Why does Physics attract crackpots?

[DrummingAtom]

Or maybe Science in general? I will casually watch some Youtube videos on some Physics topics and the comments just amaze me. Everyone has their own theory on that topic, whether it makes sense or not.

 

[BobG]

Or maybe Science in general? I will casually watch some Youtube videos on some Physics topics and the comments just amaze me. Everyone has their own theory on that topic, whether it makes sense or not.

Physics should be an exception?

You find people offering half-baked opinions on just about every subject. Legal issues, tax issues (why income tax is unconstitutional, for example), pyschology, religion. You name it, someone will toss in their opinion whether they're qualified or not.

Mmmmm, but I have to admit, I don't really have any qualifications in sociology or psychology, so this post is kind of an uneducated guess.

 

[donotremember]

My guess is that they are mainly trying to emulate the eccentric genius archetype but without all the required information, giving rise to a lot of half-baked ideas full of logical holes.

Edit:

As the guy above me posted, you do see crackpots everywhere. I've come to the conclusion that if you define insanity as the inability to correctly perceive reality, then a very significant percentage (if not all) of the human race is insane, but to varying degrees.

The only thing you can do is make yourself aware of these biases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

[jobyts]

I think Mathematics is the only field of study that is immune to attacks. Why? may be because mathematics works only on absolute proofs.

I think Biology and cosmology are the worst affected ones.

 

[Astronuc]

Some people are attracted to notoriety, and certainly the media loves to promote the flamboyant and ostentatious - look at the magazines like US and People, and the tabloid press.

Most professionals I know work quietly and persistently out of the spotlight.

 

[rootX]

Why does pure substances attract impurities?

So that we can make distinction.

 

[BobG]

I think Mathematics is the only field of study that is immune to attacks. Why? may be because mathematics works only on absolute proofs.

I think it's because so many people are scared to death of math - especially most of your physics crackpots.

 

[donotremember]

I think this woman is onto something about the metallic oxide salts in our water supply.
w3qFdbUEq5s[/youtube]

 

[Dadface]

I don't think it was metallic oxides I think it was the rainbow fairies being mischievous again.I heard the sirens so the police were on their way to arrest them.

 

[DrummingAtom]

Hahaha. Thanks for that video.

 

[matthyaouw]

Maybe it's got something to do with how easy concepts are to grasp, test and disprove. Once someone with no physics background has a rediculous physics-related idea, it'll take some time before they could even begin to understand what's wrong with it. A similarly rediculous idea in a field such as cookery and they'd most likely have the sh**s for a week and never try anything so stupid again.

 

[donotremember]

I don't think it was metallic oxides I think it was the rainbow fairies being mischievous again.I heard the sirens so the police were on their way to arrest them.

They were most likely sent by the Illuminati using HAARP to use the secret alien time travel devices hidden in our minds to go back and conceal evidence of the 9/11 cover-up so oil companies can keep hiding their over unity devices from us and control the Astral plane.

 

[Focus]

I think Mathematics is the only field of study that is immune to attacks. Why? may be because mathematics works only on absolute proofs.

I think Biology and cosmology are the worst affected ones.

I think it's because so many people are scared to death of math - especially most of your physics crackpots.

That is why I love mathematics.

I think physics attracts crackpots because quantum mechanics has become a global phenomena. Everyone "knows" it and everyone thinks they can come up with some nutjob theory that will be accepted.

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

I work for a guy who reads the Introductory sections of textbooks and never reads any furthur and then claims to be an expert because he can regurgitate the introductory information. Drives me nuts.

 

[Phrak]

Why does Physics attract crackpots?

I don't know about the rest, but I'm here for the open snack bar.

 

[LowlyPion]

Or maybe Science in general? I will casually watch some Youtube videos on some Physics topics and the comments just amaze me. Everyone has their own theory on that topic, whether it makes sense or not.

Maybe it's not physics that is the attraction to crackpots?

Maybe it's ignorance that tends to have an affinity for crackpots, and physics just offers a richer opportunity for expression of ignorance, because it reaches into so many areas of experience? More nests for them to hatch from so to speak.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it's because so many people are scared to death of math - especially most of your physics crackpots.

Getting a headstart on the funniest PF member this year.

 

[ZapperZ]

There's another aspect to this, and as someone who has been on the internet since 1987 (oy vey, I just dated myself) and saw the garbage that got posted on Usenet, I've seen my share of crackpottery. I think that it is easier to spot a crackpot in science, and in physics/chemistry/math in particular. Most of the time, these crackpot use rather strange notation and language, they mix and match terms but in very weird form, and they often make simple, basic mistakes. So for many of us who know the field, and even for many students who have had elementary introduction to physics, we can spot them from a mile away.

It is more difficult to spot crackpots in other fields, such as politics, economics, social sciences, etc. I would classify Rush Limbaugh as a crackpot, because he has spewed a lot of misinformation based on very little knowledge of what he's talking about. That essentially is a general definition of a crackpot. Yet, no one calls it that, and no one realizes that. The nature of the subject matter that he deals with prevents the obvious and direct check of what he's talking about, and many of these are based simply on a matter of opinion, regardless on whether that opinion is valid or not, or based on valid information. He doesn't publish in academic journals and may, in fact, show a distaste for such a thing (another typical crackpot characteristics).

So yes, other fields are inundated by crackpots as well. It is just that they can be spotted very clearly in physics, whereas in other areas, they become TV personalities.

Zz.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think Mathematics is the only field of study that is immune to attacks. Why? may be because mathematics works only on absolute proofs.

Sadly no, there's a cottage industry in trisecting the general angle. And proving the 5th postulate.

 

[waht]

Crack-pottery has more to do with a belief system than critical thinking. I know some exceptionally smart people that succumb to this flaw. They would pounce on you with an utter disgust, and demand their right to free opinion. So be it.

Belief is so strong in something that it tends to filter out any external stimuli that would contradict it, and if necessary, compels the individual to seek out what's supporting it.

Millions of years of human evolution does not guarantee that beliefs are to be rational. In many cases they are irrational states of the mind.

 

[lubuntu]

Science attracts crackpots because of how scientifically illiterate the majority of the population is. It's easy for somehow to fool people if those people don't have any basis in what is actually known on a subject. We need better science education for everyone , regardless of there career path.

 

[Focus]

Science attracts crackpots because of how scientifically illiterate the majority of the population is. It's easy for somehow to fool people if those people don't have any basis in what is actually known on a subject. We need better science education for everyone , regardless of there career path.

You seem a bit too optimistic, remember that about 50% of the people are below the average IQ. A lot of people don't care about science, because they will never use it. I expect a lot of people here will find it shocking but most people here are curious, not just in their field but in other subjects too (which makes you guys much more interesting to talk to). I have met a dozen of people who just don't care about even the basics of science or maths.

P.S. I am not lonely, I promise...

 

[lubuntu]

Focus, we can only speculate but is that disinterest in science because of how they were exposed to it, perhaps even a general failure of the education system, or is it a product of most humans just not being as naturally curious as is often times assumed?

I don't interest in learning about science necessarily has to have any correlation with IQ.

Which ever is the actual case: that A) Most people don't care about examining the truth of the universe the live in(science) or B) Education doesn't provided an appropriate introduction to being scientifically minded. I think we can say that susceptibility to "crackpottery" directly follows from that.

 

[Unknot]

Sadly no, there's a cottage industry in trisecting the general angle. And proving the 5th postulate.

Underwood Dudley has some good books (I think three of them) on math crackpots. I met few crackpots so far, and it is usually me who suffer. There are crackpots with strange logical system so that we are unable to convince them what they are saying isn't true. There are crackpots that have knowledge to impress the majority of laymen but still have fatal flaw. These people usually tend to work very hard (albeit with knowledge comparable to a third year undergraduate) to prove something.

So there are three kinds. First kind - ones who try to prove something already known to be impossible (trisecting, contradiction to incompleteness theorem) . Second kind - ones who try to prove something that hasn't been proven yet (Riemann, Goldbach). Third kind - ones who try to find some ridiculously simple proof for result already established (Fermat, Four Colour).

Some physicists tend to think math is more "immune" to crackpots, this isn't true. Even with the first kind, it is impossible to prove people wrong, because people who judge whether it is right or wrong - usually don't know. And those of us who know already don't need to be told.

I am familiar with one country where a crackpot professor (YES, PhD with tenure) came on TV to say that he has proven P/NP to be false and to say that this validates existence of ghosts. (really!) Article about him appears on newspaper roughly every year, whenever he feels he's ready to talk to some reporters. And reporters think their country has finally found a brilliant mathematician. And some actually treat this seriously. So far I haven't seen some report disputing this.

In the same country, there's a famous crackpot who owns like 30 websites. He spends his day googling his name and when his name pops up he will post in that website, send e-mails, or whatever. He says that Wiles's proof of Fermat is worthless, because he proved it in 30 lines using middle school mathematics. And he will work for hours so that he can post it in every website possible. (He also has much easier proof of four colour theorem) I got to talk to him, and he said he submitted his article on four colour to Elsevier. I told him that's not a journal but a company. He didn't know the difference. He also submitted that Fermat paper (?) to journal owned by the country's mathematical society. The society, of course, without going to a referee rejected the paper. Then he stood in front of the office with pickets, protesting. And he has posted legal threats and whatsoever on various websites. Many mathematicians (not two or five, but hundreds) in this country tried to meet him in person and explain or e-mail him, but they all have failed. Next time when the society received his paper (the same paper), they forwarded it to a referee, apparently. I don't know what happened after that.

 

[Focus]

I agree with you there but A) I feel is a more common case. People like ignorance, because truth is sometimes not very pleasant.

The IQ thing was my little joke. I like stating the obvious (given you take the median to be the average).

 

[lubuntu]

Yeah, it should also be noted that the media, who is typically entirely ignorant of science do much to propagate this sort of "magical thinking"

 

[Focus]

Unknot would you care to share some links?

 

[Unknot]

Unknot would you care to share some links?

Oh, sorry. Here's a link to his Fermat proof.

[removed]

About the tenured professor with P/NP claim:

[removed]

There's a link to a newsgroup with discussion.

 

[jreelawg]

Most geniuses have a little crackpot in them. Einstein, working so hard at a unified field theory, much of his work was crackpot. Tesla, same thing one of the biggest contributers to the field of physics, but also had ideas and claims that are considered crackpot.

 

[Dadface]

Most geniuses have a little crackpot in them. Einstein, working so hard at a unified field theory, much of his work was crackpot. Tesla, same thing one of the biggest contributers to the field of physics, but also had ideas and claims that are considered crackpot.

Wow since I've got a lot of crackpot in me(and I mean totally cracked demented nonsensical crackpottery)Then I must be a big genius.Thank you jreelawg this halfwit is now off to celebrate.

 

[Focus]

Oh, sorry. Here's a link to his Fermat proof.

[removed]

About the tenured professor with P/NP claim:

[removed]

There's a link to a newsgroup with discussion.

Incredible. Luckily these people can't spread their ideas as easily as physicists can. Not many have heard of the P vs NP (nor will understand it). I couldn't find the P vs NP and the Fermat proof I really couldn't read, its all in HTML (makes my eyes burn). So they may be right, you never know...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have always found the application of the word crackpot [on the internet] to be far too broad. Being wrong doesn't make someone a crackpot. Einstein wasn't a crackpot, but he wasn't right about everything either.

crackpot
informal

• noun an eccentric or foolish person.

• adjective eccentric; impractical.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/crackpot?view=uk

If we accept eccentric as a synonym, then most physicists are crackpots, which makes no sense if we wish to distinguish between crackpots and credible scientists. Impractical or foolish is probably is closer to the mark. But given the nature of GR and QM, what is impractical or foolish becomes a bit more difficult to identify. For me a crackpot is someone who either makes unjustified leaps of logic or draws conclusions that lack any logic whatsoever, not someone who pursues a particular line of thinking that fails.

Either you are right or you're a crackpot? I don't think so.

 

[jreelawg]

Wow since I've got a lot of crackpot in me(and I mean totally cracked demented nonsensical crackpottery)Then I must be a big genius.Thank you jreelawg this halfwit is now off to celebrate.

Maybe I am stretching the def. of crackpot a little. There are those physicists who just learn what others have discovered, and there are those who make new discoveries. I think the ones who usually make new discoveries require more imagination, and some of them get a little too imaginative. But, for some, their imagination leads them to success, and to some, it leads them to failure and shame. Of coarse you also have a lot of want to be creative geniuses who will tread on imaginary waters where there is little to no hope of discovery. But, no one wants to be a failure and so most people in imaginary land will defend their views even when wrong. This goes for both bright physicists and acid brain dimwits.

 

[Unknot]

If we accept eccentric as a synonym, then most physicists are crackpots, which makes no sense if we wish to distinguish between crackpots and credible scientists. Impractical or foolish is probably is closer to the mark. But given the nature of GR and QM, what is impractical or foolish becomes a bit more difficult to identify. For me a crackpot is someone who makes unjustified leaps of logic, or who arrives at conclusions that lack any logic whatsoever, not someone who pursues a particular line of thinking that fails.

I don't even go that far. Unjustified leaps of logic are fine for me. To me, crackpot is someone who goes through unjustified leaps of logic to a conclusion which they just won't let go even though shown otherwise. If the person also feels that he/she has made an important discovery that scientists can't understand / refuse to accept, it's a bonus.

 

[ZapperZ]

Unknot would you care to share some links?

Oh, sorry. Here's a link to his Fermat proof.

[removed]

About the tenured professor with P/NP claim:
[removed]

There's a link to a newsgroup with discussion.

May I remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374":

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, and, if appropriate, an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

We do not intend to give any crackpottery or their webpages any free advertising.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Most revolutionary scientists were labeled crackpots at the time.

Care to give some examples? Since you said "most", you shouldn't have a problem coming up with 5 or 10.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Einstein, working so hard at a unified field theory, much of his work was crackpot.

In what way? Sure, he was largely unsuccessful. But he knew he was unsuccessful. The crackpot is unsuccessful but thinks he has succeeded.

 

[jreelawg]

In what way? Sure, he was largely unsuccessful. But he knew he was unsuccessful. The crackpot is unsuccessful but thinks he has succeeded.

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

 

[ZapperZ]

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

That isn't true! Read the EPR paper, for example.

He completely acknowledged that QM is correct. He just didn't think that it was complete and that it is missing something.

Zz.

 

[Unknot]

May I remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374":
We do not intend to give any crackpottery or their webpages any free advertising.

Zz.

Um, sorry Zz, but I didn't think linking to sites *discussing* these opinions might be wrong, because it doesn't seem so different from what we are doing here. For example, on the first site you have to click a link within that site to see the proof. For the second site, there is just people talking about the phenomenon.

 

[Focus]

May I remind you of the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374":



We do not intend to give any crackpottery or their webpages any free advertising.

Zz.

My apologies too, I didn't think unvalidated mathematical papers would be considered crackpot. I don't think that they would, as the first link is a proof of Fermat's last theorem that has a gap, second is discussion about what seems like a reasonable paper which possibly draws a bad conclusion. Apologies to Unknot as well.

 

[lubuntu]

I would define a crackpot as someone who makes scientific claims using unscientific methods to arrive at those claims. Going against popular opinion is vastly different than crackpottery.

 

[confinement]

I don't really care about elementary crackpots, what I don't like are all the books that get published and placed in the library which contain false, crackpotty claims. For example, 10 year old books containing discussions based on "recent evidence in string theory / LQG " that never panned out. A quite enjoy Penrose's "Road to Reality" by it is just on the borderline with its speculative ideas, while many other less high profile books which discuss physics at a technical but prose based level contain dangerously speculative remarks (random example: An Introduction to Realistic Quantum Physics by Giuliano Preparata).

 

[lubuntu]

Interesting point confinement, and sadly what little your average person does know about physics tends to be entirely speculative stuff not based on evidence. An awful example of this is Michio Kaku.

 

[Unknot]

That is far more dangerous, and it's even harder for the public to spot the difference. Like how majority of Japanese believe that ABO bloodtype has something to do with one's personality after one author borrowed that idea from Nazis. It's not just urban legend, but there are many books that have references and everything. Of course, they quote each other and nothing else.

 

[Dadface]

Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that it is easier to spot a crackpot in science, and in physics/chemistry/math in particular...

...It is more difficult to spot crackpots in other fields, such as politics, economics, social sciences, etc...

I believe you have hit the nail on the head, here. Political crackpots are always exceptionally abundant but it is so much harder to demonstrate a given political opinion or utterance might be sheer lunacy.

 

[Focus]

Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

I was thinking the exact same thing wow...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why is this thread attracting crackpots?

I was thinking the exact same thing wow...

The problem is obviously lack of a rigorous definition.

Here's one:

an electric cooking pot with a tight-fitting lid for cooking meats, casseroles, etc., for several hours at relatively low temperatures, usually around 200° F (93.3° C).

 

[Vanadium 50]

He ignored discoveries and advancements in QM because he didn't want to believe it, it didn't fit with his views and ideas.

Apart from Zz comments, Einstein was also extraordinarily active in applying quantum mechanics to new and different situations. (You might want to see what he got his Nobel prize for before dismissing his work on QM as "crackpot")