Crackpot Identified: Towing a Magnetometer East-West Across the Atlantic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques a paper on towing a magnetometer across the Atlantic, labeling it as speculative and part of a "crackpot" organization. Participants express concern over the paper's lack of rigorous scientific methodology and reliance on fallacies, such as appeals to authority and circumstantial ad hominem arguments. The author of the paper is criticized for failing to adequately address fundamental geological principles and for presenting unsubstantiated claims about Earth's cooling. Despite the author's previous credible work, the current hypothesis is deemed flawed and lacking coherence. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for critical evaluation of scientific claims, particularly those that diverge from mainstream understanding.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=123832 has been identified as a
"speculative" (crackpot) topic

I didn't realize that this was a crackpot organisation:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse.php[/URL]

Curiously enough the crackpot has managed to publish here:

[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v337/n6204/abs/337254a0.html[/url]

http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1989)017%3C1119:NAFZDA%3E2.3.CO%3B2

It occurs that the crackpot did nothing but...

[quote]Towing a magnetometer east-west across the mid-Atlantic Ridge, [/quote]

...for his whole scientific carreer.

Is it the objective of this forum to prevent it's members to view some genuine Popperian refuting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Some Bodily Malformations Attributed to Previous Lives
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v19n3a2.php

Certainly not mainstream material. They have a nice database of UFO papers as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I see,

I'm not happy with the fallacy density of this case being well above PF average.

1. This is non mainstream so it's a crackpot (appeal to authority - band wagon)

2. This paper also publishes metaphysicaloney implying that everything it publishes is wrong (circumstantial ad hominem)

3. The guy has published in Science and GSA Geology so he is an authority (another appeal to authority)

There is a lot of controversy in Earth science there is not a lot that is totally explained. On the contrary, numerous hypotheses are based on affirming the consequent type of fallacies. There will be a lot of mainstream refuted when more controversial evidence becomes available in due time. There is a lot already, which is conveniently ignored . If we go with fallacy number one consequently, we will not get anywhere. Therefore I would encourage to drop all fallacies and judge only if scientific methods have been used rigourously, to see whether or not something makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Andre, I called him a crackpot. What makes me conclude he's a crackpot? He does a decent job summarizing the history of mainstream tectonic theory in the first 4 1/2 pages --- then he strips his gears:

1) he cites the inequality in the length of spreading and subduction zones as a basis for questioning the existing model --- meaning he's never boiled water --- he's insisting that the circumference of the rising water column in the cylindrical convection cell of a pot of boiling water equal that of the sinking water in the cell --- that's a very peculiar topological argument;

2) he then rambles on, on, and on, and on, on, and on about a miscellaneous mish-mash of data, and gets to page 489 (25 of the PDF file) where he makes an assertion "That the Earth is cooling is a given," without specifying a cooling rate, or referring to crustal heat flows measured in mW/m2, or the cooling time required for 1 K changes in temperature (O(1011 - 1012 a) necessary to produce a single km scale feature --- not paying too much attention to the physics, is he?​

Bottom line? He might have done some fantastic work in his days towing a magnetometer, but he's slipped his moorings for the last voyage --- I don't like seeing such things, and I hate to have to point it out (that day's coming for me --- not soon, I hope --- Mother Nature does to us all whatever she's going to do), but that's what this particular hypothesis amounts to --- senile, or Alzheimer's, maunderings of someone who's lost it.
 
Andre said:
So I see,

I'm not happy with the fallacy density of this case being well above PF average.

1. This is non mainstream so it's a crackpot (appeal to authority - band wagon)

2. This paper also publishes metaphysicaloney implying that everything it publishes is wrong (circumstantial ad hominem)

3. The guy has published in Science and GSA Geology so he is an authority (another appeal to authority)

There is a lot of controversy in Earth science there is not a lot that is totally explained. On the contrary, numerous hypotheses are based on affirming the consequent type of fallacies. There will be a lot of mainstream refuted when more controversial evidence becomes available in due time. There is a lot already, which is conveniently ignored . If we go with fallacy number one consequently, we will not get anywhere. Therefore I would encourage to drop all fallacies and judge only if scientific methods have been used rigourously, to see whether or not something makes sense.

I follow some of the work at the Society for Scientific Exploration, but I also know that it is considered fringe. Since I know the difference, it stays in the S&D forum. To the best of my knowledge this has never been allowed as a reference in any other forum here. You are welcome to post in S&D within the context of unexplained phenomena.
 
Last edited:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000B7BF5-9CFF-14BE-9CFF83414B7F0000&ref=rss
 

Thread 'Thank you to mentors, advisors and members'

I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
View full post »

Thread 'Thank you physics forums, 20 years later'

About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top