Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 219

Thread: The death of ATM (Against the Mainstream)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,492

    The death of ATM (Against the Mainstream)

    I've enjoyed my time on this forum, but it's time to call it a day. My philosophy has always been respectful discussion, supplemented with citations where required.

    But the closure of the recent thread on Plasma Cosmology and Math did surprise me.

    Someone asked what appeared to be a genuine question which was loosely attributed to the "Plasma People". Van Rijn's naturally assumed it referred to the Electric Universe people, I assumed it could equally apply to Plasma Universe people. Either way, I thought the thread appeared to make good progress.

    But it was closed on the grounds of not following policy, in this particular case, of "being a promotion tool". But it's not entirely clear who is supposed to be doing the promotion. Certainly not the person who posed the original question.

    My replies are can clearly be seen as promoting ATM ideas. But I have no idea how to present peer-reviewed papers, written by "plasma people", that do not come across as supportive.

    It's also been suggested that anyone who asks questions about ATM ideas, MUST defend them too. This is the George Bush dilemma: you are either with us, or you're against us. In other words, you can't be agnostic and ask about an ATM idea (as did the original poster in this thread), but you must DEFEND the idea whether you agree with it or not. i.e. you can't ask about ATM ideas.

    In my mind, this distinguishes skepticism from pseudoskepticism.

    I also note that critics have no obligation to substantiate their discussions, whereas unlike any other forum area on BAUT, ATM ideas must back-up everything with math. But when this thread brought up the subject, it was closed down.

    I see questions on UFO, doughnut theory, and nanotech Rocket Engines. But it's odd that we can't properly discuss a subject that appears in peer reviewed papers as recent as Aug 2007 (warning: papers appear to promote ATM ideas, and include maths!)

    Sigh, I'm sure I'll be back.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Moved, from ATM section to About BAUT.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,788

    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post

    It's also been suggested that anyone who asks questions about ATM ideas, MUST defend them too. This is the George Bush dilemma: you are either with us, or you're against us. In other words, you can't be agnostic and ask about an ATM idea (as did the original poster in this thread), but you must DEFEND the idea whether you agree with it or not. i.e. you can't ask about ATM ideas.
    Am I missing something here? As I understand the process, the original poster of the ATM idea is responsible for defending it. Now, if you happen to agree with the ATM idea, I think that puts you in the defense position also. Big deal. And the usual rules apply, no advertising, no site promotion, no high jacking the thread for pet theories, no reiterating ideas that have been discussed at length elsewhere. The burden of proof lies with the ATM proponents, be they the OP or not. The mainstream is the mainstream for a reason; it's probably correct.

    The reason the moderators’ insist on this, I would guess, is because there are a few posters that feel every thread is an excuse to promote their ideas endlessly. Sheer quantity of words is not going to make any off the wall idea correct; look at all the verbiage there is about astrology, and it doesn't make it one whit truer. This is one of the better forums around, and it would be nice to keep it that way. One way to do that is to keep the subjects focused and non-repetitive.

    Now if you'll excuse me for a few minutes, I need to work backwards through this thread.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Am I missing something here? As I understand the process, the original poster of the ATM idea is responsible for defending it. Now, if you happen to agree with the ATM idea, I think that puts you in the defense position also. Big deal. And the usual rules apply, no advertising, no site promotion, no high jacking the thread for pet theories, no reiterating ideas that have been discussed at length elsewhere. The burden of proof lies with the ATM proponents, be they the OP or not. The mainstream is the mainstream for a reason; it's probably correct.
    The original poster asked about an ATM idea, in this case, whether there was any math to support it. Why would they automatically want to support an idea they are not necessarily familiar with?

    I'm sure you don't blindly support ALL of mainstream astronomy, and wouldn't defend a specialist field you were merely asking questions about.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post

    I'm sure you don't blindly support ALL of mainstream astronomy, and wouldn't defend a specialist field you were merely asking questions about.
    True, notice my careful use of the 'weasel words' (see Wiki article).

    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post

    The original poster asked about an ATM idea, in this case, whether there was any math to support it. Why would they automatically want to support an idea they are not necessarily familiar with?
    In the original thread, the question is about EU math. This should probably be in Q&A, and might not even be acceptable there, there are a lot of warnings about EU and PC and guides to find material about them. As Nereid said, post #2 is enough. After that, the posting takes off, and the EU proponents and adversaries are at it again, rehashing the same material. Unless there is something new, there is no reason to waste resources on it. Both sides are culpable, in my opinion. Be happy I am not a moderator; some of these folks would be on the outside looking in.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb The Adversarial Process

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    As I understand the process, the original poster of the ATM idea is responsible for defending it.
    This is exactly the problem, as Ian points out. There is no forum where someone can ask a question about an ATM idea, because they are not presenting an idea to defend. Likewise, if find a new result that casts doubt on some ATM ideas, I cannot post that result anywhere. I can't put it in Q&A because it is not a Q; I can't put it in ATM because it is not an ATM idea I want to defend; I can't put it anywhere outside ATM because it is an ATM topic. So, there is no place to simply discuss ATM ideas without trying to defend one. As a user, I would like to see that ability put back into ATM.

    The goal is a laudable one, that is to maintain a higher level of discussion. The adversarial process, if it is done right, does force the main issues into the open fairly quickly. Too many ATM poster litter the threads with pointless exercises in cut & paste, or just links with no comments at all. That keeps the main issues buried in long winded discussions that go nowhere, and do it slowly.

    One possibility is to take an idea from the Internet infidels forum (which is, in general, far more free-wheeling, uncontrolled and adult oriented than BAUT). The idea is that they have a forum set aside for "formal debates". Two users will cut their own deal on the rules, and the moderators open a thread to which only the 2 debators are allowed to post. That prevents the "piling on" phenomenon, where a crowd of mainstreamers can overwhelm one lone ATMer with more questions than they can handle. What about a BAUT formal debate forum, along similar lines, where one ATMer & Mer debate with alternating posts? That will (or might) produce a higher quality discussion, that the rest of the crowd can discuss on the side, in another open thread, which carries no formal requirement to defend an idea; it's the "free wheeling" discussion that can go along with the formal debate, which is itself closed to all except the debators.

    Of course, it is Fraser's forum, and he has goals of his own for preventing ATMers from being able to freely market their ideas without defending them. That's the point of requiring an adversarial process, so the ATMer does not get a "freebie", and is required to do the work defending their ATM idea. There may not be an easy way around this.

    And, finally, I note that I am not myself willing to take on moderator's duties. So, I can't comfortably suggest that other people should do the work of moderating that I am not myself willing to do. But it would be nice if there were a way to be more "exploratory" in understanding where ATM ideas come from, and what might be their strengths & weaknesses.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    The original poster asked about an ATM idea, in this case, whether there was any math to support it. Why would they automatically want to support an idea they are not necessarily familiar with?
    I think this is a perfect example of a problem that Neried brought up a few weeks ago. How do we address the people who just want information on an old and tired topic without re-inviting discussion over it.

    Yeah, the OP could have done a search for EU (or Plas. Uni) topics, but with the way these conversations take off 'round here, I doubt they would have been able to easily find the information they were looking for.

    So what's the solution?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    The original poster asked about an ATM idea, in this case, whether there was any math to support it. Why would they automatically want to support an idea they are not necessarily familiar with?
    ATM is in its current form to deal with fairly rampant abuse in the form of inappropriate promotion. If the mods were to exempt "just asking questions" from the defense rules, one could expect to see certain ATMers exploiting that loophole to "just ask questions" with the sole purpose of keeping their preferred thread bumped as long as possible, and utter disregard to the answers.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
    What about a BAUT formal debate forum, along similar lines, where one ATMer & Mer debate with alternating posts?
    This has come up a number of times, and there has been a lot of good discussion on the topic in this forum. I only have a minute or two at the moment, so I can't go looking for the last topic, but IIRC, if you do a search on the word "debate" within the About BAUT forum, and look for a thread from two, maybe three months ago, you should find it/them.

