What makes a crackpot?

[CanadaAotS]

Fields of Iron Rule the Universe

 

Rule #34 of Crack-Pottery: "Rule the Universe" is in the title.

 

lol

[YT2095]

Except when it comes to my Chili Peppers, then anything about ruling the Universe can be Valid

 

disagree, and I`ll cook you something

[CanadaAotS]

mmm spicy food...

 

*starts up a theory and names it "Spicy Foods Rule the Universe!!!!!111!1!"*

 

You see, tacos are the actual cause of gravity...

 

Rule #25 of Crack-pottery: Exclamations are a must for a good theory.

[mr d]

hello

 

yes i'll stick with the crackpots. true their ideas do lead at times to unfortunate deaths due to their ideas. but when i see what 'sane' scientist do with their 'correct' knowledge of science. and purposely design devises that can kill thousands and millions at one go. well maybe having crackpots working in military developement, might be a far better then having those sane folks.

besides think how much more enjoyable the world is with them in it. the amusement they provide, the inspiration they give to others (perhaps even yourself) to help push them to disprove crackpot theories still aids in the advancement of scienctific research.

what a world of mediocrity and tedium it would be if only scientifically approved ideas and thoughts were allowed.

what is your fear of the absurd? doth thou protest to loudly.

 

got to go out now. need drop my white canvus coat with the wrap around arms off at the cleaners.

 

mr d

 

ps. as stated before in the u.s. most people consider the term of crackpot as a ill informed but still harmless individual (kinda like the character of doc brown in the back to the future movies).

notice for a number of you blokes in the u.k. there seems to be more of a feeling that crackpots are dangerous fellows. just wondering if that is how you feel about the term.

[gcol]

I'm largely with Mr.D, although it sometimes not easy to differentiate the harmless, amusing and funny crackpots from the dangerous kind.

 

All good and original comedians have a touch of the crackpot, it is their ability to see things differently that gives them their humourous edge,

 

I think the term crackpot is too broad a term. We need subtler definitions.

 

The term "Republican" for example. Too broad a church. They cant all be bad, surely? Just like crackpots.

[Citizen Zero]

i'd say an extreme form of attention seeking, paranoia and a superiority complex could possibly result in the formation of a crackpot. acid trips are probably involved in more than a few cases.

 

Edit: i just thought, they usually have a problem with authority thinking that everything they say is false but in trying to get everyone over to their side, they would become an authority and hence hate themselves.wonder what would happen if a crackpot actually turned out to be right for once. damn thats scary.

 

I thought most famous intellectuals were crackpots prior to being famous intellectuals? The way I figure it Einstein got an F in math probably for harrassing the teacher by poking holes in his arguments or using abstract algorithms the teacher didn't understand to solve math problems.

 

Seriously though, I think the problem with authority such people have is really a problem with people in power being authoritarian (is that a word?) as opposed to authoritative. (authoritarian figures usually fail to recognize that as the complaint)

 

Authoritarian figures believe they have the right to dictate what is right and what is wrong. When confronted with someone with a dissenting opinion they simply use any means available to squelch that dissenting opinion. Using force to override reason in such a manner has many negative side effects depending on the situation (reducing morale and increasing turnover in the workplace, breeding hatred from kids) the worst of which is of course is encouraging violence. Discussion is supposed to be had in place of violence being used to achieve ones goals when they clash with someone else's goals.

 

To be authoritative is to recognize that any power given to you is not inherent to you but a function of your ability to determine what is right and wrong. An authoritative boss considers feeback, input and dissenting opinions because this is neccesary to be certain that yours is the best course of action (except maybe, for example when time is limited and a decision must be made and then this is the reason given for ending discussion). The authoritative boss does not make up reasons to admonish employees just to show whos boss. The authoritative parent carefully explains why rules are necessary and attempts to demonstrate the danger of not following them, and never says "Because I said so".

 

The assumption is that someone making such a claim against authority if given a position of authority would be an authoritative figure not authoritarian.

[timo]

I thought most famous intellectuals were crackpots prior to being famous intellectuals?

I thought that is just an urban myth.

