How do you deal with crackpots?

  • Thread starter bigfooted
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses dealing with individuals who hold irrational and unscientific beliefs, commonly referred to as "crackpots." These individuals can be identified by various characteristics such as spelling errors, using aggressive language, and rejecting established scientific principles. While some may try to help these individuals, it is often futile as they hold onto their beliefs like religious fanatics. It is important to present facts and information, but ultimately it is up to the individual to change their beliefs.
  • #1
bigfooted
Gold Member
680
211
Hi!

I was on a forum recently where I saw a typical message from what some people would call a crackpot.
These people are usually easy to identify:

  • The message is full of spelling errors.
  • The message usually starts with the claim that a great discovery was being made.
  • They never use math beyond high-school mathematics.
  • They address people like Einstein as Dr. Einstein.
  • They respond very aggressively to friendly but skeptical replies.
  • They never use standard mathematical notation.

Although my first impulse is to try to help these people, I usually find that they are beyond help. The discussion becomes grim very fast, most of the arguments are ad hominem ("You do not accept my new theory because you belong to the establishment") and I always hope the topic dies before it reaches Godwin's law.

My question to you: what would you do? Try to help them? Ignore them from the start? When is enough enough for you?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
bigfooted said:
My question to you: what would you do? Try to help them? Ignore them from the start? When is enough enough for you?
There are many other subtle ways to tell. Whilst many crackpots usually join the site and post with "i thnk iv made a spaceship lke dr. einstein" some simply post normally but then slowly over time start introducing innocuous yet crazy ideology into their posts.

Sometimes I do try to help people, I try to break down what the believe and why (break down as in lay it out in fundamentals, not destroy) and address each point. However almost always eventually it comes down to an almost religious belief in whatever pseudo-science they are peddling.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I help people who want to be helped.

If people show they don't want to be helped, or at least not by me, I move on.
I don't like to be dragged into endless fruitless discussions, so I usually quit responding after a couple of posts.

Sometimes it takes an effort to distance myself, but there are other people around that I'd rather help.
 
  • #4
I take Ryan's observation a little further and say that such folks are usually, in at least some very real sense, religious fanatics and there is absolutely no point whatsoever in trying to reason with them. I Like Serena has the right idea ... helping folks is a good thing but as soon as you realize that you are doing what the military call "pissing up a rope" it's time to move on.
 
  • #5
"How do you deal with crackpots?'

depends on how the crack pot idea is presented. Strangely enough this can fall under the social system due to the aspects of mankind's past.

For the most part any thing you try and tell them is pointless due to they "BELIEVE" they are right and every one else is wrong. It is also the motivation behind the presenter that can be a problem. Some ideas are to make nothing more than money off some fool.

If some one is questioning the belief, then you may be able to present facts and help them. Regrettably that is the rare case.

I deal with a lot of the free energy garbage out there. It will surprise you what people can be convenience of, that they will waist money on.
It is easy to confuse an individual and then show some alternative idea as being right. From there, correcting such an "idea" becomes a problem.

Good luck with such.
 
  • #6
I think a lot of debunkers have unrealistic expectations. If a person has been led down the garden path of silliness, it may take some time for them to get their bearings. Don't expect to change any minds with a single argument. These things need time to sink in. And there is often an emotional investment, which takes even more time to get past. My approach was to present the best information available and let the chips fall where they may. Once the answer or information is out there in cyberspace, it is there for all to see who wish to see it. I always tried to view this more as a library than a forum. The goal was to present the information, not to prove it to anyone.

If a person is genuinely deluded or irrational, then an argument isn't going to change that anyway.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking said:
I think a lot of debunkers have unrealistic expectations. If a person has been led down the garden path of silliness, it may take some time for them to get their bearings. Don't expect to change any minds with a single argument. These things need time to sink in. And there is often an emotional investment, which takes even more time to get past. My approach was to present the best information available and let the chips fall where they may. Once the answer or information is out there in cyberspace, it is there for all to see who wish to see it. I always tried to view this more as a library than a forum. The goal was to present the information, not to prove it to anyone.

If a person is genuinely deluded or irrational, then an argument isn't going to change that anyway.

Exactly. A lot of people don't realize that for many crackpots, their belief in their idea is as deeply engrained as our own beliefs in mainstream physics/science. What sort of evidence would it take for all of us to no longer believe in Physics? How long could that take? Is it possible in a single argument? Of course not, so why many people feel they can convince crackpots that they're wrong is beyond me. It's not like you're talking to another physicist and trying to convince someone the lowest energy state of a quantum SHO is [itex]{{1}\over{2}}\hbar \omega [/itex] and not [itex] \hbar \omega[/itex] where they just need to find the small error in their calculation. You're talking typically talking to a non-scientist that has no understanding of how science works in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Pengwuino said:
Exactly. A lot of people don't realize that for many crackpots, their belief in their idea is as deeply engrained as our own beliefs in mainstream physics/science. What sort of evidence would it take for all of us to no longer believe in Physics? How long could that take? Is it possible in a single argument? Of course not, so why many people feel they can convince crackpots that they're wrong is beyond me. It's not like you're talking to another physicist and trying to convince someone the lowest energy state of a quantum SHO is [itex]{{1}/over{2}}\hbar \omega [/itex] and not [itex] \hbar \omega[/itex] where they just need to find the small error in their calculation. You're talking typically talking to a non-scientist that has no understanding of how science works in the first place.
I have a quibble with this; belief in pseudo-science and acceptance of science are generally not comparable. If the only reason someone accepts a pseudo-scientific proposal is that they think the burden of proof has been met then they can be corrected simply through educating them of the actual status of current evidence (this may be a challenge because of how educated they are in logic and epistimology). However the majority of the time in my experience people do not accept pseudo-science because they have seen and accept evidence but because there is some sort of emotional and ideological dimension. People accept things like healing crystals, psychic powers, alternate planes of existence etc because they have a religious belief in these things and then retrospectively tack any science they think supports it.

As an example of this a few years ago I was hitch-hiking and was picked up by a man on his way to Glastonbury Tor. He told me he was a spiritual healer and that someone from his pagan group had told him if he went to the Tor that night and ascended through the seven gates he would meet a goddess who would grant him a new power. I didn't really want to be kicked out of the car so I had to be more timid than I usually am in these conversations; when I asked him why he thought he had powers, what evidence he had of them etc he would respond with things like "well physics shows there are 10 dimensions which is similar to the number of spirit realms" and "Auras have been scientifically proven; did you know that the human body has a magnetic field and that our DNA emits photons?" Pretty much everything he said was a massive distortion of real science because he had taken something he didn't understand, identified some vague semantic resemblance to his belief (i.e. dimension and realm) and dragged it through an ideological filter to construct some sort of justification for his belief. Note though that he had no need of such a scientific justification, all he was doing was reaffirming his belief.

This type of crackpot is the one that is near-impossible to educate because all information presented to them is not taken on it's own merits but instead distorted and altered until it fits within their world view.
 
  • #9
I've observed that well educated science people can become pretty emotional about what for instance a word means exactly.
It the other party is a supposed crackpot, scientific people join in an emotional fight to put the supposed crackpot down, which can become pretty ugly.
It seems to me that it borders on religious fanaticism.
 
  • #10
Ryan_m_b said:
I have a quibble with this; belief in pseudo-science and acceptance of science are generally not comparable. If the only reason someone accepts a pseudo-scientific proposal is that they think the burden of proof has been met then they can be corrected simply through educating them of the actual status of current evidence (this may be a challenge because of how educated they are in logic and epistimology). However the majority of the time in my experience people do not accept pseudo-science because they have seen and accept evidence but because there is some sort of emotional and ideological dimension. People accept things like healing crystals, psychic powers, alternate planes of existence etc because they have a religious belief in these things and then retrospectively tack any science they think supports it.

As an example of this a few years ago I was hitch-hiking and was picked up by a man on his way to Glastonbury Tor. He told me he was a spiritual healer and that someone from his pagan group had told him if he went to the Tor that night and ascended through the seven gates he would meet a goddess who would grant him a new power. I didn't really want to be kicked out of the car so I had to be more timid than I usually am in these conversations; when I asked him why he thought he had powers, what evidence he had of them etc he would respond with things like "well physics shows there are 10 dimensions which is similar to the number of spirit realms" and "Auras have been scientifically proven; did you know that the human body has a magnetic field and that our DNA emits photons?" Pretty much everything he said was a massive distortion of real science because he had taken something he didn't understand, identified some vague semantic resemblance to his belief (i.e. dimension and realm) and dragged it through an ideological filter to construct some sort of justification for his belief. Note though that he had no need of such a scientific justification, all he was doing was reaffirming his belief.

This type of crackpot is the one that is near-impossible to educate because all information presented to them is not taken on it's own merits but instead distorted and altered until it fits within their world view.

I agree with everything except the near-impossible part, which gets back to my point that this can't be viewed over short delta Ts. Over a period of years, people can make a complete 180. I've seen it happen many times.

Truthfully, I never worried much about the individual arguments. I wasn't going to worry about changing the mind of some guy in Jersey who's been drinking too much. To me the point here was more a matter of information flow. In the short term it seems that chaos is winning the information war. But there is the underlying belief on my part that with time and the free flow of information, the truth will sort itself out and the masses will follow. Just don't expect a watched [crack]pot to boil.
 
  • #11
I have engaged in many such arguments, probably due to my dogmatic, mainstream views. They usually call my bluff. I then admit their logic is irrefutable and move on. But, I am satisfied with having implanted a seed of doubt that will infect the body of their argument.
 
  • #12
Chronos said:
But, I am satisfied with having implanted a seed of doubt that will infect the body of their argument.

The same technique was used by Janeway to destroy the Borg.

I guess I had better add the ":biggrin:"
 
Last edited:
  • #13
an empty head is not really empty, it's stuffed full of rubbish.

if the post is an honest request for explanation of something i'll try

a discussion is an exchange of facts
but an argument is an exchange of ignorance where silence is golden.
 
  • #14
Ryan_m_b said:
I have a quibble with this; belief in pseudo-science and acceptance of science are generally not comparable. If the only reason someone accepts a pseudo-scientific proposal is that they think the burden of proof has been met then they can be corrected simply through educating them of the actual status of current evidence (this may be a challenge because of how educated they are in logic and epistimology). However the majority of the time in my experience people do not accept pseudo-science because they have seen and accept evidence but because there is some sort of emotional and ideological dimension. People accept things like healing crystals, psychic powers, alternate planes of existence etc because they have a religious belief in these things and then retrospectively tack any science they think supports it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say they've gone through the proper checks to convince themselves of their beliefs in the way that we do. I think most people have their own beliefs system that has its own way of distinguishing right and wrong. For a lot of people, they believe nothing except what their own eyes see and what they "feel" the right answer is. You can throw textbooks at them, lecture them for hours, bring up a dozen examples, but in the end they'll never be convinced unless they see it for themselves because that's how they convince themselves.

I actually think that's the big problem. It's impossible to convince people of something. People must convince themselves of things :)
 
  • #15
How about this one: Most people aren't geared to be scientists or engineers. In many cases, people simply choose to believe what makes them happy. In fact this probably applies to everyone to some extent. While it isn't appropriate to allow faith-based, unscientific, or pseudoscientific beliefs to be posted at a place like PF, perhaps fantasies are what allow people to function. What if, on the average, most people need fantasies? Perhaps this is simply human nature and a defense mechanism that is necessary for most people to cope with a hostile and confusing world?

What if by proving a person's beliefs to be wrong or fallacious, you are actually inflicting psychological damage? Do we know if this is possible?

I would bet that it is. That is to say, they will be less happy and it won't improve their life in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
How about this one: Most people aren't geared to be scientists or engineers. In many cases, people simply choose to believe what makes them happy. In fact this probably applies to everyone to some extent. While it isn't appropriate to allow faith-based, unscientific, or pseudoscientific beliefs to be posted at a place like PF, perhaps fantasies are what allow people to function. What if, on the average, most people need fantasies? Perhaps this is simply human nature and a defense mechanism that is necessary for most people to cope with a hostile and confusing world?

One of my students told me that learning about science is actually quite depressing. She said it took a lot of the mystery out of life and she said that in a kind of disappointing tone. I can imagine there exists a percentage of people who really do see the world as some sort of exciting fantasy full of mystery and that science is on par with world of elves of fairies. And why wouldn't they? For 18 years a child is bombarded with fantastic versions of reality on tv, books, and in theaters and is subsequently reinforced by parents whom, for the most part, don't think critically either. Why would they think science is the correct description of the world and not a single unicorn has ever existed... outside of special ranch that I am forbidden to speak of?

Part of me thinks its less of a coping mechanism and more of simple upbringing issue. Then again, science is all about right vs. wrong, fact vs. fiction. Can it be that people are scared of being wrong and, since science is all about finding out what is right and wrong, are they subsequently scared of science?

