The use of "crackpot indices"

[ajb]

For example we have the Baez crackpot index, as well as the list of criteria given by Siegel. I am sure other lists and indices exist. The ones quoted here are specific to modern physics, but most of the ideas would apply in all areas of science.

 

Would it be interesting to apply this, or some SFN Crackpot-Quack index to the posts on this forum? Or even just try it with anything you write personally!

 

Anyone want to highlight what they think qualifies as a Crackpot or Quack? Feel free to insert humour here.

 

For me the biggest give away of a "Quack" is having no or little knowledge of understood and accepted theories.

[Sisyphus]

I agree that the number one sign, perhaps even the defining trait of the crackpot, is demonstrating a lack of understand of the thing they're trying to overturn.

 

Also, the "persecuted martyr to dogmatism" act. Comparing oneself to Galileo, accusing people of "thinking they know everything" or following a religion, etc. Also, bringing up "they used to think the Earth was flat." Claiming that scientists you've approached have been unable to disprove your ideas, but just get "angry" instead.

 

Asking other people to "do the math."

 

Talking about how long you've been working on your idea, as if this lends it credibility, rather than just giving you more time to sink deeper into your own little world.

 

Basically any mention of Tesla.

 

Misuse of well-defined terms, particularly "energy," "dimension," etc.

 

Use of ill-defined terminology without explanation. Assuming a common knowledge base that is in fact only shared with other crackpots. e.g. assuming it's accepted that ghosts are real and have well-defined properties.

[Phi for All]

I think too much "labeling" goes on here at SFN. The quick, easy term "crackpot" is an ad hominem aimed at a person because of their arguments, not solely at their arguments.

 

Once someone has been labeled a crackpot, I don't care who you are, you view even good ideas from them with a jaded perspective. And when someone is attacked personally, it hampers any possibility that they might learn from constructive criticism.

 

The indices can be valuable for testing ideas, but is there a way to remove the personal attack from the terminology? Perhaps a Lazy Logic index?

[ajb]

The indices can be valuable for testing ideas, but is there a way to remove the personal attack from the terminology? Perhaps a Lazy Logic index?

 

I too would not really want the idea to devolve into a personal attack. Keeping civil is a priority.

 

Can one make a clear cut distinction between a crackpot and crackpot ideas? For the large part, it is not just the idea that is questionable it is the persistence and attitude of the person that singles out "crackpot".

 

Lets just call it the "C-index", to avoid upsetting anyone.

[Phi for All]

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who deserve the title, but for our purposes here I think a label like that is detrimental. I don't like it when a young person is called "kid", I hate it when people are told that their ideas are "idiotic" or "moronic" (because those words are derived from insulting terms), and I don't like it when anyone is marginalized or disparaged since that approach tends to paint the person with a broad brush rather than specifically targeting the ideas they have that are in question.

 

I just wish we could be more alert to our own tendency to lump the person in with the patterns of bad logic or misinformation they display. It's a bad habit and it never helps anyone learn. It's like fighting laziness with more laziness.

[ajb]

I just wish we could be more alert to our own tendency to lump the person in with the patterns of bad logic or misinformation they display.

 

"Hate the sin, love the sinner".

 

The trouble with any such index is that it is bound to upset people along the line. So, tongue in cheek what should we look out for ?

[Sisyphus]

Fair enough. I actually think we're pretty good in not calling people crackpots, even if we (or at least I) are thinking it. It might help to think of it as more of a verb than a noun. It's one thing to not label people and treat each idea on its own merits, but it is also a surprisingly common set of behaviors.

[ajb]

Fair enough. I actually think we're pretty good in not calling people crackpots, even if we (or at least I) are thinking it.

 

In the past I think I have tried to be polite and helpful. Often people don't listen or simply disregard the issues that are raised by other members.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.scienceforums.net/crackpotBingo.php

 

We've never gotten around to really using those...

[ajb]

So it has been considered!

 

Another question. Do most crackpots have an engineering background?

[Phi for All]

As Sisyphus mentioned, it is amazing how common the syndrome has become, but I don't know if it plagues one particular group over another. Many engineers have the math to understand a lot of physics, and math seems to be a stumbling block with a lot of Lazy Logic practitioners.

 

Most don't have the full picture because they gravitate to any kind of shortcut they can find. I think the general appeal is the "think outside the box" approach, which some people interpret as permission to throw away the accepted body of knowledge they would otherwise have to study. It's easier to consider your ideas "intuitive" and then even easier to claim persecution by your detractors for having the "courage" to defy the establishment.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think too much "labeling" goes on here at SFN. The quick, easy term "crackpot" is an ad hominem aimed at a person because of their arguments, not solely at their arguments.

 

Once someone has been labeled a crackpot, I don't care who you are, you view even good ideas from them with a jaded perspective. And when someone is attacked personally, it hampers any possibility that they might learn from constructive criticism.

 

The indices can be valuable for testing ideas, but is there a way to remove the personal attack from the terminology? Perhaps a Lazy Logic index?

 

Well, if you compare to other labels, someone who has been labeled a murderer or a rapist is watched carefully so they don't kill or rape someone else, or put in a box so they can't. Of course people are going to be more cautious of claims made by someone labeled a crackpot, but I see nothing wrong with that. As always, ideas stand on their own merits -- what someone loses when labeled a crackpot is the benefit of the doubt.

 

I'd agree that the practical consequences are an important aspect. Just labeling someone a crackpot with no explanation is definitely an ad hominem, a worthless insult. Explaining why they are labeled a crackpot is still insulting, but now it is also a claim of fact. The person now has the option to examine that claim, and either put forth a counterargument, or better yet, acknowledge that it describes them and work on improving themselves and their argument style.

 

Only the latter of the previous two would be beneficial. Might I suggest a possible solution: rather than judging someone to be a crackpot, ask them to judge themselves and come to their own conclusion.

[ajb]

Might I suggest a possible solution: rather than judging someone to be a crackpot, ask them to judge themselves and come to their own conclusion.

 

We should all do that!

 

The main points I look for in a post when trying to spot "lack of logic" are (thinking of physics):

 

1) Lack of knowledge of what is known and accepted.

2) Lack of any mathematical framework.

3) Saying accepted theories are "just theories".

4) Attacking fundamental problems. So they work on gravity and or quantum mechanics, rarely problems in classical mechanics or statistical physics or plasma physics etc... Concrete problems and examples are missing.

5) Not liking known and accepted theories because they are too complex, or "unintuitive". Their "theories" are based on "common sense"!

6) Attacking the oldest papers or oldest experiments. So, people find a fault in one of Einstein's original papers on special relativity. No reference to all the other papers or experiments since.

7) General lack of referencing. Making claims from "thin air". No mention of related works.

8) Not worried about how observation and experiment refute their "theories".

9) No understanding that a physical theory is a mathematical model. From there the "wrong questions" are asked. They are looking for a "why" or "mechanisms" for some phenomena, even if the accepted theory gives very accurate answers for observables.

10) Unwilling or unable to take on board what other people have said in relation to the "ideas" or "theories".

[swansont]

Fair enough. I actually think we're pretty good in not calling people crackpots, even if we (or at least I) are thinking it. It might help to think of it as more of a verb than a noun. It's one thing to not label people and treat each idea on its own merits, but it is also a surprisingly common set of behaviors.

 

I agree — we like to focus on the details of the conversation, and encourage that. It's the same kind of degeneration of conversation that we try and prevent with other labels, like "troll," because that becomes the focus of the conversation.

 

But I think it's OK to use the term in general, as we are here. Crackpots exist, and they exhibit certain common behaviors and attitudes. Just as with Conservative, Liberal, Denialist, Creationist. The label is fine as long as you don't use it as an ad hominem.

[Phi for All]

Well, if you compare to other labels, someone who has been labeled a murderer or a rapist is watched carefully so they don't kill or rape someone else, or put in a box so they can't.

Someone who murdered or raped can't avoid the label because they can't change the past, but does a crackpot always have to be a crackpot? Maintaining the label keeps many from learning any better.

 

As always, ideas stand on their own merits -- what someone loses when labeled a crackpot is the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think this is always the case, and I think it takes a little extra vigilance to avoid making the label personal.

 

Might I suggest a possible solution: rather than judging someone to be a crackpot, ask them to judge themselves and come to their own conclusion.

But judging the person in any way is what leads to the impasse that starts with "visionary intuition" and ends with "Galileo-like persecution". I think the only way to deal with lazy logic is with the logic itself, the ideas that lack rigor and therefore don't qualify scientifically. I think everybody loses as soon as someone yells "Crackpot!". It's like a corollary to Godwin's Law.

[ajb]

Someone who murdered or raped can't avoid the label...

 

No but they can pay their debt to and become productive members of society. (Idealistically anyway.) (Though I am not too sure we should compare violent criminal acts with crackpottery.)

 

So, a few crackpot ideas should be able to be overcome by learning from past mistakes. We have all had a few crackpot ideas in the past. It is the fact I did not continue to pursue them when it became clear they were of no real value. (I wanted to think about the RR-sector of type II string theories together as a superconnection. It pointed out by a friend of mine that this is probably "overkill" and the RR-fields are not differential forms. Anyway, I don't understand the classification of these objects well enough to continue need twisted K-theory and KK-theory etc...)

 

So the big question, can the physiological condition of being a true crackpot be cured/overcome?

[insane_alien]

yes, you can lose the crackpottedness but it is likely any claims you make will come under increased scrutiny.

 

this is probably a good thing as it will be a driving force to increase the quality of your knowledge.

[swansont]

So the big question, can the physiological condition of being a true crackpot be cured/overcome?

 

Possibly.

 

Some forms of crackpottery stem from a problem of ideology driving thought, rather than empirical evidence. If they can be trained to think scientifically, they could overcome their crackpottery.

[ajb]

What one really wants to avoid is "Stupid ideas = Crackpottery" as we all have stupid ideas, it is the fact we learn from them that makes us non-crackpots. I would say that stupid ideas (very subjective) can be fundamental in science. One can learn so much when things go wrong.

[Sisyphus]

What one really wants to avoid is "Stupid ideas = Crackpottery" as we all have stupid ideas, it is the fact we learn from them that makes us non-crackpots. I would say that stupid ideas (very subjective) can be fundamental in science. One can learn so much when things go wrong.

 

Oh totally. Most of my ideas are stupid, even. But I approach it from the perspective of "ok, why is this wrong," rather than immediately leaping to "makes sense to me, therefore... omg I've overturned everything! I'm an intellectual giant!" It's that bizarre lack of perspective that makes crackpottery.

[swansont]

Right. Most ideas are probably wrong, or at least have elements that are wrong. (We call them dumb ideas because they seem that way in hindsight.) One of the signs of crackpottery is taking "this is wrong" as a personal insult, rather than as a springboard for a better idea.

 

And I, too, am amazed at the hubris of crackpots, who think their meager effort is likely to stand up to the thoughts of thousands of people who came before them, and whose first inclination is not "where am I wrong," but rather "what's the email for the president of physics?"

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh totally. Most of my ideas are stupid, even. But I approach it from the perspective of "ok, why is this wrong," rather than immediately leaping to "makes sense to me, therefore... omg I've overturned everything! I'm an intellectual giant!" It's that bizarre lack of perspective that makes crackpottery.

 

I'd agree that it is the attitude and method of argument moreso than the fact of being wrong, that makes a crackpot. If one of these crackpots happened to be right, they would still be worthless crackpots, and their ideas couldn't be accepted by the scientific community until someone came up with solid, scientific evidence for it.

 

---

 

My crackpot index:

1) Believes self to be a genius, or the portion of scientific community related to their idea to be retards. This may be implicit or explicit.

1.a) Comparison of self to geinuses such as Einstein or Tesla.

2) Is certain self is correct, despite opposition from nearly everyone they meet.

2.a) Claims said opposition is due to a conspiracy, dogma, or their own stupidity.

2.b) Claims self to be prosecuted, or comparison of self to Galileo.

2.c) Explains how long they have worked on their idea.

3) Tries to prove their idea, rather than looking for ways to disprove it.

4) Is incompetent.

4.a) Does not know the relevant maths.

4.b) Does not know the relevant area of science.

4.c) Is trying to replace a predictive, numerical equation with his own, non-mathematical and completely vague idea. Their explanation of their idea is so vague that many many different equations would fit it.

4.d) Asks others to do the math for them, despite their idea being too vague for that to be possible.

4.e) Cannot set up an experiment that would falsify one of: their idea or the prevailing theory.

5) Tries to explain "why" while ignoring the "how".

5.a) Claims their idea explains things, but does not give numerical predictions for them.

5.b) Judges theories based on how intuitive they are, rather than how correct their predictions are.

6) Judges their idea to be correct, despite it not having more scientific evidence in its favor than the prevailing theory.

 

It doesn't matter whether they are right or not. A faulty argument is just as worthless whether the conclusion is right or wrong.

[Genecks]

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

 

I believe I've used the TV-series "Transformers" as an example in this forum when trying to explain something.

[ajb]

I believe I've used the TV-series "Transformers" as an example in this forum when trying to explain something.

 

That could be absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with using sci-fi to help. But what one must not do is present sci-fi as if it were fact.