What makes a crackpot?

[BigMoosie]

I think the main issue here is being open minded, and it comes in all degrees. There are narrow minded people everywhere including those who will completely disregard these "crackpot" theries and those who will stand by them to the day they die. Which is the crackpot? Both.

 

Open mindedness is a personality trait, coupled with arrogance and education (or lack of) and you can bake yourself your very own crackpot.

[Sayonara]

I think the main issue here is being open minded, and it comes in all degrees. There are narrow minded people everywhere including those who will completely disregard these "crackpot" theries and those who will stand by them to the day they die. Which is the crackpot? Both.

 

Open mindedness is a personality trait, coupled with arrogance and education (or lack of) and you can bake yourself your very own crackpot.

 

Where this falls down is that applying the scientific method to an allegedly crackpot idea is not the same as "disregarding" it.

[SkepticLance]

A core principle in science is that of falsification.

 

In other words, scientific ideas must be tested with the intent of falsifying them if they are wrong. A single test is not enough, unless the first test is successful in falsifying the idea. If no falsification happens, then more tests are needed to raise the idea to one of being an excellent model.

 

If an idea is tested, and falsified according to scientific protocol, and someone refuses to relinquish the idea, that person is a crackpot.

[Citizen Zero]

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.

 

 

Mokele

 

No way am I responding to all those pages of straw men and unfounded arguments but I will do just this one.

 

First of all many many observations do not come close to disproving... this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the generality problem of induction. The idea is that it cannot be proven because you never know whether or not there is a raven that is different than and completely unaffected by your past experience.

 

Next this is an unconnected metaphor. Of course my claim does still apply to the white raven scenario - How do you know the raven wasn't just painted white? How do you know its a raven? etc

 

But white ravens have nothing to do with what I am talking about. If you want to compare the two you have to make sure there are no signifigant differences. That means for example if Bob the scientist said he saw a white raven do you just take his word for it as "proof", or do you realize that he might have some reason to say he saw one when he didn't. Or maybe he didn't realize that it was just painted.

 

Or what if it could only be seen through a deductive reasoning device. What if Bob's device was poorly calibrated or malfunctioning? Do you know how adept bob really is at operating this deductive reasoning device? Anyone who is competent would be open to any criticism and would encourage dissenting opinions to help him discover truth. Does bob do this?

 

White raven or not there is no such thing as proof, and if there is something that is close science certainly does not always deal with it.

 

Finally, there is a difference between recognizing that there could be unkown sources of bias and recognizing that because of them a scientific experiment is not really capable of disproving anything.

[SkepticLance]

Citizen Zero.

I am glad I do not have to live inside your head. You have so many ifs, buts and maybes, that it would be impossible to draw any conclusions, and you must live in a misty fudge of uncertainty.

 

The rest of us make a few compromises and live in a world of much greater clarity. We all know there is no such thing as 'proof' by your absolutist definitions. So what, and who cares. If something has a high enough probability, we accept it as the equivalent. We are rarely disappointed.

[Mokele]

No way am I responding to all those pages of straw men and unfounded arguments but I will do just this one.

 

Point out which are strawman fallacies. Oh, that's right, none, you're just using this as a dodge because you can't face up to being wrong.

 

First of all many many observations do not come close to disproving... this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the generality problem of induction. The idea is that it cannot be proven because you never know whether or not there is a raven that is different than and completely unaffected by your past experience.

 

Wrong again. I am totally aware of the problem of generality in induction, but you are flat-out wrong in claiming one cannot become more and more sure of a negative answer. For instance, say I have a bag of colored balls. If I know there's only 1000 balls in the bag, and I sample 3000 times (obviously putting balls back) without getting any blue ones, I have a given level of certainty which can be mathematically calculated (as in, there is x% chance I am wrong). The more times I sample, the less likely I am to be wrong.

 

Also, note that the ball example is finite, as are most system. Some systems, including biology, are also non-independent; all the ravens are related to eachother to varying degrees and part of an interbreeding population, so the existence of one white raven means the genes behind it are likely hiding in many others, and in time more white ravens will be born.

 

Next this is an unconnected metaphor. Of course my claim does still apply to the white raven scenario - How do you know the raven wasn't just painted white? How do you know its a raven? etc

 

The same way we know anything is a raven; examination of the animal's genes and morphology. And ravens molt, so paint would come off. And they breed; if it's genetic, we can just breed a line of albino ravens from it.

 

Any more grasping at straws?

 

But white ravens have nothing to do with what I am talking about. If you want to compare the two you have to make sure there are no signifigant differences. That means for example if Bob the scientist said he saw a white raven do you just take his word for it as "proof", or do you realize that he might have some reason to say he saw one when he didn't. Or maybe he didn't realize that it was just painted.

 

And I'm the one committing strawman? Look at what I've quoted.

 

Seriously, kid, you need to learn how science really works. Nobody just takes someone's word for something; proof is expected, along with a rationale of how they know. If, for instance, I claim to have seen a white raven, in order for that to be valid, I need to compile a report which includes photos, shed feathers collected, genetic analysis of those feathers, etc.

 

What, do you seriously think scientists just assume we're each doing everything right? Shit, it's like an academic flame-war out there, albeit with bigger words than most flame wars. The slightest mistake or oversight will get you hammered into the ground.

 

Or what if it could only be seen through a deductive reasoning device. What if Bob's device was poorly calibrated or malfunctioning? Do you know how adept bob really is at operating this deductive reasoning device? Anyone who is competent would be open to any criticism and would encourage dissenting opinions to help him discover truth. Does bob do this?

 

1) that's why you calibrate equipment

2) that's why in the peer review process, reviewers can ask you to check your calibrations

3) that's why other people who *definitely* know how to use the equipment can repeat the experiment

4) criticism and dissenting opinions is pretty much all the peer-review process *is*. They give you a paper and basically say "rip the hell out of it". The author then has to respond to all criticisms in a satisfactory way to get the paper published.

 

White raven or not there is no such thing as proof, and if there is something that is close science certainly does not always deal with it.

 

Are you illiterate, or just stupid.

 

The physical existence of a white raven, especially alive and in captivity, is *proof* that they exist. After all, there is it! If you doubt it, go do whatever tests you want. Breed it to see if there are white baby ravens. Sequence it's geneome to see if it's an albino or leucistic. Test the feathers to see if it's been painted.

 

When all of those have been exhausted, what are you going to do? Tell me that a pure-bred, gene-sequenced albino raven standing in front of you is just a hallucination?

 

Do you *really* have your head buried so far up your first-year Intro to Philosophy textbook that you can't see how an object's existence, by definition, *proves* that such objects can and do exist?

 

Can you seriously think of *any* reason why being presented with a genuine physical example of something is *not* proof that thing exists?

 

Not all of science is induction. Some of it is just plain "can this happen? Oh, look I made it happen, so clearly it can!" You can't get much simpler than that.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

No way am I responding to all those pages of straw men and unfounded arguments but I will do just this one.

Nominated for "Post of the Week Award", which I just made up.

[Citizen Zero]

Wrong again. I am totally aware of the problem of generality in induction, but you are flat-out wrong in claiming one cannot become more and more sure of a negative answer. For instance, say I have a bag of colored balls. If I know there's only 1000 balls in the bag, and I sample 3000 times (obviously putting balls back) without getting any blue ones, I have a given level of certainty which can be mathematically calculated (as in, there is x% chance I am wrong). The more times I sample, the less likely I am to be wrong.

Mokele

 

No you do not understand. The case of the bag of balls is not the general case, unless you allow that the contents of the bag can change during the course of the experiment. And of course they can, you just haven't seen it happen or have seen anything that would indicate that it might happen. Maybe a bug in the bag will get squished and get blue stuff on one of the balls... etc

 

The purpose of skepticism isn't to eliminate all knowledge, it is to tell you how to achieve knowledge. Only by investigating anything which might contradict what you believe can you have knowledge. If you constantly go around making declarations by fiat against opposing beliefs and become red with anger every time someone disagrees with you then you have no knowledge of anything. If you walk around with cottonballs in your ears to block out what others have to say calling it "cerebral hygene" you are equally ignorant.

