Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Not Arguing....just Housekeeping

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on November 14, 2002 06:04:28 UTC

At, someone (who disrespects me greatly in print) wrote "Ten ways to spot a crackpot"

I reply after each point. Warning: since I am not ridiculing anyone, my replies are not very funny or very entertaining.

"Hello everybody. I'm a graduate student in astrophysics and I have some information that I think might be helpful to y'all who are interested in serious science. Among the scientific community, we often have to deal with people that we call "crackpots". This basically refers to people who have wild (and usually grandiose) theories with little scientific basis. I've noticed that these forums have these people in spades. Perhaps there is something to these theories (let's try to be open-minded), but if you're a novice looking to learn something about science, these people can be very distracting and confusing. Here's a list of things to look out for:

"1. Does it make any sense at all? Mainstream scientists will usually speak in terms that are at least partially understandable to the general public. Crackpots will often try to sound as technical as possible (often with made up words) so that there is little hope of anybody refuting them."

Reply: We should reduce the list to "nine ways."
Nobody here really needs help spotting folks who
are rushing to judgement in fields in which they
have almost no competence.

"2. What is the scope of their ideas? If they claim to be able to explain the entire universe with their own new theory, that should be a red flag. Unfortunately, real science is complicated enough that no one person could reasonably have all the answers. Despite popular belief, even the scope of Newton and Einstein's theories were small in comparison to the range of physics in its entirety."

Reply: A crackpot theory which purports to explain the universe is easier to disprove after a few volleys than a crackpot theory which explains only an esoteric point.
If the person can discuss it coherently, you should be able to find an exception. An exception in a large new theory is often a theory breaker. In Dr. Dick Stafford's theory, Ruquist said Stafford had shown how to derive certain useful equations in a new way. If mostly it was solipsism as Luis Hamburgh said, its math was apparently pretty sound. Its references to a possible "absolute time" withstood the vicious remarks of bruce, who provided no worthwhile rebuttal except denunciations.

"3. Is it based on religion? Real science does not in any way USE religion for its conclusions. This should not cause people to think that scientists are areligious (Einstein was very religious, in fact), we just think that religion and science are two separate practices that should not be mixed (kind of like separation of church and state)."

However, science and religion _can_ be present in You simultaneously. Einstein was not very religious. He was very interested in the God of Spinoza, as he called It. True that science
canNOT be 'mixed' with religion. There is no "should" about it. Religion adores its assembled disassembles and reassembles information without a thought for anything but functional accuracy.

"4. Do they ramble on about random things for no apparent reason? Crackpots are usually eager to spread their ideas (after all, they claim to have solved the universe), so they will take advantage of any chance to talk about them. Thus, they often get way off topic."

Reply: This point seems redundant and not
statistically testable as stated. There apparently are no more than eight ways left to spot crackpots.

"5. Does it sound a bit like spam? Crackpot theories are often sold like cults. They'll cover the boards with multiple messages and try to indoctrinate you into their beliefs."

Reply: Same as number four's reply. Spotting methods down to seven.

"6. Is it based on an obscure result? The first crackpot I ever met claimed to completely reformulate cosmology based on a slight variation in the signals from the Voyager spacecraft. When one of these people catches onto something, their minds will often runaway with them. There is a reason we emphasize repeatability in all scientific results."

Reply: I think you're saying a crackpot does not
believe science's results must be repeatable. Are you saying this about Ray?

"7. Are they extremely full of themselves? I used to think real scientists were egotistical, but compared to most crackpots, they are really quite humble. If you try to argue with a crackpot, they will often just dismiss you outright. This is either because they think they're way beyond you or they're afraid they'll lose the argument. Either way, it's a particularly productive way of doing science."

Reply: Let's see...who exemplifies this point?
Of all thoe folks postin here, who is dismissing
the other posters outright?

"8. Do they sound a bit schizophrenic? I'm convinced that some of them are. Check out the king of crackpots:"

Reply: I don't see that on this forum. Are you saying this about Ray?

"9. Do they disbelieve the fundamental theories of science (e.g. relativity, quantum mechanics)? Granted, there are perfectly reasonable people who don't believe these theories, but most of these people don't go on and try to reformulate science."

Reply: It is not necessary to "believe" fundamental theories. It is necessary to be able to discuss them coherently. Usually, a dispute
(between two persons coherently discussing a matter) will not turn nasty. If one of them "believes" their point of view, that is when the trouble starts.

"10. Are they stuck in everyday language? In other words, do they try to deal with abstract concepts using simple, Earth-based ideas? Many crackpots have the illusion that everything in the universe should be easily understandable to them in terms of their experiences on Earth. Fortunately, serious scientists disavowed this kind of thinking around the time of Copernicus. Humans are not, and never will be, the center of the universe."

Reply: Do you really see that on this list?
One of my ancestral families is named Bruno...the name of a prominent purveyor of Copernicus' theory.

"These are some basic guidelines. In all fairness, real scientists can fall under any one of these categories from time to time, so don't dismiss anything without a little thought. After all, thinking is what science is all about."

Reply: This was the best paragraph in the whole thing.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins