Physics Forums Crackpot Index - Comments

[DennisN]

The Crackpot is nowadays a rare sight [...]

:thumbs: Hilarious!

I started to write some biological description before, but I did not feel inspired and I did not get any further than:

"
Crackpot (Fractum scaphium sciphus)

Habitat: Youtube, Vixra, Wordpress
Distinct calls: "Newton", "Einstein", "Feynman"
"

I can't say I know Latin, but it ought to be more or less correct; Fractum scaphium sciphus ought to mean "broken pot". It might be fractus instead of fractum, though, I don't know.

 

[Akaisora]

:thumbs: Hilarious!

I started to write some biological description before, but I did not feel inspired and I did not get any further than:

"
Crackpot (Fractum scaphium sciphus)

Habitat: Youtube, Vixra, Wordpress
Distinct calls: "Newton", "Einstein", "Feynman"
"

I can't say I know Latin, but it ought to be more or less correct; Fractum scaphium sciphus ought to mean "broken pot". It might be fractus instead of fractum, though, I don't know.

Keep it at Homo crackpotus.

 

[berkeman]

Just came across a new quote today -- hadn't seen this exact one before...

"Please take me seriously, I know proving <insert conjecture/theory here> is not easy but I may have just proved it for a special case"

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, I'll bite. Where exactly did Einstein proclaimed that Newton was wrong? Incomplete, an approximation, sure. But wrong? Would someone proclaim that and then write a tribute such as this?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on-Newton.html

Zz.

From your link:

The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena, which has been described above, may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought. But while the construction of the theory of fields was still actively in progress, the facts of heat radiation, spectra, radioactivity, and so on revealed a limit to the employment of the whole system of thought, which, in spite of gigantic successes in detail, seems to us today completely insurmountable. Many physicists maintain, not without weighty arguments, that in face of these facts not only the differential law but the law of causality itself—hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science—fails.

The very possibility of a spatio-temporal construction which can be clearly brought into consonance with physical experience is denied. That a mechanical system should permanently admit only discrete values of energy or discrete states—as experience, so to say, directly shows—seems at first hardly deducible from a theory of fields working with differential equations. The method of [Louis] De Broglie and [Erwin] Schrödinger, which has, in a certain sense, the character of a theory of fields, does deduce, on the basis of differential equations, from a sort of consideration of resonance the existence of purely discrete states and their transition into one another in amazing agreement with the facts of experience; but it has to dispense with a localization of the mass-particles and with strictly causal laws. Who would be so venturesome as to decide today the question whether causal law and differential law, these ultimate premises of Newton's treatment of nature, must definitely be abandoned?

Einstein is saying Newton's view isn't working anymore. He doesn't like saying it, but he's saying it.

 

[Borek]

Just came across a new quote today -- hadn't seen this exact one before...

"Please take me seriously, I know proving <insert conjecture/theory here> is not easy but I may have just proved it for a special case"

I am not convinced it was a crackpot. 3²+4²=5² - I have just proven Pythagorean theorem works for a special case

 

[Chronos]

And don't forget 1^2 + 4^2 + 8^2 = 9^2

 

[Drakkith]

I got everyone beat.
From a PM with someone recently.

No it's completely with reality, because even the Big Bang needed energy to create the universe and that came from outside the universe itself-in nothingness/nowhere, whatever you want to call it.
So that nothing has energy which somehow transformed into work.
Just because can't measure it doesn't mean it's there, it is always there, but you can't detect it, you can't measure it, calculate it.
And just because you can't do all that it doesn't mean physical, if it exists, it is 100% physical, the key difference is you can't measure it, you can't detect it, you can't calculate it with math.

No, it's not against a science, if it is, than science has to change some of its paradigms.
Darkness is physical 8maybe it's not a an object but it exists, and everything what exists it has energy (it doesn't matter if it's in the form of work or in the form of something else) otherwise it would not exist in the first place and it would not be able to create anything, darkness does have energy, but that energy is not in the form of work, that's all.
Darkness still has size-which means it is spatial-which means it is not absolute nothingness, it something after all.

 

[Enigman]

Darkness shall rule yet...

 

[jackmell]

I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.

 

[Enigman]

I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.

"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle

 

[Pythagorean]

Facing adversity of such labels is part of being a revolutionary :)

If I ever got the physicsforums crackpot award, I'd change my handle to my real name and get my book up to #1.

 

[ZapperZ]

"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle

And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature? Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer? Hello? I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks! And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!

These kinds of statements should be challenged and not taken as if it is a word of "god". It certainly shouldn't be perpetuated as if it was.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.

And I will point out to you the account of Dan Koshland in his article "Crazy but Correct" (D.E. Koshland, Jr., Nature v.432, p.447 (2004)), and how one should work within the system to try and break the prevailing idea which may be inaccurate or incorrect.

I will leave the details of his story for your own enjoyment of discovery.

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

Crackpot has a spectrum of meanings. It's ok to get a low score on the crackpot index, in my opinion.

One of the more formal and still simple definitions of crackpot is "one who holds beliefs/interpretations different than his contemporaries". In this case, it's a matter of consensus reality. In other words, it doesn't speak to a refutation of objective evidence, but of interpretations of the evidence (and what they imply about underlying mechanisms/etc). And if it's later testable that the less popular interpretation was correct, then that person ceases to be a crackpot.

