Why the Prevalence of Crackpots in Physics?

[Strange]

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.

 

Thank you.

 

There are many other threads where I cannot even begin to address what was said. And then someone smarter than me comes along and provides some brilliant insight!

[elfmotat]

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.

 

I certainly don't go out of my way to ruin people's fun, but I don't like to coddle anyone either. If somebody says something that's incorrect, I'll point it out. If somebody posts what is clearly a bunch of nonsense, I'll call it nonsense.

 

I don't think people's feelings should be the priority. Honesty is the best policy. Discussions should be about the empirical content of posts - this is a science board after all!

[studiot]

 

I don't think people's feelings should be the priority. Honesty is the best policy. Discussions should be about the empirical content of posts - this is a science board after all!

 

 

Does this mean you don't approve of encouraging those with learning disabilities or other educational challenges?

 

I think we have some here who really try very hard, although their responses are sometimes rather trying.

[elfmotat]

 

Does this mean you don't approve of encouraging those with learning disabilities or other educational challenges?

 

I think we have some here who really try very hard, although their responses are sometimes rather trying.

 

Of course not! If someone asks a question I'll respond when I know the answer, and I always do so respectfully. If the question is vague or unclear, I'll ask for clarification. If someone makes statements (i.e. not questions) that I know to be false, I'll correct them. And if an entire post is nonsense, I'll still call it nonsense.

 

What I definitely will not do is self-censor out of concern that the person I'm responding to might happen to have some sort of disability. I think that would be incredibly condescending! Plus, I don't particularly care about the person behind the screen - just what they're saying.

[davidivad]

communication skills are so important.

as a scientist, you must be your own representative.

in my personal opinion, it is important to foster the idea that science does not have to be unfeeling.

science teaches you how to think but as a citizen you must know how to feel.

[studiot]

In the light of what has been said in this thread, it will be interesting to see what response is made to this new proposition that has just arisen

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86154-energy-conservation-violation/

 

Obviously conservation is not violated, but are we going to frighten the OP off with an immediate strongly worded outright denial?

 

Im am hoping that the OP is actually young, enthusiastic and interested in science and would therefore like to lead him/her to reach that conclusion for themselves.

Edited October 20, 2014 by studiot

[davidivad]

studiot, you are a smart man.

[elfmotat]

In the light of what has been said in this thread, it will be interesting to see what response is made to this new proposition that has just arisen

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86154-energy-conservation-violation/

 

Obviously conservation is not violated, but are we going to frighten the OP off with an immediate stongly worded outright denial?

 

Im am hoping that the OP is actually young, enthusiastic and interested in science and would therefore like to lead him/her to reach that conclusion for themselves.

 

I actually just responded to that post. I told you: if someone asks a question, I'll respond (respectfully) if I know the answer. I responded both honestly and respectfully. Did I immediately outright deny energy conservation violation? Yes. Was I a jerk about it? No.

 

I think you're mistaking my policy of being honest with intentionally being confrontational and dismissive, which I don't do.

[DimaMazin]

Physics do improve life of every human even of lazy crackpots. Therefore we love physics. We unfortunately try to improve physics,but what can we do?

Edited October 21, 2014 by DimaMazin

[studiot]

 

I think you're mistaking my policy of being honest with intentionally being confrontational and dismissive, which I don't do.

 

 

As davidivad said, it's also about presentation.

 

I don't find your response confrontational, but I wonder if it is a trifle (you didn't like the word tad last time) defensive, where none is needed?

 

Surely we are 'scientists' discussing ways and means in an adult manner?

Edited October 20, 2014 by studiot

[elfmotat]

 

As davidivad said, it's also about presentation.

 

I don't find your response confrontational, but I wonder if it is a trifle (you didn't like the word tad last time) defensive, where none is needed?

 

Surely we are 'scientists' discussing ways and means in an adult manner?

 

Which response(s) do you find defensive? The one in the thread you linked to? I'm not sure why you're interpreting it that way, because I definitely didn't feel like I was being defensive when I wrote it.

[davidivad]

it all boils down to whether you are arguing or working a problem.

if you can answer without arguing, then you have won the battle before it begins and there are two victors instead of just one.

thats right scientists multiply.

[studiot]

 

 

Which response(s) do you find defensive? The one in the thread you linked to? I'm not sure why you're interpreting it that way, because I definitely didn't feel like I was being defensive when I wrote it.

 

 

I am trying to keep to the topic in this thread, and please note I also said that no defense is needed.

 

No, I didn't find your answer in the other thread defensive at all, I was referring to post#108 here.

[swansont]

Physics do improve life of any human even of lazy crackpots. Therefore we love physics. We unfortunately try to improve physics,but what can we do?

 

Things that don't work are not an improvement. You can only claim improvement if you can demonstrate that something works.

[elfmotat]

 

 

I am trying to keep to the topic in this thread, and please note I also said that no defense is needed.

 

No, I didn't find your answer in the other thread defensive at all, I was referring to post#108 here.

 

We were discussing how best to respond to crackpottery, which is something I think is relevant to the thread.

 

You implied that I believe the appropriate way to respond to legitimate questions is to "frighten" the asker, and that I'm intolerant of the mentally handicapped. Now you're admonishing me for being "defensive" after I clarified my positions. That's not exactly fair.

Edited October 20, 2014 by elfmotat

[studiot]

 

That's not exactly fair

 

No, it would be fair, if all that were, true but please accept that you are taking things more strongly than intended.

 

Please also accept my apologies if you were offended, especially as not all I said was about your input(s).

[MigL]

I should state that while fairly familiar with QM from University, my knowledge of GR has been 'picked up' in the years since then, and is not on particularily solid ground.

That being said, I have always found Elfmotat to be, not only knowledgeable in the field, but also very willing to share that knowledge without abusing us less gifted.

 

To be fair, Dr. Rocket, the person who 'brought' me over to this forum, who I learned an awful lot from, and who I consider one of the most knowledgeable in the field of GR, was also very abusive ( did not suffer fools, to put it nicely ) and ended up quitting this forum after numerous reprimands.

 

I have managed to learn from both types. So I would say that a crank is not produced by the responses given by members as Michel123456 thinks

Edited October 20, 2014 by MigL

[DimaMazin]

 

Things that don't work are not an improvement. You can only claim improvement if you can demonstrate that something works.

Then all topics of Speculations should be in Trash Can already.

[MigL]

Sorry, I take back my conclusions.

 

I've just finished reading 'Please Disprove This' by Jkemp ( life creates energy ?? ), and the fact that such a 'crackpottish' idea got as much play as it did, indicates that how we answer does, sometimes, lend credibility to an outlandish, unsupportable idea. A single answer by one member, along the lines of...

" No, you present a hypothesis, you are the one who needs to support it or prove it "

should have ended the thread. Not let it go on to a second page.

 

To clarify, I'm not calling Jkemp a crackpot, just a little misguided, misinformed and ignorant of science/scientific method.

I will be the first to admit I've been there myself and I don't think anyone has held it against me.

Hopefully Jkemp learns from this and joins us on the journey to learn from each other.

[Phi for All]

Sorry, I take back my conclusions.

 

I've just finished reading 'Please Disprove This' by Jkemp ( life creates energy ?? ), and the fact that such a 'crackpottish' idea got as much play as it did, indicates that how we answer does, sometimes, lend credibility to an outlandish, unsupportable idea. A single answer by one member, along the lines of...

" No, you present a hypothesis, you are the one who needs to support it or prove it "

should have ended the thread. Not let it go on to a second page.

 

To clarify, I'm not calling Jkemp a crackpot, just a little misguided, misinformed and ignorant of science/scientific method.

I will be the first to admit I've been there myself and I don't think anyone has held it against me.

Hopefully Jkemp learns from this and joins us on the journey to learn from each other.

 

It really is all about how you ask, isn't it? The part I hope he takes on board is inquiring as opposed to insisting. You can't come to a forum like this with a challenge like that and expect gummy bears and roses.

[Strange]

Another great (counter-)example from a recent thread:

 

My own model ideas to this day still do not work due to those two reasons.

...

To this day I still have not published my ideas on the cosmological constant for the reasons I have just state. I can still disprove my own model ...

 

This is exactly the thing that distinguishes those with a scientific interest in trying to understand and find an explanation for things:

a) The ability and, more importantly, willingness to test the idea.

b) the willingness to admit the idea is wrong, rather than trying to bend the facts to fit.

[sunshaker]

Another great (counter-)example from a recent thread:

 

 

This is exactly the thing that distinguishes those with a scientific interest in trying to understand and find an explanation for things:

a) The ability and, more importantly, willingness to test the idea.

b) the willingness to admit the idea is wrong, rather than trying to bend the facts to fit.

Very good,

But then again this is a forum,We only come when we have that interest in science, We are not offering a paper for a peer review,

Forums are a good place to test your ideas, and get feedback to where your theory/idea breaks down, Or what is needed to make your idea/theory testable.

I take on all feedback given, which in turn sets me of exploring the details, I have learnt so much more since joining this forum, just by taking a interest in peoples posts, perhaps not joining in but still spending time to understand them through my own studies.

 

I come to this forum to further my understanding, perhaps on topics that would never have have come to mind.

[Strange]

But then again this is a forum,We only come when we have that interest in science, We are not offering a paper for a peer review,

Forums are a good place to test your ideas, and get feedback to where your theory/idea breaks down, Or what is needed to make your idea/theory testable.

I take on all feedback given, which in turn sets me of exploring the details, I have learnt so much more since joining this forum, just by taking a interest in peoples posts, perhaps not joining in but still spending time to understand them through my own studies.

 

I come to this forum to further my understanding, perhaps on topics that would never have have come to mind.

 

I agree completely. And I am glad that you see this as a learning opportunity. I too have learnt a lot from this and other forums - often by having my own (mis)understandings corrected and often by seeing other people given explanations.

 

However, there are, sadly, still a subset of people who will resist any attempt to learn and will insist they are right in the face of any amount of evidence or calculation. These are the ones who get labelled crackpots.

[Delta1212]

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?

I had a pet theory once, but I forgot to feed it and it died.

[I-try]

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot.; guilty and not to be proven to be innocent.

 

I now realize why I would have been regarded as a crackpot 30 or more years ago, when I supplied my work to mainstream science, that provided a concept of gravity and gravitation that disallowed the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves.