Are Crackpot Theories Welcome in Scientific Discussions?

[k!rl]

Hello all, I'm a bit surprised about the policy of not discussing crackpot theories in the Skepticism & Debunking forum. My first post here (a couple years back) was actually about John Titor and got locked straight away, which kind of rubbed me the wrong way att. I found my way here yesterday again (sorry for re-registering, I didn't realize I was here before) to get word on Athene's theory of everything. I found another post about it but this got locked too because "Unpublished theories are not open for discussion here".

Why this policy? If people wish to waste their time on crackpot theories why not let them run wild in the Skepticism & Debunking sandbox?
Now I'm left wondering where else interested laymen like me are supposed to find more reliable info about such matters?

 

[micromass]

This is supposed to be a serious forum discussing mainstream science. I'm sure there are a lot of other forums and sites discussing those theories, but this forum is not one of them.

The matter of fact is that we have a lot of very smart people here on this forum, among which are many professional scientists. These people would leave if we would start discussing crackpottery.

Also see my blog entry on such things: https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3751

 

[Pengwuino]

Why this policy? If people wish to waste their time on crackpot theories why not let them run wild in the Skepticism & Debunking sandbox?
Now I'm left wondering where else interested laymen like me are supposed to find more reliable info about such matters?

You just answered your own questions. When people start going on about unpublished theories, two things happen. A vast majority of the time the original poster is adamant about their viewpoints, regardless of its scientific validity, and is not looking to discuss the merit of the theory. They simply want to tell people what they feel is true. This is not the point of this forum. It is mainly for interested individuals who want to actually learn real physics. People who come in with crackpot theories never have any real scientific evidence and are not trying to do science or discuss science.

The second problem is that people get belligerent and start name-calling and resorting to personal attacks. This forum tries to be above that and the moderating required to let people run wild is far and beyond what anyone is willing to put into the forums. The mentors are unpaid volunteers so it is not fair to ask them to moderate a bunch of people who have no interest in contributing to the forum in meaningful ways.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello all, I'm a bit surprised about the policy of not discussing crackpot theories in the Skepticism & Debunking forum. My first post here (a couple years back) was actually about John Titor and got locked straight away, which kind of rubbed me the wrong way att. I found my way here yesterday again (sorry for re-registering, I didn't realize I was here before) to get word on Athene's theory of everything. I found another post about it but this got locked too because "Unpublished theories are not open for discussion here".

Why this policy? If people wish to waste their time on crackpot theories why not let them run wild in the Skepticism & Debunking sandbox?
Now I'm left wondering where else interested laymen like me are supposed to find more reliable info about such matters?

Do you also go into a vegetarian restaurant and then questioned why there is no meat being served?

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979

Zz.

 

[Evo]

Now I'm left wondering where else interested laymen like me are supposed to find more reliable info about such matters?

But telling you it's nonsense not worth discussing IS reliable information. I think what you are looking for are people willing to accept that crackpottery may be true.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why this policy? If people wish to waste their time on crackpot theories why not let them run wild in the Skepticism & Debunking sandbox?

If you want an abject lesson in what happens when people are allowed to go wild with personal theories, go to sciforums.com. It is a study in contrast with PF.

I went there for a few months to try it out, and have had to leave because it is incredibly toxic.

BTW, it is not arbitrary that PF disallows personal theories. PF's explicit mandate is to facilitate two primary things:
1] the exploration of mainstream science
1] homework help for students, which requires the focus on 1]

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think some people need reasons for why some crackpot ideas are crackpot ideas. For example, I know some people who wear those bracelets that supposed to make you balanced or athletic or something. Just telling them it's BS doesn't do anything, because they buy into the reasons the product supposedly works. Like my friend's cousins were talking about how it contains ions. To them that's a scientific reason, even though that's not even what the company claims. The company claims the bracelet is imbued with some frequency that matches the body, or something asinine like that. Some people need to be told how those claims make no sense from a scientific point of view.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is not what the OP is asking about. Product claims such as that are part os S&D forum. What the OP wants is a discussion on crackpot physics ideas.

