In the interest of providing a complete answer on how to research the Electric Universe debate, I’d like to mention one other very important resource for this debate – CosmoQuest, formerly known as the Bad Astronomy & Universe Today Forum (BAUTForum).
To perform a search on the site, you’ll have to register. Once registered, click on the forum link on the upper-right of the homepage, and then the magnifying glass in the upper right corner. Now, you will see this …
It is possible to simply search through the content for “electric universe”. But, for additional ideas on search terms, here is a listing of all of the threads from about 2-3 years ago that made a mention of the EU. To pull any of these up, you’d click “Search Entire Posts” to “Search Titles Only” …
“Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality” Thread
“Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer” Thread
“Electric Comet” Theory and Deep Impact Thread
200,000 quasars can’t be wrong… Thread
30 kV battery in space! (Sun pumps 650,000 amp current into Arctic!) Thread
A Dangerous Opinion? Thread
Advice for Bastions of the Establishment Thread
Alfven Against the Mainstream Thread
An Open Letter to Closed Minds (Big Bang) Thread
Are there intelligent non big bang theories Thread
Bell Lends Credence to Arp? Thread
Big Bang Busted? - Arp Thread
Big Bang Reputiation Thread
Birkeland currents, “stringy things” & Flux tubes Thread
Black Holes v Plasma Focus Thread
Brave new ES Thread
CMBR, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Origin and Evolution Thread
Current theory is no scientifically “better than” plasma cosmology Thread
Deep Impact Thread
Discussion- String of Galaxies Puzzles … Thread
Distant Galaxy is Too Massive For Current Theories Thread
Does this qualify as an electrical current flow? Thread
EU - Jets and Birkeland currents Thread
EU - Magnetic Reconnection Thread
Electric Brown Dwarfs Thread
Electric Comets Thread
Electric Cosmos Thread
Electric Currents from Space Thread
Electric Io Thread
Electric Nucleosynthesis Thread
Electric Universe Model Thread
Electric Universe Theory and Saturn’s Moons Thread
Electric Universe thread - the “Table of Contents” Thread
Filamentary and Large Scale Structures of the Universe Thread
Frozen-in Magnetic Field Lines Thread
Galaxies and Quasars Connected Afterall Thread
Gravitational Accretion of Plasma Possible? Thread
How Does a Sun Form Thread
How Much of Hannes Alfven’s work is considered mainstream? Thread
How Open-minded is Mainstream Science? Thread
Iantresman Commentary on Black Hole Imagery Thread
Imagination vs. Experimentation Thread
Let’s Create Steady State Theory Thread
Lets Discuss Reconnection Thread
Local features in the WMAP map? Thread
Magnetic Fields Thread
Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins Thread
Massive Solar Flare Supports EU Thread
Maybe this is Bad Astronomy - Arp Thread
Milky Way X-ray Mystery… not for the Electric Universe! Thread
More from Arp et al Thread
NGC3314, Personalities, Science, Politics and Funding Thread
New Findings Validate Halton Arp’s AGN Ejection Model Thread
Non Cosmological Redshifts? Thread
PU Claims re Saturn’s Rings Thread
Phil Plait’s Debating PseudoScientists
Pioneer spacecraft favour the Electric Universe Thread
Plasma Cosmology .net Thread
Plasma Cosmology and Math Thread
Plasma Physics for Dummies Thread
Plasma Physics, MHD, Alfvén, etc Thread
Popper and Falsification(ism) Thread
Problems with the Electric Star Theory Thread
Quantized Red-Shifts, RIP? Thread
Quantized Redshift Revisited Thread
Quantized Redshifts Thread
Quasar Interacting with Galaxy? Thread
Quasars Far Away Thread
Questioning Gravitation Thread
Redshift Thread
Redshifts are Cosmological - the Lyman Alpha Forest and Arp Thread
Retrograde Venus Thread
Richard Carrier’s Big-Bang Skepticism Thread
Sani5’s Ideas on Maths and Physics Thread
Science Has Become a Religion? Thread
Skeptical of Mainstream Science? Why? Thread
Solar Wind Acceleration Question Thread
Spiral Galaxies Without Dark Matter Thread
The Electric Sun - A New View Thread
The Electric Sun Thread
The New Electrical Universe Paradigm Thread
Universe the Cosmology Quest Thread
What Baffles me about ATMers… Thread
What IS the “Electric Universe” Idea Thread
What’s Wrong with the Big Bang?? Thread
Where is Objectivity? - Arp Thread
Z-pinch Stellar Formation Theory… Thread
Now, you might be scratching your head at this point. And if you are, I’m with you. Isn’t it interesting that the forum has become the standard format for such complex discussions? Honestly, what are we supposed to do with this deluge of unsorted information? Do they imagine that they are helping us to sort through this complexity?
Look at that list. It’s quite long. Some of the topics are rather complex, and I’d like to clarify that the point of the discourse on this site is not so much to educate people on the fundamentals. That’s largely left up to the reader to do. In other words, if you need help on a particular topic, then there is additional research necessary on top of this reading.
And of course, many more conversations have surely occurred since I logged this listing a few years ago.
This really begs the question of whether or not we are doing debate right in cosmology, and even science more generally. Let’s provide some context here: When you go to the grocery store, you are bombarded with literally tens of thousands of products. Do you feel overloaded?
No.
Why is that?
In the grocery store, we use the concept of brand – and occasionally price – to identify what to buy. Brands elicit emotions which we use as a guide. But, the list you see above probably feels quite a bit different from your typical grocery store experience. Simply put, it’s incredibly overwhelming.
What I’ve observed in watching people respond to this debate is that the subconscious (which Daniel Kahneman calls “System 1”) has its own unique response to the realization that an incredible amount of effort is necessary to get to the bottom of a particular debate. And, if you watch what Kahneman argues, he makes a case that this response involves a subconscious switch from rational (“System 2”) thinking to what he calls “associative coherence” (“System 1”). Associative coherence is the mind’s system for seeking out patterns. It’s kind of like a shortcut to rational thought. And it’s an incredibly important concept for this particular topic, because it is quite different from rational thought.
Kahneman explains …
… We really don’t like the idea of Hitler loving little children or flowers, when in fact he did … This bothers us because it is not emotionally consistent. It is not associatively consistent. We tend to look for stories that have that form of consistency and coherence.
Now, you can make a coherent story from VERY little information. In fact, the less information, in some cases, the easier it is to make a coherent story. Now, what matters here is that subjective confidence – the comfort people have – appears not to be determined by the amount of information. The confidence that people have in their impressions in the stories that system 1 is telling them, the confidence is determined by the associative coherence of the story – by whether the story makes internal sense. If we have a good story, we feel confident in it. It’s the internal contradictions that lower our confidence. This is radically different from the rational way of assigning probability to an event, or to a story, or to a hypothesis.
Kahneman goes on to detail what tends to happen next. If you prefer to read the transcript, it’s available online here.
So, what I’d like to emphasize here is that the systems we currently use to have these debates online encourage a switch to associative coherence. The amount of effort required to perform the proper rational investigation is just too large for most people. It’s partly because the subject is indeed somewhat complex. But, the way in which we convey the information also plays an important role.
The point here is that rational thought must be supported in order to avoid the switch back to associative coherence. So, what is happening with these debate forums online is that they are failing to support rational thought. And what this does, in the long run, is stack the deck against ideas that are out of the mainstream. People implicitly realize that they cannot or will not make it through this debate, and they subconsciously seek out associative coherence as a means of nevertheless formulating certainty on the topic.
We can do better than this. We can build systems which elicit rational thought on complex topics if we wish. And we need not even invent these techniques, for they already exist. We just have to know where to look for them. Physics education research (PER) will turn out to be a great starting point …
