Why are all the cranks I know male?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
38 replies · 6K views
arildno said:
She WAS really bad, besides, Evo couldn't let ZApperZ get his hands dirty. He had a full-time job exposing her intellectually..

WarPhalange said:
Are the threads still alive, or have they been deleted? I need a laugh.
They're probably still around.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Evo said:
Yeah, she's dead now. She was constantly vandalizing wikipedia too.

I ran into her on usenet/google groups years before I started posting here, and I didn't agree with her ideas or methods, but I'm sorry to find that she died of cancer.
 
George Jones said:
I ran into her on usenet/google groups years before I started posting here, and I didn't agree with her ideas or methods, but I'm sorry to find that she died of cancer.
Yes, that is not something I would wish on anyone.
 
Evo said:
Yes, that is not something I would wish on anyone.

Really? I wish it on four or five people a day. Doesn't seem to work though
 
rootX said:
This must be wrong because men are always wrong :smile:

No, that's not true. As I explain to my boyfriend, he can be right sometimes...as long as he agrees with me. :biggrin:
 
jostpuur said:
is there clear difference between pseudoscience and cargo cult science?
Yes: I've heard of pseudoscience.
 
jostpuur said:
btw, (an off-topic question (I'm the original poster, I have right to go off-topic)) is there clear difference between pseudoscience and cargo cult science?

Well, I definitely would regard the study of cargo cults as a branch of legitimate science (anthroplogy, comparative cultural studies and so on), but I don't think that was what you meant by cargo cult science..
 
jostpuur said:
I thought that everybody uses the term cargo cult science in the same way as Feynman did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
It would seem the difference is cargo cult science refers to being intellectually dishonest (falsifying or exagerating results in order to gain attention) and pseudoscience is bad science, basically unfounded beliefs claimed to be science.