That is clearly prohibited in our rules, and it is not even ambiguous.

Zz.

 

[k!rl]

Would it not be possible to lock topics on individual basis when/if they derail? I feel it's a shame level headed folk can't be pointed to the right resources to make up a somewhat educated opinion. I would think Skepticism & Debunking environment is the one place suited for this.

Do you also go into a vegetarian restaurant and then questioned why there is no meat being served?

I guess I might if I wanted trustworthy answers on certain dubious vegitarian foodproducts.

But telling you it's nonsense not worth discussing IS reliable information. I think what you are looking for are people willing to accept that crackpottery may be true.

That's presumptuous, I'm not looking for validation at all, I would just like to make up my own mind by asking experts for help.

I'm not just here for discussing crackpot stuff, I like to dabble in physics programming (for games) and I'm trying to get my head around mathematical notation so I may one day translate certain mathematical formulas to infix notation. :)

And for the record I'm not a believer or defender of any crackpot theory whatsoever, but every once in a while one seems to fit with the little scientific knowledge that I do posses. I enjoy science fiction in addition to science and I'm trying to keep them well seperated.

 

[Pengwuino]

Would it not be possible to lock topics on individual basis when/if they derail? I feel it's a shame level headed folk can't be pointed to the right resources to make up a somewhat educated opinion. I would think Skepticism & Debunking environment is the one place suited for this.

As stated before, a VAST majority of people are not here to make honest contributions and discussions with fringe/crackpot theories. It is not fair to the unpaid mentors to have to police a section where there will be 99 derailed threads for every 1 thread that actually helps people understand something.

If you had read Zz's blog post, you would have seen that we have already tried this with disastrous results.

 

[ZapperZ]

Would it not be possible to lock topics on individual basis when/if they derail? I feel it's a shame level headed folk can't be pointed to the right resources to make up a somewhat educated opinion. I would think Skepticism & Debunking environment is the one place suited for this.


I guess I might if I wanted trustworthy answers on certain dubious vegitarian foodproducts.


PS: I'm not just here for discussing crackpot stuff actually, I like to dabble in physics programming (for games) and I'm trying to get my head around mathematical notation so I may some day translate certain formulas to infix notation. :)

And for the record I'm not a believer or defender of any crackpot theory whatsoever, but every once in a while one seems to fit with the little scientific knowledge that I posses. I enjoy science fiction in addition to science and I would prefer to keep them well seperated.

What EXACTLY is preventing you from doing this at other forums? I mean there are TONS of other forums that cater to such things. Why, WHY do you want one the few that would not want to cater such a thing to change? Are you being deprived of the freedom to discuss this elsewhere?

No one has ever explained this to me. Are there people out there so incensed that there is even ONE forum that simply will not allow crackpot discussion, dispute the numerous other forums that do? What is the logic here?

If you tell me that PF, unlike the other forums, has EXPERTS who actually know what they are talking about, well BINGO! Guess why we are able to attract such members in the first place?! It is the lack and intolerance of such garbage that is rampant in the other forums!

Zz.

 

[tahayassen]

Not only that, crackpots, and crackpottery, tend to attract more crackpots and crackpottery. It was something that was getting way out of hand.

Hahahahahaha. I'm so sorry, but I couldn't stop laughing after I read that. You get one person that posts some crackpot theory, and the next thing you know, a couple of thousand more post their crackpot theories. It's almost like they all know each other.

 

[Antiphon]

When people discuss newly released films here, they prominently display "SPOILER ALERT" in the title.

I propose this: if a crackpot like me is willing to put up a title like "CRACKPOT ALERT: How to levitate your girlfriend without magnets" then all you prim and proper Physicists can agree to stay out of the thread and not have your feathers ruffled. Meanwhile those of us with genuine unorthodox ideas can get some open-minded feedback from experienced physicists.

Because that's what you can't get by taking your ideas to another forum- the concise feedback of experienced mainstream physicists.