    I can't remember for certain if it was one of the ATM threads, or if it was the thread on that CT guy who wanted to challenge JayUtah to an enforced one-on-one debate.

    If I have a chance tonight (and remember to do it), and if you haven't found it by then, I'll see if I can track it down.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
    What about a BAUT formal debate forum, along similar lines, where one ATMer & Mer debate with alternating posts?
    So you would turn this board into a place that is (in your own words...)

    ...far more free-wheeling, uncontrolled and adult oriented than BAUT.
    Other than appeasing a few ATMers, why in the world would you think that a good idea?

    That's exactly the kind of board that BAUT isn't.

    Why don't all the ATMers who are dissatisfied here start their own board and talk about what they want to there...oh that's right, they like the "exposure" that a mainstream science board allows them...my error.



    edit to add...upon re-reading this post I can see how Tim might "take it" as an attack on him...I certainly didn't intend for it to sound that way...I just think his idea is a really bad idea particularly for a board like BAUT...I just want to be clear on that.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2007-Oct-09 at 04:41 PM. Reason: clarification
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,788

    Why Not?

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post

    edit to add...upon re-reading this post I can see how Tim might "take it" as an attack on him...I certainly didn't intend for it to sound that way...I just think his idea is a really bad idea particularly for a board like BAUT...I just want to be clear on that.
    How about 1 on 1, alternate posts, 300 word limit per post, follow all the other forum rules, and a 30 day limit on the thread? Sounds good to me, there was an absolutely ding-dong idea that I would like to go after with a poster or two.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2007-Oct-09 at 05:48 PM. Reason: clarity

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    This is an open discussion board. Any "one on one" would EXCLUDE everyone else.

    Personally, I think that people have every right to start an "exclusionary" board...just not here.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    So what's the solution?
    I don't see a problem. I recognise that there are some people who are out to unduly promote ATM ideas and "game" the system. I understand that this should not be allowed. But there is no reason not to allow people to ask genuine questions: this is scientific enquiry.

    I think moderators are experienced enough to know when asking a question is not what it seems. In the example thread above, Plasma Cosmology and Math, the poster was relatively new, so (a) we assume good faith (b) they clearly were asking a critical question.

    I think Tim's point relates to many news items where new observations/papers are by definition, not quite consistent with the mainstream, because they suggest new or controversial theories, eg. A new theory on jets, a controversial theory on life etc. We don't insist that Frazier defends all these theories!

    The solution? A slight clarification of policy, that ATM threads may be closed if moderators believe they are being used to promote, rather than discuss a subject. The 30 day time limit still applies.

    The idea of defending an ATM idea in the rules, Section 13 seems to apply to people posting their own pet theories, rather than published peer-reviewed theories? Again this could be modified to take into account the moderators' discretion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb "Formal" Debates

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ... That's exactly the kind of board that BAUT isn't. edit to add ... upon re-reading this post I can see how Tim might "take it" as an attack on him ... I certainly didn't intend for it to sound that way ... I just think his idea is a really bad idea particularly for a board like BAUT ... I just want to be clear on that.
    Fair enough. I don't think BAUT should be as uncontrolled as the IIDB, which is why I made the comment in the first place, to point out that it was something to be concerned about. I should have made that point explicitly. My real point was the part about the one-on-one debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    This is an open discussion board. Any "one on one" would EXCLUDE everyone else.
    It would exclude everyone else, but only from that particular thread. The way that problem was solved on the equally open IIDB is that each formal debate thread is accompanied by an open thread, where others discuss the debate. Everybody gets to comment, but the closed thread has the advantage of presenting a controlled discussion alongside the open discussion. I think that's good for the people on the user side, but probably more work for those on the moderator side, as I pointed out before.

