The crackpot index

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
It would be funny if it wasn't being blatantly dishonest.
 
  • #3
794
1
satire always has some truth in it
 
  • #4
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
And gibberish typed by monkeys will have real words in them.
 
  • #5
794
1
I didn't mean to imply that ST was typed by monkeys:smile:
 
  • #6
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Good thing you cleared that up. I wasn't sure whether you were talking about ST or LQG. :biggrin:
 
  • #7
794
1
hey, Gokul, you seem like you know things (if you, or even someone else, could help)---I have a specific word/term that I've been looking for some time (and it kind of relates to all of this)----

What's a good term, if there is one, for a theory/hypothesis that appears maybe to be correct, but isn't, only before it's proved to be wrong?---and not the words 'theory and/or hypothesis'


Example: Before and for a while after old Copernicus, both his (or a variation of) and the Geocentric model were being used. In that time period, what would the Geocentric model be called in the thinking that it could be a parallel 'useful but wrong' theory?

So, I'm looking for a really good one or two word term that says/implies/suggests that a 'theory/hypothesis' is used, and appears to be correct and 'useful', at the present time of its use, but may be 'wrong'? (ahhhmmm, like ST, uhhhmmm <clears throat again>)
 
  • #8
609
0
a model?
or how about:
postulate
presupposition
prototype/archetype
 
Last edited:
  • #9
692
0
The only funning thing about that is that they both get high scores without the BS the author keeps doing.
 
  • #10
4,465
72
Specious?
 
  • #11
quadraphonics
So, I'm looking for a really good one or two word term that says/implies/suggests that a 'theory/hypothesis' is used, and appears to be correct and 'useful', at the present time of its use, but may be 'wrong'?
Isn't this necessarily true of ALL theories? Granted, some are more wrong than others, but I'm uncomfortable with the implication that there are theories that won't eventually be proven "wrong."

That said, perhaps the word "provisional" could be of use here?
 
  • #12
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Isn't this necessarily true of ALL theories?
I agree, the whole point of an hypothesis is it needs to be falsifiable, so you always have to assume it could be wrong and do your best to prove it wrong.

I do sometimes use the term "working hypothesis" though when I know it's only a part of some larger picture and if supported, will continue to have details filled in.

The other thing I can think of is if there is a perfectly good hypothesis already out there and you're proposing another explanation that is also consistent with existing data, but not as rigorously tested yet, you might refer to yours as the "alternative hypothesis" to indicate you haven't dismissed the other one at all, just are taking into consideration some other options that have not yet been properly tested.
 
  • #13
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
The chances of being labeled a crackpot are inversely proportional to the number of people involved in your research. There are a lot of people in ST and a lot (though fewer) in LQG, so they have plenty of cover, and can be afforded some respect by the mainstream.

The only observational evidence that has arisen to support either field is the observed delay in the arrival times of ultra-high energy gamma rays in a GRB observed by the MAGIC Cerenkov air-shower telescope last summer. Fotini Markopoulou of the Perimeter Institute proposed years ago that if space has a fine-scale structure, and if EM interacts with the space through which it propagates, high-energy, high-frequency gamma rays would interact more frequently than light of lower energy and thus be slowed more. She expected that GLAST (which still has not launched) might demonstrate such a frequency-dependent slowing. If GLAST confirms the MAGIC result, that's a big plus for LQG.
 
  • #14
794
1
Well, lets' see:

model---is too all encompassing and not specific for the allure of the theory for its possibility

as is:postulate, presupposition, prototype/archetype-----as with 'model' (funny, though, as a def.--- alluring for it's 'looks')

Specious---it has the 'right' idea, and have looked at various def's of it---"Deceptively attractive" , "Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious" , "having deceptive attraction or allure" , "Looking fair or right but being false" , and "having deceptive attraction or allure"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious

but, it's not pertaining to 'theories/hypotheses' like I would like---but has the 'idea' of what I was hoping for.

provisional--to me indicates that it is know to be only temporary to begin with


OK---let's try this:

even though many believe that classical (Newtonian) and relativity can 'sort of' co-exist, they are also competing and seemingly both right (and they may be)-hmmm

--here--this is better--but, even as the sub-forums in PF Physics, lets use them--classical (Newtonian), quantum, relativity, and 'beyond the SM' compete in a way --one may prove to be "more" 'correct' (or one will have more 'parts' of it being more correct) at some time or another, but in the mean time--all are being used----so, it doesn't matter which one you think is more correct --let's say, its the one you like the most--what are the others called?

so, along with the other post, this may help to 'find the word'----


--It just seems like I've heard the 'right' word before, but that may have been a trans-dimensional subliminal super-luminous cross-membranal illusion to appease the thought that the right word does exist.
 
  • #15
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
so, it doesn't matter which one you think is more correct --let's say, its the one you like the most--what are the others called?
Controversial. :biggrin:
 
  • #16
794
1
:smile:definitely and --conversational
 
  • #17
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
:smile:definitely and --conversational
In "The Emperor's New Mind" Sir Roger Penrose categorized theories into 3 classes:

Superb
Useful
Tentative

In my edition, the discussion starts on page 152.
 
  • #18
794
1
In "The Emperor's New Mind" Sir Roger Penrose categorized theories into 3 classes:

Superb
Useful
Tentative

In my edition, the discussion starts on page 152.
thanks--I looked and the whole thing is on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oI...t=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA201,M1

I put it in my 'favorites' to read later--thanks again


but 'tentative' still doesn't convey the 'feeling' that "the 'other' theory will 'more than likely not be right' , but definitely can't be proven right (or wrong) at the present time"
 
  • #19
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
thanks--I looked and the whole thing is on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oI...t=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA201,M1

I put it in my 'favorites' to read later--thanks again


but 'tentative' still doesn't convey the 'feeling' that "the 'other' theory will 'more than likely not be right' , but definitely can't be proven right (or wrong) at the present time"
This is a book that I have read and re-read several times, and even though it is dated, I think that his treatment of the intersection of quantum physics and relativity was prescient and is still relevant. He always says that both fields will have to accept some changes before they can be reconciled, and I agree, BUT I think that GR will have to take the bigger hit. Einstein himself thought that GR had some glaring weaknesses, and in his essay "On the Ether" he lamented that quantum theory might "blow up the edifice of field theory altogether".
 
  • #20
794
1
This is a book that I have read and re-read several times, and even though it is dated, I think that his treatment of the intersection of quantum physics and relativity was prescient and is still relevant. He always says that both fields will have to accept some changes before they can be reconciled, and I agree, BUT I think that GR will have to take the bigger hit. Einstein himself thought that GR had some glaring weaknesses, and in his essay "On the Ether" he lamented that quantum theory might "blow up the edifice of field theory altogether".
I think both GR and SR


...but, I think quantum (the way it is right now) has some problems, too.


yep, I will read it---soon, .....very soon
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on The crackpot index

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
111
Views
25K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
4K
Top