Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[Bystander]

Side note on Venus and Andre: haven't looked at it --- up until the last two posts in this thread, I've assumed Venus and Andre made it to TD on "merit." Maybe I'll take a peek now. Sorry, Andre --- you stepped into the La Brea (TD) tarpit in all innocence --- I've avoided interaction with you in Earth Science as a result. I'll put Venus on the list of "things to do."

Chroot, TD was doing far more damage to PF than just the cosmetic --- it definitely corrupted/colored perceptions of members who never got involved in the "pi" thread by those members who do remember those days.

 

[Andre]

Good idea, Bystander. You may find it entertaining.

Thanks Warren, would it be an idea to move the thread to a more suitable area?

 

[CrankFan]

Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).

I guess if you can stay on top of the crank moderation for the entire site then it's not an issue -- but if it becomes problematic in the ordinary groups then it might be good to have a group, like TD, which functions as an outlet for that kind of thing.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).

No it won't, because they'll just post their quackeries on the Kaku forum. It seems that anything and everything goes in that place!

Zz.

 

[elas]

Most members fail to appreciate the value of (often sarcastic) comments on the old TD forum. If you eliminate all that is wrong with a theory, what is left (if anything) must be right.
On this basis I have reduced my much maligned proposal to an absolute minimum that is now being rewritten. Surprisingly the many acidic comments from PF members were of more help than the one or two favorable comments from highly qualified non-members; they indicated clearly where improvements were needed.
I regret that the new style forums will not allow a continuation of the debate, when the current rewrite is completed.
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF

 

[Terry Giblin]

Will I Dream? - SAL 9000

Can some please tell me what happens to Personal theories in TD, which have been closed under anti_crank policy, immediately after it had been confirmed correct by a respected Physics Forum member, anti_crank.

Can the thread be re-opened and moved to the appropriate physics section.

Most members fail to appreciate the value of (often sarcastic) comments on the old TD forum. If you eliminate all that is wrong with a theory, what is left (if anything) must be right.
On this basis I have reduced my much maligned proposal to an absolute minimum that is now being rewritten. Surprisingly the many acidic comments from PF members were of more help than the one or two favorable comments from highly qualified non-members; they indicated clearly where improvements were needed.
I regret that the new style forums will not allow a continuation of the debate, when the current rewrite is completed.
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF

"Either this guy's a total idiot, or he's the biggest genius to hit physics in years"

"L'imagination est plus importante que le savoir"

 

[CrankFan]

Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF

Who are some of the nutcases in physics who later turned out to be correct?

 

[Garth]

Who are some of the nutcases in physics who later turned out to be correct?

Galileo was a real nutcase. Not only did he hold to the Copernican theory when everybody knew the Ptolemaic theory predicted far better results, but he got up everybody's nose by insisting he was right against the consensus of the opinion of the school of his natural philosophy contemporaries.
A true 'crackpot'!

No wonder he even got up the Pope's nose! (Well casting the Pope's considered pronouncements in the words of the Simpleton in Galileo's 'Dialogue' would do wouldn't it?)



Of course this leads to the impeccable logic of the well worn argument - "You think I'm a crackpot, they thought Galileo was a crackpot and he proved to be right. Therefore I will prove to right too!"
Can't argue with that one!

Garth

 

[ZapperZ]

Galileo was a real nutcase. Not only did he hold to the Copernican theory when everybody knew the Ptolemaic theory predicted far better results, but he got up everybody's nose by insisting he was right against the consensus of the opinion of the school of his natural philosophy contemporaries.
A true 'crackpot'!

No wonder he even got up the Pope's nose! (Well casting the Pope's considered pronouncements in the words of the Simpleton in Galileo's 'Dialogue' would do wouldn't it?)

I guess it depends on how one defines a "nutcase". For me, it's someone who does not hesitate to spew his/her own "theory" even when he/she has only a superficial knowledge of the subject. I doubt Galileo qualifies for this.

To designate as a nutcase anyone who comes up with something that is different or new from what is established would be very strange, since the very nature of science (and physics in particular) IS to study things that are new, have no current explanation, or to extend way beyond the boundary of applicability of what we know. No one wants to study things that are already well-known and well-verified. What differentiate these and the nutcases is the fact that people who studied these things have to first learn what can already be explained. Without a clear understanding of what is known, how does one realize when something new and unusual occur?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Galileo's main challenger was the Church, and he had real, hard proof of his theory (a telescope pointed at Jupiter) he doesn't qualify as a scientific crackpot.

 

[Garth]

Since Galileo's main challenger was the Church, and he had real, hard proof of his theory (a telescope pointed at Jupiter) he doesn't qualify as a scientific crackpot.

May I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" Arthur Koestler. It blows away that particular myth of our time.

There was a whole school of academics independent of the Church, the Church went along with the Ptolemaic theory only because that was the intelligent opinion of the time, just as the Vatican endorsed the Big Bang theory in our own. There was no particular theological reason to endorse it.
Galileo's chief opponents were his fellow academics whose very status and careers he was challenging. Originally the Pope, who was having a different argument with the academics during the Reformation, originally supported Galileo and the monk Copernicus' theory. However, Galileo managed to upset him too, and the rest is, well as they say, history.

Garth

 

[Integral]

I see a crackpot as one who pushes a "theory", without having applied the Scientific Method. Galileo was the first true Physicist in that he STARTED the Scientific Method. He based his ideas of Acceleration upon experiment and his ideas of the solar system upon direct observation. So in my view, the "authorities" of his day were the crackpots. Unfortunately when you are the lone scientist in a world of crackpots, life can be tough.

 

[Garth]

Quite - but at the time was not the "scientific method" itself a little crackpot?

The clear 20-20 vision of hindsight!

GArth

 

[Terry Giblin]

I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute

A measure of sanity is how many people believe you.

Therefore when ever anyone has a truly important original thought, he or she will always be in a minority of one and hence insane.

A crackpot is a person who believes in his own original thought and is willing to be tested and accepted, but more often than not is ridiculed and laughed at instead, by his future peer's.

Imagine if PF, had been around for hundreds of years, how many great personal theories would have ended up in TD under the careful eye of the mentor’s and crackpot slayers.

The true crackpots would listen to any constructive criticism, but would persist and crack on until proved right or wrong, until eventually everyone realized they were telling the truth, all on.

The real crackpots however will go on forever in their own little world, and I wish them luck, success and happiness in their long and lonely quest. If it makes them happy how am I to persuade them they are wrong, I can only show them what I know.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[ZapperZ]

A measure of sanity is how many people believe you.

Therefore when ever anyone has a truly important original thought, he or she will always be in a minority of one and hence insane.

A crackpot is a person who believes in his own original thought and is willing to be tested and accepted, but more often than not is ridiculed and laughed at instead, by his future peer's.

Imagine if PF, had been around for hundreds of years, how many great personal theories would have ended up in TD under the careful eye of the mentor’s and crackpot slayers.

The true crackpots would listen to any constructive criticism, but would persist and crack on until proved right or wrong, until eventually everyone realized they were telling the truth, all on.

The real crackpots however will go on forever in their own little world, and I wish them luck, success and happiness in their long and lonely quest. If it makes them happy how am I to persuade them they are wrong, I can only show them what I know.

Regards

Terry Giblin

But this is all talk and no substance. There have still been no violation of ZapperZ's First Law:

"There has been ZERO cases within the last 100 years in which a discovery or idea that has made any significant impact on the body of knowledge of physics which has never appeared in a respectable peer-reviewed journal"

This is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an idea or discovery to be taken seriously. Crackpots can't make it into such peer-reviewed journals. If they can, they (i) won't be wasting their time advertizing it on the web and (ii) won't be crackpots in the first place because there are other people (the journal editors and referees) who think they have legitimate things to say and thus, failed your criteria of them being "...ridiculed and laughed at..."

Therefore, your insistance that they actually contribute something legitimate is bogus based simply on such observation. Go on and defend their "right" or whatever to post their quackeries on here, but please, don't fool yourself, or try to fool us into believing that there can be anything of value that would come out of them. There hasn't been any!

Zz.

 

[Garth]

Self Creation Cosmology has been published twice in peer reviewed journals*, and that is in TD!

Garth

*
Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'
Barber, G.A. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730,'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775.

 

[ZapperZ]

Self Creation Cosmology has been published twice in peer reviewed journals*, and that is in TD!

Garth

*
Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'
Barber, G.A. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730,'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775.

.. and I would also put the Podkletnov's "antigravity" shield in TD also (if it isn't there already) even if it has appeared several times in Physica B. Rabid deciples of such things on the internet tend to have very little knowledge of what it is. If someone takes Newton's Laws and turns it upside down (like claiming his 1st Law to be a "metaphysics"), I'd say that would easily qualify to be shoved into TD also.

Zz.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If someone takes Newton's Laws and turns it upside down (like claiming his 1st Law to be a "metaphysics"), I'd say that would easily qualify to be shoved into TD also.

I know that comment refers to Metacristi's comments, and don't want to start a new debate, but I think one has to understand what the technical definition of metaphysics in philosophy to see what he was saying.

To the person casually using the word, quite often they do use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.

We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience, that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.

So Metacristi was saying that there are those who assert a metaphysical assumption is built into Newton's statement that every[/] body continues at rest or in a straight line etc. To tell you the truth, he is up on the debates and arguments in the philosophy science a lot more than me, so I am not quite sure what metaphysics he was seeing in Newton's first law. But I am absolutely certain he wasn't saying anything spiritual or non-physical.

