What counts as crackpottery?

So I was wondering, at the time Copernicus made his heliocentric theory (personal theory) and it was against mainstream science at the time, does that mean if PF was around at that time and he made a thread about a heliocentric model of the solar system, he would be banned as being a crackpot?
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract

 Quote by Woopydalan So I was wondering, at the time Copernicus made his heliocentric theory (personal theory) and it was against mainstream science at the time, does that mean if PF was around at that time and he made a thread about a heliocentric model of the solar system, he would be banned as being a crackpot?
Yes. If Einstein posted his theories before they were part of mainstream science, he would be banned too.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 28
 Quote by Woopydalan So I was wondering, at the time Copernicus made his heliocentric theory (personal theory) and it was against mainstream science at the time, does that mean if PF was around at that time and he made a thread about a heliocentric model of the solar system, he would be banned as being a crackpot?
He would first be warned to obey the PF Rules (after all, he would know how to read, no?), and if he persists, then yes, he would be banned for violating rules.

But this is more of a speculative guess. If I were Copernicus, I would not go to the public and suddenly advertize my theory. He certainly didn't, did he?

What he did was to do what was the COMMON PRACTICE at that time, he published his findings.

So what is the common practice in OUR time? Do scientists go to open forum such as PF to sell their ideas? Or do they follow the tried-and-tested path that practicing scientists do when they have something new to report?

And BTW, people often bring up these names in physics whenever they are trying to argue for allowing them to post their personal theories. Yet, they forget who these people are and use such comparison under total ignorance.

http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979

Zz.

What counts as crackpottery?

In a Bayesian sense, the chance of "someone making a theory against mainstream science" being a crackpot is orders of magnitude larger than him turning out to be another Copernicus.
 Mentor Blog Entries: 28 Oh, also note that being banned for violating PF Rules does not automatically imply one is a crackpot, although being a crackpot can automatically incur a ban from PF. So the topic of this thread "What counts as crackpottery?" doesn't jive with being banned for promoting personal theory. The symptoms of being a crackpot is quite clear: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html Copernicus does NOT fall under such criteria! Zz.
 Mentor Blog Entries: 1 Zapper beat me to it with that last post. Personal theories are not synonymous with crackpottery. PF makes no judgement when rejecting personal theories, we don't accept them because this isn't the place for them. When we say something is crackpot it's usually a combination of personal theory that is not even wrong or thoroughly debunked (homeopathy, over-unity, any general pseudoscience), an ideological bent (conspiracy theory, religious) and a cornucopia of logical fallacies and failures of internal consistency.

 Quote by Ryan_m_b Zapper beat me to it with that last post. Personal theories are not synonymous with crackpottery. PF makes no judgement when rejecting personal theories, we don't accept them because this isn't the place for them.
Do personal published theories become automatically acceptable (ok, not in some freak journal!)

Mentor
Blog Entries: 8
 Quote by rollingstein Do personal published theories become automatically acceptable (ok, not in some freak journal!)
If you managed to publish them in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then you can discuss them here.

Mentor
 Quote by rollingstein Do personal published theories become automatically acceptable (ok, not in some freak journal!)
According to the rules:
 Quote by Rules Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ [...] In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.
=> they are not banned by the rules, but you should be extremely careful, in particular if the theory is a serious deviation from existing scientific theories.

 Quote by Woopydalan So I was wondering, at the time Copernicus made his heliocentric theory (personal theory) and it was against mainstream science at the time, does that mean if PF was around at that time and he made a thread about a heliocentric model of the solar system, he would be banned as being a crackpot?

If you are one of top physicist(it generally tends to stick out in posts), i am sue you'd be allowed to post much much more than the average user on borderline not-yet accepted physics. Again, he/she would be taking a small risk but the quality of posts is what seems to come on top and the fact that the whole of theory/modification is probably not 100% right seems less important. No theory is 100% right or complete, so the rank and quality of posts is what determines the fate of the user. Or at least that's my impression.

PP> If it's a completely new and radical theory that very few people can or have the time to understand, the respective user would be banned outright.

 Quote by Maui If you are one of top physicist(it generally tends to stick out in posts), i am sue you'd be allowed to post much much more than the average user on borderline not-yet accepted physics.
As an aside, have top physicists posted on PF in the past?

Mentor
Blog Entries: 28
 Quote by rollingstein As an aside, have top physicists posted on PF in the past?
Sure. Among others, for a while, we had Brian Josephson. Unfortunately, the discussion he was involved in was on a form of "cold fusion".

Zz.

 Quote by ZapperZ Sure. Among others, for a while, we had Brian Josephson. Unfortunately, the discussion he was involved in was on a form of "cold fusion". Zz.

Recognitions: