swansont Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 How to post on Science forums: A guide for Quacks This is satire, so if you find yourself agreeing with the recommendations … Such as So, you’ve made your post and put your point across, but now people are asking questions. It’s annoying and unfair, but sometimes people will not automatically take what you’ve written as absolute truth, and will instead ask for some evidence. Don’t panic! “Evidence” is blustering scientific shorthand for “I know you’re winning, and all I can do is try to stall you.” Post the same argument again. And again if necessary. If it doesn’t work the first 37 times then it will definitely work the 38th, the 38th is the charm. There’s an old saying about idiocy being the act of trying again what you know has repeatedly failed before. This is not true. Gambling addicts aren’t wrong for not knowing when to quit, they’re wrong because they finally quit just one throw of the dice too soon. So keep at it. Remember, repetition trumps proof, so if questioned simply repeat the claim as if a) nobody has questioned it and b) the truth of your claim is clearly a given. Do this often enough and your claim becomes true. You may have to continue this for some time; science works by repeatedly saying your theory until enough people agree. Whoever shouts loudest wins, and since you’re up against the combined forces of Big Pharma and Big Science you’ll need to shout very loud and very long. Hang in there! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 That is SO TRUE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 You just don't understand, my idea is completely different. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 There's another problem faces by we crackpots and that is threads get butchered and the evidence goes waltzing off to other forums just because people can't imagine that archaeologists can misinterpret evidence. People can't imagine that archaeologists would concoct a paradigm founded on assumptions and defend the assumptions with the assumed conclusion. While science and metaphysics are generally misunderstood even by scientists most people can't imagine a "science" so founded on misinterpretation and 19th century guesses as Egyptology. This isn't to say I've given up on bringing the facts to other scientists as that I'm reweighing the strategy. It's really rather surprising that people are so generally ignorant of metaphysics and that few can even imagine a different metaphysics, different math, or a different etiolgy for knowledge. Most people misunderstand the nature of knowledge itself. Far worse and more destructive to progress now and through history is that most people overestimate their own knowledge and most grossly overestimate the aggregate knowlege of the human race. Few people realize that every advancement in history (after 2000 BC) has started off as a crackpot idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Few people realize that every advancement in history (after 2000 BC) has started off as a crackpot idea. Every advancement? I've told you a million times not to exaggerate! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 But seriously guys, my theory makes so much more sense than <insert theory of choice>. You just refuse to actually think about what you've been taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Every advancement? I've told you a million times not to exaggerate! Despite my penchant for making absolute statements I did consider not using the word "every". But I'm thinking that even theories based on experiment or experiment founded on math required an hypothesis at some point that was new and would be considered controversial to some if not downright crackpot. I think "every" is an exaggeration only to the degree the terms must be understood to make it true. Many advances have been the result of serendipity, accident,or some odd (accidental) observation. Man doesn't progress so much through science as through understanding and knowledge born of that science. But such knowledge and observation are not necessarily the result of science but can arise from experience (true knowledge) and, I believe, a different kind of metaphysics than we use today. I believe that metaphysics can be accumulated from observation and logic alone. My crackpot idea is that this is how man used to progress. Wherever the truth actually lies on this continuum the fact remains that we are naturally inclined to dismiss new ideas far too readily. Even the greatest scientists presented with new ideas have tended to initially scoff. Of course the vast majority of new ideas are wrong so we all feel safe as "skeptics". We'll usually be on the right side no matter how reasonble a new idea seems if we simply reject it. It seems scientific progress has been slowing in recent times caused by the unwillingness of researchers to propose more radical ideas and the hesitancy of institutions to fund such research. There's even more problem with a lack of new experiments to test theory and hypothesis. This leaves us primarily math and logic to test and generate hypothesis which is similar to the ancient science (I believe). There are no simple answers to the problems possibly but this should at least leave us opportunity to explore the numerous new ideas and crackpot theoiries that have arisen over the last half century or more. Even my own might point a way out of this since it has ramifications for "Ai". But, then, I don't want to derail the thread so much as voice some frustration that is right on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) I guess the "how to react to crackpots guide" reads something in the lines of Give them as much attention as possible. Be sure to make those threads the longest and most active in the forum. This will attract even more interesting discussion partners. Discard paying attention to proper and interesting scientific questions over them, if necessary. Those proper questions would take too much time, anyways - might force you to think and possibly even speculate, rather than safely repeating the same stuff that the rest of the forum agreed upon the last times. Always remember that you are the last bastion that stands between modern society and a breakdown of civilization. If you do not react of an incorrect idea, the streets will be roaming with mindless Zombies, soon. Even worse: your post count won't grow. Edited February 26, 2013 by timo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) t-t-t in the original in this under "humour" Featured, headline, humour » In any case, it is not speculation. Edited February 26, 2013 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qsa Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 How to post on Science forums: A guide for Quacks This is satire, so if you find yourself agreeing with the recommendations … I guess you meant this is how "Quacks" behave.Anyway, the satire is a joke that has gone flat. I personally never met a "Quack" I did not like. On the other hand I have mingled with so many PHD's of all sorts of fields, and I would say more than 99% of them are a soulless, uncreative, boring, robot-like and let me add dumb (it is better than the acronym pun). “Quacks” have the opposite characteristics even if their tries are unsuccessful, at least they try. And let alone the rest of the population, the Kardashians (or some other BS) adorers. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I personally never met a "Quack" I did not like. On the other hand I have mingled with so many PHD's of all sorts of fields, and I would say more than 99% of them are a soulless, uncreative, boring, robot-like and let me add dumb (it is better than the acronym pun). “Quacks” have the opposite characteristics even if their tries are unsuccessful, at least they try. And let alone the rest of the population, the Kardashians (or some other BS) adorers. There are "Quacks" which talk with sense, they spend a lot of time on research and learning, "Quacks" that didn't read anything, but "they have theory!", and "Quacks" that are persons with mental problems. Did not one guy showed video recently where he is saying he is god? Edited February 27, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomgwyther Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Gave me a chuckle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Gave me a chuckle. Got me my masters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Got me my mastersOnce I handed in a term paper that was too thick to staple, so I used a clear plastic folder with the slide on bindings. I got this attached to the front when I got it back. Here's the rest of the strip: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I can't find the link to post the actual strip any longer but my favorite Calvin and Hobbes was 8-28-'92 Calvin; Know what I pray for? Hobbes; What? Calvin: The strenght to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference. Hobbes; You should live an interesting life. Calvin: Oh, I already do. This is an anthem of all windmill tilters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36grit Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Hmmmm, I am an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Why do quacks always seem to duck the issue? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 Why do quacks always seem to duck the issue? I'm down with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Why do quacks always seem to duck the issue? This is OMAN and this is Ocean Crust shoved up into the air . This is lava , olovine , and goodness knows what This is Ophilite . Have you guys got nothing better to do than joke about ! I.m trying to fathom out the Universe ! Painting based on and Courtsey of a Photograph taken By Richard Fortey on a trip of his to Oman . illustrated in his book The Earth an intimate history . Edited March 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 A better picture of Omani Ophiolite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I'm down with that. I'll bill ya' both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) A better picture of Omani Ophiolite What do you know of Ophiolite, ? I thought you were an Historian and a Philosopher from your profile ? Edited March 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 What do you know of Ophiolite, ? I thought you were a ................from your profile ?A lawyer has to know what rocks look like - so that I can ensure my opponents end up between an uplifted section of the oceanic crust and a hard place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 A lawyer has to know what rocks look like - so that I can ensure my opponents end up between an uplifted section of the oceanic crust and a hard place Gneiss. Go after the little schists. I hope you can sue the chert off their back — that will certainly erode their confidence. You probably have the same sediment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) . Go after the little schists. I hope you can sue the chert off their back — that will certainly erode their confidence. You probably have the same sediment. What do you know of Gneiss, schists, chert, erosion and sediment , by your profile I thought you were an atomic submarine optical specialist/expert , not a Geologist Whats going on here , everyone's suddenly become an Earth Science enthusiast ! Edited March 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now