Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[Strange]

I guess that is another factor: they have shared their ideas with friends down the pub or on a gaming forum. The friends, who know equally little, are all like, "Wow man, that's amazing" and so they think they have come up with something clever.

 

This might explain the curious phenomenon where many start or end their post with something like "I would love to know what you guys think" and then get all upset when some fundamental errors are pointed out, or a few simple questions asked.

[swansont]

 

This seems akin to what we see from creationists and others who dogpile on a sound byte they've heard ("If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?") and ignore the subsequent explanation because it's SOOOOOO much more tedious and hard to understand. They have profiled us as Darwinists and Einsteinists and that seems to justify not listening to any clarifications.

 

This points to a huge element of the Gumbys of the world, who don't want to think (or simply can't wrap their head around the concept and don't realize this, so we're back to D-K) because it makes their brain hurt, and a simple retort* satisfies them, despite being so incredibly and obviously wrong.

 

*also accepted: "science was wrong before, so how can we trust it here" or the nuclear option "it's only a theory", and more

[s1eep]

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, people are able and with power over an environment and different natures, from the day they can move and survive properly You'll find that, although this is not how words are meant to be used, if you end up scanning the whole page as one piece of art (all the words together; an example, recollection of everything, judging what's good to say next after a conversation or topic comes to end) you'll only be able to smile so much, and sometimes, like the pain you suggest we can go through, there is also a route of good feeling, I like to call it harmony. A way to describe it artistically would be duality of a maleficent/choking/painful laugh, and then with imagery or nature there is an eternal "aaaaaaa" infinite laugh-potential. People can be intelligent and devise correct theories on their own, wisdom is achievable through observation of nature, and wisdom is testing of knowledge against the self and it's surroundings, we are wise-creatures, top of the food chain, we've evolved great genetics and a body that can withstand or avoid even the toughest worldly natures, we're not automatically dumb, some of us aren't reliant on other people, or their theories, or their word or wordless language, and know life well enough to come to our own conclusions.

 

Why don't you reply with your (the states, your teachers) signature one-liners or signature 'crackpot' insult, or just rate me down and express your idea of of art to the people, don't like/do like?

 

Some scientists would use "crackpot" to someone who didn't support space travel and has his own theories against it, probably, for simply not agreeing with space travel when past people have stated they do... I mean, we'll waste all this finite resource on Earth, send Earth-bound humanity into chaos as we destroy nature and construct technology, but it's okay because the humans claustrophobic in bunkers on Mars will still carry on? Well. At least I can say, I think you're not accurate enough with your definition of 'crackpot'.

 

What is it you're saying by the way? My head is crack? What? I am half-pot? My head is cracked? Which?

 

Then it's fair to say most of you are 'crackpots'

Edited October 3, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, people are able and with power over an environment and different natures, from the day they can move and survive properly You'll find that, although this is not how words are meant to be used, if you end up scanning the whole page as one piece of art (all the words together; an example, recollection of everything, judging what's good to say next after a conversation or topic comes to end) you'll only be able to smile so much, and sometimes, like the pain you suggest we can go through, there is also a route of good feeling, I like to call it harmony. A way to describe it artistically would be duality of a maleficent/choking/painful laugh, and then with imagery or nature there is an eternal "aaaaaaa" infinite laugh-potential. People can be intelligent and devise correct theories on their own, wisdom is achievable through observation of nature, and wisdom is testing of knowledge against the self and it's surroundings, we are wise-creatures, top of the food chain, we've evolved great genetics and a body that can withstand or avoid even the toughest worldly natures, we're not automatically dumb, some of us aren't reliant on other people, or their theories, or their word or wordless language, and know life well enough to come to our own conclusions.

 

Why don't you reply with your (the states, your teachers) signature one-liners or signature 'crackpot' insult, or just rate me down and express your idea of of art to the people, don't like/do like?

 

Some scientists would use "crackpot" to someone who didn't support space travel and has his own theories against it, probably, for simply not agreeing with space travel when past people have stated they do... I mean, we'll waste all this finite resource on Earth, send Earth-bound humanity into chaos as we destroy nature and construct technology, but it's okay because the humans claustrophobic in bunkers on Mars will still carry on? Well. At least I can say, I think you're not accurate enough with your definition of 'crackpot'.

 

To be fair, crackpot as we use it here at SFN is supposed to refer to the idea, not the person, but when the person only offers such ideas and we see nothing scientific to discuss, the label often sticks to the person. I think many people here are sufficiently critical thinkers to recognize when someone who offers mostly crackpot ideas comes up with something genuine, something that can actually be tested.

 

I'm sorry, I did assume you were voicing an objection, but I realize now you may have been giving us an example of all the behavior we've listed. The mention of artistry and smiling and wisdom and dualities and choking in this context sort of threw me off.

[s1eep]

 

To be fair, crackpot as we use it here at SFN is supposed to refer to the idea, not the person, but when the person only offers such ideas and we see nothing scientific to discuss, the label often sticks to the person. I think many people here are sufficiently critical thinkers to recognize when someone who offers mostly crackpot ideas comes up with something genuine, something that can actually be tested.

 

I'm sorry, I did assume you were voicing an objection, but I realize now you may have been giving us an example of all the behavior we've listed. The mention of artistry and smiling and wisdom and dualities and choking in this context sort of threw me off.

That's fine...

 

I understand that you use the word crackpot rationally, but other people don't know that. If you were a trustworthy person, you would converge to the level of a learning-mind.

 

And in reality, it doesn't work how you think it works, it actually effects people negatively, the example you set by using 'crackpot' is often abused by those who think pro-academia is the way to go...

 

You're far from 'grown up' or a 'good example', but, you have a nice community and a lot of you will find success through it.

Edited October 3, 2014 by s1eep

[elfmotat]

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, people are able and with power over an environment and different natures, from the day they can move and survive properly You'll find that, although this is not how words are meant to be used, if you end up scanning the whole page as one piece of art (all the words together; an example, recollection of everything, judging what's good to say next after a conversation or topic comes to end) you'll only be able to smile so much, and sometimes, like the pain you suggest we can go through, there is also a route of good feeling, I like to call it harmony. A way to describe it artistically would be duality of a maleficent/choking/painful laugh, and then with imagery or nature there is an eternal "aaaaaaa" infinite laugh-potential. People can be intelligent and devise correct theories on their own, wisdom is achievable through observation of nature, and wisdom is testing of knowledge against the self and it's surroundings, we are wise-creatures, top of the food chain, we've evolved great genetics and a body that can withstand or avoid even the toughest worldly natures, we're not automatically dumb, some of us aren't reliant on other people, or their theories, or their word or wordless language, and know life well enough to come to our own conclusions.

 

Looks like we found another explanation: some of them are just really, really high.

Edited October 3, 2014 by elfmotat

[swansont]

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, …

 

The majority of the people we're discussing have ideas that are demonstrably wrong. Most of the rest are those that are unable to sufficiently formulate their ideas to the point where they could be shown to be wrong.

 

But really, the thread topic doesn't appear to be about that. It's why they are in physics, as opposed to other fields. Creationists have an ideology that can be blamed — they get taught something is true and to never question it, and this is ingrained to the point where they don't. AGW denialists have…something (not sure exactly what) that makes them mistrust scientists on this issue.

 

It's funny we don't see the AGW denialist claim about physicists just being in it for the money — that we have a vested interest in perpetuating some bogus stance. The opposition does come up in other ways, where we can point to GPS working as a rebuttal of relativity being wrong, but it doesn't seem to attract the "protecting your research grant" conspiracists. Is that precisely because we can say "GPS works" and it's a technology accessible to the people, whereas AGW is much, much less so?

[s1eep]

 

The majority of the people we're discussing have ideas that are demonstrably wrong. Most of the rest are those that are unable to sufficiently formulate their ideas to the point where they could be shown to be wrong.

 

But really, the thread topic doesn't appear to be about that. It's why they are in physics, as opposed to other fields. Creationists have an ideology that can be blamed — they get taught something is true and to never question it, and this is ingrained to the point where they don't. AGW denialists have…something (not sure exactly what) that makes them mistrust scientists on this issue.

 

It's funny we don't see the AGW denialist claim about scientists just being in it for the money — that we have a vested interest in perpetuating some bogus stance. It does come up in other ways, where we can point to GPS working as a rebuttal of relativity being wrong, but it doesn't seem to attract the "protecting your research grant" conspiracists. Is that precisely because we can say "GPS works" and it's a technology accessible to the people, whereas AGW is much, much less so?

Can you not use a more professional-sounding word? It sounds very much like a swear-word; although I'd agree that I might be a bit crackpotty to think this.

 

I'd like to add, I didn't come here to criticize scientists for being scientists, simply, that word makes me go 'passive-aggressive' or hot-headed or whatever it's called.

 

Oh well, rest is good for the mind...

 

Can we get it straight, does the word crackpot also (alongside the semantics you give it) imply that ones head is cracked or 'a crack'? This is not scientific.

 

And then, this 'pain we go through' to learn or adapt, if I learn from 'crackpot' what do I learn? Is it your message "go learn from the state's academia"; or just simply "listen to my words in the future"?

Edited October 3, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, people are able and with power over an environment and different natures, from the day they can move and survive properly

...

That is all very interesting but it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Or even pseudoscience (which is what crackpottery is).

[swansont]

Would you prefer crank? Woomaster/Woomeister? Purveyors of anti-science?

 

I think you can't put lipstick on this pig and make it presentable. We are talking about people who attack science without understanding it and resist (sometimes actively and vehemently) modifying their ideas in the face of evidence (meaning this goes beyond simply being wrong about something). It is hard for me to see this as not being adversarial. Why not just call a spade a spade.

[Strange]

Can you not use a more professional-sounding word?

Pseudoscience. Ideas that are dressed up with some of the terminology of science but do not use any of the methodology.

 

And then, this 'pain we go through' to learn or adapt, if I learn from 'crackpot' what do I learn? Is it your message "go learn from the state's academia"; or just simply "listen to my words in the future"?

 

If you learn from a crackpot, you will be learning nonsense. Or at least, non-science.

 

It is nothing to do with "the state's academia" (whatever that means) or who you should learn from. It is about evidence-based methods for testing knowledge, backed up by critical thinking skills.

[s1eep]

Would you prefer crank? Woomaster/Woomeister? Purveyors of anti-science?

 

I think you can't put lipstick on this pig and make it presentable. We are talking about people who attack science without understanding it and resist (sometimes actively and vehemently) modifying their ideas in the face of evidence (meaning this goes beyond simply being wrong about something). It is hard for me to see this as not being adversarial. Why not just call a spade a spade.

Against the accepted scientific theories, sounds about right, or just anti-science; at least here you make a bit of a sacrifice to spread calm in the minds of others...

 

It's not an insult, science doesn't hate you, you, simply, don't agree with how humans have progressed so far with science, or the accepted scientific theories and reputable scientists.

Edited October 3, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Can we get it straight, does the word crackpot also (alongside the semantics you give it) imply that ones head is cracked or 'a crack'?

 

It doesn't mean crazy in this context. It's related to the use of pseudoscience, assertions made without recourse to the scientific method.

[s1eep]

 

It doesn't mean crazy in this context. It's related to the use of pseudoscience, assertions made without recourse to the scientific method.

Okay, well my opinion is there, and I know that you obviously notice this, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not saying any of us are right, just my position is supported by evidence (that I have experienced); 'crackpot' having a negative effect in society. Unfortunately I haven't gathered this evidence, so I'll have to ask you to use your imagination and believe.

[elfmotat]

Okay, well my opinion is there, and I know that you obviously notice this, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not saying any of us are right, just my position is supported by evidence (that I have experienced); 'crackpot' having a negative effect in society. Unfortunately I haven't gathered this evidence, so I'll have to ask you to use your imagination and believe.

 

So your ideas are supported by 'evidence' (personal experience does not constitute evidence by the way), but you didn't 'gather the evidence' so we'll just have to take your word for it?

[Strange]

 

so I'll have to ask you to use your imagination and believe.

 

Nope. Because ... it's a science forum.

[timo]

Troll vs. Thread: 1:0

[s1eep]

 

So your ideas are supported by 'evidence' (personal experience does not constitute evidence by the way), but you didn't 'gather the evidence' so we'll just have to take your word for it?

Can you not imagine a situation where people "would" do something; if we are discussing "what would" people do, we can assume, the saint will always do the good thing, and others different? We know the "woulds"?

 

Can you not imagine a situation where the use of the word 'crackpot' is negative? Such as, a maleficent minded man calling someone a crackpot who is actually quite bright; it's nothing to do with you but it's supported by your example. and you're meant to be the ones to listen and learn from, the adults.

 

I've experienced these situations, but I did not record them so I have no evidence, I guess, I appeal though, through the observation of nature, this is evident.

[michel123456]

On every science board and physics-related video comments section, there is invariably a plethora of crackpots willing to endlessly spew their personal brand of buzzword-salad. They usually have virtually no math, physics, or even general science knowledge. They usually think they're smarter than everyone else. Attempting to correct them is like arguing with a wall. And they're always talking about physics. If there's crackpottery around, you can bet it's physics-related. But why is this?

 

My guess would be that some of it is because of popsci books and documentaries that romanticize "the elusive quest for the theory of everything." That would explain the people who seem to enjoy making up nonsensical diagrams and equations and then passing them off as some deep theory. But that doesn't explain a bunch of other types of crackpot: the relativity deniers, the quantum deniers, the new-age quantum people, and the people who hate math and try to do physics without it. Worst of all is the occasional crackpot with just enough genuine physics knowledge to actually be dangerous.

 

Any thoughts on what draws the loonies to physics in particular?

 

 

IMHO it is because physics is not clear, is full of paradoxes, of mutually exclusive theories and of mind blowing "explanations" that leave the attentive reader with more questions than answers.

Only the inattentive or the completely stupid can remain satisfied.

• Whatever is well conceived is clearly said,

  And the words to say it flow with ease. (Boileau,Canto I, l. 153.)

Which is certainly not the case for physics.

 

That is my opinion.

Edited October 3, 2014 by michel123456

[swansont]

Nature is under no obligation to be understandable to any of us. It's kind of incredible that humans have an intelligence evolved to the point that we can understand at more than an instinctual level of throwing, catching, running and jumping, etc.

 

Alternate response: speak for yourself. I wonder which I am: inattentive or completely stupid?

 

Nature is not an idea that could be well-conceived so explanations of it are constrained. If you believe that a deity is responsible for all of existence, then you can blame god for making the rules of nature too difficult for you to comprehend.

[Strange]

IMHO it is because physics is not clear.

 

It is clear enough if you understand it.

 

is full of paradoxes

 

Nope. Not even one.

 

of mutually exclusive theories

 

I can't think of an example. Can you?

 

and of mind blowing "explanations" that leave the attentive reader with more questions than answers.

 

But that's the good thing about science! That is what makes it so exciting. There is always more to learn.

 

Only the inattentive or the completely stupid can remain satisfied.

 

I think it is only the inattentive or stupid who think that physics is "is not clear, is full of paradoxes, of mutually exclusive theories".

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

s1eep and responders, please try and get back on topic. S1eep, you have discussed / complained about the nature of what a crackpot is at various points in your time here. This thread is not a place for such a discussion. Please review the OP before you respond in this thread again. Any OT posts will be removed.

[ajb]

It is clear enough if you understand it.

This sounds like a tautology!

 

There are plenty of things in physics that are unclear at this time, that is why we have people who are actively working on these things while discovering further things that are just not clear. For example, a big one right now, it is not clear that nature exploits supersymmetry despite the amazing mathematical properties that these theories have. It is thus 'unclearness' that drives individuals and global research.

 

However, in relation to crackpots (or whatever the suggested politically correct name is!) they tend to question vague things, or they will be philosophically questioning relativity or quantum mechanics. Their questioning is usually based on misunderstanding what is known. Of course by itself this is good, but it should be seen as a catalyst for them to read more and think harder, not to attempt to rewrite the book!

 

I don't know why theoretical physics attracts crackpots, but there must be some psychology here. Most seem to be very arrogant and quickly get annoyed. Interestingly, many of these people are otherwise normal. Many have good jobs (often engineering!) and have been successful in other things. They can be very hard working and dedicated, but unfortunately it is misguided.

Edited October 4, 2014 by ajb

[Strange]

This sounds like a tautology!

 

Indeed.

 

 

There are plenty of things in physics that are unclear at this time, that is why we have people who are actively working on these things while discovering further things that are just not clear. For example, a big one right now, it is not clear that nature exploits supersymmetry despite the amazing mathematical properties that these theories have. It is thus 'unclearness' that drives individuals and global research..

 

I suspect that the sort of people who make the sort of statement I was responding to, have no idea where the real challenges are. But instead they object to the fact that even well-understood areas of science are not easy for them to understand.

[ajb]

I suspect that the sort of people who make the sort of statement I was responding to, have no idea where the real challenges are. But instead they object to the fact that even well-understood areas of science are not easy for them to understand.

This seems to be the case.

 

You think the phenomenon maybe due to frustration? As I suggested before, lots of these physics cranks are educated, but not in physics, and have been successful in their chosen careers. They are not stupid, but largely ignorant. They have this mental illness, but otherwise live quite normal lives. Or at least that is my impression of the few I have read details about.

 

Also, we must note that even those educated in physics and mathematics can become crackpots. I don't know why this happens, but it maybe a separate phenomena form the common or garden crackpot.