Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[chroot]

99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox." The crackpots can't really tell the two apart, though, so pretty much all TD threads end up the same way. We're not going to do such a thing.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

I found http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.

 

[Garth]

And of course this one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Garth

 

[russ_watters]

I found http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.

Great article, Tom. I especially like this quote:

People who do things badly, according to David A. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.

 

[Dagenais]

Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.

Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?

 

[quantumdude]

Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?

In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.

The why is there actually a 'Theroy Development' still in PF?

Surely if this is causing more problems, then unless there is some ulteria motive behind keeping it within the PF website,( to generate some conceptual ideas that are clearly not forthcoming by mentors and advisors), then the simplistic answer to all the Mentor, Admin, Advisory headaches is to Completely remove the TD forum, and all the archive material.

This would free up some bandwith for general chit-chat, actually I can see the future where most of Greg's activity is contained with childish polls, I am being honest here, and if anyone thinks I am being deliberate or vindictave just look at the last 6 month s traffic volume, and be really honest if you think that the PF site is evolving into more of a 'CHAT' website?

There are problems with TD, I know I caused many of the Forums admin, Advisors to really look at what I posted, but nevertheless I see this as an intellectual challenge that most administrators failed to counter, this is not saying that I am more intellectual advanced, but the feedback from advisors who never placed counter-advise, but just closed threads based on 'what they felt', their 'feelings' conspired to defeat them!

Sorry..but it needs to be said, get rid of TD completely, and delete the archives!

 

[Chronos]

Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."

This is why all the PF admin-mentors-advisors should really take a vote amongst themselves to completely remove the TD (Trash Development seems to be the major consensus opinions?).

Why are none of the Advisors suggesting this option, at least this will hopefully stop the moanings, and let them get on with the Physic groanings.

 

[chroot]

It'll never stop the moaning. The majority of TD worthy threads have always been posted outside TD, and then moved into TD by an administrator. You have to understand that part of the pscyhology of crackpots is that they really feel they are doing all of us a favor by posting their half-baked nonsense. They aren't competent enough to realize their own incompetence. Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.

- Warren

 

[enigma]

Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.

And they'll never stop complaining when we won't allow them to...

How many "What's with the censorship?" threads have we had since we instituted the 'no nonsense' policy? A dozen? Two?

 

[marlon]

I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...

keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...

regards
marlon

 

[pelastration]

I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...

keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...

regards
marlon

Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.

 

[marlon]

Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.

stringtheory is speculative to some extent, yet is no simple pet theory. Why ? Well, because the well established results of QM and GTR must follow out of string theory in the correct physical regimes just like Newtonian mechanics need to follow out of QM in the right (ie classical) regime. Your reasoning is therefore incorrect and if I were to follow it, QM is just mere scam to you... Ofcourse you do not mean this. philisophy is not the same thing is real exact science like physics or mathematics...i know it, you know it and we all know it...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

As an addendum : indeed every thread on God should be deleted and every thread on religion too. I think the attitude of the PF administrators towards such post is the correct one. Time traveling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact. It only needs to stressed out that we need to look at such non-causal results with the right attitude and place them in the right context, which you obviously do not do...

marlon

 

[Garth]

Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?

Garth

 

[marlon]

Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?

Garth

I see your point but i think we both know that this GOD-concept is not really essential to the formulation and construction of physics, right ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

But i was primarily referring to GOD in a religious way...
marlon

 

[pelastration]

Time traveling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact.

If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time traveling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.

 

[marlon]

If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time traveling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.

Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...

Keep in mind that postulating nonsense is NOT equal to being creative

marlon

 

[pelastration]

Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...

Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.

If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.

 

[marlon]

Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.

If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.

Though all you state is very true, i am asking you politely to see my point here. All i am saying is that well estabished theoretical models may "predict" non-causal results or non-physical degrees of freedom, nevertheless the MODEL itself still contains those very well predicted (real) experimental results. All those pet-theories in TD did not. Secondly, i want to stress the fact that i have no objection what so ever against nem develpments in theories or even corrections to certain models. yet it needs to be said that those new data will not appear in TD because most of the people there did not make a well considered and tactical suggestion for changing a model. They just make a suggestion. If you ask them why they can give you a reason, but the problem is that this reason is most of the times false. I mean, this reason contains facts and assumptions that are based upon mis-interpretations of the already existing model. That is my point

marlon

 

[marlon]

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.

This is a false statement though. In General Relativity for example time and position-coordinates can be interchanged when the curvature of spacetime is "very strong", like in the event horizon of a black hole. Basically this means that you cannot stop the movement of an object towards the singularity once it is inside the event horizon or once it crossed the Schwarzschild Radius (i am referring to non-rotating black holes so we don't need to mention the socalled ergosphere). Because time and position are interchanged and because you cannot say "i am going to stop time from evolving into next friday", you cannot stop the object's movement inside the event horizon. Time reversal here means that objects in the event horizon will be pushed out of this sphere, yielding the socalled white hole or "vomiting star". Don't take the time-coordinate too literally in GTR.

marlon

 

[chroot]

Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.

The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.

- Warren

 

[Zeteg]

Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.

Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it let's others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.

 

[Integral]

Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.

Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it let's others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.

Why can't the same things be accomplished while discussing valid physics?

 

[marlon]

Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.

The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.

- Warren

amen to that...

marlon

 

[CrankFan]

If someone gets cranky in this thread is he a metacrank?

 

[Andre]

Well, I know, it's probably all about the urge of being recognized and admired as a "smart cooky" and perhaps succeed explaining some enigmatic things with a wild imagination..

I'm guilty myself for starting a thread in TD as well as to a wild imagination, but I was assuming that the forums was about the same as what the title said, namely about posting ideas or hypotheses that can be substantiated or falsified during the discussion, being unaware of the fully automatic crackpot label. Talking about the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974&page=1.

Apparantly it's no good since:

99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox."

(I wonder about the missing 0.09%)

But the publication is about finished after implementing a few more references like this, as evidence exhibit nr 114 on the ref list using:

Buckling cannot explain the observed wavelength. Cracking, which was originally proposed to explain the spacing of plain lineations [8] and the localization instability have predicted wavelengths of order of H. Hence, the implied BDT is shallower than expected for a dry rheology with the current surface temperature. The very short instability wavelength is possible if the surface temperature was high at the time of formation on these features. However, crustal melting is a concern for geotherms higher than 10 K km-1.

Crustal melting is not a concern. It just happened if my idea was right. Anyway I'm happy that my thread is not closed.

 

[chroot]

Andre,

Your Venus theory is one of the very few posted to TD which seems to follow the scientific method. I applaud you for setting a good example, personally. We don't plan on closing your thread.

- Warren

 

[Bystander]

Side note on Venus and Andre: haven't looked at it --- up until the last two posts in this thread, I've assumed Venus and Andre made it to TD on "merit." Maybe I'll take a peek now. Sorry, Andre --- you stepped into the La Brea (TD) tarpit in all innocence --- I've avoided interaction with you in Earth Science as a result. I'll put Venus on the list of "things to do."

Chroot, TD was doing far more damage to PF than just the cosmetic --- it definitely corrupted/colored perceptions of members who never got involved in the "pi" thread by those members who do remember those days.

 

[Andre]

Good idea, Bystander. You may find it entertaining.

Thanks Warren, would it be an idea to move the thread to a more suitable area?

 

[CrankFan]

Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).

I guess if you can stay on top of the crank moderation for the entire site then it's not an issue -- but if it becomes problematic in the ordinary groups then it might be good to have a group, like TD, which functions as an outlet for that kind of thing.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).

No it won't, because they'll just post their quackeries on the Kaku forum. It seems that anything and everything goes in that place!

Zz.

 

[elas]

Most members fail to appreciate the value of (often sarcastic) comments on the old TD forum. If you eliminate all that is wrong with a theory, what is left (if anything) must be right.
On this basis I have reduced my much maligned proposal to an absolute minimum that is now being rewritten. Surprisingly the many acidic comments from PF members were of more help than the one or two favorable comments from highly qualified non-members; they indicated clearly where improvements were needed.
I regret that the new style forums will not allow a continuation of the debate, when the current rewrite is completed.
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF