Crackpot Index & Leading-Edge Research: Applying It?

In summary, Specious argues that there are theories that may be 'correct' at one point in time, but may be proven incorrect in the future.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It would be funny if it wasn't being blatantly dishonest.
 
  • #3
satire always has some truth in it
 
  • #4
And gibberish typed by monkeys will have real words in them.
 
  • #5
I didn't mean to imply that ST was typed by monkeys:smile:
 
  • #6
Good thing you cleared that up. I wasn't sure whether you were talking about ST or LQG. :biggrin:
 
  • #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>)
 
  • #8
a model?
or how about:
postulate
presupposition
prototype/archetype
 
Last edited:
  • #9
The only funning thing about that is that they both get high scores without the BS the author keeps doing.
 
  • #10
Specious?
 
  • #11
rewebster said:
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
quadraphonics said:
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
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
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, let's 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
rewebster said:
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
:smile:definitely and --conversational
 
  • #17
rewebster said:
: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
turbo-1 said:
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
rewebster said:
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
turbo-1 said:
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:

1. What is the Crackpot Index and how is it used in scientific research?

The Crackpot Index is a tool developed by physicist John Baez to help evaluate the credibility of a scientific theory or idea. It assigns points to various characteristics commonly found in pseudoscientific or fringe theories, such as lack of evidence, use of complex jargon, and personal attacks on mainstream scientists. A higher score on the index indicates a higher likelihood that the theory is not based on sound scientific principles.

2. Is the Crackpot Index a reliable way to determine the validity of a scientific theory?

The Crackpot Index should not be used as the sole determinant of a theory's validity. It is simply a tool to help scientists critically evaluate ideas that may be outside the mainstream. A high score on the index does not necessarily mean that a theory is incorrect, but it may indicate that more scrutiny and evidence is needed to support it.

3. Can the Crackpot Index be used to discredit legitimate scientific ideas?

No, the Crackpot Index should not be used as a way to dismiss or discredit legitimate scientific ideas. It is important to remember that science is constantly evolving and new ideas may challenge existing theories. The index should only be used as a starting point for further investigation and critical thinking.

4. How can the Crackpot Index be applied in scientific research?

The Crackpot Index can be used as a guide to help scientists identify potential red flags in a theory or idea. By evaluating a theory's score on the index, scientists can determine if more evidence or research is needed before considering it as a valid scientific concept.

5. Is there a similar tool to the Crackpot Index used in other fields of research?

Yes, there are similar tools used in other fields of research, such as the Quackery Index used in medical research and the Denialism Index used in climate science. These tools serve a similar purpose of helping researchers critically evaluate ideas and theories, but they may have different criteria and point systems based on the specific field of research.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
822
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
590
Back
Top