The way I figure it Einstein got an F in math probably for harrassing the teacher by poking holes in his arguments or using abstract algorithms the teacher didn't understand to solve math problems.

I´d see a point had he gotten an F in his physics exam at university for claiming lightspeed is constant. But this way it looks like an attempt to desperately see connections where none exist. Which famous intellectual was considered a crackpot prior to becoming famous? Newton? Goethe? Leibnitz? Maxwell? Gauss? Darwin? Feynman? I´m no historian and I don´t know it. But I bet with assuming they were all highly respected I get more hits than with assuming they all were considered crackpots.

 

I don´t know if your statement about most famous intellectuals being initially considered crackpots is right or wrong. But rational thinking tells me it´s probably wrong, especially when it comes to science (might be different in arts and literature).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The idea that Einstein failed math is a myth.

[Citizen Zero]

I thought that is just an urban myth.

 

I´d see a point had he gotten an F in his physics exam at university for claiming lightspeed is constant. But this way it looks like an attempt to desperately see connections where none exist. Which famous intellectual was considered a crackpot prior to becoming famous? Newton? Goethe? Leibnitz? Maxwell? Gauss? Darwin? Feynman? I´m no historian and I don´t know it. But I bet with assuming they were all highly respected I get more hits than with assuming they all were considered crackpots.

 

I don´t know if your statement about most famous intellectuals being initially considered crackpots is right or wrong. But rational thinking tells me it´s probably wrong, especially when it comes to science (might be different in arts and literature).

 

Well, your argument is that if you did a search on famous people being crackpots (now after their theories have already been determined to be correct) you would find more hits about them being well respected. Well of course you would, noone considers them crackpots NOW. That's when all the documented criticisms of them are swept under the carpet (perhaps by the people who wrote them) or just burned or something.

 

I had always been told from credible sources (like in school) that Einstein failed an early math class. You claim he didn't, and it just happens to go along with your belief that historical figures were always well respected before becoming historical figures. Maybe the people who told me had some kind of defeating adversity belief set and were also biased. Well, since I wasn't there, and I know that history is rarely reported without bias, I'm just going to trust what I have always been told about it because it seems more likely given what I know about human nature. The only proof or disproof would be to go back in time and see it happen or not happen. Think about it - the school would probably delete the records or forgive his grade or something out of embarrasment once he reached a certain level of notoriety, and then someone might pull up the school records and find no F then report it was a false claim. That's the way history works.

 

I don't even understand the reasoning behind the belief set that historical figures were never considered anything similar to "crackpots". How do they become historical figures if not through implementing changes, which of course implies disagreement with past belief sets? Is this limited only to scientists? Are you going to claim that someone like Martin Luther King wasn't called all kinds of names prior to instituting changes he was responsible for? If not then what? Scientists are part of some group where people are always perfectly objective and never become attached to theories or current belief sets and attempt to declare opposing belief sets false by fiat? That scientists put in a position of power always act perfectly authoritative? That would not be coherent with my experience...

[timo]

Well, your argument is that if you did a search on famous people being crackpots (now after their theories have already been determined to be correct) you would find more hits about them being well respected.

No, that´s not what my argument is. My claim is that most people were already respected or at least not being considered crackpots prior to becoming famous.

 

I had always been told from credible sources (like in school) that Einstein failed an early math class. You claim he didn't, [...]

No I don´t. I claim that a failed math test has no relevance for your argument.

 

The only proof or disproof would be to go back in time and see it happen or not happen.

For me sufficient proof would be looking at the people´s bio. Einstein, for example, was a trained physicist (so it seems he managed to finish a PhD in physics, despite of that very important failed math test in school) when he became famous for his Relativity. That does not exactly fit the "complete outsider rocks the world of science"-image that is usually attributed to him. And considering he wrote his SR stuff around the time that he got his PhD and also the time he wrote the paper that later brought him the nobel prize, I see no reason to believe he was considered a crackpot by the scientific community.

 

 

I don't even understand the reasoning behind the belief set that historical figures were never considered anything similar to "crackpots". How do they become historical figures if not through implementing changes, which of course implies disagreement with past belief sets?

Disagreeing with past/current believes does not necessarily make you being considered a crackpot. It´s probably a mandatory but not a sufficient criterion for being considered a crackpot. Where is your problem in understanding the statement that your point of view might just be a romantic myth about rebels/outsiders changing the world?

EDIT: And please stick to what I said and don´t say something else and claim I said it in the future - it is not a good ground to start a discussion on. I did not say "historical figures were never considered anything similar to crackpots". I said that I doubt that MOST were considered crackpots.

 

Is this limited only to scientists?

Yes, I´d limit it to natural scientists for a start. Politicians, philosophers and human right activists are a different issue because there´s less possibilities (well, actually none) to objetively tell right from wrong in these matters.

[swansont]

Well, since I wasn't there, and I know that history is rarely reported without bias, I'm just going to trust what I have always been told about it because it seems more likely given what I know about human nature. The only proof or disproof would be to go back in time and see it happen or not happen. Think about it - the school would probably delete the records or forgive his grade or something out of embarrasment once he reached a certain level of notoriety, and then someone might pull up the school records and find no F then report it was a false claim. That's the way history works.

 

Appeal to conspiracy isn't going to get much traction around here. It's more a "put up or shut up" attitude.

[DaveC426913]

I think crackpottery stems specifically from the misconception that science is simple enough to "do" without years of science education.

 

With just a grade school or high school education, it is possible to fabricate whole universes of "logical" physical and not-so-physical ideas. This leads to an internally-consistent system - one that actually makes sense. As long as you don't actually compare it to reality. These ideas can thrive and flourish thrive as long as they are not burdened with the drag of actually testing them to see if they agree with reality.

[Citizen Zero]

No, that´s not what my argument is. My claim is that most people were already respected or at least not being considered crackpots prior to becoming famous.

 

 

No I don´t. I claim that a failed math test has no relevance for your argument.

 

 

For me sufficient proof would be looking at the people´s bio. Einstein, for example, was a trained physicist (so it seems he managed to finish a PhD in physics, despite of that very important failed math test in school) when he became famous for his Relativity. That does not exactly fit the "complete outsider rocks the world of science"-image that is usually attributed to him. And considering he wrote his SR stuff around the time that he got his PhD and also the time he wrote the paper that later brought him the nobel prize, I see no reason to believe he was considered a crackpot by the scientific community.

 

 

 

Disagreeing with past/current believes does not necessarily make you being considered a crackpot. It´s probably a mandatory but not a sufficient criterion for being considered a crackpot. Where is your problem in understanding the statement that your point of view might just be a romantic myth about rebels/outsiders changing the world?

EDIT: And please stick to what I said and don´t say something else and claim I said it in the future - it is not a good ground to start a discussion on. I did not say "historical figures were never considered anything similar to crackpots". I said that I doubt that MOST were considered crackpots.

 

 

Yes, I´d limit it to natural scientists for a start. Politicians, philosophers and human right activists are a different issue because there´s less possibilities (well, actually none) to objetively tell right from wrong in these matters.

 

So your argument is the fact that he got a phd means he was not considered a crackpot? Well, my argument isn't that ALL people think Einstein was a crackpot just that some. Sure there are intelligent and objective people around all the time who consider other's viewpoints.

 

Then there are average insecure people who have average understanding of reasoning in general or of the subject matter they pursue. These people tend to look to other people or some social structure for validation of claims rather than looking for truth. These are the people whom one such as I would be referring to when saying that someone was considered a crackpot prior to becoming a signifigant historical figure.

 

If you agree that there are some of each of the two above categories, then which do you think there were more of? I say the latter. And yes I think all historical figures came into disagreement with some signifigant group, and at least some if not most members of that signifigant group did not treat the historical member's claims objectively.

 

It's not so much about some rebel changing society as it is about people overcoming those who evaluate claims on their social status and use all manner of tactics to prevent anyone excelling past them.

 

Appeal to conspiracy isn't going to get much traction around here. It's more a "put up or shut up" attitude.

 

What conspiracy? I was showing how a string of unrelated events could lead to someone on a science forum believing and claiming that Einstein never failed a math class when he actually did. I can't prove that he did, and he can't prove that he didn't.

 

I think crackpottery stems specifically from the misconception that science is simple enough to "do" without years of science education.

 

With just a grade school or high school education, it is possible to fabricate whole universes of "logical" physical and not-so-physical ideas. This leads to an internally-consistent system - one that actually makes sense. As long as you don't actually compare it to reality. These ideas can thrive and flourish thrive as long as they are not burdened with the drag of actually testing them to see if they agree with reality.

 

Science sometimes provides additional data that would create restraints on such coherent belief sets. If someone did not have access to the additional data they might create a belief set that was coherent including most common experience, but not the data aquired from scientific experimentation - and then their belief set would be wrong assuming the scientific data was accurate. However any well developed coherent belief set based even just on every day experience should include that any additional information could potentially be a disproof of any part of the belief set so additional info should be sought out wherever available.

 

That being said, given any amount of information there are potentially infinite coherent belief sets that can be formed. It starts with deviation just in how even conservative scientists remember the most well respected theories - a different sentence sticking in the perosn's head, different ways of visualizing, learned in different languages etc. But it there is no limit to how different it can be. A native american elder can create a belief set that complies with all restraints (perhaps even conducting his own set of experiments to determine said restraints) and describe it with statements like "the spirit of the earth would never allow an acorn to float in mid air rather than fall to the ground" and defend the statement succesfully until his death.

 

For these reasons (the small deviations if you do not interact with many native american tribal elders) it is always valuable to learn to transate coherent belief sets quickly by recognizing the constraints each belief set has and not paying much attention to how the belief set is realized in language.

[rewebster]

Most academias are good people. They are usually busy either with their own projects or with their teaching/writing/experiments. Some will listen, others will not. I've met some really egotistic physicists, and some really nice ones.

 

Grouping together all academias and calling them self-serving, egotistic gatekeepers is as bad as calling all non-academia independent researchers 'crackpots'.

 

I think it comes down to respect. On some other boards, I've seen younger people interested in a subject, ask a question, and being treated with respect. When someone else asks a similar question, with a little more knowledge (writing skills and 'apparent' age), I've seen those people being replied to in a harsh, sarcastic and demeaning way. ---Like, 'you're old enough to know better, so I'm going to treat you that way'.

 

 

If I remember right, Einstein wasn't taken too seriously until about 10 years after his 1905 paper. I would bet that in that 10 years, there were more than a fair share of snide remarks about Einstein and his 'crackpot' ideas.

 

Most academias have written papers, and in the longer scheme of things (delta 't'), their names will be forgotten---and they know it. How many other 'theories' were going on at the same time as Einstein's that are now forgotten?

 

How many and what are the chances that some non-academia has something important to say?----Slim, but that means there's still a chance. Status against non-status, knowledge against creativity, over-confidence in dogma against over-zealousness in presentation--academias may look at it as right (them) against wrong (the newbie).

 

 

A new idea is just that--an idea, until it is proved right or wrong. The celestial terra based system worked fine for most (except for those annoying 'wanderers' to explain). I've have heard many physicists say or imply to say, 'if the math works to what is seen, then, OK'. Does that mean the theory behind the math is right?--no, it just means that the math OF the theory seems to work.

 

Expounding what is presently accepted and presently worked on by many is what academias almost HAVE to do be accepted and not be rejected by their peers. That is one thing that the non-academias don't have to worry about as much--until they want to present it to someone---and where do they go?---well, to the academias, of course. Then, the cycle starts.

 

 

Some people may deserve being called 'crackpots'--some don't. Some academias just like calling anyone a crackpot who is not a academia that is trying something that may, or may not, be anything additive to to greater scheme of things, just because they can and get away with it. Sometimes power corrupts.

 

Knowledge does help weed out the real bad; but, when most of the basic foundational fundamentals of physics (gravity, light, magnetism, etc.) aren't still fully understood,--- who really knows?----

[Citizen Zero]

I think it comes down to respect. On some other boards, I've seen younger people interested in a subject, ask a question, and being treated with respect. When someone else asks a similar question, with a little more knowledge (writing skills and 'apparent' age), I've seen those people being replied to in a harsh, sarcastic and demeaning way. ---Like, 'you're old enough to know better, so I'm going to treat you that way'.

 

This sounds like the people mistreating the other person are afraid of dissenting opinions. IE it's ok for the younger person because he just hasn't heard our viewpoint yet. But the others might be expressing disagreement, and so we are going to try and intimidate him out of it or make a preemptive strike attempting to undermine his credibility.

 

Personally I think there is no justification for calling someone a crackpot for several reasons. First no human is capable of having any knowledge other than the abscence of dissenting information. That means you have to be open minded to anything which might disprove what you have to say.

 

If someone disagrees with you, then you do not know you have an understanding of what the other person is saying unless that person admits that your explanation undermines their argument. Otherwise you might just have a straw man understanding of what they are trying to say.

 

That being said if the person fails to provide any more information or counter arguments and/or avoids discussion then you have no dissenting information to consider. But it's better to come to an agreement with your opponents.

 

Treating your opponent with respect makes them more likely to admit when they are wrong thus making everything clearer for everyone and further reinforcing your belief, being disrespectful is counterproductive to everyone.

 

Once their opponent admits they are wrong, few people are going to be like "that's right gosh what were you thinking you crackpot", rather aggressiveness is more a sign that you fear your opponent is right and you are trying to stop them from making their point so you appear correct.

[Mokele]

While respect is useful, I think you're missing the point. It's one thing to be open to dissenting viewpoints. The problem arrises when someone just will *not* let go of an idea, no matter how thoroughly and completely it's proven wrong.

 

For instance, Behe is a crackpot who espouses creationism/ID based on various grounds, every single arguement of which has been *empirically* shown to be totally worthless. There are stacks of textbooks 3 feet high full of data refuting his points, yet he never even adressses this data. He just keeps on spouting the same bullshit, even though it's been disproven. How is that *not* worthy of being labeled a crackpot.

 

It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion. It's another to continue harping on about it when any reasonable examination of the data shows it to be absolutely ludicrous and/or flatly contradicted by reality.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

To me a crackpot is someone who claims they're doing science while instead engaging in pseudoscience/mysticism.

 

This would include Feng Shui consultants ("It's scientific!"), people who claims they can get a positive energy balance from electrolysis or several other sources, Chiropractors who claim they can heal exema, etc.

[rewebster]

For instance, Behe is a crackpot who espouses creationism/ID based on various grounds, every single argument of which has been *empirically* shown to be totally worthless. There are stacks of textbooks 3 feet high full of data refuting his points, yet he never even addresses this data. He just keeps on spouting the same bullshit, even though it's been disproven. How is that *not* worthy of being labeled a crackpot.

 

It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion. It's another to continue harping on about it when any reasonable examination of the data shows it to be absolutely ludicrous and/or flatly contradicted by reality.

 

 

yes---but if he was talking to a creationism/ID gathering he probably would be accepted with respect.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

e.g.--If I had a new theory, based on classical or quantum, I wouldn't expect to be treated well at a 'die hard' MWI conference

[Citizen Zero]

While respect is useful, I think you're missing the point. It's one thing to be open to dissenting viewpoints. The problem arrises when someone just will *not* let go of an idea, no matter how thoroughly and completely it's proven wrong.

 

For instance, Behe is a crackpot who espouses creationism/ID based on various grounds, every single arguement of which has been *empirically* shown to be totally worthless. There are stacks of textbooks 3 feet high full of data refuting his points, yet he never even adressses this data. He just keeps on spouting the same bullshit, even though it's been disproven. How is that *not* worthy of being labeled a crackpot.

 

It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion. It's another to continue harping on about it when any reasonable examination of the data shows it to be absolutely ludicrous and/or flatly contradicted by reality.

 

Mokele

 

 

Because unless he admits that it undermines his argument you cannot be sure that it really addresses his argument. It might be that it seems like the data affects his argument but thats because you have a distorted view of what he is saying.