EDIT:

I'd point out that something one hears all the time around here is that any explanation that isn't scientific is worthless, or "nonsense" as I've seen many times. That view is itself metaphysical, what some call "scientism," in the sense that it assumes reality is such that only science can reveal it. A similar example is my friend who is a historian, and who evaluates everything as history. I have yet another friend, educated as an economist, who likes to tell me "everything is economics."

 

[russ_watters]

Quite - but at the time was not the "scientific method" itself a little crackpot?

The clear 20-20 vision of hindsight!

GArth

You're really, really missing the point. Not following the scientific method is what defines a person or idea as a crackpot. So its contradictroy to call the scientific method a crackpot idea, even when it was new. You seem to be under the (common) misconception that just being new or not accepted by the majority is what makes an idea crackpottery. Not so at all.

Consider alchemy - the precurser to chemistry. Since the scientific method didn't exist at the time, I'd hesitate to call the alchemists crackpots (its a little unfair if it is defined such that it is impossible to not be a crackpot), but that doesn't mean they were scientists either. Alchemy may have been mainstream, but that didn't make it scientific.

I'd say just in fairness, that the term "crackpot" wasn't very useful until after the scientific revolution. And Galileo is the one who made it possible to tell the difference.

That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook...

Terry Giblin, you are under the same misconception - its the method, not the madness that makes one a crackpot.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know that comment refers to Metacristi's comments, and don't want to start a new debate, but I think one has to understand what the technical definition of metaphysics in philosophy to see what he was saying.

To the person casually using the word, quite often they do use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.

We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience, that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.

So Metacristi was saying that there are those who assert a metaphysical assumption is built into Newton's statement that every[/] body continues at rest or in a straight line etc. To tell you the truth, he is up on the debates and arguments in the philosophy science a lot more than me, so I am not quite sure what metaphysics he was seeing in Newton's first law. But I am absolutely certain he wasn't saying anything spiritual or non-physical.

Then maybe you should ask him what he meant as "metaphysics" and if he thinks that Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws are also "metaphysicial", because it appears that my questions to him on these were not worth answering. If what you said is true, then even those who are "experts" in philosophy are also unsure of what "metaphysical" means, because going by your definition, anything and everything are "metaphysical".

It seems that such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there...

Zz.

 

[arildno]

That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook...

Perhaps you'll let him wriggle off (justifiably bruised) by considering the following:

In biology, Aristotle DID follow what we would call the scientific method:
There exists a text of him which details the embryo development of a chicken.
It is accurate, in the sense that he (or his students) inspected eggs opened at various stages and reported what he (or them) saw.

The very least one could say, is that letting nature tell you what it is, rather then engaging in idle speculations about it, is a "sine qua non" in the scientific method.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then maybe you should ask him what he meant as "metaphysics" and if he thinks that Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws are also "metaphysicial", because it appears that my questions to him on these were not worth answering. If what you said is true, then even those who are "experts" in philosophy are also unsure of what "metaphysical" means, because going by your definition, anything and everything are "metaphysical".

It seems that such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there...

I suspect Metacristi didn't answer you about the second and third laws because of how you were reacting to him using the term "metaphysics." You know how it bothers you to hear people throw around physics ideas without really understanding what they are? Well, people do that with philosophy too (and every other area of knowledge). That's how the general population is right now. Maybe one day the world will be more broadly educated (I hope so).

Of course, even among the educated most will generalize about areas that aren't one's main field of interest, as you do in your comments above when you say " such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there." There's nothing vague about it to the expert, but sometimes, especially when emotions are running high in a debate, people fail to explain clearly and step by step. Often an expert assumes people can follow their arguments because the expert understands the subject so well, but of course that isn't how it is.

It isn't true that the philosopher claims "everything" is metaphysics as you suggest, but there's more of it involved in human endeavors than people realize. There is virtually no area of human thought that isn't better understood by seeing what belief structure is producing our behaviors, practices (like science), laws, etc. Often we've unquestioningly accepted the metaphysical aspects of practices at an early age from parents, society, and other influences. But the philosopher says "Whoa, not so fast. Let's take a closer look to see if what we automatically might accept as a correct intellectual base from which to reason and act is really as sound as we believe." Many of our changing attitudes over the last century, toward women for example, have been from such questioning.

The same thing happened in the 19th century when thinkers began to seriously question the centuries-old assumption that fundamental truths about external reality could logically be figured out without much examination of external reality itself. The empirical philosophers said, no we need to experience what we are going to reason about, and the birth of the scientific method was the eventual result.

As I teased you about in the other thread, the debate you had with Aquamarine was classic epistomological debate, but it also involved metaphysical questions. Why? Because by advocating one research approach works better at revealing reality than another, in a sense you are saying that you understand something about the nature of reality, whether that is the reality of human consciousness involved in research, or the aspects of physical reality that consciousness is trying to understand, or both.

 

[ZapperZ]

I suspect Metacristi didn't answer you about the second and third laws because of how you were reacting to him using the term "metaphysics." You know how it bothers you to hear people throw around physics ideas without really understanding what they are? Well, people do that with philosophy too (and every other area of knowledge). That's how the general population is right now. Maybe one day the world will be more broadly educated (I hope so).

You are forgetting that he said that the 1st Law is "metaphysical" and "should not be a part of science". I still haven't figured out if this also means that the 2nd and 3rd law should also not be a part of science. If this is true, then I think that even YOU should realize how absurd such a claim is. I can almost be certain that making such a claim in the Physics section of PF will get the thread demoted to the TD hell.

I do not wish to turn this into a long-winded, off-topic discussion of philosphy that will get split off into that section of PF, since I've sworn to never post anything in there again.

Zz.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not wish to turn this into a long-winded, off-topic discussion of philosphy that will get split off into that section of PF, since I've sworn to never post anything in there again.

I agree this isn't the place to continue this. But it's too bad misunderstandings are going to determine an aspect of the fellowship here at PF.

 

[Garth]

[Garth]You're really, really missing the point. Not following the scientific method is what defines a person or idea as a crackpot. So its contradictroy to call the scientific method a crackpot idea, even when it was new. You seem to be under the (common) misconception that just being new or not accepted by the majority is what makes an idea crackpottery. Not so at all.
...////...
That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook.../////////...

Really?
I think here we need to take a more historical perspective of the development of scientific ideas and method.

In its day the Ptolemaic theory was as scientific a theory as you could have wished for. The fact that it eventually proved to be wrong should no more attract our derision than the fact that most of our present theories will eventually require replacement or modification.
1. It had a mathematical basis - the addition of epicycles to a basic circular motion was a geometric way of constructing a Fourier series to represent the complicated motion of the planets amongst the fixed stars.
2. It was modified over a period of time by the addition of extra epicycles to allow for the resolution of discrepancies between the theory and observation.
3. It was able to predict the future motions of the planets with considerable accuracy, more so, because of these extra additions, than the Copernican theory.
4. These predictions were checked against observations made by huge naked eye observatories.
We may compare this process with the standard cosmological theory,
· GR required a fix that was provided by Inflation
· Inflation required a fix that was provided by Dark Matter
· Dark Matter required a fix that was provided by Dark Energy.
· We now consider the standard LCDM theory robust and “precision cosmology”.
· However, neither Inflation (the Higgs Boson), Dark Matter or Dark Energy have been discovered even after about 30 years of intense effort. An example of modern day epicycles?

The scientific method had developed over a period of time, from the Greeks to the Moslem scholars and through them to the scholastics of medieval Europe. Such 'men' of science as Roger Bacon, Nicolas of Cusa, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan. Copernicus, a century or two later, was a relative Aristotelian compared to them, he preferred to trust the ancient wisdom despite his famous modification of the ancients' (Ptolemy) work.

The Copernican theory, retaining the circular motion of the planets, but now around the Sun, had also to include epicycles. In fact his system had more that the Ptolemaic system! (Copernicus = 48 epicycles, Ptolemy = 40 - although Copernicus exaggerated this number to make his system seem more 'efficient'.) Despite his theory being correct at unseating the Earth from the centre of the solar system, and perhaps because it was not more efficient at explaining the "heavenly revolutions", he was "laughed at and hissed off the stage" -(Galileo's own words about Copernicus' fate, a fate that he did not want to share.)

Nevertheless Galileo had been persuaded about the Copernican system at an earlier age, he was able to take advantage of the newly invented telescope. Galileo was not the first to base his theories on observation, it was just he was able to use a better instrument of observation.

Perhaps his reticence at not wanting to follow Copernicus into derision by delaying publishing his work for twenty years was an indication that he wasn’t a ‘crackpot’ after all. However his ability to upset most of his contemporaries does not help in that assessment!

Garth

 

[Integral]

While this discussion of the historic development of the scientific method is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with our current problem. I use the term problem loosely because it is not clear to me that we have a problem. The problem exists only in the eyes of those who wish to use our site to push their ideas.

What many may not realize is that most threads are not closed unilateral by a single Mentor. If there is any doubt, there is at least a brief discussion by the staff on the the validity of a thread. It is surprising on how little disagreement there is. The back grounds of the various mentors is quite different, however we do share a formal education in physics, math, or engineering. Yet it is usually unanimous when a question is raised about a questionable thread.

The fact is that if you do not have a formal education in Physics you have no way of knowing what is "new" or "known". Unfortunately, as I have said many times before, you cannot think outside of the box if you do not know where the box is.

 

[Garth]

The term 'Maverick' is often used for those, like Fred Hoyle, who habitually 'think outside the box. Perhaps we need a 'Maverick Forum'?

