Crackpot Quotes

[Phi for All]

A science crackpot makes foolish claims with nothing to back them up but their own certainty. They're usually convinced that their lack of formal study makes them uniquely capable of seeing the truth through all the academic clutter most PhDs are saddled with.

 

We're always hopeful crackpots can be shown that science isn't what they think it is. With this in mind, I want to start this thread where you can post examples of crackpot thinking you encounter here or elsewhere.

 

A couple of rules. No attributions, please. Remove the names, we're not looking to embarrass anyone. Also, where possible or needed, point out the flawed thinking and possible causes. I'd like this to be a tool we can use to help guide discussions with these people, not a platform for ridicule. Think of someone new to science reading this. We want to share some insights that may keep them from "the dark side".

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Science is also a 'religion' because most scientists congregate with like minded people instead of remaining independ[e]nt and open minded.

How does sharing ideas make one close-minded? Sharing ideas is a cornerstone of the scientific method, and keeps things honest, keeps information flowing and insures constant testing of theories.

 

And wouldn't this make ANY group that gets together a "religion"? Should we be telling students in classrooms to stop all that congregating?

 

Crackpots, specifically creationists, love to forget that there is a difference between believing something that is supported by evidence and believing something on faith alone. To them, belief, like the Bible, has a very narrow interpretation.

 

 

 

Just a theory disproving everything science has taught me thus far.

This is a personal favorite. It tickles me every time I think about the delicious irony of someone thinking they actually learned enough to single-handedly overthrow all of science. I'm not sure what kind of hubris drives this kind of statement. Statements like these leave no wiggle-room; there's never any "seems like" or "could be" about it. It's always broad, hasty generalizations that paint the speaker right into a corner every time.

 

 

 

I haven't studied the math necessary to do equations you ask for, but I also don't acce[p]t that science is not science without that math.

This is classic crackpot. Theoretical physics requires some top-shelf math skills if you really want to understand the model, but it's clear the average crackpot isn't really interested enough. Their own "theory" is simple enough and doesn't have ANY math. Sweeeeeet!

 

The "personal incredulity" argument is also a frequent crackpot go-to stance. Sort of an interrobang version of skepticism without all the pesky reasoning behind it. The idea that something has to be intuitive to be right is a mainstay in the crackpot's mind. It's akin to the infamous phrase, "I may not know anything about art, but I know what I like!"

[Appolinaria]

i dont like this idea phi D:

[Ringer]

I have one that always stuck with me, it wasn't from here, though I'm sure there are variations all over evolution topics.

 

Why would I need to learn about evolution if it's not real anyway?

 

At the time of this conversation I was so dumbfounded by the statement I couldn't even think of how to approach that and my pause cause them to think they had actually made a valid point.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Ringer

[iNow]

I have to repeat and repeat because you cannot understand. How can that be? Please free your mind from old notion, open your mind.

 

If you have a degree then use you imagination. it does not require calculations. it's that simple of a concept.

 

That reference above about psuedoscience is just opinions. <...> Remember, it was the opinions of the POWER faction that threatened Galileo with death and forced him to recant the truth.

 

Three different quotes, three different posters.

[Psycho]

This is a personal favorite. It tickles me every time I think about the delicious irony of someone thinking they actually learned enough to single-handedly overthrow all of science. I'm not sure what kind of hubris drives this kind of statement. Statements like these leave no wiggle-room; there's never any "seems like" or "could be" about it. It's always broad, hasty generalizations that paint the speaker right into a corner every time.

 

I actually imagine this happens to most crackpots every time they learn a new theory as they never understood any of science anyway.

[Klaynos]

My all time favourite is probably:

 

it goes for only 2 cycles and if there was more woods and metals in a circular form then will it move forever.

 

Talking about perpetual motion, it was put forward as evidence that his idea would work, it's flawed for many reasons but I particularly like it as I can make a "machine" run for many more cycles than two just by using my pen...

[CaptainPanic]

Just a remark and a worry, no quotes:

 

The difference between a crackpot and a child is that the crackpot will defend the new theory to the death and refuse to learn, whereas the child will attempt to learn what's wrong with it, and move on or adapt the theory.

 

Sometimes children can seem like crackpots, because they just don't understand the given explanation why their theory is wrong. Some will keep challenging the explanations (and continue to defend their new theory) simply because the explanations were inadequate. That is our fault, not theirs.

 

We, as a science forum, were age is irrelevant, need to understand that kids are kids. Kids are not hampered by too much knowledge, and as a result have weird ideas sometimes. Sometimes these are brilliant in their simplicity, and sometimes they are sadly oversimplifying the reality. But they will hopefully learn.

 

I just wish to express my worries here that we might ridicule people who attempt to actually learn (although I share all your frustrations about the people who categorically refuse to learn).

[swansont]

The "open your mind" style of quote that iNow posted is one that aggravates me. It always seems to be posted as an excuse not to post evidence in support of the originator's idea. It generally shows a deep ignorance or misunderstanding of the scientific process(es) that lead to acceptance of theories: serious testing in an attempt to falsify, and evidence in support of the idea.

[Spyman]

Some Cranks seems to have a very intense desire to be famous too.

 

...this is the most important essay you will ever read on a bulletin board. In a while it won't be on a bulletin board. It'll be in magazines. It will be on TV. It will become accepted mainstream science. People will win prizes. This is what Einstein thought. It isn't crackpot nonsense. Unconvince yourself that it is.

[Appolinaria]

Just a remark and a worry, no quotes:

 

The difference between a crackpot and a child is that the crackpot will defend the new theory to the death and refuse to learn, whereas the child will attempt to learn what's wrong with it, and move on or adapt the theory.

 

Sometimes children can seem like crackpots, because they just don't understand the given explanation why their theory is wrong. Some will keep challenging the explanations (and continue to defend their new theory) simply because the explanations were inadequate. That is our fault, not theirs.

 

We, as a science forum, were age is irrelevant, need to understand that kids are kids. Kids are not hampered by too much knowledge, and as a result have weird ideas sometimes. Sometimes these are brilliant in their simplicity, and sometimes they are sadly oversimplifying the reality. But they will hopefully learn.

 

I just wish to express my worries here that we might ridicule people who attempt to actually learn (although I share all your frustrations about the people who categorically refuse to learn).

 

i agree.

 

we dont have to use quotes to accomplish this, we can just use general ideas.

 

why even risk making someone feel bad?

[StringJunky]

Phi's made the ground rules for this thread quite clear and the mods can edit or reprimand, as required, those posts that don't fulfill his criteria.

 

A couple of rules. No attributions, please. Remove the names, we're not looking to embarrass anyone. Also, where possible or needed, point out the flawed thinking and possible causes. I'd like this to be a tool we can use to help guide discussions with these people, not a platform for ridicule. Think of someone new to science reading this.

[Appolinaria]

Phi's made the ground rules for this thread quite clear and the mods can edit or reprimand, as required, those posts that don't fulfill his criteria.

 

but why use quotes? why not list common misconceptions or something.

 

i can easily recall who said something, or just look it up. removing names doesnt do much.

 

if you put up someones post to critique, in a thread called crackpot quotes, it has a negative connotation.

 

if you cant see that, i question your intelligence.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Appolinaria

[TonyMcC]

I think we should be tolerant of ideas we think of as "crackpot". I have been involved in Brainstorming in the past and it seems to me that a forum such as this could start with a "crackpot idea" which ,as the thread develops, gradually turns into a sensible argument or solution to a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

Edited October 27, 2011 by TonyMcC

[Appolinaria]

to be able to properly understand the world around you is a gift. im sure all of you can agree whatever route of science you pursued took many years of hard work.

 

why separate yourself from someone else because of a crackpot idea? let others be. be good to those weaker, who are blinded with passions/eccentricity.

 

the supposed purpose of this thread can be achieved other ways.

 

as we evolve, we become more compassionate.

 

for the well being of science, dont hinder this process.

[StringJunky]

but why use quotes? why not list common misconceptions or something.

 

i can easily recall who said something, or just look it up. removing names doesnt do much.

 

if you put up someones post to critique, in a thread called crackpot quotes, it has a negative connotation.

 

if you cant see that, i question your intelligence.

 

A crackpot idea is not necessarily an indication of a person's lack of intelligence but more likely a lack of familiarity with the subject they are writing about. Attacking my intelligence is not an acceptable way of supporting your view and is loaded with "negative connotations".

 

Pot. Kettle. Black?

[Appolinaria]

haha. i genuinely wasnt directing that statement towards you.. i was just trying to make a point.

 

definitions of crackpot are; foolish, impractical, lunatic.

 

foolish; lacking in sense, judgement, or discretion

 

crackpot is a negative word.

 

and if a crackpot is just unfamiliar with the subject theyre talking about, why not call this the common misconceptions of beginners thread?

 

clearly crackpots stick to their guns even when disproven. so why bother? the only thing i see coming out of this is ridicule, essentially.

[imatfaal]

I think we should be tolerant of ideas we think of as "crackpot". I have been involved in Brainstorming in the past and it seems to me that a forum such as this could start with a "crackpot idea" which ,as the thread develops, gradually turns into a sensible argument or solution to a problem. http://en.wikipedia....i/Brainstorming

 

I think this forum is incredibly tolerant of "crackpot" ideas - and virtually every off the wall idea will be answered by one of the experts, these are practising scientists who have earned the respect of their peers, that's a damn fine service for free! It is when the crackpot turns to abuse and ad hom arguments ("you are too dogmatic and bound by convention to understand my idea") that a bit of anonymous ridicule in response is not going too far.

Edited October 27, 2011 by imatfaal

[CaptainPanic]

To whoever gave me the -1 in my previous post: You should bloody well open your mind, be tolerant to new ideas, and try harder to understand my point!

Or at least have the decency to explain what's wrong with it. Without such an explanation, I'll stick to my point.

 

I'm just saying that sometimes kids can have trouble to accept new ideas too, if we explain them poorly (or if we assume that they can understand our scientific language when in fact they understand the individual words, but not the message we try to convey).

 

And in addition, I fear that sometimes we attack some people so hard on their idea, that we practically force them to defend their point. It's a natural response. If you think you have a good idea, and someone then explains that not something, but everything is wrong with that idea, then some people might reply saying "Oh yea, and who are you?".

Also, often we (myself included) reply with an explanation that science just works in a particular way, which this person doesn't seem to follow yet... or we explain some established theories. But you might say that from their point of view, that is even a fallacy (argument from authority, because the person is obviously not familiar with these theories or methods). Ok, I know that this is a tricky argument I have here... but approach this from the other person's viewpoint. They have an idea. We dismiss it because it doesn't fit in our "science". From their point of view, it is a fallacy to use that as an argument.

 

Anyway, please note that I see no way out: We must reply like this... this is a scienceforum after all. But we always risk alienating someone because we often give a reply that someone's idea just does not work, and that the only logical next step is to abandon the idea altogether. Some people need a while to accept that. Some people will reply 20 times before they give up and leave the idea for what it is (crap). But you're only a crackpot if you never ever give up.

 

Of course, in an open anonymous forum on the internet, it is impossible to estimate which reply is the most effective when someone new just joined the forum with a new theory. So, yes, we will always make mistakes. But I remember threads where someone defended an idea for 5-6 posts, and finally said "Ok, now I understand. Thanks. I'll move on." We shouldn't call someone a crackpot before they actually are. And if you learn, you're not a crackpot.

 

Of course, the internet is full of real crackpots. But I just want to wonder out loud here about what is worse: to be too soft on the crackpots, or too hard on people who mean well?

 

Remember that learning science (in general) takes many years. We cannot teach someone to be a good scientist in the course of 1 thread. So, I vote that unless we can backup our claim that someone is a crackpot with some proper references (to crackpot papers or crackpot presentations), we don't call anyone a crackpot.

 

I agree that dismissing all of science without a good reason, or disagreeing with basic maths without a good replacement, is unacceptable on this forum. But we should at all times just explain that in a thread where the post is made. Not in a separate thread where the quote may be out of context (however hilarious the quote may be).

 

imatfaal, I completely agree... but we have the forum rules against that. Just report it. That sounds like a personal attack, which is not allowed under forum rule section 2, #1.

Edited October 27, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[imatfaal]

Capt P - reversed the point even though I dont agree with you; just to show there is no hard feelings, and it was a bizarre choice of someone to neg rep that post. I think very few posters who come here with an new idea or alternative way of thinking and an open mind are treated badly. I agree with almost nothing Owl posts, but he is not a crackpot and 26 pages worth of one thread alone show that the forum will maintain a healthy dialogue with ideas that are outside the scientific mainstream or question fundamental ideas. But other posters - who I will not name - are crackpots; their raison d'etre seems to be mockery of established thought and of those who espouse it. Having ideas that are against the flow is laudable and what free thinking is about, having ideas solely BECAUSE they are against the mainstream with no basis in thought or logic is crackpottery

[Klaynos]

But I remember threads where someone defended an idea for 5-6 posts, and finally said "Ok, now I understand. Thanks. I'll move on." We shouldn't call someone a crackpot before they actually are. And if you learn, you're not a crackpot.

 

I think we should commendate people who learn and accept that their idea was flawed. Especial young people, I think when we're young we all have ideas that as we grow up we realise was flawed. I recall one of my own that was a laser amplifier, aspects of it were sensible but the idea was fundamentally flawed.

[CaptainPanic]

[...] I think very few posters who come here with an new idea or alternative way of thinking and an open mind are treated badly. [...] But other posters - who I will not name - are crackpots; their raison d'etre seems to be mockery of established thought and of those who espouse it.

And I think we should not change the way we treat the crackpots. This forum is fine the way it is: We tell them that we disagree, and why so.

This thread just feels like mockery, and I disagree with it. And I will explain you why (in this post and my previous two).

 

Let me apologise for hijacking the thread btw. If we find out that there is enough support, I'll rest my case. Phi would do well to restart such a thread (linking to the conclusion in this thread).

 

Anyway, if you really feel mocked, you have two more options: to ignore them (just don't click on the thread), or if it goes too far, you can even report someone. The forum rules are really quite strict already...

 

The crackpot examples given in this thread are probably fine... I just feared that it would sooner or later insult someone.

Edited October 27, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Phi for All]

Just a remark and a worry, no quotes:

 

The difference between a crackpot and a child is that the crackpot will defend the new theory to the death and refuse to learn, whereas the child will attempt to learn what's wrong with it, and move on or adapt the theory.

 

Sometimes children can seem like crackpots, because they just don't understand the given explanation why their theory is wrong. Some will keep challenging the explanations (and continue to defend their new theory) simply because the explanations were inadequate. That is our fault, not theirs.

 

We, as a science forum, were age is irrelevant, need to understand that kids are kids. Kids are not hampered by too much knowledge, and as a result have weird ideas sometimes. Sometimes these are brilliant in their simplicity, and sometimes they are sadly oversimplifying the reality. But they will hopefully learn.

 

I just wish to express my worries here that we might ridicule people who attempt to actually learn (although I share all your frustrations about the people who categorically refuse to learn).

You are correct, of course. Age has no bearing on learning, except that those who are young often lack the reasoning framework that older "students" rely on to help them improve. That's exactly why I wanted to start this thread, so that framework can be strengthened and people can more easily see the critical thinking necessary to overcome lazy thinking.

 

I think the members here do a good job discerning the experience of other members, and I hope seeing some bad examples will improve our ability to sort the good learning experience from the bad logic.

 

 

i agree.

 

we dont have to use quotes to accomplish this, we can just use general ideas.

 

why even risk making someone feel bad?

I wrestled with this, and finally concluded that a verbatim quote was more honest. Paraphrasing an example could easily be exploited, and that in itself is an example of fallacious logic.

 

but why use quotes? why not list common misconceptions or something.

 

i can easily recall who said something, or just look it up. removing names doesnt do much.

 

if you put up someones post to critique, in a thread called crackpot quotes, it has a negative connotation.

 

if you cant see that, i question your intelligence.

We don't make our arguments personal. We attack the idea, not who has it. It's important that the idea remain intact through direct quote, and this way the name of the poster isn't even listed, making it easier to argue the idea on its merits alone.

 

I think we should be tolerant of ideas we think of as "crackpot". I have been involved in Brainstorming in the past and it seems to me that a forum such as this could start with a "crackpot idea" which ,as the thread develops, gradually turns into a sensible argument or solution to a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

This also I hope to show. There is a huge difference between a science crackpot and someone throwing out wild ideas to see what sticks. It's extremely important to know the difference, and I do worry that the crackpot label will be used too liberally. Again, I think it's better to discuss it, bring it out where we can examine the differences in an open forum, and in a thread dedicated to nothing but that.

 

to be able to properly understand the world around you is a gift. im sure all of you can agree whatever route of science you pursued took many years of hard work.

 

why separate yourself from someone else because of a crackpot idea? let others be. be good to those weaker, who are blinded with passions/eccentricity.

 

the supposed purpose of this thread can be achieved other ways.

 

as we evolve, we become more compassionate.

 

for the well being of science, dont hinder this process.

I think, if you look at the examples already posted, you'll see that it's not eccentricity that marks them. It's a fundamental hubris, a lack of intellectual honesty and a rejection of normal work study ethics that is the hallmark of the crackpot, not the ideas themselves.

 

haha. i genuinely wasnt directing that statement towards you.. i was just trying to make a point.

 

definitions of crackpot are; foolish, impractical, lunatic.

 

foolish; lacking in sense, judgement, or discretion

 

crackpot is a negative word.

 

and if a crackpot is just unfamiliar with the subject theyre talking about, why not call this the common misconceptions of beginners thread?

 

clearly crackpots stick to their guns even when disproven. so why bother? the only thing i see coming out of this is ridicule, essentially.

Let me make this clear. I don't want anyone posting ideas they think are crackpot. I want examples of crackpot thinking that show why the reasoning is bad or fallacious. I will personally make sure it doesn't descend into making fun of people's ideas.

 

The normal definitions of crackpot don't fit the science crackpot we've come to know here. We can't hide from the way this mindset erodes the learning process. Their methods ARE negative, so the name we give them must reflect that. This will help separate them from the person who truly has wild ideas and inspired but undisciplined thoughts, but is totally willing to share and learn in the way that science has taught us is honest, meaningful and reflective of the reality we all live in.

[Appolinaria]

You are correct, of course. Age has no bearing on learning, except that those who are young often lack the reasoning framework that older "students" rely on to help them improve. That's exactly why I wanted to start this thread, so that framework can be strengthened and people can more easily see the critical thinking necessary to overcome lazy thinking.

 

I think the members here do a good job discerning the experience of other members, and I hope seeing some bad examples will improve our ability to sort the good learning experience from the bad logic.

 

 

 

I wrestled with this, and finally concluded that a verbatim quote was more honest. Paraphrasing an example could easily be exploited, and that in itself is an example of fallacious logic.

 

 

We don't make our arguments personal. We attack the idea, not who has it. It's important that the idea remain intact through direct quote, and this way the name of the poster isn't even listed, making it easier to argue the idea on its merits alone.

 

 

This also I hope to show. There is a huge difference between a science crackpot and someone throwing out wild ideas to see what sticks. It's extremely important to know the difference, and I do worry that the crackpot label will be used too liberally. Again, I think it's better to discuss it, bring it out where we can examine the differences in an open forum, and in a thread dedicated to nothing but that.

 

 

I think, if you look at the examples already posted, you'll see that it's not eccentricity that marks them. It's a fundamental hubris, a lack of intellectual honesty and a rejection of normal work study ethics that is the hallmark of the crackpot, not the ideas themselves.

 

 

Let me make this clear. I don't want anyone posting ideas they think are crackpot. I want examples of crackpot thinking that show why the reasoning is bad or fallacious. I will personally make sure it doesn't descend into making fun of people's ideas.

 

The normal definitions of crackpot don't fit the science crackpot we've come to know here. We can't hide from the way this mindset erodes the learning process. Their methods ARE negative, so the name we give them must reflect that. This will help separate them from the person who truly has wild ideas and inspired but undisciplined thoughts, but is totally willing to share and learn in the way that science has taught us is honest, meaningful and reflective of the reality we all live in.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying this, considering all standpoints & taking the time to respond to us.

 

 

 

 

You made many, many good points that help me understand how this thread could potentially be beneficial.

 

 

[StringJunky]

I think we should commendate people who learn and accept that their idea was flawed. Especial young people, I think when we're young we all have ideas that as we grow up we realise was flawed. I recall one of my own that was a laser amplifier, aspects of it were sensible but the idea was fundamentally flawed.

 

We should ecstatically dance and rejoice when someone concedes their hypothesis doesn't mirror reality! It is a very rare and heart-warming phenomenon indeed. I think we see it maybe once or twice a year. It's nice when you come across real thinkers who will change direction when solid evidence is given that clearly contradicts their fledgling idea...this is the most important quality of a good scientist imo; the ability to let go of an idea when evidence suggests otherwise. Not an easy talent to acquire judging by how rare it is that we see a graceful surrender on these boards.

Edited October 27, 2011 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

There's a start .. I didn't read through them though.

This was a response coupled with some links who's headlines seemed to support the poster's argument. It's a clear example of lazy scholarship AND another crackpot tactic of shifting the burden of proof away from themselves.

 

I've seen this many times. When the crackpot finally tries to back up his argument, he dumps whole articles on you without relevant quotes, forcing you to dig for information. And many times, the article doesn't even support his point, beyond a few comments which, when fully explained, actually refute it.