Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[michel123456]

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?

 

 

 

About Alexander Pope.

 

The money made from his translation of Homer allowed Pope to move to a villa at Twickenham in 1719, where he created his now famous grotto and gardens.

 

He didn't made a library with scientific books full of knowledge.

He made a grotto.

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?

WICNASBALTWBDPTTJDNSUTAS new Internet acronym

Edited October 18, 2014 by michel123456

[studiot]

 

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?

 

 

 

Isn't that like the detective asking the suspect to admit to murder, why would he?

 

and why would anyone admit to promoting a theory that "does not stand up to scrutiny"

 

 

Pope was not the only poet quoted here.

 

Coleridge was also an accomplished mathematician and wrote a very famous letter to his brother about it.

[ajb]

Isn't that like the detective asking the suspect to admit to murder, why would he?

 

I works for Jessica Fletcher, they always give in when she points a finger even if there is no real evidence!

[Strange]

Usually it is called "cherry picking". No?

 

Feel free to quote a poet who presents a different view.

 

Although, Pope's insight has been borne out by research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Carrock]

Feel free to quote a poet who presents a different view.

 

Although, Pope's insight has been borne out by research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

No need to quote a poet......

A study on some East Asian subjects suggested that something like the opposite of the Dunning–Kruger effect may operate on self-assessment and motivation to improve.

 

Winners of the Ig® Nobel Prize 2000

 

PSYCHOLOGY: David Dunning of Cornell University and Justin Kruger of the University of Illinois, for their modest report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." [Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34.]

[Phi for All]

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

 

QFT.

 

 

 

And this shows me that it's really a strawman argument that SO many people make here. Everyone has ideas, but cranks persist in arguing for them in spite of counter evidence.

[ajb]

Kindly take your little game elsewhere - the conversation has been sufficiently derailed already.

So after that little sidetrack, we don't automatically label someone a crackpot for having ideas. Crackpotness is not about having bad ideas, it is about what you do with them. I assure everyone here that every practising scientist has had misconceptions and bad ideas that were quickly shown to be ill-founded.

 

The key difference is that crackpots don't care about this little problem of simply being wrong, they just run with it anyway.

 

It would be great to have a clear reason why physics in particular attracts more than its fair share of crackpots. I am not sure we will ever really know the reason why. It would be nice if someone who uses this site as a 'non-mainstream scientist' could give us some clues here. Not that I want to call anyone a crackpot, but maybe someone here would identify themselves as a 'non-mainstream' or 'amateur' scientist and could make some comments.

[michel123456]

I have made my comments

 

 

That's cute. There's a difference between "getting angry and ready to take it personally" and calling a spade a spade. You intentionally hijacked my thread, and you did it in an obnoxious and purposefully disrespectful manner. Where I'm from they call that trolling.

 

Kindly take your little game elsewhere - the conversation has been sufficiently derailed already.

I am sorry if you found it disrepectful. The worst way to analyze the situation is that i was attacking simultaneously 19 members. It was not personnal.

 

What i want to say is that for being a crank you need to be able to be creative, that is not a gift anyone has. I think that many scientists are so full of knowledge that it becomes more and more difficult to find any opening to new ideas.(1)

 

Why so many cranks in physics?

Maybe it is a phenomena that comes from bad documentaries, like it happens in history and archaeology.

And also because physics are (IMHO) so terribly badly explained, and poorly understood.

Relativity is a perfect example. It is now an over-100 years old Theory and the internet is full of questions, new books are published, it is a mess. people who believe having understood Relativity (PhD's) fight against other PhD's on which one has understood better. it is incredible.

 

(1) a good example here is the model of cosmology. It has created a mesh of interconnected explanations that do not permit to escape. It is a spiderweb, a prison. But if one analyzes individually each part of the mesh, it is hallucinating. We have everything a crank needs. A singularity (endless dicussions about zero & infinity, what is nothing, how can something arise from nothing etc.). You have Negative gravity from Inflation Theory. You have 96% of the universe missing. And so many many other material for cranks.

Edited October 19, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

You just got a feeling of what a crank receives when he begins his own thread.. You got angry and you are ready to take it personally with me. I have nothing against you.

I trapped you in an uncomfortable situation that's all. .

 

Ironically, this is a typical crackpot argument. When people point out their errors, a common response is "you are only saying that because you are scared of new ideas" or (after perfectly reasonable counter-arguments) "my ideas must be right because they make you angry".

 

Your childish "think of an idea game" seems to suggest that just thinking of an idea is better than rational thought.

 

Crackpots have ideas that they refuse to drop in the face of contrary evidence or basic mathematical errors. Yet you seem to think that this is a good thing.

 

 

a good example here is the model of cosmology. It has created a mesh of interconnected explanations that do not permit to escape. It is a spiderweb, a prison.

 

More like a self-reinforcing scaffold.

 

This is part of the problem with cranks, they think they can just knock down one pillar of physics. Not realising that then everything else has to change too.

[sunshaker]

I suppose I may be what you have in your wisdoms defined as a "crackpot" But have steered clear participating in this thread, knowing that most of your minds are already made up and set in stone.

I have been reading this thread and find many of the posts condescending, but I tend to put this down to youth, Or lack of social awareness,

Perhaps some of us have not been in a position to further our education due to different circumstances,

But even with my lack of higher education I believe I have manners, I do not put people down for their ideas or lack of understanding, in any walk of life not just these forums.

 

Some may be like myself, who have no one in their social circles who have an interest in science, So they come to these forums not to overthrow physics/science, They are just trying to understand how their ideas fit in with known science, but many times within the opening first posts they are met with "word salad" "woo woo" "crank/crackpot" which instantly turns on a defensive mechanism and the thread gets derailed, When all they want is to understand,

 

Has for the "bigger picture" this is what first gets them interested in science, Once in they start looking at specifics, Don,t shut the door on them before they start their journey of understanding. Some never come back or carry on their search.

 

It seems "science" is fast becoming another one of those subjects you should not talk about in company along with religion and politics.

 

edit; but this is still the best forum I know, and a lot of leeway is given. even though I can;t open another thread on my extended periodic table

Edited October 19, 2014 by sunshaker

[studiot]

I think there is a considerable difference between the tone of post#98 and post#101, although both argue against Michael's points.

 

Thank you, sunshaker for your observations, perhaps some whow ahve attended formal schools should note the motto of this ancinet school, Peter Symonds School, Winchester

 

'Manners Maketh Man'

[ajb]

Some may be like myself, who have no one in their social circles who have an interest in science, So they come to these forums not to overthrow physics/science, They are just trying to understand how their ideas fit in with known science, but many times within the opening first posts they are met with "word salad" "woo woo" "crank/crackpot" which instantly turns on a defensive mechanism and the thread gets derailed, When all they want is to understand,

Maybe this is a lack of communication here. Often the 'amateur' posts are presented as having the answers rather than asking the questions. Many seem to be saying "this is how it is".

 

It seems "science" is fast becoming another one of those subjects you should not talk about in company along with religion and politics.

I would not say that, but clearly discussing real science is difficult with those that are not interested themselves. So here, you do have a circle of interested people with a range of backgrounds.

[John Cuthber]

Has anyone checked that the original assertion of this thread is true, i.e. that there are more physics cranks than other sorts?

I ask because the notional biology question "Earth is a living organism" is currently up to 6 pages which ought to be a record given that the clear answer is two letters long.

 

My unevinced hunch is that the theology cranks are the commonest and engage in "equal opportunity" crankery because they can be spectacularly wrong in a large number of fields- notably astronomy and biology but also almost any bit of science.

Edited October 19, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

Has anyone checked that the original assertion of this thread is true, i.e. that there are more physics cranks than other sorts?

I ask because the notional biology question "Earth is a living organism" is currently up to 6 pages which ought to be a record given that the clear answer is two letters long.

 

My unevinced hunch is that the theology cranks are the commonest and engage in "equal opportunity" crankery because they can be spectacularly wrong in a large number of fields- notably astronomy and biology but also almost any bit of science.

 

As long as the concepts discussed are based on the natural universe, theological claims are explainable by science. This doesn't stop crackpots from continuing to defend easily falsified concepts, but I think the most common theological crackpot arguments involve some kind of supernatural explanation science isn't really interested in covering, like the existence of divine beings or places like heaven and hell.

[elfmotat]

 

Ironically, this is a typical crackpot argument. When people point out their errors, a common response is "you are only saying that because you are scared of new ideas" or (after perfectly reasonable counter-arguments) "my ideas must be right because they make you angry".

 

Your childish "think of an idea game" seems to suggest that just thinking of an idea is better than rational thought.

 

Crackpots have ideas that they refuse to drop in the face of contrary evidence or basic mathematical errors. Yet you seem to think that this is a good thing.

 

I feel like the "at least I have ideas" people fail to realize this. Coming up with new ideas is important, but it's something that should wait until someone's well-versed enough in physics to know what constitutes "new ideas." Not that people still in the process of learning can't have good ideas (indeed I'd claim that everyone is still in the process of learning), but it's precisely because they're knowledgeable enough to recognize the gaps in our knowledge that their ideas are "good ideas." In other words, they know what they don't know!

 

Bad ideas are usually the product of people who don't know what they don't know - people blissfully unaware of just how much we do know. As a result, these "bad ideas" often criticize existing theory, or reinvent the wheel, and can usually be trivially falsified.

 

Coloring outside the lines is great, but it's important to know where the lines are in the first place lest us accidentally draw on Mother's carpet.

Has anyone checked that the original assertion of this thread is true, i.e. that there are more physics cranks than other sorts?

I ask because the notional biology question "Earth is a living organism" is currently up to 6 pages which ought to be a record given that the clear answer is two letters long.

 

My unevinced hunch is that the theology cranks are the commonest and engage in "equal opportunity" crankery because they can be spectacularly wrong in a large number of fields- notably astronomy and biology but also almost any bit of science.

 

My OP was based on anecdotal evidence (not exactly very convincing). Perhaps my impression that crackpots like to crowd around the physics table is merely an example of selection bias. So the premise of the thread may indeed be false - I don't know how to check that.

Edited October 19, 2014 by elfmotat

[Strange]

I do not put people down for their ideas or lack of understanding, in any walk of life not just these forums.

 

Nor do I. You seem to be missing the point. No one is criticised for having ideas. I have had some interesting and educational discussions with people who have come forwards and asked about an idea they have.

 

The problem is with those people who are not interested in discussing their idea - other than people agreeing with them. If it is pointed out that their idea is contradicted by evidence they will ignore the evidence, get angry, insist they are right and all scientists are mistaken.

 

It seems "science" is fast becoming another one of those subjects you should not talk about in company along with religion and politics.

 

Not at all. The whole reason that this and many other science forums exist is for just that purpose.

[davidivad]

 

I feel like the "at least I have ideas" people fail to realize this. Coming up with new ideas is important, but it's something that should wait until someone's well-versed enough in physics to know what constitutes "new ideas." Not that people still in the process of learning can't have good ideas (indeed I'd claim that everyone is still in the process of learning), but it's precisely because they're knowledgeable enough to recognize the gaps in our knowledge that their ideas are "good ideas." In other words, they know what they don't know!

 

Bad ideas are usually the product of people who don't know what they don't know - people blissfully unaware of just how much we do know. As a result, these "bad ideas" often criticize existing theory, or reinvent the wheel, and can usually be trivially falsified.

 

Coloring outside the lines is great, but it's important to know where the lines are in the first place lest us accidentally draw on Mother's carpet.

 

My OP was based on anecdotal evidence (not exactly very convincing). Perhaps my impression that crackpots like to crowd around the physics table is merely an example of selection bias. So the premise of the thread may indeed be false - I don't know how to check that.

you can do this by creating a statistical model of this very site based upon an established response quality.

the quality may be determined by adherence to the guidelines here.

one example would be the number of responses without validation or findings.

another might be number of fault submissions or even help requests.

Edited October 19, 2014 by davidivad

[elfmotat]

you can do this by creating a statistical model of this very site based upon an established response quality.

the quality may be determined by adherence to the guidelines here.

one example would be the number of responses without validation or findings.

another might be number of fault submissions or even help requests.

 

I think an easier way would just be to check what section(s) the majority of the threads in the trash can are being moved from.

[davidivad]

i think that the precision of such an endeavor is important due to the value of the extra information.

you can do work with it...

[Phi for All]

It seems "science" is fast becoming another one of those subjects you should not talk about in company along with religion and politics.

 

Only if you're going to treat it like an opinion that reflects on yourself. You shouldn't have to though.

[swansont]

I think there is a considerable difference between the tone of post#98 and post#101, although both argue against Michael's points.

'

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Note - Some OT posts were split into a new thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86149-everyone-has-ideas-split-from-why-so-many-crackpots/

 

I suppose I may be what you have in your wisdoms defined as a "crackpot" But have steered clear participating in this thread, knowing that most of your minds are already made up and set in stone.

 

That's just it, though. Our minds are not set in stone. But what is required to change the mind of a scientist is evidence.

Some may be like myself, who have no one in their social circles who have an interest in science, So they come to these forums not to overthrow physics/science, They are just trying to understand how their ideas fit in with known science, but many times within the opening first posts they are met with "word salad" "woo woo" "crank/crackpot" which instantly turns on a defensive mechanism and the thread gets derailed, When all they want is to understand,

 

 

The available data indicates that this is not the case. Most of the crackpots that come here are here to preach their idea, and resist any correction to their ideas. Evidence that contradicts them is ignored. Failing of their model are ignored. By and large, they are not here to understand. Their goal is to have people agree with them. They want validation.

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.

 

Sure, I can see there may be a lot of non-painters who might pontificate on how one might paint, and actors on acting. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, though — have those people actually act, or paint, and see what they have to say. What the scientists here do are trying to get the posters of alternative ideas to actually do some science. And the crackpots generally resist these efforts, quite strongly.

 

Why so many cranks in physics?

Maybe it is a phenomena that comes from bad documentaries, like it happens in history and archaeology.

And also because physics are (IMHO) so terribly badly explained, and poorly understood.

Relativity is a perfect example. It is now an over-100 years old Theory and the internet is full of questions, new books are published, it is a mess. people who believe having understood Relativity (PhD's) fight against other PhD's on which one has understood better. it is incredible.

 

(1) a good example here is the model of cosmology. It has created a mesh of interconnected explanations that do not permit to escape. It is a spiderweb, a prison. But if one analyzes individually each part of the mesh, it is hallucinating. We have everything a crank needs. A singularity (endless dicussions about zero & infinity, what is nothing, how can something arise from nothing etc.). You have Negative gravity from Inflation Theory. You have 96% of the universe missing. And so many many other material for cranks.

 

There are plenty of scientists in the world, so "bad explanations" doesn't really hold up as an excuse. A large chunk of the crackpots we see lack even basic training in physics. They are more interested in jumping into the seep end without having learned to even dog paddle. (Relative was our most recent example of this, I think)

[sunshaker]

 

 

That's just it, though. Our minds are not set in stone. But what is required to change the mind of a scientist is evidence.

 

The available data indicates that this is not the case. Most of the crackpots that come here are here to preach their idea, and resist any correction to their ideas. Evidence that contradicts them is ignored. Failing of their model are ignored. By and large, they are not here to understand. Their goal is to have people agree with them. They want validation.

 

 

I am sure most people do want validation for their ideas/theories when they come here, Perhaps may be the only idea they have ever had,

So when their idea/theory is sometimes attacked without no instructive criticism given other than word salad, woo,woo, a defensive attitude is taken,

 

Then they are unable to see the good advice given by some.

 

It is because of the few who offer nothing but verbal assault to something they believe in whether it is right or wrong, this is when threads spiral out of control to attack/defense, Then it turns into a "crackpot" thread.

 

Sometimes the ideas are not so wrong just the terminology that is misunderstood.

[ajb]

So when their idea/theory is sometimes attacked without no instructive criticism given other than word salad, woo,woo, a defensive attitude is taken,

 

....

 

Sometimes the ideas are not so wrong just the terminology that is misunderstood.

This is the problem. If you do not use the correct terminology and mathematical framework needed to construct a physical theory, then it is very difficult indeed to offer any constructive criticism, other than go away and read a book. The more 'wordy' the 'theory' the harder it gets to really offer any advice.

 

The prevalence of crack pots that don't use mathematics, or for sure mathematics beyond high school level, may be something to do with the desire that physics should have a 'wordy' understanding. This I would call an interpretation and not a replacement for the real mathematical frame work.

Edited October 20, 2014 by ajb

[Strange]

I am sure most people do want validation for their ideas/theories when they come here, Perhaps may be the only idea they have ever had,

So when their idea/theory is sometimes attacked without no instructive criticism given other than word salad, woo,woo, a defensive attitude is taken,

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I nearly always give people the benefit of the doubt. I can't understand why, but there are apparently a lot of people whose approach to asking questions is to make a definite statement of what they think (with no question attached).

 

I will usually try and explain what they have got right and what they appear to have got wrong. That sometimes leads to a constructive discussion.

 

On the other hand, sadly, it more often leads to, "no, you are all mistaken, my idea is correct because it is based on pure logic". At which point it is entirely reasonable to pin the "crackpot" badge on them.

[sunshaker]

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I nearly always give people the benefit of the doubt. I can't understand why, but there are apparently a lot of people whose approach to asking questions is to make a definite statement of what they think (with no question attached).

 

I will usually try and explain what they have got right and what they appear to have got wrong. That sometimes leads to a constructive discussion.

 

I agree you do, more than most,

I have seen you address posts where I would not even know where to start, Or if there was anywhere to start.

And you have turned it into a readable thread.