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

[Nereid]

In the recently closed ATM Rules Discussion thread, here in this section, I asked the following question*:

Given the BAUT ATM section's mission, if you really, truly believed you had developed a really good ATM idea, 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'?

OK, 'ruthless' only in a restricted sense - taking no prisoners when it comes to scientific integrity.

To give credit: the semi-quoted text is from a post by BAUT member PipeDream; the post in which it occurs is quoted in my post (itself referenced above).

I have the impression that many proponents of ATM ideas would, indeed, consider themselves unlucky to be in such a situation ... but I do not understand why.

What do you think?

* edited someone, to account for the lack of context here

[Arnold Layne]

It seems to be most of the ATM theories advanced show an appalling lack of basic science theory/evidence, and the proposed theories are a) not supported by any evidence, b) observationally indistinguishable from more mainstream theories, or c) internally inconsistent. So most of the ATM theories proposed, in my opinion, reflect deficiencies in the proposer's level of understanding, rather than any deficiency in the mainstream theory.

But speaking hypothetically, someone could come up with an ATM theory that is correct. Such things do happen in science. What was ATM at one point gets accepted and becomes mainstream, although I think it unlikely that someone who comes up with a likely candidate theory would rush to post it at a website, instead of the other possible outlets. But, if someone did post such a theory, I take it your point is, they should be glad to have someone to field test it thoroughly, to iron out any kinks in it, etc.?

If that's the case, I agree people who are trying to push poorly thought-out theories should be afraid of coming against a capable advocate of the mainstream, if their goal is to promote the theory, whether it is correct or not. But I can also see someone in such a situation just getting overwhelmed. The person who comes out on top may not be the person with the best facts; a sharp debater might change the outcome somewhat. I do not claim that this generally happens with the science ATM theories posted here, because, in my opinion, most of them have no merit.

I do see it happening in other areas. A great deal of total nonsense is posted in OTB, where people frequently opine on topics about which they obviously know next to nothing (or worse yet, know things that are wrong). I routinely see "facts" posted in OTB that would make for a simple debunking exercise in an elementary course on the topic, but the relatively small number of people who are knowledgeable about the topic quickly get overwhelmed by a huge volume of sloppy, ill-informed, emotional, dare I say, ATM posts. There's one person in particular who surprises me; he actually knows what he is talking about, but is swamped by fast-talking ATMers on a routine basis. If I were him, if would have abandoned this place in despair long ago.

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

It seems to be most of the ATM theories advanced show an appalling lack of basic science theory/evidence

I have a theory (ahem) that some of these people have only ever read popular science books and articles (as opposed to studying/doing "real" science). They then somehow assume that "that is all there is to it". So if these "so-called scientists" can "make up" theories, why shouldn't they. They often seem to be completely unaware of the depth of supporting theory, math and evidence behind the mainstream ideas.

What is staggering is the self-belief they show in continuing to insist they are right even when they admit they are not "experts" in the field. And have their basic errors pointed out to them... And the more they are proved wrong, the stronger their belief gets: look at all those other people whose ideas weren't accepted for years!

It is a fascinating, if frustrating, insight into human nature.

It always reminds me of those X-Factor/Idol TV shows where the early episodes have people auditioning who are utterly convinced they are talented. Despite the evidence.

[mike alexander]

It's peer review. Nobody likes peer review unless it contains nothing but fawning acceptance.

Or (as someone here noted) it's like a thesis defense, which is worse because it's mano a groupo.

I most certainly did not enjoy either my thesis or dissertation defenses.

[HenrikOlsen]

To quote me in another thread:

That last one is an explicit admission of using the concept occasionally known as lies-to-children, where a simpler(wrong) explanation is taught first, because that gives enough to base the less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in school on which gives enough basis to learn the even less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in high school, which are also simplified and wrong, but enables you to go to college and learn the somewhat simplified and wrong explanations that are what's needed to learn the least simplified explanation you get as a post doc, before you try to find a not so simplified explanation as a researcher.

The problem as I see it is when people aren't aware that this process happens for the teaching of all science and believe what they learned in one of the middle steps to be the whole truth.

[Henna Oji-san]

Lies to children: I like that idea. It would go some way to explain why people become so emotionally attached to their version of the truth; the world as it was when they were young.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

To quote me in another thread:
That last one is an explicit admission of using the concept occasionally known as lies-to-children, where a simpler(wrong) explanation is taught first, because that gives enough to base the less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in school on which gives enough basis to learn the even less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in high school, which are also simplified and wrong, but enables you to go to college and learn the somewhat simplified and wrong explanations that are what's needed to learn the least simplified explanation you get as a post doc, before you try to find a not so simplified explanation as a researcher.

The problem as I see it is when people aren't aware that this process happens for the teaching of all science and believe what they learned in one of the middle steps to be the whole truth.

I think Knuth's version is more fun.

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Nereid

In the recently closed ATM Rules Discussion thread, here in this section, I asked the following question*:

Given the BAUT ATM section's mission, if you really, truly believed you had developed a really good ATM idea, 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'?

OK, 'ruthless' only in a restricted sense - taking no prisoners when it comes to scientific integrity.

To give credit: the semi-quoted text is from a post by BAUT member PipeDream; the post in which it occurs is quoted in my post (itself referenced above).

I have the impression that many proponents of ATM ideas would, indeed, consider themselves unlucky to be in such a situation ... but I do not understand why.

What do you think?

* edited someone, to account for the lack of context here

If I had a really good ATM idea, by which I mean a serious breakthrough in science or mathematics and if I had my ducks in a row, the last place on Earth that I would announce it would be in the ATM forum. This position has absolutely nothing to do with and fear of "ruthless and relentless" questioning.

If I had such an idea I would publish it in the most prestigious applicable refereed journal available. One would expect a level of "ruthless and relentless" review by the referees of such a journal that would make the ATM questioning pale in comparison. But that is the proper venue for any serious breakthrough in science.

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

If I had a really good ATM idea, by which I mean a serious breakthrough in science or mathematics and if I had my ducks in a row, the last place on Earth that I would announce it would be in the ATM forum.

Would you consider posting to ATM to get your ideas further tested? (assuming you have already talked it through with colleagues etc.)

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

Would you consider posting to ATM to get your ideas further tested? (assuming you have already talked it through with colleagues etc.)

I would be interested in knowing the benefit of that. What audience are you getting that is not already in the journals? Especially, when you state "further tested". Collegues and journal readers are probably the only ones that have the means to test them.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I would be interested in knowing the benefit of that. What audience are you getting that is not already in the journals? Especially, when you state "further tested". Collegues and journal readers are probably the only ones that have the means to test them.

I've always felt that ATM was a place to go before you were ready for the journals, a place to work on getting your ducks in a row. Yes, if I had a world-changing idea that I knew was ready for publication, I'd publish. Who wouldn't? However, there is some advantage in starting small.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I would be interested in knowing the benefit of that. What audience are you getting that is not already in the journals? Especially, when you state "further tested". Collegues and journal readers are probably the only ones that have the means to test them.

Of course the danger of putting it in ATM is that someone might steal your idea and get it published first.

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

I would be interested in knowing the benefit of that.

I don't know. "I'm not an expert" (which is why it was a question, not an assertion)

I guess it is unlikely people would spot any really obviosu errors. Maybe more useful if you were thinking of writing an article about it for a non-technical journal?

[pipedream]

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

I guess it is unlikely people would spot any really obviosu errors.

Sorry Henna, couldn't resist it.

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

Sorry Henna, couldn't resist it.

I woz just testing. Honest.

Oji

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Swift

Of course the danger of putting it in ATM is that someone might steal your idea and get it published first.

Yeah; I probably should have pointed out that I had that in my mind when stating it.

I always thought that part of publishing was to "put it out there" with the authority of yours being the original thought.

I don't see how an open discussion on a forum is going to achieve that.

[HenrikOlsen]

By establishing precedence though posting date.

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san

Would you consider posting to ATM to get your ideas further tested? (assuming you have already talked it through with colleagues etc.)

Nope. If I thought I had a real breakthrough I would write it up, satisfy myself that it was correct, and then off to the appropriate journal it goes. There is not the slightest chance that I would post it in some open forum like this.

Why would I bother with an amateur bulletin board for a professional piece of research ?

When have you ever seen a legitimate piece of professional research announced in such a forum ?

[gzhpcu]

I find the typical ATMer impervious to critique and admitting error. They are out to push their "theory", if it can be called that, usually it is just a fantasy. Often they totally misunderstand basic concepts, use terminology which is not clear, usually accepted terms in an erroneous fashion. There is also a basic lack of humilty, or lack of reality, that they could come up with a GUT, while countless scientists have been unable to do so.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

By establishing precedence though posting date.

That would be a very difficult thing to use as proof, since now you need to include the software, the board administration, and validity of semi-anonymous posts.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

There is also a basic lack of humilty, or lack of reality, that they could come up with a GUT, while countless scientists have been unable to do so.

There's always the chance that everybody else has been looking in the wrong direction. Not likely, but that's part of what would make it so precious.

Of course, the ATMer's assumption that he* is the next Galileo can be extremely annoying. Okay, so there was a Galileo, and a few other geniuses who turned the world around, but how many billions of people have not been Galileos?

If I came up with an ATM theory, I would like to think that I would present it with some dignity. I don't think it would go into a futile loop that lasted for 18 pages before someone finally banned me, because I would make a point of at least addressing every serious question asked, in a mannerly manner!

Chances are, I'd concede defeat after a handful of questions - "Ooh, I never thought of that!" - but I'd rather that than clog up the boards with drivel.

*Or she, but is it ever a she?

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

That would be a very difficult thing to use as proof, since now you need to include the software, the board administration, and validity of semi-anonymous posts.

Not to mention the fact that the available software does not permit the inclusion of mathematics, graphs, large tables, illustrations, ........

One must not only claim a result or a theory, one must provide the justification for the claim.

A public bulletin board is not the right venue for the announcement of legitimate scientific resultss.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Not to mention...

Not mentioned because images of those items can be included or linked.
Although; It's not like I've seen many of those in ATM anyway.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by Tensor

I think Knuth's version is more fun.

I'm really tempted to use that quote in my email signature, but very few students (and administrators, potentially) would get it.

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by Nereid

would you consider yourself unlucky 'to come up against' a BAUT member - 'a proponent of the mainstream position' - who 'argues strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically

I would consider myself lucky if that happened.

Originally Posted by Nereid

any other -ally you care to think of,

When they argue falsely I consider myself unlucky. Because false arguments in dispute of ATM posters is validated and encouraged.

Originally Posted by Nereid

I have the impression that many proponents of ATM ideas would, indeed, consider themselves unlucky to be in such a situation ... but I do not understand why.

What do you think?

Understand a little better now?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

I would consider myself lucky if that happened.

When they argue falsely I consider myself unlucky. Because false arguments in dispute of ATM posters is validated and encouraged.

[...]

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond, aastrotech.

What does "arguing falsely" entail? What are "false arguments"? How - in detail, please - are "false arguments in dispute of ATM posters is validated and encouraged" (I'm talking about the "validated and encouraged" part)?

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by Nereid

What does "arguing falsely" entail? What are "false arguments"?
How - in detail, please - are "false arguments in dispute of ATM posters is validated and encouraged" (I'm talking about the "validated and encouraged" part)?

Are you claiming that you have never participated in discussions where I have defined the above, pointing out examples, and being fouled for it?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

Are you claiming that you have never participated in discussions where I have defined the above, pointing out examples, and being fouled for it?

I am not claiming anything; I am asking some simple questions (and hoping to get some straight-forward answers).

Even if I did so participate, I doubt that many of those who are reading this thread did (and your audience is not just me, is it).

[01101001]

Unlucky? The proponents are lucky the reviewers don't send them a bill for their kind services!

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

I am not claiming anything; I am asking some simple questions (and hoping to get some straight-forward answers).

Ditto here. I had two posts in the previous thread deleted because they were promoting an ATM idea outside the ATM forum. Can you point to anything in either post that could be considered promotional of an ATM idea?