Unlucky? (to have someone put your ATM idea through the wringer)

[slang]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

But the recent complaints we've seen are not based upon scientific refutation, are they?

How would you characterize a question like "How does this paper X support your claim Y?" then? If it gets answered, presumably with some statement that does not follow from the paper, or "don't know", a more elaborate explanation can be given (and was, in at least one case, ultimately: the re-radiating post). But if proponent refuses to answer, or gives non-answers, what's to refute? Is a post "you're wrong because paper X says Z, not Y" preferable over proponent at least seriously considering his own statement wrt to the paper first?

The complaints come when the question isn't properly addressed (answereing or perhaps a good argument why the question isn't pertinent) and needs repeating. That's the key, IMHO.

Also, let's not forget that in one of the threads that raised the complaints, the ATM issue wasn't so much one particular theory, but a much wider claim. How does one simply scientifically refute a claim on the order of "all mainstream theories are wrong and many ATM threads are on par", or words of somewhat similar meaning? To me it seems that topic required semantics discussion before it was even clear what exactly the claim was. In other words, not really a good example for the question in the OP.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by slang

How would you characterize a question like "How does this paper X support your claim Y?" then? If it gets answered, presumably with some statement that does not follow from the paper, or "don't know", a more elaborate explanation can be given (and was, in at least one case, ultimately: the re-radiating post). But if proponent refuses to answer, or gives non-answers, what's to refute? Is a post "you're wrong because paper X says Z, not Y" preferable over proponent at least seriously considering his own statement wrt to the paper first?

This is exactly what ATM forum needs and we are seeing less of as of late.

A non answer can be demonstrated with math and science much more easily than with bickering and semantics.

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'm not sure I follow ...

The OP says "would you consider yourself unlucky 'to come up against' a BAUT member - 'a proponent of the mainstream position' - who 'argues strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but is also ruthless and relentless'?"

IOW, the question has a restricted scope; IF "ATM ideas are being attacked Scientifically- etc", THEN would you ...

And I'm not supposed to find it odd that this thread follows the recent Forrest Noble complaints?

Originally Posted by Nereid

Indeed.

And such cases were not part of the scope of the question in the OP ...

Because you limited it to the premise of the OP.

The implication is quite clear Nereid.

Originally Posted by Nereid

There are no "demands" Nev, just a simple question.

The demand is that the assumption of the OP is accepted as a premise-- following the FN debacle.

Originally Posted by Nereid

I don't know, and, frankly, for this thread, I don't care ... I'm only curious about the situation described in the OP ...

How curious.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

[...]

And I'm not supposed to find it odd that this thread follows the recent Forrest Noble complaints?

I have no control - or expectation of control - over what you may, or may not, find odd Nev.

The question in the OP is what it is ... I don't understand, and I'm curious to know what others think.

Because you limited it to the premise of the OP.

That's true, I did.

The implication is quite clear Nereid.

Would you mind sharing it, Nev?

It's not the least bit clear to me ...

The demand is that the assumption of the OP is accepted as a premise-- following the FN debacle.

[...]

You're reading far more into this than was intended, and more than what is there.

It's a straight-forward question; I don't understand something, and am curious to know what others think.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is exactly what ATM forum needs and we are seeing less of as of late.

I can't speak of "less" in the context of many years of BAUT, but at least in the often mentioned fn thread I've seen many instances of trying to get a cycle as I described started.

A non answer can be demonstrated with math and science much more easily than with bickering and semantics.

Maybe.. but isn't there more to gain by getting the OP (and similar minded readers) to discover the discrepancies by themselves, explaining more later if needed?

The implication is quite clear Nereid.

Not to me. But it's later here, perhaps I miss something. Put it in a glass and I might notice

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Did you take that up with the mod team, per the established procedure on disagreements with mod decisions?

No, I didn't. The posts were deleted by captain swoop because he said they were promoting an ATM outside the ATM forum and the second of the two posts was also deleted because I reproduced both questions and responses from an ATM thread and this seemed to be promoting an ATM. Neither the questions nor responses were in any way “promotional” and neither post was what I would consider promotional of an ATM. The first post was written to establish the credibility of the presenters because the claim is often made that those presenting ATM's don't fare well because they are, ill informed , inarticulate, or unprepared and the POAMS thread was an extreme example of the contrary.
I have no interest in discussing the fine points of what one might consider “promotional” so captain swoop can edit out those parts of the text that he finds promotional and restore the rest. Or he can state how he defines “promotional” and I will edit that from the posts. Or I can re-post my replies and, if they are deleted again, consider it censorial.

[Gillianren]

You know, a lot of the time, "semantic" arguments are the only way anyone can get deep enough into an idea so that anyone can understand what's right and wrong about it. "You are using this word wrong, so can you please identify what it means in your context?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to say. I can't see any reason it wouldn't be.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

BobA, would you please confirm that, in your opinion, both VivPope and fn "really, truly believed [they] had developed a really good ATM idea" (and that this really good ATM idea was presented in the respective threads)?

Yes, in the case Viv Pope. No, in the case of Forrest Noble. You selected Forrest Noble's OP as a topic for discussion at his reluctance so that makes it your OP...not his. Your OP was an undeveloped matter of subjective opinion not worth discussing in the ATM forum. I think Forrest Noble has some really good ideas but they are not to be found in the OP.

Originally Posted by Nereid

If not, then what relevance do the two example have, to the OP?

If you are asking about your OP under Forrest Noble's name, the discussion at the start had nothing to do with his views on cosmology. If you are asking about your OP in this thread, it is a total sidestepping of the issue. If someone finds a twenty dollar bill in the street and they get run over by a garbage truck while picking it up, can we call them lucky?

Originally Posted by Nereid

If so, even if so in only one case, do you consider the ATM proponent (VivPope, fn) "'to come up against' a BAUT member - 'a proponent of the mainstream position' - who 'argues strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but is also ruthless and relentless'"?

The only really ruthless mainstreamer was CM whose attacks were ignorant and out of line especially his fictional dialogues. There was one other who asked a lot of questions but couldn't understand an answer. There were some who could have given Viv Pope a good debate but a bunch of trolls called the "umballa" group dominated the discussion[/QUOTE]

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by slang

(Please note: this is not aimed at any particular ATM presenter personally, it is an exaggerated fictional description to explore the question in the OP.)

I can recall many real life ATM ideas that worse than your exaggerated example of a bad ATM and there are forums (not here) where the these ideas can be discussed in an open minded and well informed manner and the bad ideas are properly dispatched. The more obstinate of these bad ideas might move on to other places and sometimes they end up in BAUT where both the good and the bad are indiscriminately met with smartaleck remarks, narrow minded sniping, and hypercritical fault finding. The view that all ATM ideas are rubbish becomes a self fulfilling prophesy when the good are driven away.

My casual view of progressive science is that the quality of ATM ideas has gone up remarkably in recent years while the quality of the BAUT ATM section has gone down. This forum has a lot of viewers and I fear that some may get the impression that bickering, trading insults, and generally making an idiot of oneself is an acceptable form of scientific debate as long as it serves the purpose of driving away dissent. My other concern is that the stink of the ATM section here reflects poorly on ATMers everywhere.

[pzkpfw]

Bob Angstrom, please read the rules on language use.

[StarShine]

Is it possible, or worthwhile, for admin to create a poll to gather more feedback about these concerns? As pointed out, there are a few ongoing threads about this and related issues.

A poll might provide admins/mods and members alike, additional insight as to how BAUT, and the ATM forum in particular, is perceived by more than just a few of its members. Perhaps a poll could be set to allow lurkers to participate in it too.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

The only really ruthless mainstreamer was CM whose attacks were ignorant and out of line especially his fictional dialogues.

Actually, those were rather good, for a general refutation of POAMS and rather what POAMS deserved. And I notice you say nothing about Viv's attacks. Those, because he was ATM, are OK by you, right?

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

was one other who asked a lot of questions but couldn't understand an answer.

Actually, Fortis was asking several different questions, and got bogged down in term misuse. The problem, as with a lot of ATM ideas, was that Viv was defining a term differently than in mainstream use. But used the term in the mainstream sense in the equations. And yet, there have been complaints, from ATMers about Nereid wanting to clarify what exactly the definitions of terms are.

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

were some who could have given Viv Pope a good debate but a bunch of trolls called the "umballa" group dominated the discussion

Yeah, both tusenfem and publius made points about specific equations that Vis did nothing but hand wave away (I went back and read the whole thread). Then there was Viv and his appeal to authority. And also, my question was never answered. Why was Viv so afraid of providing the POAMS result? Either it could provide it or it couldn't. If it could, fine, it has a chance. If it can't it's useless. The fact that Viv didn't provide the results(and did enough sidestepping on the matter) leads me to believe that POAMS can't, and Viv didn't want to announce that. In this, Viv was nothing more than a typical ATM poster, refusing to answer questions. The umballa group in that thread was Viv and his group. While POAMS may have been philosophy, it sure isn't science.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

I can recall many real life ATM ideas that worse than your exaggerated example of a bad ATM [...]

Worse than planets from seeds like trees? The quality of the ATM idea is not central to my post. How people might arrive at them is, and how that might lead to a response such as described in the OP.

[...] and there are forums (not here) where the these ideas can be discussed in an open minded and well informed manner and the bad ideas are properly dispatched. The more obstinate of these bad ideas might move on to other places and sometimes they end up in BAUT where both the good and the bad are indiscriminately met with smartaleck remarks, narrow minded sniping, and hypercritical fault finding. The view that all ATM ideas are rubbish becomes a self fulfilling prophesy when the good are driven away.

My casual view of progressive science is that the quality of ATM ideas has gone up remarkably in recent years while the quality of the BAUT ATM section has gone down. This forum has a lot of viewers and I fear that some may get the impression that bickering, trading insults, and generally making an idiot of oneself is an acceptable form of scientific debate as long as it serves the purpose of driving away dissent. My other concern is that the stink of the ATM section here reflects poorly on ATMers everywhere.

Thank you for your opinion on how the ATM forum functions and what you think is wrong with it, but that has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread, and how the situation in my post applies to it, does it?

[Arnold Layne]

Originally Posted by Moose

Strawman argument.

That's what I thought, but a-Googling I went, just to make sure, and I found something that suggested a strawman argument had to be based on a position actually held by the other party. I.e., if you argue against a position actually held by your opponent, but which is irrelevant to the matter at hand, then that is a strawman. But, if you argue against a position not actually held by your opponent, then that is not a strawman. But other sites don't seem to make this distinction, so maybe the site I found is just wrong.

Anyway, ATM debate is maddening. I don't know how you people do it. I don't think I can. I need to stay away from that particular forum

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

That's what I thought, but a-Googling I went, just to make sure, and I found something that suggested a strawman argument had to be based on a position actually held by the other party.

Not quite. The idea is that someone engaging in the strawman fallacy will be exaggerating and misrepresenting your position, building a vaguely man-shaped caricature of your argument "out of straw", because that caricature is easier to refute (often trivially so) than your real position.

"Apple Pie tastes good." "Oh, so you think cake tastes bad? That's obviously wrong."

If someone were to dispute a position their opponent never expressed and/or doesn't hold may simply be a non-sequitor. Or an outright lie depending on how deliberately it's done.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

Anyway, ATM debate is maddening. I don't know how you people do it. I don't think I can. I need to stay away from that particular forum

I very occasionally dip my toes, mainly when I think I've identified the basic point of misunderstanding the mainstream where learning might be applied.

It looks like this is sometimes best done by working back to the basics and figuring out which terms there is disagreement about.

It does however require a willingness to learn on the part of the proponent.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

That's what I thought, but a-Googling I went, just to make sure, and I found something that suggested a strawman argument had to be based on a position actually held by the other party. I.e., if you argue against a position actually held by your opponent, but which is irrelevant to the matter at hand, then that is a strawman. But, if you argue against a position not actually held by your opponent, then that is not a strawman. But other sites don't seem to make this distinction, so maybe the site I found is just wrong.

Logical Fallacies fall into one of two major categories: Formal and Informal. The Straw Man fallacy is a type of Red Herring, in which the arguer attempts to refute his opponent's position, but instead of attacking that position direction, he instead attacks a "straw man" position not held by his opponent. The goal is to "win." Casual observers will see it as a win without realizing the "straw man" is not a component's position. In fact, the unsavvy opponenet will usually agree with the arguer's claims against the straw man position. This is usually followed by "So then you agree with X!" claim by the arguer, which is as irrelevant to the chase as the proverbial red herring dragged across the path to throw hound dogs off the scent.

Anyway, ATM debate is maddening. I don't know how you people do it. I don't think I can. I need to stay away from that particular forum

You're about the 50th person to express their dissatisfaction with the ATM section that I know of. I can't believe some people are still countering comments like this with, "Why haven't I heard of this before?" or "You're alone in your opinion, Mugs."

You're not at all alone in your opinion of the ATM section, Arnold Layne, and the sad state of affairs in that section has been the cause of much discontent with this forum, suspensions, bannings, and people just getting fed up and leaving the forum altogether for better and healthier places.

Many attempts have been made to get the rules changed, but the mindset that "everything is ok!" is well-entrenched. It's like watching the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil. You term it "maddening," and that's a good description of the current state of affairs.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

You're about the 50th person to express their dissatisfaction with the ATM section that I know of. I can't believe some people are still countering comments like this with, "Why haven't I heard of this before?" or "You're alone in your opinion, Mugs."

You're not at all alone in your opinion of the ATM section, Arnold Layne, and the sad state of affairs in that section has been the cause of much discontent with this forum, suspensions, bannings, and people just getting fed up and leaving the forum altogether for better and healthier places.

Many attempts have been made to get the rules changed, but the mindset that "everything is ok!" is well-entrenched. It's like watching the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil. You term it "maddening," and that's a good description of the current state of affairs.

We get a lot of complaints about the ATM forum, but we don't get a whole lot in the way of feasible ways of improving how we handle it. I'm willing to look at the latter, but I'm just going to ignore the former when they're unaccompanied by recommendations.

[agingjb]

I've never been entirely sure why people bring ATM theories here.

The first hit on "baut" on Google, currently, reads "Against the mainstream, general, Martian chronicles, lunar conspiracies, bad TV and bad movies, the book, and Planet X.". Does this give a wrong impression?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...people just getting fed up and leaving the forum altogether for better and healthier places.

I keep hearing this claim, but it seems that those who complain the loudest are still here.

Many attempts have been made to get the rules changed...

Oh, come on...the bottom line here isn't about changing the rules, it's about a few posters who want to control how this board is run, and their inability to conceed defeat once their arguments have been rejected.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

<snip>
Many attempts have been made to get the rules changed, but the mindset that "everything is ok!" is well-entrenched. It's like watching the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil. You term it "maddening," and that's a good description of the current state of affairs.

There have been plenty of changes over time (look over the history stickied in ATM).

I can only speak for myself, but I think there is room for improvement (I'm not the only mod that feels that way, but I haven't done a poll). Various ideas have certainly been debated in the administrative areas of the forum, so it is a continuing point of discussion among the moderation team. I am open to suggestions, but, as ToSeek said, I haven't seen any that are an improvement, IMHO, and I think many would make it worse.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

... and people just getting fed up and leaving the forum altogether for better and healthier places.

I keep seeing people saying they're leaving, but for some reason they keep coming back. Why does that happen?

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

We get a lot of complaints about the ATM forum, but we don't get a whole lot in the way of feasible ways of improving how we handle it. I'm willing to look at the latter, but I'm just going to ignore the former when they're unaccompanied by recommendations.

The ATM forum and the rules requiring ATM discussions to take place exclusively in that form provide and excellent service. They serve to keep discussions in the remainder of BAUT from being derailed.

What is important is not so much what happens in the ATM forum as what does not happen elsewhere.

My strong recommendation is to maintain the forum and the policies that dictated its existence. Other forums have run aground because of the lack of similar policies.

What is astonishing is the forebearance demonstrated by Nereid, Tusenfem and others in the ATM forum, and their dedication to bringing a discussion of real data and real science to the discussions in the face of a barrage of nonsequiturs, and obfuscation.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The ATM forum and the rules requiring ATM discussions to take place exclusively in that form provide and excellent service. They serve to keep discussions in the remainder of BAUT from being derailed.

What is important is not so much what happens in the ATM forum as what does not happen elsewhere.

My strong recommendation is to maintain the forum and the policies that dictated its existence. Other forums have run aground because of the lack of similar policies.

What is astonishing is the forebearance demonstrated by Nereid, Tusenfem and others in the ATM forum, and their dedication to bringing a discussion of real data and real science to the discussions in the face of a barrage of nonsequiturs, and obfuscation.

What he said ^^

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

I keep seeing people saying they're leaving, but for some reason they keep coming back. Why does that happen?

You're just irresistible.

Ever thought of having a panda avatar?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Yes, in the case Viv Pope. No, in the case of Forrest Noble. [...]

[...] If you are asking about your OP in this thread, it is a total sidestepping of the issue. If someone finds a twenty dollar bill in the street and they get run over by a garbage truck while picking it up, can we call them lucky?

I don't follow; would you mind elaborating please?

The only really ruthless mainstreamer was CM whose attacks were ignorant and out of line especially his fictional dialogues.

Not to introduce semantics, but aren't you using this word ("ruthless"), here, in a way quite different than I carefully explained in the OP?

There was one other who asked a lot of questions but couldn't understand an answer. There were some who could have given Viv Pope a good debate but a bunch of trolls called the "umballa" group dominated the discussion

Leaving aside - for now - Tensor's highly pertinent (subsequent) post, to what extent would you say VivPope was "unlucky" to have had a mainstream opponent as described in the OP?

Or perhaps I'm assuming too much ... do you consider there to have been at least one mainstream opponent - as described in the OP - in the POAMS thread?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

I can recall many real life ATM ideas that worse than your exaggerated example of a bad ATM and there are forums (not here) where the these ideas can be discussed in an open minded and well informed manner and the bad ideas are properly dispatched. The more obstinate of these bad ideas might move on to other places and sometimes they end up in BAUT where both the good and the bad are indiscriminately met with smartaleck remarks, narrow minded sniping, and hypercritical fault finding. The view that all ATM ideas are rubbish becomes a self fulfilling prophesy when the good are driven away.

My casual view of progressive science is that the quality of ATM ideas has gone up remarkably in recent years while the quality of the BAUT ATM section has gone down. This forum has a lot of viewers and I fear that some may get the impression that bickering, trading insults, and generally making an idiot of oneself is an acceptable form of scientific debate as long as it serves the purpose of driving away dissent. My other concern is that the stink of the ATM section here reflects poorly on ATMers everywhere.

(bold added)

Other than, perhaps, the JREF's Science (etc) section (and BAUT's ATM section!), do you know of any forum where a proponent of an ATM idea - in astrophysics/cosmology/etc - is likely (~20+%) to find their ATM ideas (as presented) challenged in a manner described in the OP?

To all readers: do you (know of any such forum)?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

[...]

You're about the 50th person to express their dissatisfaction with the ATM section that I know of. I can't believe some people are still countering comments like this with, "Why haven't I heard of this before?" or "You're alone in your opinion, Mugs."

You're not at all alone in your opinion of the ATM section, Arnold Layne, and the sad state of affairs in that section has been the cause of much discontent with this forum, suspensions, bannings, and people just getting fed up and leaving the forum altogether for better and healthier places.

Many attempts have been made to get the rules changed, but the mindset that "everything is ok!" is well-entrenched. It's like watching the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil. You term it "maddening," and that's a good description of the current state of affairs.

I had one of those "are we even on the same planet?!?" reactions on reading this mugs.

You see, you seem to have interpreted AL's post in a very different way than I did (almost opposite, in fact) ... to me, the post was about how awful the (overwhelming?) majority of ATM proposals are (wrt meeting even basic requirements as science) ...

Maybe AL could comment?

[Arnold Layne]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Maybe AL could comment?

Oh my. My comment generated a lot more reaction than I anticipated.

Originally Posted by ToSeek

We get a lot of complaints about the ATM forum, but we don't get a whole lot in the way of feasible ways of improving how we handle it. I'm willing to look at the latter, but I'm just going to ignore the former when they're unaccompanied by recommendations.

I'm not complaining, in the sense that I want anyone to do anything about it. Really, I was just blowing off steam, expressing my frustration, and expressing my intention (which may change) to withdraw from ATM. I am not asking anyone to change the ATM forum.

Originally Posted by Nereid

you seem to have interpreted AL's post . . . to me, the post was about how awful the (overwhelming?) majority of ATM proposals are (wrt meeting even basic requirements as science) ...

That's rather how I feel. Without going into too much detail or getting personal with anyone, I see people who don't understand the most rudimentary aspects of a particular long-established theory, but who are convinced that they've disproved it. Then a bunch of people (who probably spent considerable time and effort preparing their detailed responses) carefully explain to the malefactor where s/he went wrong, provide lengthy explanations and external references to additional information and evidence, and the like. Pages and pages of this, the original poster simply ignores all the responses and repeats the original misconception, no evidence at all, just argumentum ad verecundiam.

There may be some threads in ATM that begin with very insightful ideas and that have potential to move some branch of knowledge forward. But an awful lot of them smack of "I just heard about this thing ten minutes ago, and I don't understand it at all, but now I'm going to prove it wrong!"

I get the impression (which mugaliens should feel free to correct, if it is wrong) that mugaliens and I have similar feelings about the ATM forum, but different ideas about what to do about it. Mine is simply to leave, and hang out in places like Q&A, where people who know something can explain it to others who want to learn (as contrasted with ATM, which is mostly trying to explain things to people who don't want to learn, since they already know it all), whereas mugaliens has some ideas about how to change the ATM forum. Mine is merely to change it, by removing myself from it

Originally Posted by Nereid

Maybe AL could comment?

Commented

I guess I have, without realizing it, touched a sensitive spot for a lot of people. Again, I'm not asking anyone to change anything about the ATM forum; I was just blowing off a bit of steam. I don't think I really have the level of patience to operate successfully in ATM, so I think my plan is to leave it to those who do . . .

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Other than, perhaps, the JREF's Science (etc) section (and BAUT's ATM section!), do you know of any forum where a proponent of an ATM idea - in astrophysics/cosmology/etc - is likely (~20+%) to find their ATM ideas (as presented) challenged in a manner described in the OP?

To all readers: do you (know of any such forum)?

I think you can find that sort of thing in any number of science-oriented forums. I have seen such discussions, in the past in the Science forum and at SDS.

What distinguishes BAUT are a few unique characteristics:
1) The discussion of ATM ideas is rigorously limited to a single forum dedicated to those topics. (A VERY good thing).
2) BAUT has unusually high number of participants with the capability to challenge ATM ideas with authority.
3) Not only does BAUT have the members noted in #2, but there are several who are willing to devote a significant amount of time and effort to debunking outlandish ATM ideass.
4) ATM proponents at BAUT are required to respond to questions, and that forces objective discussion to a degree not found in other forums, where ATM proponents typically duck all substantative questions and hurl epithets at the mainstream. This is another very good part of the BAUT policy.

Item #1 has preserved the integrity of the mainstream forums on BAUT while providing a place for the discussion of ATM ideas. Other forums have been derailed (and in my opinion wrecked) by uncontrolled promotion of ATM ideas, which typically have no real basis.

TY

[Arnold Layne]

And what is the first thing I do after making the above post? I post in ATM forum.

I think I win the award for self-contradiction