Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The crackpot index

  1. May 5, 2008 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. May 5, 2008 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It would be funny if it wasn't being blatantly dishonest.
     
  4. May 5, 2008 #3
    satire always has some truth in it
     
  5. May 6, 2008 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And gibberish typed by monkeys will have real words in them.
     
  6. May 6, 2008 #5
    I didn't mean to imply that ST was typed by monkeys:smile:
     
  7. May 6, 2008 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Good thing you cleared that up. I wasn't sure whether you were talking about ST or LQG. :biggrin:
     
  8. May 6, 2008 #7
    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>)
     
  9. May 6, 2008 #8
    a model?
    or how about:
    postulate
    presupposition
    prototype/archetype
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2008
  10. May 6, 2008 #9
    The only funning thing about that is that they both get high scores without the BS the author keeps doing.
     
  11. May 6, 2008 #10
    Specious?
     
  12. May 6, 2008 #11
    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?
     
  13. May 6, 2008 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. May 6, 2008 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. May 6, 2008 #14
    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.
     
  16. May 6, 2008 #15

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Controversial. :biggrin:
     
  17. May 6, 2008 #16
    :smile:definitely and --conversational
     
  18. May 6, 2008 #17

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. May 6, 2008 #18
    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"
     
  20. May 6, 2008 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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".
     
  21. May 6, 2008 #20
    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: May 6, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The crackpot index
  1. The Crackpot Index (Replies: 8)

  2. Baez's Crackpot Index (Replies: 5)

Loading...