 

It tells me that if I'm watching tv and a commercial says x drug fixes x problem and only has these side effects, I look at the fact that the people paying for the commercial want to sell the drug to make money as reason for their claims. Science does not do anything that would make me think otherwise. If X company uses Y experimental results to learn how to build Z product, and I can easily see that Z product is useful, then I have no reason to question Y. However, what can easily be seen is that any time science tries to convince me, a non scientist, of something skepticism is quite justified. The only peer review that can ease this concern is review by someone I know shares the same biases as I.

 

And yes the response to the well tested white raven is that you could be asleep or a brain in a vat, or that your tests could have been innaccurate or designed to decieve you etc. Say I plug a feather into a machine which determines if it was painted or real. One day someone sneaks in and alters the insides of the machine such that it gives the opposite results from what it should when dealing with painted raven feathers. Now I don't know that it is giving wrong answers. You could always be wrong about anything you think - but it doesn't matter until something you think is contradicted. Science can not be used to convince an uninvolved third party of something either.

[Mokele]

The case of the bag of balls is not the general case, unless you allow that the contents of the bag can change during the course of the experiment. And of course they can, you just haven't seen it happen or have seen anything that would indicate that it might happen. Maybe a bug in the bag will get squished and get blue stuff on one of the balls... etc

 

Yes, but I've seen no evidence that things are changing, thus it's pointless to presume they are, and it's equally pointless to presume there are bugs in the bag if I've never seen one.

 

You have *COMPLETELY* missed the point. Bugs and changing balls don't matter. If I keep pulling balls out, I become more and more certain (though never absolutely so). If there is indeed change, I'll see that as I keep pulling balls out, and I'll be able to analyze it, quantify it, and deal with it. If bugs get it, I'll see them.

 

If there is no prior reason to expect this to happen, why bother talking about it? Sure, they could happen. And the universe could have been made last tuesday with all evidence of the past in place. It accomplishes *NOTHING*.

 

Only by investigating anything which might contradict what you believe can you have knowledge.

 

What the **** do you think science *is*?

 

If you constantly go around making declarations by fiat against opposing beliefs and become red with anger every time someone disagrees with you then you have no knowledge of anything.

 

And if you deny evidence you are faced with, you're intellectually dishonest.

 

There is *nothing* wrong with claim a fact is a fact when no reasonably explanation can be found otherwise. And wild conspiracy theories are not reasonable explanations.

 

It tells me that if I'm watching tv and a commercial says x drug fixes x problem and only has these side effects, I look at the fact that the people paying for the commercial want to sell the drug to make money as reason for their claims. Science does not do anything that would make me think otherwise.

 

It's called the FDA. Look it up.

 

However, what can easily be seen is that any time science tries to convince me, a non scientist, of something skepticism is quite justified. The only peer review that can ease this concern is review by someone I know shares the same biases as I.

 

You mean shares your ignorance?

 

If a creationist reviews an article on evolution, they'll just confirm the idiocy of other creationists.

 

And yes the response to the well tested white raven is that you could be asleep or a brain in a vat, or that your tests could have been innaccurate or designed to decieve you etc. Say I plug a feather into a machine which determines if it was painted or real. One day someone sneaks in and alters the insides of the machine such that it gives the opposite results from what it should when dealing with painted raven feathers. Now I don't know that it is giving wrong answers.

 

Good creation, that's precisely what I programmed you to say. You see, I created you, a la Frankenstien, last Tuesday. All of your prior life, including all prior posts in this thread, were an elaborate ruse by me, as is your memory.

 

So, will you now go through life *seriously* considering that you may be my creation? No.

