About debate

I don't understand this fascination with "debate" when something is
demonstrably wrong.

If facts are presented that lead to an obvious conclusion based on
those facts then it is simply the facts that have to be refuted.

Refuted means shown to be wrong, demonstrated with facts to be wrong,
not just said to be wrong.

Now it has to be granted that Martin Piers Nicholson's already
catalogued prior to him start his work objects in ejaavso 96 have not
been named and identified. We are in fact only claiming and not
showing these facts. We are saying that anyone using B/VSX at VizieR
and Nicholson's website sourced spreadsheet should be able to find
these facts for themselves, but that isn't showing them.

Why not?

Because he hasn't published his objects. His paper claims that all
his objects are in AAVSO VSX, his paper claims that he has done this,
that and the other. His paper then says the table of data is in a
spreadsheet file on his website and if people wish more detail they
have to check this spreadsheet against AAVSO VSX. This is then called
being published in a peer reviewed journal. For a start in astronomy
science material separate large electronic tables are usually either
published as flat ascii file table(s) (for ease of reading by humans)
or flat ascii file comma delimited table(s) (for ease of reading by
applications), or, in FITS table(s), or, in VOTable format.
Sometimes, although not sensibly, in LaTeX. That is what happens in
science papers. Amateurs may keep lists of their favourite objects
and the like in Microsoft spreadsheets (remember astronomy scientists
usually use *nix systems and apps) on their webpages, but usually
spreadsheets are used for little pieces of mathematical tricks
amateurs wish to share. Not all amateurs are really worried about
being acclaimed scientists, most just enjoy the astronomy. The
spreadsheet is also stored on his website, that is the only piece of
hard information, there is no independent copy, just claims.

Why does this matter?

Well, take for instance his semi-regular variable project on his
webpages. He took known semi-regular variable stars from the GCVS
that were not well studied, followed them with robotic telescope time
(instead of using that time to confirm his new suspected variables)
for about half their catalogued period, and declared that the GCVS
periods were wrong as they had already changed by more than half, or
less than half, a cycle from his observed light curve. Thus he had
made a discovery and done work.

When it was pointed out to him that semi-regular periods in GCVS are
just place markers and usually long term averages because of
multiperiodicity and/or period frequent period variation, and not
really all that meaningful as a fixed value, and that giving a
"regular" period for a "semi-regular" is a bit of a problem, if only
by definition (you know, they aren't regular, the name is a bit of a
clue), his webpages had the claims and entries for each object
previously bragged about as some claim of showing some marvellous
discovery of finding errors in the GCVS re-worded so that it merely
commented on the light curves and added words like possibly and
probably. The previous webpage details of course disappeared without
ever being mentioned.

The evidence is gone.

As telling him exactly what he has done wrong can lead to the error
disappearing we are no longer naïve enough to do that.

Then you will see him cry in usenet and blogs that people are pedantic
about his words so he has to be very careful how he says things
because people are picky about his results. Well, it is supposed to
be a science, and he does make claims to doing serious science, so he
has to say things plainly. He has to show things too, not just use
weasel words like in eJAAVSO 96 to apologise for why over a thousand
objects are either not well classified or even in many cases only
suspected variables. Quality, not quantity. Pick the good ones,
solve those, publish those, ignore the one thousand others or save
them for another day and more data. It doesn't matter if someone else
finds them. A paper with a hundred well defined and well presented
objects is worth a thousand "maybe" papers of a thousand objects each.

Of course, this is a big problem for him because he decided to use the
NSVS dataset, which only lasted about nine months or so, and most
Miras have a period nearer a year or more and most semi-regulars
periods about as long as the dataset duration or less. In fact with
average periods of say 120 to 200 days or so data runs of up to 300
days are rarely going to allow identification of semi-regulars, more
data is needed so more cycles can be seen. The most useful thing that
can be said is "this star is variable do not use it as a comparison
star in variable star work", except variable star work rarely uses red
stars for comparison star work anyway.

If the table had been deposited in a secure repository where updates
could only be made if a revision history is given, as with a proper
scientific paper or journal (even OEJV does this and it is an amateur
run journal but it understands this point) then the problem objects
could be mentioned.

Instead we have a paper that claims things but does not show things in
an incorruptible way.

Not that we need to claim that he is necessarily going to do this. On
the other hand, there is nothing to stop this happening though.
Objective science would have mechanisms in place to make all chance of
such things happening impossible so that no doubts or concerns about
the source data would mar the facts.

So he can claim things, and we can claim things, and it can be debated
all day long and all week and all month and all year and blogged and
posted and generally whined about.

However, the difference is, if someone uses his spreadsheet and uses B/
VSX they can find the facts for themselves.

The assumption being that as he missed these objects once he is not
competent enough to find them again and fix things himself without
being told should he so desire. Yet B/VSX is now available, he may be
able to find them himself this time. In which case and if he did make
any changes then his spreadsheet would have to tally its total of
objects against his paper's claim of exactly how many objects there
are. And if he did change anything then new objects replacing those
few would not appear in AAVSO VSX. Or if they did they would be
submission date stamped to later than his paper. Thus the only firmly
demonstrable aspect is the total of objects mentioned in the paper.
It doesn't mean someone will do this, it doesn't mean someone is
likely to do this, it doesn't mean this will happen or that I'm
suggesting someone will do this. What we are supposed to be talking
about is a rigorous scientific paper and the only firm demonstrable
hard piece of recorded evidence that is incapable of being altered as
it is recorded in an independent source is the tally. In all of that
paper that is the only result, well that and a handful of light curves
of identified objects, that is firm evidence of anything.

It is all in the audit trail.

It may be thought that it is just a few objects, who cares, let's be
fair?

How many more less obvious errors are there, these are just the basic,
simplest, easiest to find. This is how you should view scientific
results.

Remember on usenet and other places he claims many things about
amateurs doing science, about peer review, about things being properly
evidenced. In his paper he makes firm claims, mentions Patrick Wils
and AAVSO VSX strongly to affirm his claims, he claims all his work as
been checked by both of those to affirm validity.

He also uses a method he does not credit the source of. One of the
main concerns is that if he did use the methods outlined and rationale
involved properly he would not make these errors. He would have done
proper background literature research. The data was online and
available. He in fact claims he has done this but examination of his
results throws doubt on this.

But hey, debates might be fun.

AAVSO and such ignore the debate as well, they don't run to defend him
that we've noticed.

Nevertheless, let's debate.

Instead let's debate on the wording of his paper.

Let's debate as to whether it is science to submit something for
publication in the middle of 2008 and then say that nothing has been
checked since January 2007 but as it is put on some amateur little
known website somewhere where processionals are not likely to see it,
then it doesn't matter if peer reviewed papers in real science
journals, not amateur science journals but professional ones, have
already published them, sometimes even classifying them properly
instead of with the most uncertain general GCVS classification of L,
or worst still L: which means "possibly", not even "probably",
variable.


The refutation practices of Nicholson consisting of declaring that the
poster he is replying to is repeating the same thing endlessly (which
anyone bothering to read these and earlier posts can see it isn't, it
carries new points and new information) and he often deletes the part
being replied to, possibly in case someone reads it and finds it
doesn't tally with his response about it?

He will then usually attack the person posting, use facts that are
irrelevant, claim the poster has done the self same thing themselves
but rarely giving examples, and if so doing then using edited, context
removed, examples, and he will then assume that these irrelevant
points are refutations, whilst steadfastly ignoring to show anything
in the post wrong.

He never, ever, has explained why he called himself Ian Hill Smith on
yahoo and google group mail lists for so long and actually had
dialogues with himself where he and Hill Smith agreed with each other,
the posts in usenet under the "Designed to Fail?" threads are still
archived. He will make accusations about others, shout names
everywhere, but the modem evidence in the IP in google and yahoo
groups that this was the case is ignored. Even signed himself Martin
Nicholson once whilst using Hill Smith's email. A classic that.

Scroll about halfway down the page at this one

http://www.astronomy-chat.net/NGC_68...us_930994.html

And before someone says some lame excuse like he was using a friend's
machine, he has a yahoo email account for usenet and elsewhere, you
can use that anywhere from anyone's machine.

This is what he means by "debate".


Here's a cut and paste of the full post at the url just mentioned

"
Date: 20 Jul 2007 08:58:32
From:
Subject: NGC 6888 - Crescent Nebula in Cygnus
On Jul 20, 3:09 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
Dear group,

I have spent the past couple of evenings pursuing the stunning emission
nebula NGC 6888 in Cygnus with mixed results. Although successful at
capturing the plethora of stars in the region (nearly 8000 stars in my
image), I was partially successful in acquiring the dim portions of the
Crescent Nebula.

For last night's result based on just under five hours total exposure,
please seehttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-DSO-NGC-6888.htm.... all
comments and suggestions welcome!

Anthony.

Do try it in Hydrogen Alpha - great fun and lots of fine detail to
tease out.

Martin N

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm"

"advicegiven" wrote in message
...

I don't understand this fascination with "debate" when something is
demonstrably wrong.

If facts are presented that lead to an obvious conclusion based on
those facts then it is simply the facts that have to be refuted.

Refuted means shown to be wrong, demonstrated with facts to be wrong,
not just said to be wrong.

Now it has to be granted that Martin Piers Nicholson's

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.