't know - not always an easy task. Reminds me of the old story about the farmer hitting the mule in the head with a 2x4 to get his attention.

Nereid and I have discussed this wrt BAUT in general and ATM in particular, in private correspondence, without much progress. I would support your original post, OP.

[Argos]

Chris Hillman, I think your OP has a distinctive elitist flavor. This is a discussion forum. People come here to try to have a good time, and may not always write as clearly as you want. It is a global forum, after all.

Also, given the open nature of science, it is not guaranteed that what is taught at formal institutions [even Ivy League ones -I´ve read a lot a garbage from their former alumni] is to be taken as the Tables of The Law. That is especially true in computer science.

I´m inclined to think we lowly ones are not the kind of people you want to stick around with.

Other than that, I like your discography, especially your participation in "the Byrds".

[Kaptain K]

FWIW, I for one think there are way too many stickies already!

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

FWIW, I for one think there are way too many stickies already!

My journal limits me to one. I'm glad the board can have more than that. However, there's a bit of scrolling down in at least this subforum.

[Chris Hillman]

Hi, dgruss23,

Originally Posted by dgruss23

In general I think people worry way too much about this. First, if someone makes an egregious error in fact, there is usually someone there to correct it.

My analogy specifically referred to discussions in which general relativity is invoked. (I think this reminder also answers hhEb09'1's question.) Based upon a year or more of occasional lurking and a week of participating in BAUT, contary to what one might hope, my observations suggest that queries are typically answered with comments which are seriously misleading, completely incorrect, or not even wrong.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

The fact is many young people do not understand the subtlety of language -and they are prone to being mis-educated by their own lack of mastery of language.

As a teacher I see this every day. I just finished grading a unit exam for my chemistry classes this afternoon. One of the questions asked why reaction rates increase when concentration increases. The answer is that with a higher concentration there are more reactant particles a given volume and therefore there are more frequent collisions because there are a higher number of reactant particles to collide. I had numerous students sort of get this, but they stated in their explanation that there is "less space" when there is a higher concentration.

Most of them simply do not understand subtlety with language at all. To many of them saying there is "less space" means the exact same thing as saying that the number of particles per unit of volume has increased.

You're not going to be able to fix the problem of people mis-educating themselves on BAUT if those people fail to understand language.

You put your finger on the heart of the problem, in fact I came back here to add an important comment I forgot to mention, and found that you just expressed a generalization of my comment. Which is this:

IMO, based upon experience as ancient as the Web itself of reading and participating in public discussion forums such as BAUT, the primary cause of the kind of nonsense discussion involving gtr (or other subtle topics) which troubles me is the fact that so few posters seem to recognize that unless they have studied the actual theory in its full and highly mathematical glory, they are relying upon verbal shorthand, and thus while a more experienced and knowledgeable reader might be able to see at a glance that they are confusing multiple distinct ideas (which they cannot possibly be aware of, since understanding the distinction generally requires mastery of considerable mathematical background), the posters themselves have no idea of how hilarious--- or saddening--- their discussion often appears.

(To prevent possible misunderstanding: my usual reaction is not laughter but distress that so few people have any inkling of the true richness and subtlety of the scientific discourse.)

Originally Posted by dgruss23

There is such a thing as natural selection in education too. A few misconceptions should not hinder their ability if they are intelligent, have reasoning skills, and are willing to work to correct their own mis-understandings. If they lack those characteristics then they will fail -and that will not be the fault of BAUT or the education system - it will be the fault of parents that did not instill in them a sense of valuing education.

Did you happen to watch (or read the transcript of) that NOVA program I mentioned on how the Web (including Wikipedia) is changing the face of public education? I'll hazard a guess that you would be utterly appalled as I was by the obviously intelligent young people who in interviews averred that they had never read a book and doubted they would ever need to read a book. As one young man put it, what with soccer and all, he simply didn't have time, and found he could get by just fine with Cliff's Notes, even though, as he admitted, he knows that ultimately he is cheating himself by reading, not (to take an apt example) Pride & Prejudice, but the Cliff Notes summary of that novel.

[EDIT: on 15 April 2008 I moved some Wikipedia-related comments to the parallel thread in this subforum, "Should anyone ever cite Wikipedia at BAUT, and if so how?"]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to post a reminder that this is an internet forum and that caution should be used when reading posts and effort should be made to verify information shared by other posters. But that is just common sense for information consumers.

True, but to a great extent "common sense" is a teachable skill--- teachable to educable students, that is. You are entirely correct, unfortunately, that the BAUT participants most in need of such instruction are the very ones least able to benefit from it. (See the paper by Dunning & Kroger cited at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=57440341 and for fun look at the history of edits to that article since the last version I myself edited, which is the I just linked to.)

The youngsters I worry about are the educable ones, the people who are bright and may make future scientists (or at least informed citizens who support financial support of scientific research with public monies), but who are too inexperienced to yet appreciate how much they yet have to learn (and perhaps, of how absorbing and fulfilling it can be to devote their whole lives to learning).

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Just a quick question about your entry at the Numericana Hall of Fame: it says "Sadly, Hillman lost faith again in June 2007". Is that a reference to wikipedia, or to the Relativity website?

Possibly to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/ but the maintainers of Numericana may have confused me with someone else, since if you click on "Chris Hillman" you get sent to a page which has nothing to do with me

One thing early adopters of the web have come to rue is that, as it turned out, one thing the web has done is to bestow on us all of the horrors of notoriety but none of the advantages of fame

But as you say, enough about me.

Someone suggested there are too many stickies already, and I agree. Two thoughts: first, there might be better options than stickies, and second, the sticky I suggest might be more important than some of the existing stickies, especially in view of the goals of BAUT.

[Steve Limpus]

Hey Chris

I don't know if you'll ever solve all the challenges you've highlighted.

I come here both to learn (not in a formal way - but I'm sure I've learned a lot) and for entertainment (it's fun to discuss the stuff that interests us with like minded people). Both I think are valid uses of the forum. My own interest grew from stumbling across Pamela and Fraser's podcasts.

I would like to recommend that the best way to raise the standard of the discourse here is for more qualified people to participate. I know there were some pretty dumb posts last week, but the majority of us just love to have the pros around to help us out, and the dumb posts can be entertaining too - everyone needs a chuckle now and then! I'm sure some of my own posts are less than stellar - but I learn from my mistakes as much as anything else, provided someone more knowledgeable is around to pick them up.

The more qualified people get involved the better the rest of us will become at looking for relevant papers and university sources to improve our knowledge - eventually everyone will benefit. Spreading the word about arXiv.org is an example. And you've pointed out that a better informed public is good for science in the long run.

I know you guys are busy, but we appreciate it.

[Chris Hillman]

To repeat: when I wrote

Right now I would have to characterize many of the threads at BAUT and other forums as resembling the following:

Poster A: "1 + 3 = blue". Poster B: "No no no, 1 + spanish = rice". Poster A: "no, rice is white". Poster C: "3/0 = Paris".

I was referring to threads invoking general relativity. And I feel that I was right to speak out, that quite a few BAUT posters who vastly overestimate their knowledge of this popular, entrancing, but subtle topic needed a sharp kick in the pants. (Let's not loose sight of the fact that I suggested, not such posters be somehow excluded from BAUT or similar fora, but that they try to get in the habit of sprinkling their comments with "as I understand it", "I believe", and so on.)

Nonetheless, I should point out that in choosing how to express my concern, I was caught between a rock and hard place: while my claim would have carried more force and been more specific had I documented a few dozen recent examples of seriously misleading, incorrect or "not even wrong" claims about gtr expressed with great conviction in reponse to queries from baffled n00bs, I didn't want to mention names. Inevitably, this apparently caused a few long time BAUT posters who often answer gtr-related queries to wonder if I was damning all their hard work. My answer is: if you read over your posts before sending them on their way, asking yourself "do I really know enough to state this as fact, or should I qualify my opinion?", then, probably not. If on the other hand you never pause to consider modifying your comments in this way, then... in future, please do so.

I hope this sufficiently clarifies the kind of frequent gtr-related discussion at BAUT which prompted my expression of concern for the welfare of young students who might not realize the limitations of the gtr-related knowledge and experience of some frequent BAUT posters.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

I was referring to threads invoking general relativity. And I feel that I was right to speak out, that quite a few BAUT posters who vastly overestimate their knowledge of this popular, entrancing, but subtle topic needed a sharp kick in the pants.

I agree that you are right to speak out, and I hope that you also step up to the plate in helping to alleviate it with posts of your own.

You can't expect folks to just grasp the concepts in a moment- but you can guide.

Of course, my first defensive response is to look over my shoulder and wonder "is he talking about me? Who then?" But... We'll come back to this...

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

(Let's not loose sight of the fact that I suggested, not such posters be somehow excluded from BAUT or similar fora, but that they try to get in the habit of sprinkling their comments with "as I understand it", "I believe", and so on.)

Nonetheless, I should point out that in choosing how to express my concern, I was caught between a rock and hard place: while my claim would have carried more force and been more specific had I documented a few dozen recent examples of seriously misleading, incorrect or "not even wrong" claims about gtr expressed with great conviction in reponse to queries from baffled n00bs, I didn't want to mention names.

It's a tough spot- One I have found myself in too.
I have spoken out about many specific cases, but didn't want to mention names and I didn't 'gather evidence' beforehand.

But in the end, I think it doesn't matter.

By speaking out- people who read this thread might take that moment to think before hitting submit- a moment they might not have taken before reading the thread. Maybe.

So naming names doesn't really make a difference. Letting folks wonder only motivates them ALL to think about whether or not they are posting misleading statements. (See, Now I'm questioning myself- it's in my head.)
And naming names kinda...well.. some of us would want to explain and defend ourselves and that would distract from the OP.
So leaving it general and nameless, I think, is the best course of action.

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

Inevitably, this apparently caused a few long time BAUT posters who often answer gtr-related queries to wonder if I was damning all their hard work. My answer is: if you read over your posts before sending them on their way, asking yourself "do I really know enough to state this as fact, or should I qualify my opinion?", then, probably not. If on the other hand you never pause to consider modifying your comments in this way, then... in future, please do so.

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

I hope this sufficiently clarifies the kind of frequent gtr-related discussion at BAUT which prompted my expression of concern for the welfare of young students who might not realize the limitations of the gtr-related knowledge and experience of some frequent BAUT posters.

And again, don't hesitate to jump in and post if you catch an error.

Other than that, I don't see how a sticky can compel folks or how a consensus can be reached. This is just one of the facets of using the net. Without a teacher or instructor present to keep you from daydreaming, the window will hold so much allure...

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

As I expected might happen, this thread has been partially hijacked by those who wish to discuss Wikipedia. At this point I would like to ask a friendly moderator to move all comments concerning only Wikipedia (including this one) to a new thread, if that would not be outrageously inconvenient, and to ask that anyone who wants to speak out regarding Wikipedia (for, or against, or in between), place their comments in the new thread. TIA!

Hold on, now.
I doubt that "hijacked" is an appropriate designator, here, given that your original post expressed two concerns, the second of which was:

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

My second concern, closely related to the first, is that many posters cite Wikipedia articles and appear to believe that Wikipedia constitutes a reliable source of information. This is simply not true even as a first approximation.

If you didn't want Wikipedia discussed on this thread, you should perhaps have refrained from introducing it as a concern for our consideration.

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Hold on, now.
I doubt that "hijacked" is an appropriate designator, here, given that your original post expressed two concerns, the second of which was:If you didn't want Wikipedia discussed on this thread, you should perhaps have refrained from introducing it as a concern for our consideration.

Grant Hutchison

<Chuckle>
I think it was Lurkers sig line quoted someone here having said, "This is BAUT We can't discuss a peanut butter sandwich in less than 9 pages" Or something like that.

Good point. Chris, it was in the OP...

We cannot however affect Wikipedia. We can affect BAUT.

[Chris Hillman]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I agree that you are right to speak out, and I hope that you also step up to the plate in helping to alleviate it with posts of your own.

You can't expect folks to just grasp the concepts in a moment- but you can guide.

You are not wrong, but there are other considerations, which boil down, I suppose, to this: I have overpaid my debunking dues. Let us call rather for tenured mathphysics faculty who work in this area to spend more time in public fora answering questions and correcting misstatements. (I might mention Tom Roberts and Steve Carlip as two professors who already do this; many more should follow their example.)

Other than that, I don't see how a sticky can compel folks or how a consensus can be reached. This is just one of the facets of using the net. Without a teacher or instructor present to keep you from daydreaming, the window will hold so much allure...

Thanks for helping me drag discussion back to the point: is there anything we can do to prevent young and inexperienced students from expecting too much from BAUT, and if so, what?

Some points which I think have emerged above (and in a similar discussion at Physics Forums):

1. While it is true that the netizens who most need to read The Rules and who most need to exercise caution in their behavior at BAUT are the very persons least likely to follow the advice in the proposed registration notice linking to The Rules and offering some "Your First Post" pointers, this doesn't invalidate the suggestion that a registration notice would be good idea. After all, some n00bs -would- follow good advice; these are the educable individuals who are most likely to become valuable BAUT contributors.

2. Stickies are indeed problematic (too many, too awkward). I suspect that with a bit of work the maintainers of BAUT can find some way to "bundle" stickies into one notice per subforum, for example.

3. Anything which can help clarify where a poster is at in terms of education and knowlege, without putting anyone off, may be worthy of consideration in the wider context of BAUT's goals. Among these possible topics for discussion would be possible reorganization of BAUT subforums with an eye towards trying to send enrolled students with seriously intended questions to one place, malcontents or jokesters to another. Before you say that trolls will happily try to ruin anything (all too true), my idea is that a really good organization can perhaps decrease the likelihood of awkward collisions between future scholars and amateur enthusiasts. For example, creating a forum called "The Living Room" and then rigorously moving "spoken over a beer" conversations there could over time help segregate seriously intended comments/queries from casual speculations.

4. A simpler solution might be to try to find out whether it might not be possible to work out some agreement which would make it possible for BAUT moderators to take this to the next logical level and to move serious comments/queries to the appropriate subforum at Physics Forums, which currently is organized into topical subfora and supports signficantly more "latex markup" than BAUT (i.e. at PF you can write out readable mathematical statements), while PF moderators could move "woo-promoting threads" at PF to the ATM subforum at BAUT. Noe that both BAUT and PF use Vbulletin, which means this might be more practical than might first appear.

5. Come to that, recalling the origins of BAUT in a fusion of two previous fora, perhaps BAUT and PF could also merge, which might even result in some economies of scale.

[Chris Hillman]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

your original post expressed two concerns, the second of which was:If you didn't want Wikipedia discussed on this thread, you should perhaps have refrained from introducing it as a concern for our consideration.

You're right, Grant: I should have initiated two separate threads for the two discussions. Can a helpful moderator help me repair my mistake now, by splitting this thread into two?

[EDIT: wait a minute, I am going to try to get the ball rolling by starting a seperate thread and editing my original post. Then a moderator can move some of the comments by other posters to the new thread, eh?]

[EDIT: done! Can a moderator move posts #21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 above to the new thread? These posts contain only Wikipedia-related comments.]

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

5. Come to that, recalling the origins of BAUT in a fusion of two previous fora, perhaps BAUT and PF could also merge, which might even result in some economies of scale.

There's still a running debate as to how to pronounce BAUT.

I can't imagine trying to say BAUTPF! without spitting...

BAUTPTHHHHH. It just rolls off the tongue and dribbles off your lips like poetry...