Purpose of this Message Board

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Pareidolia (the tendency to see shapes in clouds, landscapes, and other natural backgrounds) is another example of possible cross-over. However, lengthy discussions over more than a year have produced little in the way of objectifying decisions about what is pareidolia and what is artificial. Generally, we would like to discourage more postings where no objectivity is available. We are starting to be a draw for lots of "eyes of the beholder only" imagery. This adds nothing to the scientific discussion, so we are turning away new applicants in that category. Existing discussants are "grandfathered", but are asked to avoid postings that lack keys, a source link, and easy recognition by both right-brain-dominat and left-brain-dominant people. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As you might imagine, I have a slightly different point of view of this. There's a saying that the best way to control weeds is to feed what you want to grow rather than use insecticides. Well, in a way pareidolic images are like weeds in that they grow without our help. All you have to do is look, and you will see them galore. In the analogy I'm setting up, feeding the lawn would be analogous to producing unambigously provable artificial works. Since no one has really been able to do that in all this time, the obvious default position will always be pareidolia. It's the background, if you will. So, one could say that by default pareidolia has won. Remember what jrich said a long time ago, it is up to the AOH advocates to prove something, not the other way around.

There is face soup all over the country.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />... producing unambigously provable artificial works. Since no one has really been able to do that in all this time, the obvious default position will always be pareidolia.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">By objective standards, we now have about half-a-dozen cases where a natural origin has been ruled out. It only takes one and it can no longer legitimately be claimed that an image is pareidolic just because it is on Mars or is marginal in visual appearance. So that makes presenting marginal images legitimate because they might help us develop more objective criteria, or they might provide clues about purpose or functionality. Therefore, it is no longer important that every image stand on its own two feet as provably artificial. It suffices that it contributes in some other way.

That's the situation we are now in. But I don't see you contributing to that research any more. If you wish to comment respectfully about particular images being posted, or about the standards being used to judge them, feel free. If you wish to criticize individuals, that's not okay here. Your quips (this post and yesterday's) have been the opposite of respectfully trying to advance the discussion. They seem intended to insult those who have different standards than your own in these matters. Take a helpful approach or hold your peace. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Your quips (this post and yesterday's) have been the opposite of respectfully trying to advance the discussion. They seem intended to insult those who have different standards than your own in these matters. Take a helpful approach or hold your peace. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought I was being helpful. Just look at the sky next time you see alot of thick cumulus clouds and you'll see tons of stuff like Trinket's last couple of posts. Sure they're transient, but that's beside the point, because that's only one medium of many. How is it insulting to point that out? That's what makes this "humorous", but it's not intended to be insulting.

In my second post, I thought I was waxing philosphic. You're sounding a little thin-skinned to me. But I'll drop it, since I can see you'd rather not go down that path again.

rd

Are you allowed to ask questions as a form of topic for others to answer?

Daniel Mapa

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Daniel Mapa</i>
<br />Are you allowed to ask questions as a form of topic for others to answer?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, ask or say whatever is on your mind. Just stay on the topic of astronomy and avoid insulting others, and don't post links to personal web sites. You will usually draw more interest and better responses if your question or comment is about something discussed on the parent web site of this Message Board.

People with new ideas need to first compare the pros and cons of those ideas to the mainstream theory and/or to Meta Science. New ideas lacking such a comparison are so numerous that few professionals have the time or patience to deal with them. You can ask about them, but may not get a response. Answering such questions usually involves teaching the subject matter and its history tuition-free, and could easily consume all the time any astronomer has to pursue his/her own career.

Criticism of mainstream or Meta Science ideas are welcome, but should consist of reasoning, observation, experiment, or citation; and not just unsupported claims or appeals to authority. The latter are argumentative and contribute nothing to the teaching/learning process we foster here. -|Tom|-

Hello!
It has been awhile since I have been here. Am I welcome?

Patrick[]