But hopefully, they haven't by this time, already killed themselves (R.I.P Boltzmann).

 

[Pythagorean]

Which reminds me of this quote:

Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the
work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical
mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously...

States of Matter, by David Goodstein

 

[jtbell]

And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature?

Note that Doyle believed (among other things) in the existence of fairies, and was taken in by faked photographs of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

 

[Enigman]

And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature? Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer? Hello? I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks! And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!

These kinds of statements should be challenged and not taken as if it is a word of "god". It certainly shouldn't be perpetuated as if it was.

Zz.

Wow, just wow...talk about overreactions...a small relevant quote on the topic of the previous poster...

Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer?

Nope, but if I edited the line I would be guilty of spreading misinformation. Other than that I have no defense for it.

I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks

I could show you more. Much more...(hundreds not dozens.)

Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!

Nope, he wasn't but at that time he did his work he was called a charlatan.
Not to mention that the earliest astronomers evolved from astrologers.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy]
There are countless examples of people who were initially thought to be crackpots but turned out to be pioneers, you are probably more well versed about them than me...
And that was an interesting article but it just proves a just point that you should stay within the system while trying to change/correct it. That just reinforces the view of the poster who posted before me that cases like these occur in recent times too, and that we should not go out of our way to ridicule people with some new strange idea (which I took a small part in regretfully).
Oh and in searching for the article I found your blog on it incidentally, quite well reasoned, if I may say so...

 

[Enigman]

Note that Doyle believed (among other things) in the existence of fairies, and was taken in by faked photographs of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

He also is believed to have given a message from the dead. *snigger*
Doyle during his later years was quite barmy after he joined the spiritualist movement.
no wonder he couldn't stand the mention of Holmes...

 

[Evo]

What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Enigman]

What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

BAN 'EM EVO!
Kidding; Having no basis is not the best reason to make fun of people, educating them would be much more constructive...though most 'crackpots' here, tend to be quite stone headed...

 

[Akaisora]

What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

I'd say crackpots are persistent about their "revolutionary theories" and beliefs to the point of not learning due to arrogance or... crackpot-ness? As long as they learn and find out that their crackpot beliefs are false, I think it is fine.

 

[lisab]

What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

True. Seems like they start down the mainstream science path but they take a wrong turn, and become convinced that 'This can't possibly be right. There's no way nature can be this complex, I bet I can simplify everything!'

And there seems to be a prevailing belief that science happens in bursts of genius. Sure things can happen that way, but most of the time progress is a slow slog. Crackpots really don't understand that.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't see it as cruel. Especially if it wakes them up.

As an old guy, if I can't laugh at my folly I haven't much to laugh about.
Others should enjoy it too.

“Hey boss, did you ever seen a more splendiferous crash? "alexis zorba

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057831/

 

[Nugatory]

"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle

Historical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on Earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!

Eh? It's a matter of historical record that he was a practicing astrologer. It was part of his duties as a math professor to cast the horoscopes of nobles and the well-to-do.

Science at the time was completely tangled up with Aristotelian beliefs, and those beliefs had gone through the Middle East and come back to Europe mixed up with, I believe it was Zoroastrian, ideas about astrology. It was de rigeur at the time to learn astrology alongside Euclid.

Here's a link to a review of a collection of scholarly papers that explore Galileo's involvement with astrology:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty...als/renaissance_quarterly/v059/59.1boner.html

It's peer-reviewed, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MUSE

 

[Enigman]

Historical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on Earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.

Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).

As with regards to Jim's comment: it would seem to apply only to category a) but a prime example of it being applied wrongly would be in case of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Chandra's discovery might well have transformed and accelerated developments in both physics and astrophysics in the 1930s. Instead, Eddington's heavy-handed intervention lent weighty support to the conservative community astrophysicists, who steadfastly refused even to consider the idea that stars might collapse to nothing. As a result, Chandra's work was almost forgotten.

I've never found education through ridicule to be a very attractive prospective, and have always thought that it to be derogatory to the subject itself; but this of course just my opinion.

 

[Nugatory]

"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle

It has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.

I could buy the claim that (for some definition of "grew") chemistry grew from alchemy and astronomy from astrology. I don't buy the same claim for Mesmerism and experimental psychology, although I could be persuaded that Mesmer was indeed seeking after truth and just happened not to find it.

It's a huge stretch, possibly huge enough to justify inclusion in Crackpot Index, to conclude from this history that "The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow". Semmelweis (already mentioned by another other poster in this thread) is a rare exception indeed, an exception that is worth studying in its own right because it is so extraordinary.

 

[Evo]

Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).

Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Renowned writer and skeptic Martin Gardner, in the first chapter of his book "Fads and Fallacies", had given a classic description of the crank/crackpot:

[Some cranks] are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article — well-written and impressively learned...
[C]ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers... The modern pseudo-scientist... stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field... The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and — until recently — publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.


Gardner further prepared a list of "five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies tend to be exhibited" (as quoted by physicist-turned-statistician Cosma Shalizi in his review of Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science"):

(1) He/she considers himself/herself a genius.

(2) He/she regards his/her colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself/herself.

(3) He/she believes himself/herself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.

(4) He/she has strong compulsions to focus his/her attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name of physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton.

(5) He/she often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms or phrases he/she has coined.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.

Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178