Friendly debates could likely be very productive, if we come up with people who have different views on a topic and are willing to discuss amicably in a somewhat formal manner.
We almost had a debate a year or more ago between the EU team and a conventional physics supporter, but the person apparently gave up on the idea after a short discussion of rules.
We don't need outsiders to have debates, since we have numerous disagreements even among EU supporters, but outsiders should be welcome as well.
But a good debate can help educate everyone, including the debaters themselves.
What rules do you think would be most worthwhile for a debate? Here are a few ideas to get the discussion started.
The debaters should have two different theories about a topic, no more and no less. It would likely be too complicated to have more than a two-way debate. I think it would be better to have several debates, if there are more than two theories on a topic, in order to accommodate each theory.
Each side can have one or several members, one of whom should perhaps be the captain.
Each side should post an opening statement.
Then each side should take turns making comments in not more than about 20 sentences per turn.
Only the debaters' messages should be posted on the debate thread. A second thread could be used for discussion between official debate messages.
The debaters should post one message per day or per a set number of days agreed on in advance and not more than that.
The debate would end when either side is ready to end. No one would be declared winner or loser on the debate thread.
Are those enough rules? What topics do you want to see debated?
CharlesChandler
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
I think that two theories is too many for a formal debate. I think that it should be one theory per debate, and the debate should be For vs. Against. In other words, it should be a debate on whether the evidence supports the theory in question.
People arguing from the Against position should not be allowed to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. In other words, criticizing somebody's else's model isn't an opportunity to evangelize their own. If they have theories, they need to wait until those theories are being debated. Otherwise we fall into this trap where people think that it doesn't matter what anybody else says, as long as they can still see a way to band-stand on their own agenda.
Questions have to be answered, and not by just citing more references of people who agree with a theory, nor by restating the assertion with more instances of the same evidence. "I don't know" is a legitimate answer, but "my interpretation has to be true because here is another bit of circumstantial evidence in support" is not.
It's impossible to avoid tangents in any discussion, but if a debater goes off-topic, he/she has to somehow show how that point ties back into the issue being debated, and counterpoints have to be limited to whether or not the tangent actually supports the idea being debated.
I think that the debate threads should be left open — I don't think that there should be a time limit or anything like that, and I think that it would move faster if people were free to post "out of turn". We all have different schedules, and we need to accommodate everybody's availability. And I think that having formal teams, perhaps even with captains, is not as important as strictly limiting the scope of the debate, so that an issue gets full treatment. There will be times when I'd probably enjoy being able to chime in on both sides, to get more of the issue out on the table, and it would be nice if this was acceptable. In a win-or-lose debate, you need teams, but in a learn-or-learn debate, I don't think you need them.
I think that a summary document should be produced and updated as time goes on, to take the back-n-forth of the debate and formalize it into a sequential set of statements. So if somebody cites some evidence, and somebody questions it, and the response is more examples of the same evidence, that gets sorted into a longer list of evidence, but with an unanswered question at the end.
I think that the hot topic is solar models, so I think that we should take each one of them, and lay out the essential tenets, and investigate the shortcomings. Here is the list of models of which I am aware:
Standard Model Kristian Birkeland Charles Bruce Ralph Juergens Don Scott: Anode Sun Bob Johnson: Toroidal Plasmoid Oliver Manuel, Michael Mozina: Neutronium Hilton Ratcliffe: Dissident Astronomy Harold Aspden: Supercritical Hydrogen Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Charles Chandler: Compressive Ionization Miles Mathis: THE HOLE at the center of the Sun Brant Callahan: Aether Battery Iron Sun Theory
Not all of these would have participating champions, so I guess that not all of them could be debated. But there are a lot of possibilities here. What I find frustrating is that few of these have centralized expressions, so it's hard to know what, exactly, the model actually is. I believe that there should be some place where the whole thing is laid out, and which gets updated as new information becomes available. Our debates could become the central resources for these models.
D_Archer
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Debating should not really be friendly imho. I only know about political debating and that is playing to win, the facts dont really matter.
As it stands: 'Friendly Debating' is an oxymoron.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Speak for yourself. A few of us (i.e., Brant Callahan, Lloyd Kinder, Michael Mozina, & myself) have had quite a few debates, and while we never held any punches, we always treated each other with respect, and it was always about the facts (and the interpretations thereof). And we all "won", because we all gained information & understanding. If you can't get there, then it just isn't your thing. But we're good at it. We still disagree on most things. Some of us have flipped on certain issues. (For example, I no longer consider Saturn Theory to be impossible. ) It isn't about consensus building. It's about exploring the possibilities. And it works.
tayga
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
D_Archer wrote: Debating should not really be friendly imho. I only know about political debating and that is playing to win, the facts dont really matter.
As it stands: 'Friendly Debating' is an oxymoron.
Regards, Daniel
Whereas scientific debating aims to test ideas by challenging them, I think the aim of political debating is entirely different. As you say, the fact don't matter in politics because politicians, who tend to be defined by parties, assert an already-established point of view, often by arguing hypothetical situations which would be inadmissible in a *grown-up debate.
I'm with Lloyd and Charles on this. I've had many fruitful, friendly arguments along these lines.
*(Sorry, couldn't resist the snide dig at politics )
Lloyd
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Is this a practice debate about how to debate? Maybe that would work.
Daniel probably has a different concept of "friendly" than some of us do. Daniel, would you agree that a scientific debate should not involve calling anyone derogatory names or saying anything else derogatory about anyone? I think that's all we mean by friendly. The debate should not be about proving that anyone is stupid or more intelligent. It should only be about which theory is most probably correct.
And I agree with Charles that only one theory should be debated at a time, at least on each thread, though I don't see a problem with having two or more threads going on at the same time for debates on different theories.
I think it would help if a moderator would referee the debate thread. I'll try to ask the admin if that could be arranged. I know their moderators have tended to have too much work to do, so it may not be feasible, unless they're willing to take on one or more new moderators.
By the way, Charles, should I have asked for permission before posting your paper to that thread?
CharlesChandler
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Lloyd wrote: Should I have asked for permission before posting your paper to that thread?
No, you're cool. I "think" that it has pretty much stabilized, so it was ready to go on record. Anyway, I'd like to suggest that we name these threads consistently, so that people can find all of them if they search for them (using the "Topic titles only" option in the advanced search). For example,
Friendly For & Against: Solar Models: Compressive Ionization Friendly For & Against: Solar Models: Anode w/ PNP Transistor Friendly For & Against: Solar Models: Toroidal Plasmoid
Does that make sense? You can suggest something different if you want.
If you want to start with mine, I guess we could kick it off by reposting the Preview paper, or I could do a brief introduction. I might need to think about that. But I have to break off for a bit. I'll be back this evening.
D_Archer
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Lloyd wrote: Daniel probably has a different concept of "friendly" than some of us do. Daniel, would you agree that a scientific debate should not involve calling anyone derogatory names or saying anything else derogatory about anyone? I think that's all we mean by friendly. The debate should not be about proving that anyone is stupid or more intelligent. It should only be about which theory is most probably correct.
To prove a theory you need experiments, data, analysis etc; debating will get you nowhere in that regard. Any "debating" should focus on predictive abilities of certain models so they can be tested against future data. That way a debate can provide a context to compare the different models, this way it is not about facts, just the theories.
A difficulty is that nobody speaks the same physics language since physics has been corrupt for so long. I pride myself in always using words with a correct definition of them in mind, this because my native language is not english, i always had to look up what words mean learning english and i stil do it to this day. In physics most jargon is just some placeholder for uncritical thinking and bad assumptions and just plain wrong (..ie it does not mean anything physically).
Yes, friendly is not calling anyone names, but that is as far as it goes, i think it is ok to just shred a certain view to pieces, a good example is Crothers and his treatment of "black holes".
Regards, Daniel
Lloyd
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
Daniel said: To prove a theory you need experiments, data, analysis etc; debating will get you nowhere in that regard. Any "debating" should focus on predictive abilities of certain models so they can be tested against future data. That way a debate can provide a context to compare the different models, this way it is not about facts, just the theories. - A difficulty is that nobody speaks the same physics language ...
Debating won't carry out experiments, but it can report on experiments, so it can be much more useful than people just doing experiments and no one discussing them. Doing the experiments has to come first, but those that have been done can then be discussed in debates for everyone's benefit.
The predictive abilities of theory should be discussed, but I doubt if that should be the primary focus of a debate, since many predictions may not be thought of in advance. A context for comparing the different models is definitely important, but I think it would be too hard to define a statement as a prediction. If you can share a link to what you're talking about regarding the need to focus on predictive abilities of a theory in debates, feel free to share it or to quote relevant parts. Maybe that will help me or us to understand what you mean in this regard.
It's certainly true that there's too little agreement about definitions of terms in science. I expect we'll all be agreeable with defining all important terms.
For example, I would favor defining the Sun as the bright, visible globe in the center of the solar system whose limit or boundary is the top of the photosphere. The solar atmosphere then would be distinct from the Sun.
I also agree that it should be okay to "shred" your opponent's view, like Crothers does. I don't consider that disrespectful of the person, like some do.
Sparky
Re: Rules for Friendly Debating
' ' '
MMA Rules!
Beat the hell out of somebody, but kiss and make nice when they wake up..
Rules I'm starting with simple rules. We'll be working on a document for each theory, looking for what aspects of each one are tenable and which need modification. Charles or I will presumably start a document for each theory on his website. Then I'll try to update each document once a week and post a link to the update each time.
I think that it should be one theory per debate, and the debate should be For vs. Against. In other words, it should be a debate on whether the evidence supports the theory in question.
