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.

  • #31
arildno said:
She WAS really bad, besides, Evo couldn't let ZApperZ get his hands dirty. He had a full-time job exposing her intellectually..

WarPhalange said:
Are the threads still alive, or have they been deleted? I need a laugh.
They're probably still around.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
Yeah, she's dead now. She was constantly vandalizing wikipedia too.

I ran into her on usenet/google groups years before I started posting here, and I didn't agree with her ideas or methods, but I'm sorry to find that she died of cancer.
 
  • #33
George Jones said:
I ran into her on usenet/google groups years before I started posting here, and I didn't agree with her ideas or methods, but I'm sorry to find that she died of cancer.
Yes, that is not something I would wish on anyone.
 
  • #34
Evo said:
Yes, that is not something I would wish on anyone.

Really? I wish it on four or five people a day. Doesn't seem to work though
 
  • #35
rootX said:
This must be wrong because men are always wrong :smile:

No, that's not true. As I explain to my boyfriend, he can be right sometimes...as long as he agrees with me. :biggrin:
 
  • #36
jostpuur said:
is there clear difference between pseudoscience and cargo cult science?
Yes: I've heard of pseudoscience.
 
  • #37
jostpuur said:
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?

Well, I definitely would regard the study of cargo cults as a branch of legitimate science (anthroplogy, comparative cultural studies and so on), but I don't think that was what you meant by cargo cult science..
 
  • #39
jostpuur said:
I thought that everybody uses the term cargo cult science in the same way as Feynman did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
It would seem the difference is cargo cult science refers to being intellectually dishonest (falsifying or exagerating results in order to gain attention) and pseudoscience is bad science, basically unfounded beliefs claimed to be science.
 

Similar threads

Systematic review of plant sex terms?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Simultaneity Through Male & Female Clocks Meeting
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Viruses : Are there Male, Female Viruses?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Vocals to fall instantly in love with...
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Writing: Input Wanted Sanity check: Alien reproduction
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad What if unification does not work?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Male vs Female Boxing: Comparing Strengths
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
18K
Biology Sex-Linked Inheritance: Male & Female Expressions
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
How are the connectors on the DC linear actuator utilized in wiring?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Need advice for this Adaptor remover (home plumbing)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K