Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[Strange]

As an engineer, I find the large number of anti-relativity cranks who are engineers to be slightly depressing.

 

But, yes, being a successful professional scientist does not make you immune from this. There was the recent case of Erik Andrulis, a well-respected biochemist who has published a lot of good work in his field, who managed to get a meaningless "theory of everything" paper published.

[StringJunky]

ajb, on 04 Oct 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

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.

Perhaps because they think more and more the answers actually lies in the mathematical formalism and look for the data less and less to put meat on it ...they lose sight that it's just a tool.

[swansont]

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.

 

We've had our share of these. Both the "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" crank and its cousin, "I don't understand it so nobody understands it"

[ajb]

Perhaps because they think more and more the answers actually lies in the mathematical formalism and look for the data less and less to put meat on it ...they lose sight that it's just a tool.

Lots of mainstream physicists think that many of the hints of what nature is doing is in the mathematics. At some point this needs to be checked against nature.

 

The cranks who at first seem rather mathematical often have inconstant models. I know of a couple of people, but I will give only one famous example; Lisi and his E8 theory.

[michel123456]

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

 

You should be unsatisfied.

As AJB and so many scientists are. Without being cranks, but understanding that some explanations have leaks, and getting work from it.

 

--------------------------

(edit)

 

I am inattentive many times. Maybe i am stupid. For sure I am unsatisfied. That last is the reason of my presence on this Forum.

Edited October 4, 2014 by michel123456

[swansont]

You should be unsatisfied.

 

That wasn't one of the options.

[studiot]

http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html

[Phi for All]

I think another aspect of this phenomena is an overestimation of "how long I've been working on this". Just because you've been pushing the same idea for 5 years doesn't mean you've been "working on it" for that long. A proper theory would have changed a lot in 5 years, growing, maybe starting from scratch a few times, adding supportive evidence, testing predictions, etc.

 

Ignoring refutations and criticisms isn't part of the methodology. If it took you 3 months to formulate the idea you've been insisting is complete for the rest of the 5 years, against all review by peers, you've been "working on it" for -4.75 years. Imagine all the education in mainstream physics you could have gotten in that time!

[s1eep]

I think another aspect of this phenomena is an overestimation of "how long I've been working on this". Just because you've been pushing the same idea for 5 years doesn't mean you've been "working on it" for that long. A proper theory would have changed a lot in 5 years, growing, maybe starting from scratch a few times, adding supportive evidence, testing predictions, etc.

 

Ignoring refutations and criticisms isn't part of the methodology. If it took you 3 months to formulate the idea you've been insisting is complete for the rest of the 5 years, against all review by peers, you've been "working on it" for -4.75 years. Imagine all the education in mainstream physics you could have gotten in that time!

I agree but I would also carry this on into academia where people don't always come out perfect, or optimally smart humans; I also carry this on to the small percentages that some theories are wrong, and sense this total 'wrongness', the quidditity (or 'whatness') of the modern scientific method and it's results, just the minor percentages in it all that don't add up, we can't confidently understand it all in this way, but we can put our faith in the usefulness of the word (technology) in combination with our intelligence, and that with the word we will be able to conquer this feat, because we are adept creatures.

 

The word is essentially, metaphorically, a really good move that's in a game that we've learnt, and we're just obsessed with using it. It is good yeah, but I think it's not above our adept selves, and evolving nature.

 

There are some educated 'crackpots'.

Edited October 15, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

I agree but I would also carry this on into academia where people don't always come out perfect, or optimally smart humans; I also carry this on to the small percentages that some theories are wrong, and sense this total 'wrongness', the quidditity (or 'whatness') of the modern scientific method and it's results, just the minor percentages in it all that don't add up, we can't confidently understand it all in this way, but we can put our faith in the usefulness of the word (technology) in combination with our intelligence, and that with the word we will be able to conquer this feat, because we are adept creatures.

 

The word is essentially, metaphorically, a really good move that's in a game that we've learnt, and we're just obsessed with using it. It is good yeah, but I think it's not above our adept selves, and evolving nature.

 

There are some educated 'crackpots'.

 

Mixing philosophy and science has been mentioned in this very thread as a large part of the "crackpots in physics" problem. To me, you're hiding behind the vagueness of "whatness" in order to denigrate the scientific method. Scientists don't put their "faith" in anything; trust is more important.

 

And this statement, " I also carry this on to the small percentages that some theories are wrong", is wrong. MOST theories are wrong, and their flaws are eventually found out, and the scientist moves on or corrects their mistakes (which often shows the idea is still wrong, so they move on). Crackpot theories differ in that they're usually wrong in the basics, something that a science-educated person can spot right off. That's why so many speculations here get discussed and locked rather quickly; they're trivially wrong, but the poster usually wants everyone to overlook basic flaws and focus on the real heart of the idea, which is usually formed only in words, subjective and ultimately meaningless words.

[physica]

I agree completely. Also a crackpot will insist on looking at the "big picture". They don't bother with details. If anything they try and avoid details. I think the social science of Belbins roles has a lot to answer for. It describes the thinker who comes up with the idea as a plant who doesn't need to get involved with the details. I've seen some crackpots hold on to this. A good idea comes from details.

[s1eep]

 

Mixing philosophy and science has been mentioned in this very thread as a large part of the "crackpots in physics" problem. To me, you're hiding behind the vagueness of "whatness" in order to denigrate the scientific method. Scientists don't put their "faith" in anything; trust is more important.

 

And this statement, " I also carry this on to the small percentages that some theories are wrong", is wrong. MOST theories are wrong, and their flaws are eventually found out, and the scientist moves on or corrects their mistakes (which often shows the idea is still wrong, so they move on). Crackpot theories differ in that they're usually wrong in the basics, something that a science-educated person can spot right off. That's why so many speculations here get discussed and locked rather quickly; they're trivially wrong, but the poster usually wants everyone to overlook basic flaws and focus on the real heart of the idea, which is usually formed only in words, subjective and ultimately meaningless words.

I guess I can agree once again that my words aren't written to the exact detail of which they should be, see, I categorize things like faith, trust (belief, energy, devotion) and other things together, and I guess it's I expect it in others to know what I meant, especially when I say 'faith' because that's something I associate with "putting in effort" or "energy toward something", the blood running through my veins, etc, I have very artistic representations for such things, why not? We have words for them, why can I not create a nice image instead of a word? I wouldn't expect you to say I can't, but I would expect you to say it's not science. These scientists that I refer to, employed the word; now, I'm doing something else, I'm employing something more artistic as a communication device, not orientated differently to everything else... A picture, a quick work of art in the imagination, whatever, not the word. If I try to communicate to you about this language, and that it may support my theories, it is probable you will either decline or I will be called a crackpot. This is another reason why I sense wrongness in their theories, it seems to be based more on a central technology that isn't as powerful as the human mind and heart, in my belief, and this is because I trust my observation of nature and what's evident---plus my own rationality, I wouldn't jump off a cliff for science, so I will make sure to make sure the process is orientated around my self.

 

If we're being scientific about 'crackpot', then I will admit that I am wrong, and just say that most theories are not proven to be correct one-hundred percent; some 'crackpot theories' try to explain everything one-hundred percent?

Edited October 15, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

especially when I say 'faith' because that's something I associate with "putting in effort" or "energy toward something", the blood running through my veins, etc,

 

I don't think that is a common definition of faith. For most people, I don't think it involves any effort at all. It just is. And I don't why your blood flowing through your veins would require faith. (Or effort, for that matter.)

 

I would expect you to say it's not science.

 

Correct. Art may be valuable but it is not science.

 

These scientists that I refer to, employed the word

 

They may well do when talking about ideas, belief, philosophy, human nature, ... But that has nothing to do with science.

 

If we're being scientific about 'crackpot', then I will admit that I am wrong, and just say that most theories are not proven to be correct one-hundred percent;

 

No theory is proven one hundred percent. No theory is proven at all. It just not disproved. Yet.

 

some 'crackpot theories' try to explain everything one-hundred percent?

 

And that is a good first sign that they are crackpots.

[For Prose]

This is hardly conclusive proof as to why it occurs in physics so frequently, but the other day, I overheard a student giving a speech in class. He asked his peers "What is the number one law in Physics?", to which a student answered "What goes up, must come down!". "Exactly" the speaker replied.

 

It seems that maybe, there are more people willing to listen to their crackpot ideas.

 

But in al seriousness, let me tell you all why all the physicists are wrong nowadays......

[swansont]

I agree completely. Also a crackpot will insist on looking at the "big picture". They don't bother with details. If anything they try and avoid details. I think the social science of Belbins roles has a lot to answer for. It describes the thinker who comes up with the idea as a plant who doesn't need to get involved with the details. I've seen some crackpots hold on to this. A good idea comes from details.

 

Some do the opposite and focus on a solution to one specific problem, not realizing that their solution does not fit in with the big picture. Either way, the failing is not looking through the entire depth and breadth of science, because it's all inter-related.

[Strange]

I thought that this post by Mike in another thread was highly relevant to this discussion:

 

The Pierian Spring

 

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;

. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, ''

 

..............................

..................more advanc'd, behold with strange surprise New distant scenes of endless science rise!

 

Link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierian_Spring . Mike

 

[michel123456]

I thought that this post by Mike in another thread was highly relevant to this discussion:

 

Alexander Pope was a poet, not a scientist.

[ajb]

Would any of the 'non-mainstream scientists' that use this forum like to comment?

[michel123456]

Would any of the 'non-mainstream scientists' that use this forum like to comment?

 

'non-mainstream scientists'? You mean a crank?

[ajb]

'non-mainstream scientists'? You mean a crank?

 

 

No where did I say that... you can read it as you will.

[michel123456]

First of all, this forum :

It's about science so it is expected to find only scientists here.

Which in fact does not happen. There are less than 10 PhD's here. The vast majority of members are not scientists. Many are teenagers. So it should not be surprising that all those "no-scientists" have peculiar ideas. Call them cranks if you like. To me these are thinking people. Much better than the billions who don't care about science and spend time gaming or talking about football, cars, shops, sex.

 

Now, why so many cranks?

Imagine a Forum for actors where there are no actors, or a Forum for painters where there are no painters.

Edited October 18, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

Alexander Pope was a poet, not a scientist.

 

So? The thread is (mainly) about human nature. I would think a poet is as good a person as any to comment on that, if not better.

[michel123456]

 

So? The thread is (mainly) about human nature. I would think a poet is as good a person as any to comment on that, if not better.

It may be the first time that a quote from a poet is well received on this forum.

 

Hmm, I must be wrong, this quote has been used before.

 

Usually it is called "cherry picking". No?

Edited October 18, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

The vast majority of members are not scientists. Many are teenagers. So it should not be surprising that all those "no-scientists" have peculiar ideas. Call them cranks if you like. To me these are thinking people.

 

There is a difference, though. There are plenty of non-experts who think about these things. They may come up with questions or ideas of their own. If they present their questions or ideas here, you would expect them to get the questions answered and their ideas discussed.

 

There have been threads started by people who have, say, worked out an idea about black holes or dark matter, which turns out to be very close to the scientific understanding of the subject. They have been thrilled when this is pointed out and the bits they didn't understand or have got wrong are explained. They are, what I would call "thinking people". You can have a reasonable and educational (for both sides) discussion with them.

 

On the other hand, there are those who have come up with an idea (typically after "many years of study") which is not just slightly wrong, but contradicted by existing theory and substantial evidence. They will refuse to acknowledge that they might be wrong (after all, their theory is "logical"). They will dismiss or ignore contradictory evidence. They will cherry-pick supporting evidence (even if they have to misinterpret it to do so). They will dismiss the need for rigour and mathematics. They will probably insist that their idea is both important and urgent (and that they will be proved right one day). They will compare themselves to Einstein, Galileo or Faraday. They may get angry and offensive. They may claim there is a conspiracy - and, quite possibly, that the members of this forum are part of it.

 

In short, they are closed minded and, apart from coming up with one idea, they are not prepared to think at all.

 

These are the types who are labelled "crackpots".

 

(Then there is another category who just spin long paragraphs of incomprehensible, pseudo-philosophical verbiage with lots of scientific-sounding words or phrases thrown in at random. But the less said about them the better.)

Hmm, I must be wrong, this quote has been used before.

 

Yes, I quoted it from this forum.

[ajb]

The vast majority of members are not scientists. Many are teenagers. So it should not be surprising that all those "no-scientists" have peculiar ideas. Call them cranks if you like.

I would not call people who have ideas cranks, it is what you do next with that idea that defines 'crankdom'.

 

I am wondering if anyone here who is clearly not a scientist but acts like they were by developing 'pet theories' that just do not stand up to any scrutiny would like to comment here?