    I do think that IIDB has features that BAUT can do without, as you pointed out above. On IIDB foul language is unconstrained, and in many threads it is common, as well as reference to more adult themes. I don't mean to imply that BAUT should be like IIDB. I only mean to point out one potentially good idea in formatting that we might be able to use here to our advantage.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    The idea of defending an ATM idea in the rules, Section 13 seems to apply to people posting their own pet theories, rather than published peer-reviewed theories? Again this could be modified to take into account the moderators' discretion.
    If it's published, peer-reviewed, it's not ATM. If you have questions about something that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, Q&A or General Science is likely to be appropriate.

    If it's not published, nor peer-reviewed, it needs to be subject to ATM's rules to prevent promotion of what isn't (yet) science.

    Here's the thing: the admin allow an ATM idea to get one 30-day swing at bat (unless something demonstrably new comes in.) For fairness's sake, that swing has to be from someone with a stake in getting the home run if it can be gotten. After that, that's it. (It's why we also strongly encourage ATMers to get their bases loaded before they go for that homer.) It simply wouldn't be fair for someone to come in and intentionally bunt that inning away.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    If it's published, peer-reviewed, it's not ATM. If you have questions about something that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, Q&A or General Science is likely to be appropriate.

    If it's not published, nor peer-reviewed, it needs to be subject to ATM's rules to prevent promotion of what isn't (yet) science.

    Here's the thing: the admin allow an ATM idea to get one 30-day swing at bat (unless something demonstrably new comes in.) For fairness's sake, that swing has to be from someone with a stake in getting the home run if it can be gotten. After that, that's it. (It's why we also strongly encourage ATMers to get their bases loaded before they go for that homer.) It simply wouldn't be fair for someone to come in and intentionally bunt that inning away.
    What Moose said.

    Also, on any idea of a 1v1 forum - no. Not going to happen. BAUT is a community board, with the emphasis on community. It is 1) disrespectful and insulting to exclude, or in any way trivialize, the input of other community members, and 2) much more likely to be taken abused by gunslingers with a chip on their shoulder than to produce any meaningful dialogue.

    But, again, this is theoretical, because BAUT is a community board.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Why don't all the ATMers who are dissatisfied here start their own board and talk about what they want to there...oh that's right, they like the "exposure" that a mainstream science board allows them...my error.
    Love it or leave it. Nice idea, R.A.F. I have an even better idea though. Next time you see a thread title that doesn't look interesting, then don't click your mouse on it.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28,040
    I think that Tim's original suggestion, of having a 1v1 debate is a good one, but as Serenitude said, it should be more about having a community's involvement. The 30-day rule was a stopgap, to stop the abuse of BAUT as a marketing tool for ATM proponents. We opened up the floor for people to suggest something, anything that would improve the situation.

    Like Tim, I'd prefer something which is more formal and resembles peer review. A way for the ATMer to propose their theory and list the evidence that supports it. People can then refute each piece of evidence, or ask the ATMer to clarify the theory to their satisfaction.

    If anyone has some ideas on how we could approach this, I'm all ears. I'd be more than happy to install some outside Wiki software, develop a custom database application, or pay for hacks to vBulletin if I thought we could get this right.

    We want a way that ATMers can propose their theories in an objective and consistent manner, putting forth each piece of evidence. We could even provide some kind of online form that steps them through the process. Then the community can dissect the evidence and keep challenging until there's some kind of final judgment. People will see the process being handled openly and honestly, ATMers won't be able to go unchallenged, or use BAUT as a marketing tool, and groundbreaking new theories will have a chance to get their time in the Sun.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Am I missing something here?
    Yeah, this is supposed to be a fun site.

    The reason the moderators’ insist on this, I would guess, is because there are a few posters that feel every thread is an excuse to promote their ideas endlessly.
    Nice exageration. Even GaetanoMarano never did that. But you're making progress. You've ran Gaetano off the board, you're about to run off iantresman, and quite possibly myself as well.

    Sheer quantity of words is not going to make any off the wall idea correct;
    OK, how about this for a suggestion: when you finally hear that dull thud of conflicting intuitions, don't continue to feed the fire. Go do something else, be generous, and let the guy who started the ATM thread have the last word.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    Like Tim, I'd prefer something which is more formal and resembles peer review. A way for the ATMer to propose their theory and list the evidence that supports it. People can then refute each piece of evidence, or ask the ATMer to clarify the theory to their satisfaction.
    With all respect, sir, the way peer review works is that someone sends in an article to a journal, a few experts take a look at it and recommend that the article either be accepted or rejected outright, or else be sent back for further revisions. If the article is eventually accepted, then if anyone else besides the reviewers has a beef with it, their response (in this context, the mainstream response) must then undergo the very same peer review.

    So what would that be like on a dynamic forum like this?

    We could set up a panel of experts drawn from from the BAUT community (because nobody else is going to do it). But how do you establish who are going to be the experts? Everyone here publishes under anonymous psuedonyms, with zero credentials other than their sheer number of posts (which are often largely padded with non-science--or even philosophy of science--posts on guitars, etc., or banal jokes, boring insults, or meagre attempts at little witty puns.)

    But let's say you establish such a panel for each subject (because there are many subjects, and expertise in one area is no guarantee of expertise in any other area). So then someone would send a private message to the "editor" of the panel. The editor would then send the post to the other members of the panel. After they got done reading the post, the post would be either accepted, rejected, or sent back for revisions. Once the post was accepted, a new ATM thread would be started. BUT (and this is the biggest but of all), every single carping criticism of the OP would then have to be subject to the very same process of peer review--that is, if peer review is really what you want.

    We want a way that ATMers can propose their theories in an objective and consistent manner, putting forth each piece of evidence. We could even provide some kind of online form that steps them through the process. Then the community can dissect the evidence and keep challenging until there's some kind of final judgment.
    That's the thing: there never really is some kind of final judgement in science--and even if there were, who gets to make that judgement: 51% of BAUT members? the moderators? the clique of baiters who yell the most?

    One thing that we all need to remember is that we're just going to have to agree to disagree much of the time. People rarely change their minds about anything--experts never do; hence the saying science proceeds one funeral at a time. If there's been one positive result from 20th century philosophy of science, it's that theory is often underdetermined by the evidence. That result logically entails that there will be numerous times when two or more honest, well-educated, well-informed people will come up with two or more mutually exclusive explanations for the same, limited data set. But many of the people here don't seem to have heard of this concept. Which is actually rather crazy, since astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology are probably experiencing more upheaval than the rest of science put together.

    Astronomy proves that we have a long way to go before we reach the end of science.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    If it's published, peer-reviewed, it's not ATM. If you have questions about something that's published in a peer-reviewed journal, Q&A or General Science is likely to be appropriate.
    That's a view that I've argued myself. But the impression I get is that, for example, Plasma Cosmology and Plasma Universe, are both considered ATM here, despite peer review.

    Now, the Electric Universe is somewhat more speculative, and although proponents have said that they adhere fully to the Plasma Universe point of view, and, there are now peer reviewed articles on the subject, I suspect that most will disagree with you.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    If the article is eventually accepted, then if anyone else besides the reviewers has a beef with it, their response (in this context, the mainstream response) must then undergo the very same peer review.
    Journals have very limited print space, and every column inch costs. Such limited reviews are as much to preserve that space as for any other reason (probably combined).

    It's not intended for the proposer to get off easy. A real scientific idea must stand against all criticism. Not just the two or three challenges the publisher likes best, feels is at least somewhat representative, or is most eloquent.

    So what would that be like on a dynamic forum like this?
    ATM.

    But how do you establish who are going to be the experts?
    Exactly. That's why this is an open forum.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    Journals have very limited print space, and every column inch costs. Such limited reviews are as much to preserve that space as for any other reason (probably combined).
    That's not true. Last I heard, both Nature and Science were making money.

    It's not intended for the proposer to get off easy.
    No, the idea is to degrade the proposer, and for the criticizers to experience a schadenfreude rush.

    A real scientific idea must stand against all criticism. Not just the two or three challenges the publisher likes best, feels is at least somewhat representative, or is most eloquent.
    Says who??? You???

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts
    But how do you establish who are going to be the [panel of peer review] experts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose
    Exactly. That's why this is an open forum.
    Exactly what??? Moose that's exactly the type of carping, slattering "critique" that is ruining this site.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Nice idea, R.A.F. I have an even better idea though. Next time you see a thread title that doesn't look interesting, then don't click your mouse on it.
    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep that in mind just in case you ever become my boss.

    Until then, I'll post where I chose to thankyou very much.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Moose that's exactly the type of carping, slattering "critique" that is ruining this site.
    If you think the site is "ruined" (I think it's terriffic, especially the constant and intelligent questioning of claims both specious and well-established) then tell the guy with the gun pointed at your head, who's forcing you to be here, to let you go elsewhere.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    schadenfreude rush.
    If I want schaadenfreude, I'll get tickets to Avenue Q, thanks all the same.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep that in mind just in case you ever become my boss.

    Until then, I'll post where I chose to thankyou very much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername
    If you think the site is "ruined" (I think it's terriffic, especially the constant and intelligent questioning of claims both specious and well-established) then tell the guy with the gun pointed at your head, who's forcing you to be here, to let you go elsewhere.
    See, this is what I'm talking about. These last two posts perfectly exemplify the peckish attitude that prevails around here. R.A.F. insists on posting anywhere he chooses. So he reserves the right to parachute into a thread he has no interest in, not in order to post a substantive comment or two, but just in order to regulate the content of a happy discussion that's perking along just fine.

    And Noclevername likes "the constant and intelligent questioning of claims". But when I claim that BAUT is no longer fun because of various substantive reasons (and I am far from the only one making that claim), rather than intelligently questioning my claim, I'm told instead to shut up and go elsewhere.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    If I want schaadenfreude, I'll get tickets to Avenue Q, thanks all the same.
    "Avenue Q", the Broadway musical??? That's a little disingenuous. I'm fairly sure you enjoy reading the Banned Poster's Log even more than I do.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    If it's published, peer-reviewed, it's not ATM.
    I don't think that works. Halton Arp, and others, have published several peer reviewed papers on the hypothesis that quasar redshifts are non-cosmological, intrinsic redshifts, and that quasars are ejected from galaxies near them in sky coordinates (i.e., Burbidge, Burbidge, Arp & Zibetti, 2004; Russell, 2005; Bell, 2007). But this claim is very much an ATM claim, and is rejected by mainstream astronomers. Likewise, the claims of Tifft, and others, that redshifts are either quantized or periodic are peer reviewed & published (i.e., Tifft, 1982; Tifft, 1995). But this claim too is rejected by the mainstream.

    The point is that peer review does not serve to distinguish between mainstream & anti-mainstream arguments. Rather, it serves to assure that minimum standards of scientific methodology are achieved. In fact, the peer review system is far from perfect, and probably worth a thread of its own. But one should not assume that anything is "mainstream" simply because it has been peer reviewed & published.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
    But one should not assume that anything is "mainstream" simply because it has been peer reviewed & published.
    I don't, and I didn't mean to imply that I assume any such thing. I use the term "peer-reviewed" as shorthand to mean "survived the peer-review process to become accepted". If the paper had been rejected, it hasn't survived peer-review. Therefore...
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

Similar Threads

  1. Near Death Phenomenon - Consciousness Survives Death?
    By Plat in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-18, 04:25 AM
  2. Keeping Mainstream in Mainstream !
    By galacsi in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-06, 03:48 PM
  3. Mainstream Gripes re: Mainstream
    By Peter Wilson in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-05, 05:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •