Crackpottery

[swansont]

I've added this to one of the locked sticky threads, but have reproduced it here for discussion.

 

———————

 

It's human nature to categorize people, and if you're introducing a new subject for discussion — some new, possibly untested idea that is not part of the standard curriculum of science — you don't want to be classified as a crackpot.

 

Here is some the behavior you must avoid.

 

1. Vocabulary

 

Crackpots misuse terminology, especially terms like theory, or dogma. You don't want to be the one who proclaims "it's only a theory" or "you're being dogmatic" and make it clear you don't know the definitions of the words. Unless your posts actually get redacted, don't claim "censorship," either, unless you want peoples' irony meters to explode. You also don't want to get caught making up new jargon, especially not terms you've named after yourself.

 

2. Background knowledge

 

Crackpots generally have little grasp of the theories they are critiquing and/or are unaware of the breadth and depth of experimental knowledge that exists (which often leads to the building of straw man arguments). Few things will get you dismissed faster than stating a claim that is trivially found to be false. Nobody will take the guy who proposes that the moon is made of cheese seriously.

 

 

3. You need Evidence

 

Crackpots generally don't understand what is acceptable as evidence and often make assertions which they treat as facts. In a science discussion, evidence means scientifically-obtained data rather than anecdotes or assertions. And evidence is king. The only way to test your idea is to compare it to nature; it doesn't matter how logical it is to anyone — if it disagrees with actual experiment it's not correct.

 

 

4. Smoke and mirrors are no substitute for evidence

 

Crackpots will often try and sidestep the question of evidence either by appealing to some conspiracy or engaging in personal attacks. Any excuse to follow up on a comment that leads away from the demand for evidence will be seized upon. Even the demand for evidence will often be viewed as a personal attack.

 

Worse than this is when they go on the offensive and claim science is a religion, often coupled with the vocabulary issue mentioned above (dogma).

 

5. Don't act like you are the smartest person in the room

 

You aren't going to dazzle the audience with your brilliance. If people can't understand what you are talking about, they aren't going to simply accept it as true. If you avoid the tough questions, or your response is to simply repeat your points, people will notice that you are dodging. Don't compare yourself to Galileo or Einstein. While it's possible that you are smarter than any single member of the audience, it's unlikely that you are smarter than all of the audience put together.

 

 

6. Speak the language

 

One of the most common attributes of a crackpot is the unwillingness to express things mathematically. If you can't do the math, you are attacking the problem with an exceedingly dull instrument. Math is precise and has a very high information density — it is very powerful. Descriptive language is a poor substitute. At the other end of the spectrum is the numerologist, who works with a lot of numbers but doesn't connect them to reality in any scientifically meaningful way; there is no link to any mechanism or scientific model.

[ydoaPs]

I wonder if there's some sort of index to help us identify crackpots.

[ewmon]

One of the most common attributes of a crackpot is the unwillingness to express things mathematically. If you can't do the math, you are attacking the problem with an exceedingly dull instrument.

I'd also like to point out the crackpottery of using "broken instruments", rendering subjective data as factual, assigning arbitrary mathematical values, performing statistics on them, drawing scientific conclusions, etc.

 

My formal study of psychology began with lots of science — first with simple organisms and the chemistry of life, then with multicellular organisms, and then sensory organs, central nervous systems, Pavlov's dog, classical learning, etc. That was all well and good, but then it shifted into various theories, etc about the human experience as, essentially, a "black box" ... why people behave as they do, various stages of life, etc, etc. This was also tolerable because it was explained that these were theories, that nothing was written in stone, and that even the experts obviously could not all agree on one theory. I was fairly impressed with psychology as a "soft" science.

 

Then, years down the road, I began reading psychology research papers, where I found researchers using "broken instruments", rendering subjective data as factual, assigning arbitrary mathematical values, performing statistics on them, etc and making it all sound very scientific.

 

For example (from an actual "study"), let's define an abusive incident, and let's give these definitions to children participating in our study and have them tell us how many times they experienced abusive incidents, and then we'll pick the nice, round number "10" out of the air as the threshold for whether a child was "abused" or not. Then assigning numbers to other things, we can find means and standard deviations, CVs, confidence intervals, etc and plot grafts, show correlations among the "facts", etc.

 

To begin with, the researchers suspected children of being abused (in a sense, of being "broken"), but then they used these "broken" entities to make judgments and provide data, which obviously turned out to be subjective answers. So, even though a kid said he could only remember being abused, say, three times, he might be purposely lying, or unconsciously forgetting, etc. And that's if an 7yo to 15yo kid could actually make proper judgments about such an adult and wide-ranging subject. And then using an arbitrary threshold without regard to the severity of the abuse, the kid who was beaten to within an inch of his life (complete with physical scars, broken bones, ruptured organs, etc) seven times over the last year supposedly was not abused, but a kid excessively spanked 13 times over the last five years supposedly was abused.