One test of course would be that unorthodox ideas and theories that have actually been published in respectable peer reviewed journals might be deemed 'Maverick' rather than 'crackpot'. I would argue that 'General Relativity and Gravitation' and 'Astrophysics and Space Science' are examples of two such journals. [My post #116]

Garth

Garth

 

[Moonbear]

There is always room for a theory developed using scientific method to be found wrong. This is why we never say we've "proven" an hypothesis, because there is always the chance a yet undiscovered observation will be the one that unravels the entire theory. Keeping an open mind toward this possibility is not the same as accepting claims without any supporting evidence based on a misinterpretation of textbook science, which is not, and never can be (it can be at least a year from writing to publication), as up-to-date or complete as the science described in peer-reviewed journals.

A test of an unorthodox theory neither needs to be maverick nor crackpot, it needs to fit with current empirical evidence and requires the author carry the burden of proof to provide the additional evidence showing how the new theory is better than the current theory. If you're going to introduce a new theory, if you want it to have any credibility at all, I would expect citation of a substantial number of references that support the theory, an explanation of potential caveats, and what experiments you would plan to disprove your theory (i.e., hypothesis testing).

 

[Garth]

There is always room for a theory developed using scientific method to be found wrong. This is why we never say we've "proven" an hypothesis, because there is always the chance a yet undiscovered observation will be the one that unravels the entire theory. Keeping an open mind toward this possibility is not the same as accepting claims without any supporting evidence based on a misinterpretation of textbook science, which is not, and never can be (it can be at least a year from writing to publication), as up-to-date or complete as the science described in peer-reviewed journals.

Absolutely - in fact it was nearly two years from submission to publication for the 2002 'Astrophysics and Space Science' paper.

A test of an unorthodox theory neither needs to be maverick nor crackpot, it needs to fit with current empirical evidence and requires the author carry the burden of proof to provide the additional evidence showing how the new theory is better than the current theory. If you're going to introduce a new theory, if you want it to have any credibility at all, I would expect citation of a substantial number of references that support the theory, an explanation of potential caveats, and what experiments you would plan to disprove your theory (i.e., hypothesis testing).

There are 43 other-author citations of the 1982 paper in peer reviewed journals.
The theory is being tested at present by the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment; SCC predicts a heterodox (non-GR) geodetic precession but an orthodox (GR) frame dragging precession.
A third paper, a chapter of a forthcoming book, is awaiting publication and contains further experiments to falsify the theory. ["Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094 to be published in "Progress in General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology", Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York.]

Garth

 

[rayjohn01]

poll closed ?

I hardly think that 31 replies constitute a poll , for what it's woth I think you should have a section which allows free reign to ideas , many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view and who of us is truly a judge -- this would assume you know everything to begin with which is ridiculous.
Ray

 

[Chronos]

You hardly qualify as a crackpot, Garth. You have theories with math and predictions. I don't mean to be cruel, but it sounds a bit like science.

 

[ZapperZ]

I hardly think that 31 replies constitute a poll , for what it's woth I think you should have a section which allows free reign to ideas , many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view and who of us is truly a judge -- this would assume you know everything to begin with which is ridiculous.
Ray

Your comment is astounding because it seems as if you did not read any of the replies and comments already made in this thread.

A "crackpot" isn't someone who made new, astonishing, and revolutionary idea. It is the nature of physics and physicists that we study new, unexplained things! Please look at the latest issue of Nature, Science, PRL, etc. To lump the quackeries into the same category as well-thought off ideas in physics is insulting, and strengthen the validity of the survey which shows that most people are not able to distinguish between a "scientific evidence" with anecdotal/incomplete/bogus/etc evidence.

Again, I challenge you to show of any ideas, discovery, etc. with the past 100 years or so, that has made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics, that has NOT appeared in any peer-reviewed journal. After that, look at how many of these "crackpot" ideas that have actually made it into such journals. There have been crackpots on the 'net ever since it went "public". That is... what, more than 15 years, at the very least. Show me one example of a physics crackpot on the 'net idea that has amounted to anything that never made it into a peer-reviewed journal. If you can't do that, then your claim that "...many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view..." is baseless.

[If you bring up Einstein and the likes as examples of "crackpots", then we have nothing more to talk about since you obviously do not read what have been posted - so any further explanation will be a complete waste of effort]

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

There's some wonderful posts in this thread! And the general topic is worthy of much more discussion, IMHO.

Just to take up Zapper's challenge ... outside physics, but still well within 'science', IIRC there are loads of examples: plate tectonics (then called continental drift), Snowball Earth (tho' some early work did make into peer-reviewed publications, after much struggle), lots of good work on early homonid evolution (including some very good fieldwork), ...

I also sense some 'violent agreement' - Garth's SCC (and much of Hoyle's work, and Andre's Venus ideas, and ...) may be maverick, but they aren't crackpot! On the other side, we have Arp's ideas (certainly good science in the early days, but is his work now tending towards crackpottery?), 'plasma cosmology' (maverick to be sure, science? the proponents certainly seem to be doing all the 'right things'), modern aetherists (hordes of crackpots yes, but also some solid scientific work?).

And here's where it gets difficult, in a practical sense ... is there anyone who proposes that much (most?) of what was previously posted in TD was in accord with the scientific method? To be clear, I don't see anyone claiming that EVERYTHING posted in TD was crackpottery.

The practical challenge is how to handle the huge (and tedious) task of winnowing the few non-crackpot (maverick?) 'TD' posts from the deluge of nonsense?

 

[Chronos]

Er, constrain posting of theories to those that cite credible evidence and sound, predictive mathematical models? Then politely redirect those who fall short of that standard to post them in the metaphysics forum... Hmm, I don't see a metaphysics forum here.

 

[CrankFan]

In the context of Internet forums, to me, the term "crackpot" describes someone who is ignorant of the basic principles and results in the field of study which they criticize and seek to "revolutionize" with their "theories". Most Internet crackpots are incapable of expressing their ideas clearly, which reflects their unwillingness to examine their ideas critically before "publishing" them.

I don't deny that academic crackpots exist; but AFAIK that isn't the problem that Physics Forums is facing in the form of its "Theory Development" branch.

From time to time controversial ideas are introduced into science and mathematics but to equate the educated and clearly stated, yet controversial ideas of the past with the ramblings of Internet cranks, who for the most part, base their knowledge in the field on unreliable sources (science fiction novels, inaccurate popularizations, etc.) seems to be an unfair comparison.

I don't know much about Galileo, but let's take Cantor as an example of someone who published ideas that were heavily criticized. Cantor was educated in his field of research, he understood the results of the day and was able to publish his ideas clearly and unambiguously. His ideas were controversial but controversy itself isn't the important distinguishing characteristic of Internet crackpots. The distinguishing characteristic of Internet crackpots is almost complete ignorance of the subject combined with massive arrogance.

 

[Garth]

To be clear, I don't see anyone claiming that EVERYTHING posted in TD was crackpottery.

But there is a problem in getting threads in TD discussed seriously because they are seen to be 'crackpot'. I think PF does need a Forum for discussion of such new ideas/theories, possibly still called 'TD', but:

The practical challenge is how to handle the huge (and tedious) task of winnowing the few non-crackpot (maverick?) 'TD' posts from the deluge of nonsense?

First, any non-standard theory that has already been published in recognised peer reviewed journals ought to be taken seriously, no matter how much we personally may not like it.
Second, any theories posted are liable for penetrating constructive criticism. If the author of the theory does not then respond to the questionning, or even understand what is the nature of the criticism, then that theory can be assigned to a 'crackpot' Forum.

BTW Nereid, thank you for your endorsement of SCC as not being 'crackpot'!

Garth

 

[Moonbear]

But there is a problem in getting threads in TD discussed seriously because they are seen to be 'crackpot'. I think PF does need a Forum for discussion of such new ideas/theories, possibly still called 'TD', but:

Garth, this isn't just a problem on PF, it's a serious problem in terms of public perception of new fields of science. One of the areas I work in, somewhat peripherally to my main field of research, is circadian rhythms. This has certainly now gained credibility as a real field of research, but when the whole "biorhythms" craze came about in the popular literature, spurred on by more than a few crackpots, it nearly collapsed the legitimate science in that field. People were wary of funding the work, or even bothering to read proposals, because of the vast amount of crackpots springing up everywhere. I know very few people who study circadian rhythms only, most have a second line of research ongoing in their labs, except for the younger scientists who entered the field after things settled down, because they just couldn't afford to continue with one focus when they couldn't get any funding. This is the real danger of crackpottery, the tarnish it can put on legitimate science as viewed by the general public who doesn't know how to sort the fiction from reality.

First, any non-standard theory that has already been published in recognised peer reviewed journals ought to be taken seriously, no matter how much we personally may not like it.

I continue to contend that there's no need for a theory development section to discuss these topics. They would easily fall under one of the many other forums on this board, and as long as it's already peer-reviewed, it would be fair game for discussion.

Second, any theories posted are liable for penetrating constructive criticism. If the author of the theory does not then respond to the questionning, or even understand what is the nature of the criticism, then that theory can be assigned to a 'crackpot' Forum.

I think the main concern is the amount of work this generates for the mentors to monitor those threads. Just not allowing new theories to be discussed is a more even-handed approach, and easier to enforce, than having to sift through all the threads determining if the burden of proof has been met. If the theory has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then, however controversial, it would be fair game for discussion, in my opinion, because the peer-review process lends credibility. It may still be proven wrong, but it has reached a certain level of scrutiny to be worthy of discussing.

BTW Nereid, thank you for your endorsement of SCC as not being 'crackpot'!

Garth

Garth, I think you also misunderstood my intentions when I last responded to you. I was arguing that something that is maverick or controversial is not synonymous with crackpot. I would love to see discussions of controversial topics that fall within the realm of real science, those are the fun topics that can lead to really good discussion. Journals sometimes even publish controversial topics along with a letter from the editor or permit responses in subsequent issues that point out the controversy and open issues. If you spot articles like that, they'd be fun to present to the group, because it lends to a natural debate from which all can learn something.

 

[Garth]

I continue to contend that there's no need for a theory development section to discuss these topics. They would easily fall under one of the many other forums on this board, and as long as it's already peer-reviewed, it would be fair game for discussion.

So which Forum do you think is suitable for discussing theories such as "Self Creation Cosmology" or studies on "circadian rhythms. "?
Garth

 

[Nereid]

So the question seems to be coming down to whether on not PF should have a place, distinct from its 'mainstream' boards (e.g. Biology, General Physics), where maverick ideas can be discussed. By maverick, we mean outside the mainstream, but adhering to the scientific method - thus Andre's Venus idea, and SCC would be welcome (and maybe some 'plasma cosmologies', even 'expanding Earth', 'modern aether' ideas?), but approx 99 to 99.6% of the threads in TD wouldn't even get started (I checked, there are ~1500 threads in TD, and from earlier in this thread, and my own count, there are at most ~20 - being very generous - that would meet this criterion. As an aside, I would also like to point out that ~1% of the TD threads are quite interesting, and would make great General Discussion threads).

There would still be one or two 'small challenges', e.g. what if it's a maverick maths or philosophy idea (scientific method does not apply as a criterion), but the biggest challenge is who would volunteer as maverick gatekeeper?

 

[Garth]

So the question seems to be coming down to whether on not PF should have a place, distinct from its 'mainstream' boards (e.g. Biology, General Physics), where maverick ideas can be discussed. By maverick, we mean outside the mainstream, but adhering to the scientific method - thus Andre's Venus idea, and SCC would be welcome (and maybe some 'plasma cosmologies', even 'expanding Earth', 'modern aether' ideas?),

Yes!

There would still be one or two 'small challenges', e.g. what if it's a maverick maths or philosophy idea (scientific method does not apply as a criterion), but the biggest challenge is who would volunteer as maverick gatekeeper?

There seems to be no problem at the moment in kicking obviously 'crackpot' ideas into TD - so by applying the two criteria above why should there be a problem kicking them from a 'maverick' to a 'crackpot' Forum?

Garth

 

[Nereid]

There seems to be no problem at the moment in kicking obviously 'crackpot' ideas into TD - so by applying the two criteria above why should there be a problem kicking them from a 'maverick' to a 'crackpot' Forum?

Hmm, seems to me the consensus is that TD is not welcome at PF, it takes too much of the moderators' time, and lowers PF's 'brand value'.

Let's try this Garth - if you were given the job of being the maverick gatekeeper (I'm not saying you should, or shouldn't, just doing a 'thought experiment'), how do you think you'd feel about it? After reviewing the 200th piece of nonsense (but written up really, really well, with beautifully formatted formulae in LaTeX, etc) ... the 2000th? At a rate of at least 10 a day?? Wouldn't you begin to tire? To wish that you had more time to do exciting and interesting things (like work on SCC, debate with Chronos and Nereid about ZPE and Dark Matter, ...)? Don't forget that not all nonsense comes nicely packaged in clear GR terms (what if the nonsense is about a field of physics that you're not so familiar with?)

 

[Garth]

Okay I give in - but I leave the suggestion as a thought just in case...

Garth

 

[Andre]

Thanks Nereid for the support. I'm afraid Venus is a bit "cold" at the moment and that may even be so literally, when its core is concerned.

So far negative results for publication volunteers So I "mavericked" another one here.

If so, I may have ruined the objective of a few foundations finding that answer.

 

[Moonbear]

So which Forum do you think is suitable for discussing theories such as "Self Creation Cosmology" or studies on "circadian rhythms. "?
Garth

I don't know what Self Creation Cosmology is about, so couldn't tell you if or where it fits, but circadian rhythms most definitely can be, and has been, discussed in the biology forum.

But, my overall argument, which may or may not be the opinion of anyone else here in case I haven't made that clear, is that recent peer-reviewed publications of theories that challenge more mainstream theories can and should be included within the forum that is most appropriate for it (perhaps in the forum in which the theory it is challenging is being discussed, or in the General Physics or General Discussion forums, though General Discussion may not get it the appropriate amount of respect and seriousness of answers). It doesn't make sense to toss threads on legitimate, though controversial, theories into a catch-all bin where they get lost within mounds of pseudoscience and crackpottery. It seems a reasonable cut-off point for deciding whether to leave something up for discussion or delete the thread would be if the theory is not published in a peer-reviewed publication, or if it is not published at all. With this criterion, sure, you'll kick out some legitimate new ideas that someone may be working on pre-publication (though we don't really get many of those), but you'll also have an easy litmus test to ditch people's pet theories (which may not be entirely crackpotish, but could just be weakly constructed) and crackpot posts.

Ultimately, I think we all must defer the decision to the admins and mentors. If this is a forum they don't want to babysit anymore, and that's what it sounds like the spend a lot of time doing there, and the admins don't think it contributes to what they envision as the mission of this site, then it's their decision to make.

 

[Garth]

Thank you Moonbear. Any discussion of SCC I shall post to the General Astronomy and Cosmology, or the Special and General Relativity Forums. Which is where I posted them in the first place!

Garth

 

[Nereid]

Okay I give in - but I leave the suggestion as a thought just in case...

Garth

But Garth, I don't want you to 'give in' If what I write is nonsense, say so; if my ideas are off base - esp if there's empirical data to show I'm off base - go ahead and beat me to a pulp! If there's a way to make a 'maverick's board' work, spell it out. Anything that helps PF on it path to world conquest and domination is most welcome.

OTOH, if you feel that the practical difficulties of implementing (good) suggestions such as yours appear daunting, if not insurmountable, please acknowledge the merits of the case ... don't just 'give in'. :!)

 

[Nereid]

Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ... where should I start a thread on the history of controversial ideas in science? For example, neutron stars today are part of standard astrophysics, but Eddington had such trouble with Chandrasekhar's work (and the latter such respect for the former) that Chandra dropped what he was doing on this for a long time (fortunately, Chandra didn't give up entirely, and Eddington was gracious - or smart? - enough to concede he'd been wrong).

For the avoidance of doubt, Chandrasekhar was most assuredly NOT a crackpot, and he had no difficulty 'doing' astrophysics; this example does NOT meet Zapper's challenge. Indeed, if any 'crackpot' could show just 1% of Chandrasekhar's facility with basic physics, my guess is that we'd all be astonished.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ... where should I start a thread on the history of controversial ideas in science? For example, neutron stars today are part of standard astrophysics, but Eddington had such trouble with Chandrasekhar's work (and the latter such respect for the former) that Chandra dropped what he was doing on this for a long time (fortunately, Chandra didn't give up entirely, and Eddington was gracious - or smart? - enough to concede he'd been wrong).

For the avoidance of doubt, Chandrasekhar was most assuredly NOT a crackpot, and he had no difficulty 'doing' astrophysics; this example does NOT meet Zapper's challenge. Indeed, if any 'crackpot' could show just 1% of Chandrasekhar's facility with basic physics, my guess is that we'd all be astonished.

Chandrasekhar also had his ideas published in several peer-reviewed journals, which also conform to my first "law", that being for any ideas or discovery to make any significant contribution to physics, it must first of all appear in a peer-reviewed journal.

It might be insightful if everyone reads the essay by Dan Koshland in the Nov. 25th issue of Nature titled "Crazy, but correct". He detailed his trials and tribulations in trying to introduce an idea that clearly contradicts the accepted understanding at that time. Pay attention to the kind of skepticism he encounted, and what he actually did (getting published in lesser-known journals, but getting published nevertheless). In fact, a quote from this essay deserves some space here:

The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society.

If dubious report such as the Podkletnov effect, table-top fusion via sonoluminescence, and even Pons-Fleishman's cold fusion managed to appear in lesser-known peer-reviewed journal, there is zero excuse for anyone complaining that their ideas are being prevented from appearing in such journals due to our refusal to acknowledge "crazy" ideas. More likely, these ideas could not appear in such journals not because they are "crazy", but rather they hold no credibility. This is a painful realization to face for most crackpots, so it is a whole lot more reassuring to simply turn it around and accuse the "establishement's" inherent refusal to look at new ideas.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Is this a crackpot post? If we apply Zapper's criterion (peer-reviewed publication), it seems it would be.

 

[CrankFan]

Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ...

Apologies if I've caused any serious alarm. I'm for the most part indifferent about where, how, what and why people post. I'm about 50% student and learner and 50% crank-troll, but I do enjoy and support PF. It's a wonderful website.

I don't have many standards of decency, being a Crank Fan and all, but I thought it was reasonable to ask the question that I asked since the poster I was responding to suggested that crackpots frequently contribute to the intellectual enterprise. It seems like some people may have felt that I consider any controversial yet not-obviously-wrong claim to be crackpot; not so.

Regarding your latest question IMO I don't think individual posts are crackpot, I think characters become crackpot when they repeatedly deny or ignore known results. Anyone can make a mistake, but will they learn from it when presented with many correct arguments to the contrary ?

For example, this guy was a crackpot! https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31836