Royston Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 It looks suspiciously like bullying to me, which I think the forum should oppose. Certainly I find it personally distasteful (so there...) Not too sure about this thread...I think the physics forum should be strictly physics (just my opinion), however with the split...'science based arguments...' this was an opportunity for Farsight to present his ideas, and for others to advise what needs modifying, using strictly verifiable evidence, and legitimate sources explaining the evidence. As it's become abundantly clear that even this approach hasn't worked, then at the very least it serves as a prime example how 'not' to present, and argue your ideas...so it could be a handy link for future Farsights. If he was really bothered by any of the comments, he would of left long ago. I've had rather heated discussion with the guy before, and this affected the quality of my posts, so I decided to leave it. Personally I salute anyone who is really interested in physics, but if they're not even willing to accept criticism of their ideas, or willing to do proper science e.g change their hypothesis given new data, then there's not much hope for that individual...as a scientist.
FastTrack Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Xerxes--- It's the same problem that scientists have with things like Intelligent Design. First you think ``It's so stupid, how can anyone actually believe that?'' Then, the next thing you know, school boards are trying to vote on cirricula based on it.. Yeh, what ever happened to Retarded Design, I mean that would explain a lot of things.
Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Now that's funny. I consider upright bipedalism to be an unproven, unfinished experiment, for instance. Surely the most disunified thing around here is us.
Klaynos Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 I've listened to good physicists invoke "handwaving arguments" to put off what most see as niggling details, but they are no substitute for scarce logic. (This is another of my cartoons in Pitfalls of Theoretical Physics.) Generally not in papers though... I like this list: http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html Somewhere in a lab I used to work (used to work there twice now ) there is an amended list where people have added ones on the bottom
Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 [bIGTEETH] Good one Klaynos. [/bIGTEETH] One night a friend and I were listening to a far radio-skip of some southwest US evangelist, who earnestly told us you can believe this because IT IS TRUE.
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 Norm---there is a definite art to hand-waving. It only works if everyone can understand the waving. If not, then you have to pull out a pencil.
iNow Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 There is a definite art to hand-waving. It only works if everyone can understand the waving. If not, then you have to pull out a pencil. Well, I'm a pretty proud sort, confident to my own detriment at times, but even I would hesitate before waving my pencil around in a scientific forum.
D H Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Norm---there is a definite art to hand-waving. It only works if everyone can understand the waving. If not, then you have to pull out a pencil. I've tried arguing with Farside before. It doesn't work. So, taking this thread a bit off-topic: Even professional physicists are guilty of hand-waving. We just hired a physicist away from academia (he was told to dumb-down his courses; that was hist last straw). He had a bit of difficulty grasping how we propagate rotational state of a space vehicle. The crux of his problem was that nearly every textbook, including my own trusty Classical Dynamics, Marion, 2nd Edition (I'm an old fart) and his newfangled 6th edition, does a nice little of hand-waving in deriving what some call the "transport theorem", which relates time derivatives as observed in an inertial frame to time derivatives as observe in a rotating frame: [math]\left(\frac{d\vec q}{dt}\right)_{\text{inertial}} = \left(\frac{d\vec q}{dt}\right)_{\text{rotating}} + \vec \omega \times \vec q[/math] where [math]\vec q[/math] is some vector quantity and [math]\vec \omega[/math] is the angular velocity of the rotating frame with respect to inertial. Marion (and others) derive this for the special case of a displacement vector. The hand-wave is to generalize this derivation to any vector without justification. This hand-wave appears in junior level classical mechanics texts up to graduate-level classical mechanics texts. The general proof requires showing that the derivative of a transformation matrix is the product of the transformation matrix and a skew-symmetric matrix. We found one text that actually did this. Even then, there was some hand-waving in going from the skew-symmetric matrix to the cross product. Mathematicians would still cringe. Back on topic: Yes, physicists are guilty of hand-waving. (My mathematical cohorts tell me that is the only thing we physicists know how to do well). However, physicists will do real math when pressed to do so. The difference between a crackpot and a physicist is that physicists know how to use a pencil and how to use a trashcan.
Spyman Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Is it bullying when we all come to the same conclusion about Farsight being wrong? YES !!! To tell him that he is wrong is not but to make a personal thrashing is ! In my opinion, this thread is a collective and intentional personal attack, IOW Bullying and IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED !!! Give Farsight a warning and then kick him out, if he persists with wrong behaviour. (Keep it sharp and clean, there is no need for this messy humiliation and flaming.) Lots of people are reading this and it reflects on their thoughts of SFN. Is this a place to ask questions, discuss science and learn or ... ... a place where we burn people for their beliefs ?
swansont Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Is this a place to ask questions, discuss science and learn or ... ... a place where we burn people for their beliefs ? This is a science board — beliefs have no place in the discussion. If you want to believe that all particles are made of photons, or that c changes when you move or whatever, that's fine. But this is not a place to proselytize — if you want to discuss it, then you'd better bring some supporting evidence along with you. You'd better be able to explain certain phenomena that are implicit in your conjecture and be willing to test your ideas with the possibility that they are wrong. If you make no specific, testable predictions and have no evidence, then it's just a belief, no more valid than saying "It's magic" or "God did it" or "It's there but you can't measure it." It's ad-hoc crap. There's no place for it in science. Asking someone to defend their hypotheses in these ways is not bullying. Calling them on their evasion is not bullying. It's holding someone to the same standard as everyone else.
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 YES !!! To tell him that he is wrong is not but to make a personal thrashing is ! I disagree that this is personal. Well, it is personal inasmuch as Farsight takes it personally. If you speak with scientists about science, you should be prepared to be told your wrong, or that your ideas are nonsense. If you habitually refuse to answer scientific questions which punch holes in your theory, you are not doing science at all. Do you defend Intelligent Design proponents, too? Lots of people are reading this and it reflects on their thoughts of SFN. It's always easy to make up your mind when you ignore half of the information. All that the people reading here have to do is go over to the other thread (same forum, linked to in OP) and read down a few posts to see that Farsight is out of his mind. I started this thread to quantify exactly how out of his mind Farsight actually is.
Reaper Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Well, I do actually have a question about the scale on which we are trying to measure his insanity. Is there certain levels of crack-pottery based on his score? If so, is there a table or graph that we can refer his score to? Or are we just pretty much just making our own conclusions as to what the score means. ---------------------------------------------------------- BTW, Farsight's current score is 443.
Spyman Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Asking someone to defend their hypotheses in these ways is not bullying. Calling them on their evasion is not bullying. It's holding someone to the same standard as everyone else. If you speak with scientists about science, you should be prepared to be told your wrong, or that your ideas are nonsense. If you habitually refuse to answer scientific questions which punch holes in your theory, you are not doing science at all. Agreed, and that is going on in the thread linked to in the OP. But that is not whats going on in this thread, see quote: I started this thread to quantify exactly how out of his mind Farsight actually is. I think threads like this one, is unmoral and unethical, definately not science... I disagree that this is personal. Well, it is personal inasmuch as Farsight takes it personally. Well, I would take a thread named "Spyman Explained" very personal... How would you take "BenTheMan Explained", where someone explained your insanity ? Do you defend Intelligent Design proponents, too? I am defending what I think is unmoral and unethical forum behaviour, nothing else. (If the question is really important for you then the answer is no.) I am not defending Farsights "Explained"s, they are false, but that doesn't make your bullying right. If he don't behave then let the moderators give him a permanent bann, thats what have been done before. It's always easy to make up your mind when you ignore half of the information. All that the people reading here have to do is go over to the other thread (same forum, linked to in OP) and read down a few posts to see that Farsight is out of his mind. I made my mind up about Farsight, long before you even was a member here, but that is irrelevant. (Called his first "Time Explained" similar to African Voodoo or something like that.) Making a thread solely devoted to ridicule and humiliate a persons mind is bullying ! I doesn't matter whether or not the person is "out of his mind" or a "crackpot", IT IS STILL WRONG ! I started this thread to quantify exactly how out of his mind Farsight actually is. Who will be the next victim of your our someone elses "quantifying" ?
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 Well, I do actually have a question about the scale on which we are trying to measure his insanity. Is there certain levels of crack-pottery based on his score? If so, is there a table or graph that we can refer his score to? Or are we just pretty much just making our own conclusions as to what the score means. I'll email John Baez and see if he responds. How would you take "BenTheMan Explained", where someone explained your insanity ? I would love it. Please explain my insanity
Norman Albers Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 You may call my several mathematical excursions poorly founded in the physical universe but you may not call them poor mathematics.
Phi for All Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I think threads like this one, is unmoral and unethical, definately not science... Well, I would take a thread named "Spyman Explained" very personal... How would you take "BenTheMan Explained", where someone explained your insanity ? Let me be clear on this. There are subtleties involved in scientific debate that must be observed, especially on this forum. If I call you crazy it's an ad hom but if I call your ideas crazy and can back the statement up with evidence then I have a legitimate argument. If anyone started a thread solely devoted to ad homs or ridicule of another member it would be deleted and the poster would be given infraction points toward a temporary ban (which was EXACTLY what I was going to do when I saw this thread's title for the first time before I read the OP). What BenTheMan has done here is to use John Baez' Crackpot Index to do the same thing. He is using a measurement others have used to base his argument on. There is a distinction here. Why do you think no one has tried to retaliate by using Baez' index on BenTheMan or Spyman or swansont? It's because it wouldn't work on them. Granted that it's a gray area but I think BenTheMan has used it well.
D H Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I agree that this particular thread is a bit over the top. I see no problem with ripping Farsight's pseudoscientific ideas to shreds. This is how science works and how scientific ideas progress. Because of the internet, the scientific community needs to be vigilent against crackpotism. Ignoring things such as intelligent design or RELATIVITY+ is certainly the wrong approach. These are cancerous memes that must be addressed before they metastatize. Ripping Farsight as a person to shreds rather than ripping his ideas to shreds is problematic. We should leave the ad hominem attacks to the realm of politicians and crackpots.
Farsight Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Cancerous memes? FFS! You guys can't rip my ideas to shreds. That's why you avoid them, you cannot examine them rationally, because you will not entertain a challenge to your dogmatic beliefs that create intractable mysteries. You give me all this foolish "burn the heretic" abuse instead. How many times have I got to say it? Time travel is your crackpot pseudoscience. TIME EXPLAINED is not. Got it? Now where does that leave you?
Reaper Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Cancerous memes? FFS! You guys can't rip my ideas to shreds. That's why you avoid them, you cannot examine them rationally, because you will not entertain a challenge to your dogmatic beliefs that create intractable mysteries. You give me all this foolish "burn the heretic" abuse instead. How many times have I got to say it? Time travel is your crackpot pseudoscience. TIME EXPLAINED is not. Got it? Now where does that leave you? 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. Index = 443 + 40 = 483.
Severian Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 You guys can't rip my ideas to shreds. That's why you avoid them, you cannot examine them rationally, because you will not entertain a challenge to your dogmatic beliefs that create intractable mysteries. You haven't answered a single question I have asked you! How can you think I would be happy with your lack of answers? Am I just supposed to believe your 'theory' without questioning it?
Xerxes Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Ben, I'm addressing this to you, as you started the two threads I objected to, but I believe it applies generally The problem is that scientists don't feel obligated to respond to unscientific claims. No, they don't, why should they? If it ain't science, it ain't on their patch. Period. Is it bullying when we all come to the same conclusion about Farsight being wrong? No of course it isn't. The "bullying" comes in when you, Ben, open threads specifically targeted in a highly derogatory way, against another forum member. Do I agree with Farsight? Probably not (I say probably as I don't know enough physics to be completely sure). Does he have a right to post his so-called theories? I hope so. But more to the point.... Have you, or anybody else, shown some non-expert like me why he is wrong? I see a lot of vague comments about Lorentz invariance, WW coupling at 1 KeV (what the eff is that, not that I care; please don't tell me). I think you unfairly underestimate the ability of casual visitors here to detect fringe when they see it. I also think you overestimate the influence that fora such as this have in the real world. Like, you think the Southern states re-introduced Intelligent Design in schools by reading stuff on a ChatRoom board? I don't This tells me that he either doesn't know what he's talking about, that he does know what he's talking about and it's wrong, or that he just doesn't care to ever have his ideas seriously critiqued. Whichever way, who the eff cares? I don't get it. YT, and others, perhaps, said that "ignoring isn't an option". I fail to see why not. Ignored people generally lose heart in my experience. As for "cancerous memes" (what's a meme on a Friday night?), sorry I find it grotesque.
YT2095 Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Does he have a right to post his so-called theories? I hope so. But more to the point.... YT, and others, perhaps, said that "ignoring isn't an option". I fail to see why not. Ignored people generally lose heart in my experience. yes he has the right to do so publicly, but since this IS Public, they (the Public) Also have the right to refute these "Theories" (to use your word). Ignoring it is Not an Option no, since his "Theories" run counter to KNOWN Science it must be addressed as such, to Not do So, and to "Ignore it" is tantamount to Acceptance of said "Theories". and since this IS Public how you you feel if some Student read these falsehoods in Good faith and learned from it, and then Failed an exam or whatever? this place and it`s good standing wouldn`t be worth Squat! as for his sort "loosing heart" yeah, I (and others) Wish!
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 [QUTOE]No, they don't, why should they? If it ain't science, it ain't on their patch. Period. Absolutely. This is the problem---uneducated laymen can't tell the difference. Have you, or anybody else, shown some non-expert like me why he is wrong? Why don't you go and read the ten pages of rebuttal to his ideas in the other thread. And if something isn't clear, you could always ask... I see a lot of vague comments about Lorentz invariance, WW coupling at 1 KeV (what the eff is that, not that I care; please don't tell me). Ahh. Yes. ``A lot of vague comments'' means that you don't care to bother with the details? I think you unfairly underestimate the ability of casual visitors here to detect fringe when they see it. I also think you overestimate the influence that fora such as this have in the real world. Like, you think the Southern states re-introduced Intelligent Design in schools by reading stuff on a ChatRoom board? I don't If that were true, would this book be a best seller? Ignored people generally lose heart in my experience. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't... http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/
ParanoiA Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I wish I were Farsight - so much loving attention! Two (at least) whole threads to trashing him!. Seriously, I don't get it. Who cares? Like who really cares what Farsight thinks? Because they are threatened by him. No one cares about a troll, they ignore them without any issues. That's proof enogh that Farsight is not a troll and apparently is dangerous enough that they have commited to a gang thrashing. No different than ganging up on the wierd kid...except we're supposed to be adults now and have learned to be wise and thoughtful. In these Farsight Trashing threads I've even seen the mods completely lose their disposition entirely in favor of childish, smear the queer mentallity. They've said things I'd get infraction points for saying. I don't care how wrong he is, most in these threads are attacking the man, not the idea. That is wrong. And I learned that from the very people that are guilty of it in this thread. This forum takes a nose dive in integrity. Way to go...
BenTheMan Posted August 31, 2007 Author Posted August 31, 2007 Chalk another one up for the Creationists.
Recommended Posts