 

However if you think someone is making no effort to show how this is the case and instead just argues past what you say I would just stop arguing with them. In this case you honestly tried to reconcile the differences between the 2 belief sets but he was either unwilling or unable. This still doesn't give you claim to understanding and rejecting his argument, but without adequate information to consider regarding objections voluntarily provided by him you do not have what you need to consider what he is saying and thus should simply not worry about it until such a time as you do.

 

The important factor here is that everyone be given the best motivation possible to reconcile differences between beliefs. Calling your opponent a crackpot doesn't serve this purpose. Recognizing it as valid behavior also makes it really easy for people in positions of power to prematurely squelch opposing beliefs rather than actually considering them.

 

That being said a social enviornment adhereing to this model would regard the person who hinders communication as negatively as one might regard a crackpot now. The term crackpot is an imprecisely defined label that is not limited in scope, might cause confusion and anger, and leave room for abuse by the person using it. In contrast saying someone is purposely hindering communication is a precise accusation that he could easily disprove by making a more honest effort to communicate. I feel like a set of debate fouls should be established and objectively applied to any discussion to recognize when this type of behavior is occuring.

[Mokele]

Because unless he admits that it undermines his argument you cannot be sure that it really addresses his argument. It might be that it seems like the data affects his argument but thats because you have a distorted view of what he is saying.

 

Nope.

 

Scientists make predictions, and they make them clear and concise. Every paper I've ever read has had a nice bit at the end of the intro stating "and we expect to find precisely X Y and Z."

 

Behe has stated such a prediction. He has claimed that a particular trait cannot be explained by evolution. The fact of the matter is that we actually have evidence of the steps it took. Even if we're wrong, it proves that there is a plausble method, thereby refuting his claims.

 

The point is that scientists lay out their hypotheses and predictions in an explicit manner so that anyone reading the paper can say "yep, the data supports them" or "no, the data doesn't".

 

If I saw a paper with a hypothese full of weasel words, which they could claim wasn't rightly understood when faced with evidence, I'd reject it for publication outright. That's not how science is done; leave that shit to the philosophers.

 

This still doesn't give you claim to understanding and rejecting his argument

 

If I have empirical data that directly contradicts his arguement, yes, I can and do call it bullshit, for such it is. Empirical data is the end-all-be-all, and if you cling to a theory in spite of it, you're a crackpot, period.

 

See above for specific hypotheses and predictions, too.

 

The important factor here is that everyone be given the best motivation possible to reconcile differences between beliefs. Calling your opponent a crackpot doesn't serve this purpose.

 

Belief is irrelevant. Only data matters. If their theory doesn't fit the data, it's garbage, period. If they refuse to let it go, they're a crackpot. It's that simple.

 

Recognizing it as valid behavior also makes it really easy for people in positions of power to prematurely squelch opposing beliefs rather than actually considering them.

 

That's what data is for. If your data supports you, there's nothing they can do.

 

Mokele

[rewebster]

Belief is irrelevant. Only data matters.

 

Most of what this is is about beliefs. And it's only in hindsight do some people deserve to be called 'crackpots'. Data, at the time, supported the pre-Copernican Terra centered universe only until data was collected, confirmed, and accepted did that change--and I don't think that happened overnight.

 

Cold fusion was 'accepted' for a while. Aether was 'accepted' for a while. Both still may happen, but not with the presently known and accepted theories. Data can be wrong (not right, not interpreted right,interpreted from biased or even wrong base knowledge, etc.). Data shouldn't be the only criteria. I think hindsight isn't even the best, but its better than data for determining a 'crackpot'.

[Citizen Zero]

Nope.

 

Scientists make predictions, and they make them clear and concise. Every paper I've ever read has had a nice bit at the end of the intro stating "and we expect to find precisely X Y and Z."

 

Behe has stated such a prediction. He has claimed that a particular trait cannot be explained by evolution. The fact of the matter is that we actually have evidence of the steps it took. Even if we're wrong, it proves that there is a plausble method, thereby refuting his claims.

 

The point is that scientists lay out their hypotheses and predictions in an explicit manner so that anyone reading the paper can say "yep, the data supports them" or "no, the data doesn't".

 

If I saw a paper with a hypothese full of weasel words, which they could claim wasn't rightly understood when faced with evidence, I'd reject it for publication outright. That's not how science is done; leave that shit to the philosophers.

 

 

 

If I have empirical data that directly contradicts his arguement, yes, I can and do call it bullshit, for such it is. Empirical data is the end-all-be-all, and if you cling to a theory in spite of it, you're a crackpot, period.

 

See above for specific hypotheses and predictions, too.

 

 

 

Belief is irrelevant. Only data matters. If their theory doesn't fit the data, it's garbage, period. If they refuse to let it go, they're a crackpot. It's that simple.

 

 

 

That's what data is for. If your data supports you, there's nothing they can do.

 

Mokele

 

there is no such thing as proof and plugging your ears and saying "nope! lah lah lah" is not going to change that. If only it were as simple as many scientists with ulterior motives (like selling drugs) attempt to claim.

 

To begin with any experiment is not only capable of being fundamentally flawed from the getgo in the form of using biased samples, but it is almost impossible to prevent this because of the potentially unlimited and infinitely complex sources of bias.

 

Science is based on the unfounded assumption that no such unkown sources of bias (which would signifigantly affect the outcome) exist, and such beliefs are mostly reinforced using simple experiments regarding basic physics.

 

Simply put, you can't use science to override an opposing belief. If you think science has disproved something, your assertion could simply be based on experiments with a sample drawn from a population that was different that the population you are trying to make predictions for. The only way around this is if there is no indication that there is such a difference. But someone arguing the opposite of your claim is an indication of such a difference.

 

Secondly empyrical data doesn't prove anything, rather it is reasoning based on aquired data that is in favor of or against a given belief. And unfortunately such reasoning is quite prone to error, bias and everything else that philosophy is. Rather scientists simply attempt to create the illusion that THEIR beliefs are direct results of aquired empyrical evidence.

 

Well heres some news for you: EVERYBODY believes their beliefs to be direct results of aquired empyrical evidence. Saying someone is ignoring empyrical evidence is no different then your opponent saying that you are ignoring his arguments and just repeating your own.

[EvoN1020v]

What if I was a crackpot? Do I seem like a bad person?

 

 

Just kidding.

(At first, I thought crackpot is similiar to pothead - people who smoke weeds frequently).

[Mokele]

there is no such thing as proof and plugging your ears and saying "nope! lah lah lah" is not going to change that. If only it were as simple as many scientists with ulterior motives (like selling drugs) attempt to claim.

 

Wrong. Take the claim "There are white ravens." It is impossible to 100% disprove this, though many, many, many observations may come close. However, it *IS* possible to prove that a white raven does exist: catch one and let people see.

 

To begin with any experiment is not only capable of being fundamentally flawed from the getgo in the form of using biased samples, but it is almost impossible to prevent this because of the potentially unlimited and infinitely complex sources of bias.

 

Wrong again. Many potential sources of bias are, to some extent, predictable and accomodatable. Others would be noticed when the experiment is replicated and yields different results. In fact, there are many, many papers out there illustrating what we've learned over the years about bias.

 

Suffice to say, we're far more aware of potential bias than you are, and even have a sophisticated system of nomenclature for the various categories. And yes, there is even a term for and acknowledgement of the (slim) possibility that invisible space monkeys are deliberately messing things up.

 

Science is based on the unfounded assumption that no such unkown sources of bias (which would signifigantly affect the outcome) exist, and such beliefs are mostly reinforced using simple experiments regarding basic physics.

 

Wrong yet again. See above. If you *really* want, I can even dig up the citation for the paper that explicity acknowledges that there are undetectable sources of bias we can do nothing about. Hell, you can dig it up. Just search the journal "Ecology" for the term psuedoreplication and read the first paper that comes up.

 

Simply put, you can't use science to override an opposing belief.

 

Sure it can. If I believe there are no white ravens, and a biologist captures one and shows it to me, science have overriden my belief, end of story.

 

If you think science has disproved something, your assertion could simply be based on experiments with a sample drawn from a population that was different that the population you are trying to make predictions for. The only way around this is if there is no indication that there is such a difference. But someone arguing the opposite of your claim is an indication of such a difference.

 

No it isn't. Just because someone claims a difference exists doesn't mean there really is one; it may be their own wishful thinking. Let's take two examples, shall we? Both are of the same subject, and drawn from an area familiar to me.

 

In the captive reptile market, there occaisionally crop up animals with color mutations of all sorts. Naturally, as rarities, they become desirable. However, in order to make money off them, they are used to found lines that are continually inbred.

 

Now, in other animals, we have abundant data that inbreeding results in decreased fitness, decreased genetic health, higher incidence of genetic diseases, and, in extreme cases, severe birth defects. I claim this applies to snakes, because we have no a priori reason to expect snake genes to behave any differently from any other animal's genes. Others may object, as you claim, but such objections are without merit or basis unless they can give me a reason *why* snake genes don't work like all other animals (incidentally, their own breeding projects rely on the principles that predict their downfall, and subsequent data on snakes has shown that inbreeding affects them too).

 

Now, imagine I make the same arguement for the evening primrose, a very pretty little flower. Here, the situation is different, as those knowledgable in the genetics of this plant can point out that there is something *VERY* peculiar about its mode of inheritance, and thus the normal rules may not apply. (google them to find out, but roughly speaking, there's no independent assortment of alleles due to a chromosomal peculiarity)

 

Notice the difference between the two? In one case, there is a strong reason to suspect my claims are wrong (the screwy inheritance of this particular plant), while in another, there is no reason whatsoever to believe objections to my claims.

 

Of course, there's always the simple way out: do the experiments again on an closer population or the one in question (if feasible).

 

Secondly empyrical data doesn't prove anything

 

 

That sure does.

 

rather it is reasoning based on aquired data that is in favor of or against a given belief. And unfortunately such reasoning is quite prone to error, bias and everything else that philosophy is. Rather scientists simply attempt to create the illusion that THEIR beliefs are direct results of aquired empyrical evidence.

 

Actually, no, most of the reasoning is quite simple, and is really hard to screw up. For instance, simple geometry predicts that if an animal increases in linear size while remaining proportionally identical, then all surface areas will increase to the square and volumes to the cube. Because this is interesting to me, I measure the mass versus length of a particular species of snake as it grows. I plot the data, and see it isn't cubic in scale. I therefore conclude that the animal isn't scaling strictly proportionally. Gee, that was hard. Sure, I try to figure out why, but that's the next paper, with similarly direct lines of reasoning, such as "if increased body mass confers increased number of eggs per clutch, females should be larger than males", and hey, look, the data agrees, which means I'm probably right. Then I test it in other species where clutch size is limited by other factors to see if that supports me. Whee it does!

 

That's how science works. Simple questions, direct experiments/tests, simple answers. String a few simple answers together and try to make a slightly bigger answer, then test that with a bigger, more complicated experiment. Repeat.

 

Science is based on empirical evidence, because for any assertion science makes, the train of reasoning *ALWAYS* comes back to an empirical experiment. Now, that doesn't mean it's always right, but that self-correcting nature of science takes care of that.

 

Well heres some news for you: EVERYBODY believes their beliefs to be direct results of aquired empyrical evidence. Saying someone is ignoring empyrical evidence is no different then your opponent saying that you are ignoring his arguments and just repeating your own.

 

Bullshit, and you know it. Just because people *think* their views are based on empirical evidence doesn't make it so. Most often, they're based on biased memories, annecdotes, and other such flimsy garbage that is prone to massive error.

 

In contrast, if I claim that, say, boas have the remnants of hind limbs, I can actually show you the evidence. I can haul out a boa and show you the spurs; I can show you them on a skeleton; I can show you a series of cleared embryos with the limbs of boas and mice visibly stained by a chemical that binds to *precisely* the same genetic code, and show, via knockout mutations in mice, that this code is responsible for hind limbs.

 

Yes, there are always people who will bury their heads in the sand when presented with evidence. That doesn't mean their arguements are worth anything.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

I really don't see how the argument can continue in this thread now - it's like the movie version of iself, in which the 100-ft tall Mokelosaur just ate Crackpot Towers.