Are All Cranks Male? | Unification Theories

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception of gender in relation to individuals who propose personal unification theories in physics, with a focus on whether all such individuals are male. Participants explore the presence of female "cranks" in the context of physics and mysticism, and the societal implications of these views.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants remark on the observation that most individuals claiming personal unification theories are male, questioning the absence of female counterparts.
  • Others suggest that women may be less likely to present themselves as "cranks" due to societal pressures and changing dynamics in fields like theoretical physics.
  • Several participants propose that while there are female "cranks," they may be more inclined towards mysticism rather than physics, with references to astrology and paranormal beliefs.
  • Discussion includes humorous and anecdotal remarks about gender stereotypes related to belief in mysticism and science.
  • Some participants reference historical figures and their controversial views, questioning whether such perspectives should be classified as pseudoscience or crackpottery.
  • There are mentions of past experiences with female individuals banned from forums for their unconventional theories, leading to reflections on moderation and community standards.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether all cranks are male or the nature of female involvement in similar theories. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on gender and belief in science versus mysticism.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of defining "crank" theories and the influence of societal norms on gender representation in scientific discourse. The discussion touches on the blurred lines between pseudoscience and accepted scientific discourse.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I just made a curious remark: All people who believe they have personal unification theories and so on, are male. Is there not female cranks at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wow. I've never even noticed that, and I'm a woman!
 
most women don't want to 'make a mark' as an odd duck, or take the chance of being disliked----but things have changed---the more women get degrees in odd things like theoretical physics--there'll be more cranky women--

what about Lisa Randall? (I guess only if you consider 'string theory' as a crank theory though)
 
Oh, there are a few cranky females. In more ways than one.
I tried explaining my interest in astronomy to my girlfriend and she told me she was a Gemini. Is astrology a crank theory?
 
tribdog said:
Oh, there are a few cranky females. In more ways than one.
I tried explaining my interest in astronomy to my girlfriend and she told me she was a Gemini. Is astrology a crank theory?

Yes, but with a scent of patchouli.
 
Oh yeah, there is lot of women interested in astrology and paranormal phenomena... I was thinking about more like these personal physics theories. It depends little on what we mean by "a crank".
 
I think there are plenty of female cranks out there. They are just more invested in mysticism rather than cranky physics.
 
"HEY! Whats your Sign?" asked the blond girl wearing a tank top and really tight jeans.
 
most women I know want to believe in the 'magic' of ...!

I think its part of the 'shiny knight'/'happily ever after' / 'if only...' syndrome
 
Last edited:
  • #10
rewebster said:
most women I know want to believe in the 'magic' of ...!

I think its part of the 'shiny knight'/'happily ever after' / 'if only...' syndrome

I wouldn't say they believe in it, they wish it was true. but with comments like that you've shown why they don't believe in it.
 
  • #11
Math Is Hard said:
I think there are plenty of female cranks out there. They are just more invested in mysticism rather than cranky physics.

With the few intellectual females that I've known (in person), most do seem to be more interested in mysticism rather than physics. Primarily those who would consider themselves Wiccans.
 
  • #12
That's because females are never wrong.
 
  • #13
JasonRox said:
That's because females are never wrong.

well said.:biggrin:
 
  • #14
Well, it was the famed Ms. Lucie Irigaray who said that Newton's "principia" was a rape manual.

She also said that it was the phallocentrism of males which explained why structural mechanics was so more successful than fluid mechanics, because the latter had more affinity with the female principle of menstruation..
 
  • #15
arildno said:
Well, it was the famed Ms. Lucie Irigaray who said that Newton's "principia" was a rape manual.

She also said that it was the phallocentrism of males which explained why structural mechanics was so more successful than fluid mechanics, because the latter had more affinity with the female principle of menstruation..

Isn't this about postmodern social constructionism? Is it appropriate to call it pseudoscience or crackpottery?

I've read an article by Dawkins, and I think he mentioned this Irigaray, although I don't remember for sure and I cannot find the article now. (It's the fluid mechanics argument that I feel like remembering... :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
  • #16
mhmhmhmhmhmhm... I've never tried to decide what postmodern social constructionism really is. I've always somehow thought that pseudoscience must be outside the academic world. And that something that is inside academic world would be at most cargo cult science.

btw, (an off-topic question (I'm the original poster, I have right to go off-topic)) is there clear difference between pseudoscience and cargo cult science?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
i asked my wife why men were rational beings who understand science while women were irrational crackpots that believe in mysticism. She turned me into a toad.
 
  • #18
jostpuur said:
Isn't this about postmodern social constructionism? Is it appropriate to call it pseudoscience or crackpottery?

I've read an article by Dawkins, and I think he mentioned this Irigaray, although I don't remember for sure and I cannot find the article now. (It's the fluid mechanics argument that I feel like remembering... :rolleyes:)
Probably, it is his review "Postmodernism Disrobed" of Alan Sokal's "Intellectual Impostures":
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1998-07-09postmodernism_disrobed.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
jimmysnyder said:
i asked my wife why men were rational beings who understand science while women were irrational crackpots that believe in mysticism. She turned me into a toad.

Congratulations.
 
  • #20
tribdog said:
I wouldn't say they believe in it, they wish it was true. but with comments like that you've shown why they don't believe in it.

what's a 'wish'?----(isn't that part of the magic thing that someone wants/believes will happen?)


Ever notice how many more TV shows/movies there are where the lead character is the woman with some sort of mystical, paranormal powers? I think women, (and yes of course it's a generalization) tend to believe more in magic due to the (now disappearing) perception that if they had a little more 'power' --'things' would be better---
 
  • #21
jostpuur said:
Are all cranks male?
Only those that come with a crank shaft!
 
  • #22
Gokul43201 said:
Only those that come with a crank shaft!
They are nuts..
 
  • #23
ubermensch said:
"HEY! Whats your Sign?" asked the blond girl wearing a tank top and really tight jeans.
I was wondering the same thing as I read the first few replies...maybe nobody notices a crank if she's got a large chest and a tight, low-cut shirt on.

JasonRox said:
That's because females are never wrong.
An even better explanation. :biggrin:

Gokul43201 said:
Only those that come with a crank shaft!
:smile:
 
  • #24
Moonbear said:
I was wondering the same thing as I read the first few replies...maybe nobody notices a crank if she's got a large chest and a tight, low-cut shirt on.


An even better explanation. :biggrin:


:smile:

you're right--you're right------you are ALWAYS right MB







<smoozing MB, just a little>
 
  • #25
JasonRox said:
That's because females are never wrong.

This must be wrong because men are always wrong :smile:
 
  • #26
Before I started posting on PF, A female crank was banned from here for her views on quantum theory. She posted under her real name.
 
  • #27
George Jones said:
Before I started posting on PF, A female crank was banned from here for her views on quantum theory. She posted under her real name.
Yeah, she's dead now. She was constantly vandalizing wikipedia too.
 
  • #28
Oh my God, you actually killed her for that? That's some harsh moderation.
 
  • #29
She WAS really bad, besides, Evo couldn't let ZApperZ get his hands dirty. He had a full-time job exposing her intellectually..
 
  • #30
Are the threads still alive, or have they been deleted? I need a laugh.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
873
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
18K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K