The Crackpot Index
math.ucr.edu
math.ucr.edu
this one can be legitimate. I suppose they could all be legitimate in the right context (actually being right) but this one shows up fairly often in non-crackpot science. we are still trying to find the mechanism for gravity for example.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html
"Mechanisms" that don't give you better predictions really are almost always crackpot. Really understanding a new mechanism usually comes with better predictions of something - though not always everything.
you also missed the point of the overcomingbias post, which wasn't that his uncle was wrong, but that he was right for the wrong reason. If an idiot tells you the sky is blue that doesn't make it false. His uncle wasn't making a specific claim against the theory of gravitation, but using gravity as an example of the ignorance of scientists as evidence against listening to their claims in general. this kind of reasoning is common and dangerous.
Nazgul, you've obviously got no clue how gravity works. You may not realize it, but you don't.
Physicists, on the other hand, do.
This may seem surprising and even insulting, but it shouldn't. This is not a tiny little hunter-gatherer tribe and it's not surprising that there are people out there with knowledge of incredible specialized depth built upon ages of scientific labor all of which you have not the tiniest hint even exists.
Such is the point of the essay.
I was under the impression that this was one of the main problems with our understanding of gravity. Have any pointers on material? all wikipedia says that is useful to me is that bodies don't transmit information about their position faster than c, which does solve that particular problem. I just can't wrap my head conceptually around how that works from the frame of reference of the body being acted upon.
I would say more, like defending the idea of unusual thinking or pointing out great people in history who have been thought of as crackpots, but, alas, that would make me a crackpot too.
I love a system that prevents itself from being criticized.
Let's just say that if you're trying a startup with true world-changing potential, like Google, FaceBook, YouTube, etc -- don't read the list because you're a crackpot too.
What's the old saying? Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you. Well just because you are a crackpot doesn't mean you can't change the world, either. Lots of crackpots have.
- Carl Sagan
Unusual thinking itself is not valuable. Unusual thinking with rigor is.
And I liked Bozo the Clown.
The author of the list is a mathematical physicist. I assume the list is inspired by the letters he receives from people who are sure they've disproved relativity or quantum mechanics.
I know who the guy is. I'm just saying there's a fine line between busy and can't be bothered and a pompous asshole with poor social skills.
The list makes me lean towards the latter opinion.
The last comment was too harsh. If I still had editing capabilities, I'd revise it.
Oddly enough, I'm guilty of the very point I was trying to make.
Thanks for catching it. Apologies to the group for my poor taste.