Is BAUT for Experts Only?

[sirjon]

I am wondering if this forum is an exclusive arena, only for gladiators w/ mathematical prowess and specialists w/ Ph. D. Degrees, just to display and show their arsenals of highly advance scientific knowledge.
I felt offended by that guys (I will not mention their names). First, that guy who made a comment that the only math equation I can show is that “ a = 9.8m per sec per sec” and that other guy that told me to stop in sharing my views and dared me to take up a course in Physics ( I taught America is a free country?). You know what guys, ordinary people like me want experts who can share or explain things in simpler ways as what Prof. Stephen Hawking did. I admire Prof. Hawking for three good reasons. First, he is an “open-minded” person by taking the advice of someone who told him that each equation that he includes in his book could halve the sales. Second, he is a “sensible” person by stating in the acknowledgments of his book “A Brief History of Time”, “…yet the basic ideas about the origin and fate of the Universe can be stated w/out math in a form that people w/out scientific education can understand”(see p.vi). He was even quoted “…I hope that will not scare half of my potential readers”, the result – a best selling book. Third, he is a “brave” man – it did not matter to him if it would hurt his reputation by inserting the words “a trick”, in his proposal of a quantum theory of gravity (see pp.135-136) which in the world of Science, could be branded as a “non-acceptable excuse”. Unlike Marquis de Laplace who, maybe, not only decided that it was a crazy idea to think that light could be dragged by gravitational attraction but possibly, he was worried by the impact of such idea in his reputation (see p.82 ).
I don’t want to think that because I came from a third world country and my knowledge is not at that high level, I am not welcome to share my views and opinions about a certain topic in this forum. I regret such kind of prejudice. The story of George Simon Ohm is one classical example of such prejudice. He was ridiculed by his own fellow countrymen (German scientists) because of his dubious math but at the end, the Ohm’s Law became a very significant mathematical formula in the study of electricity and electronics (see p.205, “History of Science and Technology” by Vicente et al, Uni-Ed Inc, Phil.,1988).
I admit that I had offended and hurt the feelings of some people in giving that title, “No Need To Be Super…” (I was not allowed to mention it in this forum or I might be accused again of promoting that blog).I wish to apologize to them and ask for forgiveness. As a sign of respect, I changed the main title and deleted some of the offending statements. But I decided not to take it out from that website, just consider it as a petty sequel of Prof. Hawking’s book, a lay man’s understanding and views of a different kind of gravity.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by sirjon

I am wondering if this forum is an exclusive arena, only for gladiators w/ mathematical prowess and specialists w/ Ph. D. Degrees, just to display and show their arsenals of highly advance scientific knowledge.

No, it isn't. Relatively few of us have post-grad degrees. What we have is a (relatively) common interest in astronomy and science. Many BAUTers just like to look at the pretty pictures. Myself, pretty pictures of planets and moons.

We do, however, have some noted experts in their various fields. And if they say you've made a mistake, you might double (or triple-check) your math. I certainly would.

But in a more general sense:

If you have a question on some aspect of physics or science, BAUTers are generally quite willing to go over and above to help you figure it out so long as you're willing to listen to what folks are telling you.

If you've come with some claim, however, that goes against physics or some other facet of conventional understanding of reality, then you need to understand that while you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. If you're wrong, someone will correct you. I would like to think most people would welcome such a correction. I certainly would.

And if you're right, great, but the only way to know for certain is to have your idea mauled and savaged. If it survives us, it might just be ready for peer review. If it survives that, then congrats, it is likely to be incorporated into the mainstream.

But either way, your idea (if that's your specific beef) won't be entitled to a free ride. Nobody's is.

[chrissy]

sirjon if someone has insulted you, there is a red triangle in the top right hand corner of everyones post, all you have to do is press it and state the reason you are reporting the post. However it is not there to be abused because you do not like the way someone has explained something to you.

You will find there are many here who are quite willing to explain things to you if you do not understand something. I will suggest that you re-read the rules for posting in this forum again so that you do understand what will happen if you post in certain areas of this board.

On a last note sirjon everyone has their own theories and if you take time to read what people are explaining to you it might become a lot clearer or maybe not.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Moose

If you're wrong, someone will correct you. I would like to think most people would welcome such a correction. I certainly would.

And if you're right, great, but the only way to know for certain is to have your idea mauled and savaged.

If somebody is unused to the normal cut-and-thrust of discussion within a scientific or mathematical topic, the demolition of their idea can be received as highly aggressive and unfriendly. Experts in a field can come across as arrogant and unpleasant when in fact they are merely operating on a plane acceptable to their specialism (of course, they might be arrogant and unpleasant as well, but probably not). This should not be taken as a personal insult, but often is taken so to those unaccustomed to it. A thick skin is an advantage.

[Tucson_Tim]

Originally Posted by Perikles

A thick skin is an advantage.

As far as known and famous scientists, I believe it is a necessity. The hammering of newly proposed theories is how the system works--and works pretty darn well.

[korjik]

Most of this will just be amplification to Moose's post. I agree with everything he says, but want to add a bit.

Like Moose said, there arent alot of experts here, but do remember that there are experts here. People who know more physics than 99% of the population of the planet. Some of us are active in the scientific community. This leads to the very clear distinction between asking a question and making a claim.

If you ask a question, most of us will be more than happy to answer it to the best of our ability. If you show a willingness to learn, you will probably be flooded with answers to your questions, for as long as you care to keep it up.

However, if you make a claim, you are implicitly stating that you think you know enough to change the laws of physics. In that case there is one response from most of the experts. Prove it. In scientific circles, this is only done one way, by attacking the claim tooth and nail. We tear it to shreds and see if anything stays intact. You are no different in that respect.

Remember that some of us have more than a little knowledge of physics. Alot of things in physics which seem like they arent thought about are simply theories that were disproved decades ago, and alot of the experts here already know this. Other things in physics are extremely complex, and there are no simple answers. Gravity falls into this category. Alot of the experts here arent very sympathetic to someone who wants to change the laws of physics but dont even understand basic physics. Alot of times, when someone has problems with the basics, that means that the explanation of why someones idea is wrong wont even be understood by the person who presented the idea in the first place.

Also, Stephen Hawking's books are nice, but when he writes them for 'laymen', they ususally end up pretty science free. They are good for the very basic concepts, but bad on the details. The details are important.

Lastly, America is a free country. You are free to speak you ideas and I am free to tell you that you dont have a clue about what you are speaking about. Freedom works both ways

[slang]

Originally Posted by Perikles

If somebody is unused to the normal cut-and-thrust of discussion within a scientific or mathematical topic, the demolition of their idea can be received as highly aggressive and unfriendly.

Almost every new poster in the ATM is encouraged (again, after signup!) to read the rules, with a link directly to the post that contains the rules. In rule 13, that deals specifically with the ATM forum, there is a link called "READ THIS THREAD FIRST" that gives specific advice to new ATM posters. Being unaccustomed is not an excuse, although some leniency is usually granted.

[PraedSt]

What Moose said. Especially this bit:

If you've come with some claim, however, that goes against physics or some other facet of conventional understanding of reality, then you need to understand that while you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Provide proof and evidence and we'll be happy. Otherwise we tend to get grumpy.

[tusenfem]

As being one of the guys, I would like to state that I do not expect every member of BAUT to be an expert in (astro)physics. However, in order to come to a rather scientific board with a claim that goes contrary to what mainstream theories claim, I think it is reasonable to at least ask whether there is some mathematical basis for the claims that are being made (math being the language of physics).

And, no, not everything needs to be mathematical, if you can only come with some analogy or description that clarifies things, then we can work together. But if something is presented, that on further scrutiny seems to have many holes in it, well then it is end of the party, let's clean up.

I appreciate (I think) what you want to present here on the board, though I am still not clear whether it is your own idea or of someone else, however there seem to be many problems with your presentation.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

As being one of the guys, I would like to state that I do not expect every member of BAUT to be an expert in (astro)physics.

What a relief!

[LaurelHS]

I'm not an expert either, but the people here who are experts haven't made me feel unwelcome or anything.

[JohnL]

Based on my rather limited experience of these boards, I think BAUT is for anyone with an interest in astronomy... as long as they can take the idea that their ideas may be downright wrong (as has been said), but also as long as they can filter out what they need from the conversation.

One thing that can (and does) happen is that the people with a lot of knowledge spin off into a lot of equations which the person asking the original question has no hope of understanding. This happens a lot on wikipedia - it's a truism that physics articles on wikipedia are written by physicists who all seem taken by the rather quaint idea that the world is populated entirely by other physicists. :P

It's not so bad on BAUT, but some conversations do still take a certain amount of parsing, and I think to a layman, especially one whose first language is not English, may run into a few "chinese whisper" issues...

Of course, variants of this issue do appear on all web-forums in the world, everywhere, no matter what the subject matter. Any idiot can throw up a web forum, but it takes patience and effort on the part of all involved to create a really good web community, and I think BAUT has managed this pretty well...

[Gillianren]

I have also found that a quick "hey, English major, remember?" has gotten things simplified--with the understanding that, since I don't understand the math, there's a limit to how much I can really grasp the concept fully.

[Fazor]

I've found that the answers on BAUT tend to be as complex or simple as the particular post requires them to be. As evidence, I've had many of my questions answered, whereas my understanding is limited to the basic high-school science classes I took a decade ago.

The complaints usually come from people who are challenging established ideas, or attempting to establish new ones. You cannot change the world's understanding of science without being able to accurately describe your observations. Oft times, math is the key to doing just that.

The math / science requirement at BAUT is certainly context-dependent.

[matthewota]

I would be willing to bet that the majority of BAUT users do not have college degrees. I for one, do not have one. My only foray into professional astronomy was as a telescope operator, which is a very different job from a professional astronomer.

Now I just read astronomy books and use my own telescope...

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by matthewota

I would be willing to bet that the majority of BAUT users do not have college degrees. ...

According to a recent poll in the general discussion area, the majority does have a college degree.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

According to a recent poll in the general discussion area, the majority does have a college degree.

The majority do have college degrees, but I think we've also established that many of those degrees (such as my own) are not in relevant fields.

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

... many of those degrees (such as my own) are not in relevant fields.

Right, including mine as well.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

The majority do have ...

[cough, spurt, errr] The majority does have ...

[wow, a grammar one on Gillian ]

[A.DIM]

Eh, plural singular; either or.

I personally read it as plural and so "the Majority do" is as accurate.

And I'm not one to go flaunting my English degree!

[Paul Beardsley]

Hooray! I agree with A.DIM on something! That must be twice in a couple of years! High five, A.DIM!

[A.DIM]

Brilliant!

[high five]

[Argos]

Originally Posted by matthewota

I would be willing to bet that the majority of BAUT users do not have college degrees. I for one, do not have one. My only foray into professional astronomy was as a telescope operator, which is a very different job from a professional astronomer.

You´re in the company of the great Milton Humason. So, everybody, just relax and enjoy.

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

The majority do have college degrees, but I think we've also established that many of those degrees (such as my own) are not in relevant fields.

Maybe. But I can certainly recall thinking that it would be beneficial if proficiency in English were a pre-requisite for calculus. Clear communication is essential is science. I think I can make a very good case that mathematics is simply the very precise use of language to describe order.

In fact English used to be a pre-requisite, at least in a sense. Back in the dark ages, when I was in college, ANY instructor could refer any student to the English department for certification of compentence, and they had to pass muster in order to graduate. I don't recall any student actually being so referred, but I do recall questions from the Chancellor as to why there were so few referrals and so much poor writing.

At a different school I once gave a test on elementary differential equations. It was an essay test. I asked them how to recognize certain types of equations and how to approach them once recognized. It was a disaster. I have no idea what language they thought they were using. I was expecting something starting with a capital letter, ending in a period with a noun and a verb somewhere in between. My expectations were not met.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Those are about the least shocking words I have ever read.

My general stance tends to be that, if I don't know what I'm talking about it, I don't say it. I find this has come in handy over the years--as has being willing to be corrected.

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

But fear not, I'll get her yet!

I've been gotten (colloquialism; doesn't count) before; I'll be gotten again. No fear.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Maybe. But I can certainly recall thinking that it would be beneficial if proficiency in English were a pre-requisite for calculus. Clear communication is essential is science. I think I can make a very good case that mathematics is simply the very precise use of language to describe order.

I'd be right there making that case with you, actually. But, yes, it never ceases to amaze me how many people think they don't need to know any rules of grammar in order to communicate clearly. Scientist or not, knowing the rules--and, yes, when to break them--is a good idea.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

My general stance tends to be that, if I don't know what I'm talking about it, I don't say it. I find this has come in handy over the years--as has being willing to be corrected.

Yet another good example of why the diversity of this board allows us to cover the spectrum; my philosophy is about the exact opposite of that. If I don't know what I'm talking about, talk louder. At least I'll sound more important that way.

[Moose]

Just some housekeeping. The thread's drifted far enough from the OP that spinning this off into it's own thread (Language arts (Spun-off)) and relocating it to OTB seems justified. Our own young thread, in a place all it's own. *sniff* I'm so proud.

[Fazor]

Now my post was the last post to survive. w00t. I winz t3h thread!

[Fiery Phoenix]

While we're at it, could someone please name a few of the "experts" here on the forum? With the exception of Dr. Plait of course. I've always wanted to know who's actually an astronomy/physics expert on here (i.e. has a degree in either subject.) We can't all be just amateurs, can we?

[robross]

Originally Posted by Fiery Phoenix

While we're at it, could someone please name a few of the "experts" here on the forum? With the exception of Dr. Plait of course. I've always wanted to know who's actually an astronomy/physics expert on here (i.e. has a degree in either subject.) We can't all be just amateurs, can we?

Well, they don't actually post here, but Fraser and Pamela are pretty key on the Astronomy Cast side of the web site.

Rob

[Fiery Phoenix]

Originally Posted by robross

Well, they don't actually post here, but Fraser and Pamela are pretty key on the Astronomy Cast side of the web site.

Rob

Should have mentioned those two as exceptions as well. I meant actual members that do post here, just like you and me and everyone else in this thread.