P.S. I eventually rekindled my students interest in string theory (she said she loved that kind of stuff) at the end so it wasn't a totally depressing conversation.
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
How about this one: Most people aren't geared to be scientists or engineers. In many cases, people simply choose to believe what makes them happy. In fact this probably applies to everyone to some extent. While it isn't appropriate to allow faith-based, unscientific, or pseudoscientific beliefs to be posted at a place like PF, perhaps fantasies are what allow people to function. What if, on the average, most people need fantasies? Perhaps this is simply human nature and a defense mechanism that is necessary for most people to cope with a hostile and confusing world?

What if by proving a person's beliefs to be wrong or fallacious, you are actually inflicting psychological damage? Do we know if this is possible?

I would bet that it is. That is to say, they will be less happy and it won't improve their life in the slightest.

Ivan Seeking, I have experienced exactly what you describe here...some folks are so comfortable with their "unscientific beliefs" that they do not want to hear from some scientist that they are mistaken. Yes, it is possible to inflict psychological damage to them (their egos) if their cherished beliefs are attacked. I have noticed this more than once. You are exactly right in saying they will be less happy and it would not improve their life at all, so in some cases rather than trying to debunk someone's mythical belief it is better to just remain silent

As for the OP: I use two guides to help me recognise crackpots:

THE TEN QUESTIONS TO DETECT BALONEY, BY MICHAEL SHERMER
HTTP://HOMEPAGES.WMICH.EDU/~KORISTA/BALONEY.HTML [Broken]


CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm


By the way, in these days of many different media newscasts, the above two sets of criteria help me sort out crackpot news from "more believable" news stories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Yes, it is possible to inflict psychological damage to them (their egos) if their cherished beliefs are attacked. I have noticed this more than once. You are exactly right in saying they will be less happy and it would not improve their life at all, so in some cases rather than trying to debunk someone's mythical belief it is better to just remain silent

But believing in wrong things can be harmful, for the person him/herself or others. Homeopathy is an obvious example, but even more harmless looking things as participating in the lottery: a lot of small bad choices (based on wrong conceptions or often even wrong chains of reasoning) can lead to a considerable harm in one's life.

Do others agree? And does it weigh into the consideration when deciding if to "convert" someone to reason?
 
  • #19
mr. vodka said:
But believing in wrong things can be harmful, for the person him/herself or others. Homeopathy is an obvious example, but even more harmless looking things as participating in the lottery: a lot of small bad choices (based on wrong conceptions or often even wrong chains of reasoning) can lead to a considerable harm in one's life.

Do others agree? And does it weigh into the consideration when deciding if to "convert" someone to reason?

There have been a few threads on the board that show how people can be physically and financially harmed by their ignorance. As an example you brought up, people spend roughly $300-$500 (depending on the source you look at) on lotteries per year. It's essentially an idiot-tax as people with lower education spend a higher portion of their income on them (an interview with TIME about a 2008 reported stated ~10% of their income: http://moneyland.time.com/2009/06/16/qa-with-the-lottery-wars-author-matthew-sweeney/ ). Even everyday things like getting your car maintained, spending money on electricity, buying new computers, can all result in people losing a lot of money because they can't critically think or are not knowledgeable about the world.

As George Costanza from Seinfeld put it in regards to mechanics: "Oh, of course their tryin' to screw ya. No one know what they're talkin' about! It's like, 'Oh, seems you need a new johnson rod.' 'Oh, a Johnson rod. Yeah, well, you better put one of those on!' "
 
  • #20
Mr. vodka and Pengwuino, thank you for your thoughtful comments and observations. I wrote in post #17 “in some cases rather than trying to debunk someone's mythical belief it is better to just remain silent.” Now you have raised doubts...maybe one should intervene if the other is engaging in harmful/unhealthful activities.

My neighbor is 72, lives on SS, drives a beater car loaded with defects, suffers from malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies, and has various medical problems. He watches a certain televangelist every day for hours and SENDS MONEY every month to “support the ministry”.

Now, it is clear that he would benefit if he would simply invest that donated money on some wholesome food. I have tried to convince him to stop donating his cash and instead come to the supermarket with me, where I would help him discover a more nutritional diet. He answers “But helping to spread the word of God is more important.”

Now I ask you, do you have any suggestions on how I might help him live a more healthy life? Does anyone think I should persist in trying to change his beliefs?
 
  • #21
Pengwuino said:
There have been a few threads on the board that show how people can be physically and financially harmed by their ignorance. As an example you brought up, people spend roughly $300-$500 (depending on the source you look at) on lotteries per year.

$300-$500 is good for about three trips to the therapist; not sure about how much prozac that would buy, but I doubt it would be good for more than a year.

That is a small price to pay for hope beyond hope, no matter how unreasonable. Beyond that, one cannot use inductive reasoning here. There is the implicit assumption that a few harmful beliefs prove that all irrational beliefs are bad.

I have seen people break down and weep while thanking John Edwards for bringing closure to their loss of a loved one. That is one example of how I could argue that crackpots can do a lot of good.
 
  • #22
This quote from the infamous Brookings Report comes to mind.

"Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different ways of life; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior
- pdf 243
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=19640053196&Ntx=mode matchallany
 
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
That is a small price to pay for hope beyond hope, no matter how unreasonable. Beyond that, one cannot use inductive reasoning here. There is the implicit assumption that a few harmful beliefs prove that all irrational beliefs are bad.

I have seen people break down and weep while thanking John Edwards for bringing closure to their loss of a loved one. That is one example of how I could argue that crackpots can do a lot of good.

Yes, I should say that not all irrational beliefs are bad. Some are benign (such as the belief that you should mow your lawn a Friday instead of Saturday because the Flying Spaghetti Monster said to), but the rest are basically hard to justify. While what this Edward guy does may seem great for the family, he perpetuates this paranormal world garbage keeps people thinking that logic, reason, and science are on the same level as ghosts and spirits. The vast majority of people don't tune in and go "well, this is all garbage, but I'm glad he's making them feel at peace", they go "wow, they're talking to the dead! (or whatever the hell he does on his show) I knew that could be done!".
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
Yes, I should say that not all irrational beliefs are bad. Some are benign (such as the belief that you should mow your lawn a Friday instead of Saturday because the Flying Spaghetti Monster said to), but the rest are basically hard to justify. While what this Edward guy does may seem great for the family, he perpetuates this paranormal world garbage keeps people thinking that logic, reason, and science are on the same level as ghosts and spirits. The vast majority of people don't tune in and go "well, this is all garbage, but I'm glad he's making them feel at peace", they go "wow, they're talking to the dead! (or whatever the hell he does on his show) I knew that could be done!".

So they think he talks with the dead. Why is that implicitly a bad thing? How does this somehow undermine science? How does belief in an afterlife defeat Newtonian or Quantum Mechanics? The last time I checked, all that science has to say is that there is no evidence for an afterlife. We can't even claim there isn't one - that would be unscientific and a statement of faith since we can never prove a universal negative.
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
So they think he talks with the dead. Why is that implicitly a bad thing? How does this somehow undermine science? How does belief in an afterlife defeat Newtonian or Quantum Mechanics? The last time I checked, all that science has to say is that there is no evidence for an afterlife. We can't even claim there isn't one - that would be unscientific and a statement of faith since we can never prove a universal negative.

That's not how people think though. Also, the idea that he can talk to the dead can easily be tested, even if one can't test for afterlife.
 
  • #26
Pengwuino said:
That's not how people think though.

What specifically is the damage?

Also, the idea that he can talk to the dead can easily be tested, even if one can't test for afterlife.

You can't really test this because he can change his story at any time. "Oh, that's not your mother? Okay, wrong person, I'm with someone over here..." That is how it's done.
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking said:
How about this one: Most people aren't geared to be scientists or engineers. In many cases, people simply choose to believe what makes them happy. In fact this probably applies to everyone to some extent. While it isn't appropriate to allow faith-based, unscientific, or pseudoscientific beliefs to be posted at a place like PF, perhaps fantasies are what allow people to function. What if, on the average, most people need fantasies? Perhaps this is simply human nature and a defense mechanism that is necessary for most people to cope with a hostile and confusing world?

What if by proving a person's beliefs to be wrong or fallacious, you are actually inflicting psychological damage? Do we know if this is possible?

I would bet that it is. That is to say, they will be less happy and it won't improve their life in the slightest.

I think there is a very good chance of inflicting some form of psychological damage from destroying a persons fantasies.

My story here reflects this situation very well. I came here to the forum so that I could find more information on debunking Richard C. Hoagland. You see, I was an avid Coast to Coast AM listener and was fascinated by many of the different topics that they touch upon in that show. (Un)Fortunately, I have a bit of built-in-logic that I couldn't control, and it forced me to verify what these crackpots were talking about. Richard C. Being the first of many. (I couldn't stand his "Hyper-Dimensional Physics garbage, even though I knew nothing about it)

So the crackpots drove me here seeking verification, or the real truth. Well, it's obvious what I found here. Luckily I didn't have to post anything as it had all been covered in previous posts that I could search for, but it did have quite an effect on me. My worldview began to change because of people on this forum (most notably Ivan), and I found myself on a path that I never expected. I am currently receiving an education to eventually become a Mechanical Engineer, even though I am almost 34, and I no longer listen to Coast to Coast AM.

However, with all that being said, I don't really know if I am "Happier." I am happy that I am no longer a sucker for much of that hype, but there are certain beliefs that have been destroyed; and it helps me to understand why other people can't seem to let go of their own crackpottery.

It really comes down to having a purpose in this world. These people with their crackpot notions believe so strongly in things, and they believe in them because it is bigger then themselves. They NEED to have meaning in life. They NEED to have purpose and direction. Even if the direction is a doomsday 2012, it means that there is a higher power planning these things, and with a higher power an afterlife.

So am I happier? Well, I no longer listen to Coast, but I am also now a complete atheist. I don't believe in any destiny, purpose, or meaning. I work hard to make my life the way I wish it to be, but I don't delude myself that it means anything once I am gone.

So yeah, I get where they are coming from.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
You can't really test this because he can change his story at any time. "Oh, that's not your mother? Okay, wrong person, I'm with someone over here..." That is how it's done.

Then clearly he's wrong or is providing no evidence that he is right. You can play that trick with science and it doesn't work either. If I were to say I have a new modification to Newtonian gravity that says there's a new planet orbiting the Sun at some radius and astronomers look at the orbit to no avail, I can't just say "wait no no, it's at this other radius" again and again.

Ivan Seeking said:
What specifically is the damage?

A belief in irrational things like ghosts, spirits, unicorns, and a state lottery that will send my children to college if I just give it 10% of my income every year.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
What specifically is the damage?
Pengwuino said:
A belief in irrational things like ghosts, spirits, unicorns, and a state lottery that will send my children to college if I just give it 10% of my income every year.

So specifically, what is the damage? Other than false notions.
 
  • #30
MacLaddy said:
So specifically, what is the damage? Other than false notions.

I'm not sure how handing over 10% of sorely needed income is not considered a damage.
 
  • #31
Pengwuino said:
I'm not sure how handing over 10% of sorely needed income is not considered a damage.

And of course, were it not for the lottery or John Edward tickets, everyone would spend their money wisely.
 
  • #32
MacLaddy, thanks for your comment, I think. :uhh: I am glad to hear that your life has generally taken a positive turn [at least, professionally].

I understand your comments completely. In fact, because I was raised with religion, I have seen many people struggle with the need to believe, and the need to be logical. Obviously this would include me. But by no means is this limited to people raised with faith. I knew one engineer who was tied in knots because there was no way to prove God does or doesn't exist. Basically he couldn't be happy unless he knew for certain. And of course, it's hopeless.

In the end, I have seen nothing suggesting that I should allow my personal beliefs to be limited to scientific proofs. By it's very nature, science is limiting. And there are questions that it can never address [esp not in my lifetime]. I don't have a problem accepting that science works, but there still could be more. In this case, hope beyond hope, is free. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #33
bigfooted said:
Hi!

I was on a forum recently where I saw a typical message from what some people would call a crackpot.
These people are usually easy to identify:

  • The message is full of spelling errors.
  • The message usually starts with the claim that a great discovery was being made.
  • They never use math beyond high-school mathematics.
  • They address people like Einstein as Dr. Einstein.
  • They respond very aggressively to friendly but skeptical replies.
  • They never use standard mathematical notation.

Although my first impulse is to try to help these people, I usually find that they are beyond help. The discussion becomes grim very fast, most of the arguments are ad hominem ("You do not accept my new theory because you belong to the establishment") and I always hope the topic dies before it reaches Godwin's law.

My question to you: what would you do? Try to help them? Ignore them from the start? When is enough enough for you?

Good point. I have had a sheer uncountable number of such discussions on other forums, many of which readily allow "crackpots" as described above to proliferate their ideas freely. Some of these "posting wars" were actually physically and mentally exhausting, and the outcome usually was that no party was any the wiser or more educated afterwards.
In my mind the best thing to do is calmly present your evidence, give links to appropriate articles ( Wikipedia is invaluable for this ), and see what happens. Usually you can tell pretty quickly if someone is genuinely interested in learning something, or if he/she just wants to proliferate his own ideas in public - and defend them to the death. If I come across the latter I usually just say outright that I don't believe this discussion will lead anywhere, and then abandon the thread, even though that isn't always easy.
Anyway, if you argue too much with a fool, you might end up looking like a fool yourself, so often it is best ( after presenting your own evidence of course ) to just leave them to their delusions and move on.
 
  • #34
I've only flicked through so forgive me if this has already been mentioned but regarding whether or not people are psychologically harmed by someone challenging their beliefs vs. harmed by stupid beliefs: if someone has a pseudo-scientific/ignorant belief it affects all of us. People arent islands, a person who believes in homeopathy is likely to spend money on it (enlarging the industry), are likely to suggest it to others and may vote for politicians on the basis of how the candidates treat homeopathy. It's all fun and games until a group of people with stupid beliefs vote in a politician that promises to divert government funding towards their stupid idea. Keeping with homeopathy the NHS spends millions a year on it just because enough people in positions of power either believe in it or see it as a vote winner; this damages society as a whole.
 
  • #35
MacLaddy said:
So specifically, what is the damage? Other than false notions.
Then one could say what's the harm with psychic healing. Where do you draw the line when it comes to believing in nonsense?

If a person believes that death is just the door to a better, happier life, then why take precautions to stay in this one? And I've never heard a single person that "talks to the dead" report that Aunt Martha is in hell, or that their loved ones are in agony. They're always happier now and in a better place.
 
<h2>1. How do you identify a crackpot?</h2><p>Crackpots often have unconventional or extreme ideas that are not supported by evidence or scientific principles. They may also have a tendency to dismiss established scientific theories and research.</p><h2>2. How do you handle interactions with crackpots?</h2><p>It is important to remain respectful and professional when interacting with crackpots. This includes actively listening to their ideas and explaining why their ideas may not align with scientific principles.</p><h2>3. How do you respond to crackpots who are persistent or aggressive?</h2><p>If a crackpot becomes overly persistent or aggressive, it is important to set boundaries and maintain a calm and professional demeanor. It may also be necessary to end the interaction if it becomes hostile or unproductive.</p><h2>4. Should you engage with crackpots in debates or arguments?</h2><p>Engaging in debates or arguments with crackpots is generally not productive or beneficial. It can often lead to a waste of time and energy, as crackpots are unlikely to change their beliefs or opinions.</p><h2>5. How do you educate the public about crackpots and their ideas?</h2><p>One way to educate the public about crackpots and their ideas is to provide clear and evidence-based explanations of scientific principles and theories. It is also important to emphasize the importance of critical thinking and evaluating information from reliable sources.</p>

1. How do you identify a crackpot?

Crackpots often have unconventional or extreme ideas that are not supported by evidence or scientific principles. They may also have a tendency to dismiss established scientific theories and research.

2. How do you handle interactions with crackpots?

It is important to remain respectful and professional when interacting with crackpots. This includes actively listening to their ideas and explaining why their ideas may not align with scientific principles.

3. How do you respond to crackpots who are persistent or aggressive?

If a crackpot becomes overly persistent or aggressive, it is important to set boundaries and maintain a calm and professional demeanor. It may also be necessary to end the interaction if it becomes hostile or unproductive.

4. Should you engage with crackpots in debates or arguments?

Engaging in debates or arguments with crackpots is generally not productive or beneficial. It can often lead to a waste of time and energy, as crackpots are unlikely to change their beliefs or opinions.

5. How do you educate the public about crackpots and their ideas?

One way to educate the public about crackpots and their ideas is to provide clear and evidence-based explanations of scientific principles and theories. It is also important to emphasize the importance of critical thinking and evaluating information from reliable sources.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
940
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
453
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
164
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
835
Replies
3
Views
563
Replies
5
Views
840
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
3K
Back
Top