 

They began with flawed 'instruments" so to speak, that provided subjective data that researchers rendered as objective. They focused on the number of incidents and ignored the severity of the incidents. They assigned an arbitrary threshold, and assigned mathematical values to other data, performed statistical analyses, and made it all sound very scientific and professional.

 

But I saw it for what it was ... crackpottery.

[md65536]

Most of the "advice for crackpots" is negative stuff. It's all "what not to do" and seems mostly to be "how to stop annoying those who deal with real science".

Is there any advice for what crackpots can do right? Is there any room for "how to be a crackpot and still contribute something useful and meaningful"?

I've been inspired to try to write something along those lines myself, but always lose interest -- possibly because it seems futile, as if there really is no hope for crackpots (other than to give in and accept "real" science) but I'm not sure if it's true or not.

 

If one follows the advice of what to avoid, does one become a "lawful good" crackpot, or cease to be a crackpot?

[swansont]

Most of the "advice for crackpots" is negative stuff. It's all "what not to do" and seems mostly to be "how to stop annoying those who deal with real science".

Is there any advice for what crackpots can do right? Is there any room for "how to be a crackpot and still contribute something useful and meaningful"?

I've been inspired to try to write something along those lines myself, but always lose interest -- possibly because it seems futile, as if there really is no hope for crackpots (other than to give in and accept "real" science) but I'm not sure if it's true or not.

 

If one follows the advice of what to avoid, does one become a "lawful good" crackpot, or cease to be a crackpot?

 

On the contrary. This was written as advice for people who don't want to be mistaken for crackpots.

 

But I saw it for what it was ... crackpottery.

 

The proof of the pudding would be if anyone changed methods after flaws were pointed out. I think there is a difference between crackpottery and flawed science.

[JustinW]

If someone didn't have the means to experiment or the knowledge to explain in the mathematical language would they automatically be viewed as a crackpot or would it depend on if what they were saying was logical? And, if someone didn't have the education needed to prove and test a theory or discuss an idea, would their idea become inadicuate for discussion? It is understandable to dismiss those who argue their way of thinking against all evidence to the contrary, but I believe that if someone has an idea that hasn't been tested or explained mathematically, if theoretically possible, should be allowed to be discussed without being written off as crackpottery. Although I haven't seen this happen too often since I have become a member here. I have seen that generally people are more than happy to explain and share their knowledge with those who are les knowledgable. Another reason that I think discussion is valuable, even from those who aren't as knowledgable, is that you never know where an inspiring idea may come from. A discussion sparked by a crackpot may lead to a ground breaking idea from someone who gets involved in the discussion.

[md65536]

The proof of the pudding would be if anyone changed methods after flaws were pointed out. I think there is a difference between crackpottery and flawed science.

 

That's probably the most important aspect of advice for people to be taken seriously, whether crackpot or not.

 

One problem (I don't know if in general or only with many on this site) is that anything new that doesn't fit with one's understanding of a subject tends to be seen as crackpottery. Whether you have a "theory" you've worked on for a lifetime, or are a child who forms certain beliefs while learning about things, if you're wrong you're wrong and that's all that some people are interested in. The difference between someone with an underdeveloped understanding or theory, and a "problem crackpot", is that the former will change and develop (their understanding, their methods, their presentation, etc). It might be a single defining feature of a "problem crackpot" that they don't correct flaws, and they resist change.

 

So the best advice may be the encouragement of further development, and I guess that's usually given on this site, whether it's subject matter to brush up on, or evidence that is needed etc. That's not enough for only the most hopeless of crackpots. Perhaps they only advice for them is that they have to want to change/improve (eg. their theory or understanding) if they expect a change in how they're received.

 

From the perspective of the potential crackpot, the most positive thing is to feel encouragement to improve "the right way", instead of focusing on defending against feeling shut down (because "Galileo was treated this way too!" etc). This is especially important for kids, who could grow up thinking that science is accessible and that they can learn and make a difference, vs. that science is some closed-off palace for the elite only, and you're either one of them or you have to fight your way in.

 

 

[ajb]

If someone didn't have the means to experiment or the knowledge to explain in the mathematical language would they automatically be viewed as a crackpot or would it depend on if what they were saying was logical?

 

A crackpot would be making claims that they cannot backup. They tend to suggest they have knowledge that they don't have. In fact, in my opinion and experience most crackpot ideas originate from some misunderstanding of the accepted theory or experiment.

 

This is very different to someone who is interested but ignorant.

 

... and you're either one of them or you have to fight your way in.

 

We all have to fight our way in: it is called getting a PhD and publishing work. Even then there are no guarantees.

[Appolinaria]

1325527154[/url]' post='648266']

 

 

We all have to fight our way in: it is called getting a PhD and publishing work. Even then there are no guarantees.

 

Not true. Plenty of contributions to the science world have been made by those without a PhD.

E.g.; Lovejoy was discovered by an amateur astronomer.

[ajb]

Not true. Plenty of contributions to the science world have been made by those without a PhD.

 

However, as a general rule it is true. We can all find examples where amateurs have made big contributions to science. I believe that it is getting less and less likely that an amateur will make big contributions in the future.

 

Though, publications are the real measure, a PhD is often a formal requirement for research positions and fore sure in universities.

[Appolinaria]

Okay, but you can still be a part of the scientific community and help it progress without having a PhD....

[swansont]

If someone didn't have the means to experiment or the knowledge to explain in the mathematical language would they automatically be viewed as a crackpot or would it depend on if what they were saying was logical? And, if someone didn't have the education needed to prove and test a theory or discuss an idea, would their idea become inadicuate for discussion? It is understandable to dismiss those who argue their way of thinking against all evidence to the contrary, but I believe that if someone has an idea that hasn't been tested or explained mathematically, if theoretically possible, should be allowed to be discussed without being written off as crackpottery. Although I haven't seen this happen too often since I have become a member here. I have seen that generally people are more than happy to explain and share their knowledge with those who are les knowledgable.

 

What gets written of as crackpottery generally contradicts known evidence or has no redeeming qualities to it. And the discussion you describe is allowed, as long as the poster follows the rules. But such discussion should avoid the behavior I have described.

 

Also, one should note that what doesn't happen is that the immediate response is "you're a crackpot". Calling someone a crackpot to avoid addressing their claims is an ad hominem attack. What happens is a debunking — objections are raided and flaws are pointed out. It's only after many of these behavior are demonstrated that a conclusion might be drawn — not before.

 

Okay, but you can still be a part of the scientific community and help it progress without having a PhD....

 

Amateurs do a lot of observation/data collection. There are even projects aimed at harnessing "citizen science" efforts. But generally speaking what I'm discussing is the formulation of hypotheses.

[ajb]

Amateurs do a lot of observation/data collection. There are even projects aimed at harnessing "citizen science" efforts.

 

Astronomy projects spring to mind here, for example Galaxy Zoo. I know amateurs can also be very useful in observations of the planets and discovering comets: all things that are best does with lots of smaller telescopes and lots of eyes.

[swansont]

Astronomy projects spring to mind here, for example Galaxy Zoo. I know amateurs can also be very useful in observations of the planets and discovering comets: all things that are best does with lots of smaller telescopes and lots of eyes.

 

Other projects include animal population counting (The Audubon society has been doing a Christmas bird count since 1900), water sampling and atmospheric sciences data like rain, temperature & humidity measurements.

[Appolinaria]

1325533236[/url]' post='648290']

What gets written of as crackpottery generally contradicts known evidence or has no redeeming qualities to it. And the discussion you describe is allowed, as long as the poster follows the rules. But such discussion should avoid the behavior I have described.

 

Also, one should note that what doesn't happen is that the immediate response is "you're a crackpot". Calling someone a crackpot to avoid addressing their claims is an ad hominem attack. What happens is a debunking — objections are raided and flaws are pointed out. It's only after many of these behavior are demonstrated that a conclusion might be drawn — not before.

 

 

 

Amateurs do a lot of observation/data collection. There are even projects aimed at harnessing "citizen science" efforts. But generally speaking what I'm discussing is the formulation of hypotheses.

 

Okay. And still, many non-PhD citizens have formulated hypotheses which have changed our understanding of the world.

[zapatos]

3. You need Evidence

 

Crackpots generally don't understand what is acceptable as evidence and often make assertions which they treat as facts. In a science discussion, evidence means scientifically-obtained data rather than anecdotes or assertions. And evidence is king. The only way to test your idea is to compare it to nature; it doesn't matter how logical it is to anyone — if it disagrees with actual experiment it's not correct.

Would it make more sense to say 'if it disagrees with actual experiment it's probably not correct.' or 'if it disagrees with actual experiments it must explain the results of actual experiments.'?

 

For example, in the past I might have come to the conclusion that light acts as a wave, even though you had experimental evidence that light is composed of discrete particles.

[Appolinaria]

I'm sure the large percentage of people who don't hold PhD's are doing a lot more than helping with data collection at the Audubon Society... Haha ridiculous...

[mississippichem]

Okay. And still, many non-PhD citizens have formulated hypotheses which have changed our understanding of the world.

 

True, but in modern times (at least for physical sciences) the theories have advanced to the point of needing highly finesse and or fine tuned hypotheses. The need for specialized training is impossible to get around. Amateurs also can't afford the equipment.

 

I'd go as far as to say there will never be another sound fundamental discovery in physical science by an amateur.

[Appolinaria]

1325535692[/url]' post='648309']

True, but in modern times (at least for physical sciences) the theories have advanced to the point of needing highly finesse and or fine tuned hypotheses. The need for specialized training is impossible to get around. Amateurs also can't afford the equipment.

 

I'd go as far as to say there will never be another sound fundamental discovery in physical science by an amateur.

 

I have clearly stated multiple times that a valid hypotheses or observation can be formulated by someone without a PhD. I never said it was only those without specialized training who fall into this category, I have no idea where you got this from.

[ajb]

I'd go as far as to say there will never be another sound fundamental discovery in physical science by an amateur.

 

I would also agree with that. There maybe some exceptions like discovering another large storm on Jupiter or a new comet, but the deeper physics behind these objects will be uncovered by professional scientists. Maybe an amateur could also discover a new species of insect, if he knows how to use biological keys. Maybe one could uncover a unique fossil or meteorite, if recognised. Interested amateurs could still contribute in some way.

 

The PhD process is also one of learning the skills and standards needed for reserach. This is generally lacking in "amateurs". We see it all the time in the "speculations" section here.

 

I have clearly stated multiple times that a valid hypotheses or observation can be formulated by someone without a PhD.

 

Can you give some recent examples?

 

The few I know of are not "true amateurs". People have made interesting discoveries while undergraduates, though with close supervision of an experienced researcher. People also make ground-breaking works while a PhD student, but again this is under supervision. Both scenarios also require a bit of good fortune as well as hard work.

[Appolinaria]

1325536869[/url]' post='648313']

I would also agree with that. There maybe some exceptions like discovering another large storm on Jupiter or a new comet, but the deeper physics behind these objects will be uncovered by professional scientists. Maybe an amateur could also discover a new species of insect, if he knows how to use biological keys. Maybe one could uncover a unique fossil or meteorite, if recognised. Interested amateurs could still contribute in some way.

 

The PhD process is also one of learning the skills and standards needed for reserach. This is generally lacking in "amateurs". We see it all the time in the "speculations" section here.

 

 

 

Can you give some recent examples?

 

The few I know of are not "true amateurs". People have made interesting discoveries while undergraduates, though with close supervision of an experienced researcher. People also make ground-breaking works while a PhD student, but again this is under supervision. Both scenarios also require a bit of good fortune as well as hard work.

 

 

You've answered it for me.

[ajb]

You've answered it for me.

 

 

Not that I gave any specific examples, but on the whole these are rare. Undergraduate and PhD thesis usually do not represent ground-breaking work. Either way, these are not amateurs in any true sense. Such works are always in conjunction with someone who knows the standards required. This is what is lacking with amateurs, and will always be a barrier.

 

On the rare occasions I look at work people have given me or posted in these forums, I can usually tell straight away if they are crackpots, or at the very least extremely inexperienced. The format, language and style of these works is not "industry standard". This tells us two things: they have not read many papers and thus cannot be a serious researcher. I generalise here and know my first attempts at writing papers was abysmal.

[ewmon]

Is there any room for "how to be a crackpot and still contribute something useful and meaningful"?

Seriously, it's called "science fiction", some of which has been ahead of the curve (and very useful).

Edited January 2, 2012 by ewmon

[Anilkumar]

I wonder if there's some sort of index to help us identify crackpots.

 

 

I wonder if there's some sort of index to help us identify "Sycophants of established ideas, the rigid adherers of established popular beliefs and the chorus".

 

I think this index is necessary to create equilibrium in the imbalance that would be created by addressing only one side of the problem. [The problem is the task of sorting the new ideas that are brought up into the scientific field.]

 

But I suggest a better way than both the above;

 

Reasoning.

 

This is just a suggestion, I am not an expert on this.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Anilkumar

[mississippichem]

I have clearly stated multiple times that a valid hypotheses or observation can be formulated by someone without a PhD. I never said it was only those without specialized training who fall into this category, I have no idea where you got this from.

 

I'm saying that the PhD is the necessary specialized training. Sorry, I think we had a communication lapse there.

Edited January 3, 2012 by mississippichem