 

[micromass]

When people discuss newly released films here, they prominently display "SPOILER ALERT" in the title.

I propose this: if a crackpot like me is willing to put up a title like "CRACKPOT ALERT: How to levitate your girlfriend without magnets" then all you prim and proper Physicists can agree to stay out of the thread and not have your feathers ruffled. Meanwhile those of us with genuine unorthodox ideas can get some open-minded feedback from experienced physicists.

Because that's what you can't get by taking your ideas to another forum- the concise feedback of experienced mainstream physicists.

We tried that, it doesn't work. Crackpottery spreads quickly.

So I propose this: people with crackpot ideas go to another forum and post there.

 

[Antiphon]

We tried that, it doesn't work. Crackpottery spreads quickly.

So I propose this: people with crackpot ideas go to another forum and post there.

I believe you but I disagree.

Rudeness would spread quickly too but the mods are on it and it doesn't pose a threat. The same would work here, and like I said going elsewhere doesn't work if you want to know what's wrong with your ideas.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe you but I disagree.

Rudeness would spread quickly too but the mods are on it and it doesn't pose a threat. The same would work here, and like I said going elsewhere doesn't work if you want to know what's wrong with your ideas.

Well, except that when you quash rude behavior, people don't start calling you goose-stepping Nazis and scream about their rights in a free country to be rude.

 

[Evo]

I believe you but I disagree.

Rudeness would spread quickly too but the mods are on it and it doesn't pose a threat. The same would work here, and like I said going elsewhere doesn't work if you want to know what's wrong with your ideas.

The thing is, we are not here to discuss crackpottery. We discuss mainstream science. It's not up to us to try to explain what is wrong with a fictional scenario, it's up to the people pushing fictional scenarios to prove they're real. How do we prove imaginary claims don't exist? That's not how it works. If someone claims to have something outside of known science, then when they get it published in a manistream peer reviewed journal, they can post it here.

 

[lisab]

I understand the desire people have to "think outside the box". We're taught that the great thinkers did that - like Einstein.

But you best believe that Einstein knew all about thinking *inside* the box. He was thoroughly familiar with what was currently known at the time.

If you want to be a great - or even a good - physicist, you must be familiar with what is already known. It's hard work! Sometimes it's even drudgery! But if you want to get to the point where you can legitimately "think out of the box", you must do it.

PF's mission is simple: we're all about helping people learn what is already known.

 

[DaveC426913]

PF's mission is simple: we're all about helping people learn what is already known.

I like that.

 

[Evo]

I understand the desire people have to "think outside the box". We're taught that the great thinkers did that - like Einstein.

But you best believe that Einstein knew all about thinking *inside* the box. He was thoroughly familiar with what was currently known at the time.

If you want to be a great - or even a good - physicist, you must be familiar with what is already known. It's hard work! Sometimes it's even drudgery! But if you want to get to the point where you can legitimately "think out of the box", you must do it.

PF's mission is simple: we're all about helping people learn what is already known.

Ooooh, you're sooo good!

 

[k!rl]

Well thanks for the responses, though I still feel it's a shame that because of policy the obvious flaws in certain populair crackpottery can't be pointed out by the few experts meaby willing to put some time into it.

But then if you feel that's what separates you from the flock, fair enough.

 

[DaveC426913]

...the obvious flaws in certain populair crackpottery can't be pointed out by the few experts meaby willing to put some time into it...

I still don't think you're understanding the scope of the problem. PF used to allow personal theories. What happened was that, without fail, anyone with a personal theory was utterly blind to obvious flaws in them. Threads would go back and forth over and over and over, with posters utterly ignoring basic physics that was explained to them.

You can't really believe it until you see it, but how long can you put up with people saying "Newton was an idiot, and you're an idiot too for being brainwashed by Big Science! I'll be proven right, and then you'll see - you goose-steppers." I do not exaggerate one bit.

The vast majority of threads on personal theories end up like this.

And these people swarm boards that allow it, meaning the majority of posts in the forum end up being like this.

Seriously, go spend some time on sciforums.com* in the On the Fringe section. You will come back quivering.

* will I get an infraction for posting a link to a crackpot site**?

** seriously though, sciforums does take itself as a real science forum, it's just that they have no policies.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Here's the thing: You don't sound like a crackpot. You appear to use common sense, are civilized, and are validly accepting people's input.

What I don't understand though, is that if you state that you aren't a crackpot, why is this such an issue for you? You can take almost any crackpot thread from the Skepticism and Debunking section, and with a little bit of an open mind, and rewording, you can re-post that in a science section, so long as you are posing it as a legitimate question, and don't argue against people who clearly know what they are talking about. If you ever have a question about some wacko theory, then analyze what that theory claims that goes against real science, and maybe ask a well-thought out question as to why something is impossible.

 

[GregJ]

As a casual reader/poster I would not like to see personal theories being posted on PhysicsForums at all.

I find that those threads get wildly out of control very quickly. Some people get very defensive of their theories, and this usually blinds them a little to what is actually being said/replied. All in all, it normally ends in a nasty way and brings a very negative vibe in the forum.

And that type of post is something I do not wish to read after waking up and having my morning coffee.

 

[k!rl]

... If you ever have a question about some wacko theory, then analyze what that theory claims that goes against real science, and maybe ask a well-thought out question as to why something is impossible.

I considered that, probably wise anyway, thanks. =)

So do you rigorous types ever watch fringe science on youtube etc, or do you dismiss it outright when it's not published through the proper channels?

 

[gmax137]

I took DaveC's suggestion

... On the Fringe section...

At random, selected a thread with a lot of posts (gravity is energy moving towards lower energy). A complete time waster. Please keep PF policy as it is!

 

[Pengwuino]

So do you rigorous types ever watch fringe science on youtube etc, or do you dismiss it outright when it's not published through the proper channels?

When I look at anything fringe, they almost always say something completely contrary to known physics within the first few minutes. Of course, nothing correct can come from a theory when you initially start with something known to be wrong. For example, if someone attempts to talk about general relativity and starts saying that distances can be written as x(t) = x_0 + v_0 t + {1}\over{2}at^2, you immediately know the theory is garbage because that equation is only good for constant accelerations in the non-relativistic world. The basis is false, what is derived from it can't be true. I suspect 99% of "fringe" science you see outside of published journals or the arxiv is like this.

Then again, most people don't even use math so that's not even discussing science in the first place.

Most people will just ignore stuff like this without much thought because there's just too much trash out there to actually sift through it. There's nothing wrong with this either because there ARE channels that people like this can submit their idea through and force an audience. These are those journals. Journals do not require that you hold a degree in the field or anything like that. You submit and your work is judged based off its merit. If the work is correct, the referees at the journal will say so.

 

[Redbelly98]

Well thanks for the responses, though I still feel it's a shame that because of policy the obvious flaws in certain populair crackpottery can't be pointed out by the few experts meaby willing to put some time into it.

But then if you feel that's what separates you from the flock, fair enough.

It's not that experts would need to put "some time" into it. What ends up happening is that incredibly large amounts of time must be put into it, in order to explain some necessary basic physics that most of us learned through several years of diligent study. We get people trying to come up with theories that are at least physics graduate-school level, without having ever learned really fundamental stuff like the difference between force, energy, and power. You get tired of going around in circles trying to explain this basic stuff without it ever sinking in. The requisite transfer of knowledge cannot be condensed into a few forum posts.

Not that everybody is like this, but it can take many posts and much time spent before you realize you are dealing with somebody like this.

 

[Evo]

It's not that experts would need to put "some time" into it. What ends up happening is that incredibly large amounts of time must be put into it, in order to explain some necessary basic physics that most of us learned through several years of diligent study. We get people trying to come up with theories that are at least physics graduate-school level, without having ever learned really fundamental stuff like the difference between force, energy, and power. You get tired of going around in circles trying to explain this basic stuff without it ever sinking in. The requisite transfer of knowledge cannot be condensed into a few forum posts.

Not that everybody is like this, but it can take many posts and much time spent before you realize you are dealing with somebody like this.

Not to mention that it will keep drawing new crackpots into the thread that also have to be dealt with.

 

[Fredrik]

I just want to recommend http://forums.randi.org/ to those who would like to discuss speculative theories, or claims of supernatural stuff, with people who know some science.

 

[AlephZero]

Well thanks for the responses, though I still feel it's a shame that because of policy the obvious flaws in certain populair crackpottery can't be pointed out by the few experts meaby willing to put some time into it.

Remember that the "experts" here don't get paid for doing stuff they don't want to do. I suspect one of the key reasons there are so many experts here is because of PF's policy. If they wanted to spend their time arguing with crackpots, they would be somewhere else on the web, not here.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just want to recommend http://forums.randi.org/ to those who would like to discuss speculative theories, or claims of supernatural stuff, with people who know some science.

Ha ha!

The irony: Aren't you guys locking/deleting/banning a bit too much?

Was just trying to find that thread where I pointed out that if this place weren't run the way it is, Greg would be about $100 shorter on cash, as I don't pay for garbage.

It's pure economics for me. I spend inordinate amounts of time learning real science. I don't need to have my time wasted by wacko theories, and the wacko's that spew them.

Except on Sunday chat, of course.

The quantum world can best be modeled using rubber bands and paper clips in a hyper-dimensional matrix...

-----------------------------------
I would submit my crackpot peer reviewed paper, but I never wrote the paper, and I don't hang out on forums that allow crackpots.

 

[Fredrik]

Ha ha!

The irony: Aren't you guys locking/deleting/banning a bit too much?

Ooh, you just proved that I'm at least 3 years old.

At the time, I was a bit frustrated because I had put quite a bit of effort into some replies that got deleted along with the rest of the thread. I haven't had that problem lately. I guess it's mainly because I know which ones are likely to be deleted. Now I usually write a short reply (that can be deleted without irritating me) and report the post myself.

Back then there had also been a few incidents where threads got locked with no explanation, and (I think) not even a final post saying "thread closed". If you can't see who closed it, it's hard to ask why it was closed. Of course, now I know that it's not as hard as I thought. To get in touch with the moderators, just use the report button next to any post.

Another thing I didn't know back then is that there are a few banned users who keep creating new accounts. Those new accounts are of course insta-banned when it's discovered that they belong to one of these guys.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ooh, you just proved that I'm at least 3 years old.

At the time, I was a bit frustrated because I had put quite a bit of effort into some replies that got deleted along with the rest of the thread. I haven't had that problem lately. I guess it's mainly because I know which ones are likely to be deleted. Now I usually write a short reply (that can be deleted without irritating me) and report the post myself.

Back then there had also been a few incidents where threads got locked with no explanation, and (I think) not even a final post saying "thread closed". If you can't see who closed it, it's hard to ask why it was closed. Of course, now I know that it's not as hard as I thought. To get in touch with the moderators, just use the report button next to any post.

Another thing I didn't know back then is that there are a few banned users who keep creating new accounts. Those new accounts are of course insta-banned when it's discovered that they belong to one of these guys.

I know the feeling of frustration. Probably around that era, I put together one of those magnum opus posts that you spend all day Saturday researching, collecting links, editing, more research. Then, POOF! Deleted. No warning, no infraction, no explanation, just gone.

It was a mean post though. Mean, as in, fangs in the neck kind of mean, with venom.

 

[Integral]

We used to try and accommodate the demand for crackpot discussions in a forum called Theory Development. Tom Madsen and I spend a lot of hours trying to argue on the side of science. What we found was that the posts of the few who knew what they were talking about were lost in the flood of posts from those who thought they knew what they were talking about but really did not. It was impossible for those who were really interested in learning to separate the wheat from the chafe. This was the beginning of the Science Advisor ribbons, some way to let people know who knows something.

We found that the effort required was simply not worth the meager gains. We were really NEVER able to show a crackpot where he was wrong. They always present another scenario which is usually simply just a rehash of the previous one. It leads to burnout of mentors attempting to make clear comprehensive arguments. We decided that it was better to spend time on serious students who were interested in learning.

 

[k!rl]

I thought some of the reasons mentioned might have some subjective merit no use arguing over and I was about to agree to disagree but then I saw this TED talk just now, which sort of touched on the nature of my objection.

http://www.ted.com/talks/e_o_wilson_advice_to_young_scientists.html

At about 6:37 he talks about how science is as much about imagination and intuition as it is about rigorous math. That's why I don't feel fringe science should be dismissed outright (at least not as a matter of policy). Interested laymen can think too. It might be inspiring if nothing else, like Star Trek can be inspiring even though you know some things are not true (making this distinction is what's important). A dedicated forum section can help laymen to make this distinction and allows for contained crackpot squabeling nobody's forced to indulge in. Even though indiviual crackpots may not always be convinced, the general public is at least able to make up their mind by reading the discussion, and those wonderfull ribbons help to separate wheat from chaff.

I wish it would be possible to discuss interesting "crackpot" theories in a civilised but informal manner without a degree in physics. I'm familiar with forum dynamics (I'm a mod on a programming board) and I understand the how tiresome it can be to endlessly argue against deaf ears and I do think it's possible to lock such threads individually.

I guess it's the sense of a strong dislike of anything fringe here is what I find surprising, because I can enjoy both science and fiction (best fiction weaves in science elements). I can't be offended by some delusional nut claiming to be the new Einstein at all. I find reality (acording to science) is often much more surprising then many of the most imaginative fiction, and if it wasn't proven so extensively and repeatedly I might not have believed it true.

If serious scientists will not touch popular crackpottery (as a matter of policy), it's left to the general public and we all know where that got us, what with todays extremist religions and all...

 

[micromass]

You have to consider that it's sometimes not possible to convince the public by using simple arguments. Some theories might indeed have merit, but are disproven by experiment and other theories. There is often no way to explain why a theory is wrong other than to say: read this and this book and do this and this experiment. The public is not willing to do this, so we have to resort by saying: just believe us.

If somebody comes here and asks for references for self-study, then we will be happy to give it. If they come here with misconceptions, we are happy to correct them. But if they have no interest to learn real science and real math, then there's only so much we can do.

In the end, it always comes down to rubbish like:
- How do you know the Earth is round?
- We have went in outer space and took pictures.
- You haven't been to outer space, it's a conspiracy by the government. You faked the pictures.

If you're not willing to believe us, then you should investigate the evidence and study the math. If you're not willing to do this, fine, but don't come spouting crackpottery here.

 

[Antiphon]

I met a Crack-pot who was fair
She said "look at me, but don't stare"
"I've a rather large mole
that's become a black hole"
Worry not, dear Crackpot, it's got hair!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If serious scientists will not touch popular crackpottery (as a matter of policy), it's left to the general public and we all know where that got us, what with todays extremist religions and all...

Whenever I see people post things like this I'm flattered because is the erroneous implication is that we are the only/best group to tackle the debunking of crackpots In actual fact there are plenty of organisations and forums out there that do this sort of thing. PF exists for people to discuss and learn about mainstream science and that's what's so attractive about about it for so many people. Personally I don't want to spend time debunking crackpots here for the same reason that I wouldn't want to go to the gym and have to spend half the time debating the obesity epidemic, yes they are very related and important but no I am not there for that.

Meet me in any other walk of life and I'll be happy to discuss a range of topics that are banned here, gladly spend time exploring new/unpublished theories and vehemently debunking and challange crackpottery/pseudo-science. I'd say that this is true of many PF members but that's not what we do here.

EDIT: Another thing I'd just like to quickly address; yes science definitely needs imagination. It's the very embodiment of thinking outside the box but we do not do science here we teach and discuss it. A difference that can't be overstated enough. If someone comes here looking for help designing an experiment they could get it, if they want to learn about the background of something they'd like to investigate they can do it, if they need help deciding on an academic or career path they can find advise. But this is not the place to start developing theories about how the world works.

Especially because in my experience the majority of people who come here to do that can't think outside the box (as much as they claim to and accuse others of not doing) because they have no idea what the box is and where it's boundaries lie. They may think they're striving out to discover new ground but in reality they're often staring at their feet in a field that was well understood long ago.

 

[Integral]

You cannot think outside of the box if you have not idea where the box is. You must learn known physics before you can advance it.

 

[OmCheeto]

You cannot think outside of the box if you have not idea where the box is. You must learn known physics before you can advance it.

Eureka!

I now know how to advance my crackpot theories: Ask about the fundamentals of science upon which they are based, and never let on why I'm asking so many questions, until... the warp drive engine is completed. Bwah ha ha ha ha...

Hopefully there is a major flaw in the very beginning. My warp drive engine is the size of a small planet, and would most likely cause catastrophic, Earth dooming, orbital shifts when I turn it on.

 

[k!rl]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Dismissing anything and everything that isn't formulated in mathematics is a waste of the uneducated but well informed publics views and ideas.

 

[berkeman]

I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

That is a ludicrous statement. I hope you are joking.

 

[Pengwuino]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Name one physical, experimentally verified theory that has no mathematics at its core.

 

[k!rl]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone? Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Math is a tool for rigour and proof after conceptualising an idea in your head. Intuition and imagination is where it's at, mathematics is a powerful tool but worthless on it's own. Mastering mathematics will not give you sponteneous new insights in how the world works, using it to model the world does.

Name one physical, experimentally verified theory that has no mathematics at its core.

I never claimed there was, I said math isn't required for understanding the world, it is one of many vehicles towards understanding.

 

[berkeman]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone? Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Math is a useful tool for rigour and proof after conceptualising an idea of how something works in your head.

Intuition and imagination is where it's at, mathematics is a very powerful tool but worthless on it's own. Mastering mathematics will not give you sponteneous new insights in how the world works, using it to model reality does.

I think you should answer the penguin's question. Math is a necessary tool, not just a tool. It's fine to be creative, but without the technical knowledge to go along with it, you are just wasting your time, and the time of those who are reading your words, IMO.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think you should answer the penguin's question. Math is a necessary tool, not just a tool. It's fine to be creative, but without the technical knowledge to go along with it, you are just wasting your time, and the time of those who are reading your words, IMO.

To add to this, what if I were to say that if you were to make a single photon have a high enough energy, that it should be able to spawn a particle-antiparticle pair? Well, to the layman who knows of "E = mc^2" and some crude understanding of quantum mechanics, why the hell not?

Well it turns out that known physics (which IS math) says that such a thing is impossible. It's not impossible because someone just decides it's impossible, it's impossible because the math says it is impossible. Of course, no one has ever observed a photon spontaneously turning into particles like that.

I don't understand this thinking, by the way. Why do people think that physicists need to be so ridiculously open to the layman's ideas but no one ever tells cancer researchers to be more open minded to joe-schmoe's ideas on how to cure cancer with toothpaste and basil?

 

[Integral]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Dismissing anything and everything that isn't formulated in mathematics is a waste of the uneducated but well informed publics views and ideas.

As with the others, I completely disagree. I believe that the ONLY way to understand the universe is through the math. If you do not understand the math behind a phenomea you do not understand the phenomena.

 

[micromass]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone?

No.

Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Yes. They are absolutely clueless when it comes to modern physics. Words can only describe so much. Words do not have quantative and predictive power. For example, with language we can accurately describe "what goes up, must come down." But with math, we can say exactly how fast it comes down and at what time it must hit the earth. This is impossible without the use of mathematics.

In short, a theory without mathematics is doomed to be imprecise rubbish.

 

[AlephZero]

I would go a step further: if you look the history of science since Newton (and even more so in the 20th century), there is a clear pattern: if you can't describe or understnad the world using the mathematics that already exists, the way forward is to invent more math.

Neither Newton nor Leibniz invented calculus just because it was a fun thing to play aroud with...