 

Skepticism has limits, and arguements about the reliability of the raven feather tests are just grasping at straws. The probability of that being true is so tiny that it doesn't even matter.

 

Science can not be used to convince an uninvolved third party of something either.

 

Only if that party is very, very stupid.

 

 

Since you seem to know jack shit about science, I'll let you in on something: we *know* that nothing is absolutely certain. We even have a measurement of it, the p-value. Whenever you report *ANY* scientific results, you are required to report a p-value for your statistics, and that value is your certainty. A p value of 0.01 means there is a 1% chance that you got these results by random chance. A p value of 0.05 is the standard for all sciences, though some may self-impose more rigid standards.

 

All you're doing is wasting breath by pointing out that vastly improbable things *could* happen, as if we weren't already aware of this, and claiming that this somehow matters. It doesn't. If there's no evidence of such bizarre conspiracies, they aren't worth taking seriously, otherwise there would be NO knowledge of any kind. You arguement is pure solipsism, and the inevitable conclusion of it is that we can never know anything for certain, while neglecting that we *can* know to a level beyond which it's silly to claim otherwise.

 

Go read a damn textbook and come back when you know how science works. Next time you post something that clearly misses the point, you're getting a strawman warning.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

i'd say an extreme form of attention seeking, paranoia and a superiority complex could possibly result in the formation of a crackpot.

 

This is a very old post, but I think you're on to something and showed some great insight with that.

 

In response to the thread title, we might more simply state: The parents.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the problem is that people jump in head first sometimes, before getting educated properly. I personally think it's healthy to explore new ideas, but getting attached and not listening to reason, when you have A. no evidence for your idea or B. mountains of counter evidence debunking your idea, then move on.

 

If you have an idea that's outside of science, then I think everyone is within their right to express it, and discuss it, but rattling on like it's a truth is not going to get you anywhere.

 

I think there's a lot of people that just don't realise the amount of work that goes into a scientific theory, and the minds behind it.

Also, very well said.

[cperkinson]

Too much truth here... But while you think i am merely jumpin in head first I am not. I AM indeed open to outside oppinions but not when those opinions are in disregard of mine.

[Sayonara]

Too much truth here... But while you think i am merely jumpin in head first I am not. I AM indeed open to outside oppinions but not when those opinions are in disregard of mine.

If you are only open to opinions which agree with your own then you are being closed-minded. That's what closed-minded means.

[insane_alien]

i think my irony meter just exploded

[Sisyphus]

I am closed to all opinions, regardless of whether they agree with mine.

[UC]

i think my irony meter just exploded

 

Mine definetly did. *gets a mop*

 

Good thing they're not mercury-filled anymore.

[insane_alien]

yes, good old liquid plutonium replaced it just fine.

[Phi for All]

I am closed to all opinions, regardless of whether they agree with mine.

Also sprach zie ÜberShkeptik.

[CharonY]

Huh? What is that supposed to mean?

[swansont]

Mine definetly did. *gets a mop*

 

Good thing they're not mercury-filled anymore.

 

 

Not after they explode, they aren't.

[foodchain]

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'.

 

Yes, but practicing science requires beliefs to be tested, and they can be refuted by an experiment for instance. So the data would in a belief system I guess would be more empirical, as it was conducted outside of just a particular brain organ thinking.

 

With belief I think you get stuck with just having nothing but theoretical stuff to be nice. What would physics look like if the work was never tested against reality in say a predictive manner?

[dr.syntax]

So I was looking through the pseudoscience and speculations sections, and I found myself newly amazed by the number and depth of crackpot theories. They wildly twist mathematics, science, and the english language into incomprensibility and absurdity, yet I'm convinced they're not jokes, just because there was clearly so much time spent on them. They often show familiarity (if not correct understanding) with highly esoteric subjects, and are often accompanied by "calculations" which must have taken hours if not days. So I guess my question is, is there a name for this kind of behavior? What causes someone to do all this?

 

Lousy parenting+religion = a wide variety of crackpots. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 17, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition