The Science Crackpot Index and Bingo Game
Discussing science online can often be a frustrating experience if no quality controls are in place, which is often the case. As part useful reference and part entertainment PF has put together an adequate list of common attributes associated with dubious scientific discussion. Next time you’re in a discussion, check this list to see if your participants are debating in good faith or not.
Thanks to the dozen or so PF staff and advisors who helped compile this list. Enjoy our Physics Forums Crackpot Index!
Table of Contents
Style and Formatting
5 points: Obvious copy and paste
5 points: Wall of Text
5 points: Over-the-top special formatting
20 points: No math shown
20 points: Excessive math without consistency or explanations
Telling Quotes
5 points: “you don’t allow open-minded people to post about the subject”
5 points: “I am thinking out of the box”
5 points: “Science is all about asking questions”
5 points: “you are censoring discussion”
10 points: “Einstein was just a clerk”
10 points: “Einstein was bad at math”
15 points: “I’ve been working on this for 20 years”
15 points: “people didn’t believe Galileo initially”
20 points: “Units here ≠ units here”
20 points: “Scientists/others try to ban/suppress my theory”
30 points: “Because I haven’t had formal training I can see things others might have missed”
30 points: “I’m not a physicist, but…”
30 points: “I don’t know the math”
50 points: “I just discovered the laws of physics are wrong”
Refuting the establishment
5 points: You can’t conclude something you don’t have direct evidence for
15 points: Science is wrong because it doesn’t do logic correctly
20 points: Skeptical of the standard model
25 points: Claiming Einstein was a radical in his day
25 points: Claiming that Relativity is only accepted due to Einstein’s reputation
25 points: Claiming that Einstein plagiarized his work
30 points: Claiming Einstein is wrong
30 points: Claiming Newton is wrong
Desperate Measures
5 points: Putting mentors/science advisors on ignore.
5 points: Post offers a complicated analogy rather than a descriptive model
10 points: Ignoring critiques.
10 points: Profane, insulting, threatening PMs to complain about their Notice/Infraction…
50 points: Creating a sockpuppet to agree with you.
Questionable References
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar reference
5 points: Link URL contains multiple hyphens
5 points: Link URL domain is something other than .com .edu .org or .gov
10 points: Posting under the pretense of asking a question
10 points: References to simplified models designed for TV shows etc
15 points: Digging up 100-year-old papers looking for a secret
15 points: Links to article written by a content writing company
20 points: Links to paper published on personal website
20 points: Personal blog link
30 points: Citing or quoting sources in support of their position which in reality refute their position
Day Dreamers
15 points: Science is wrong because of my philosophical beliefs
15 points: Using words without a proper definition
40 points: Mentions science fiction, UFOs, or pseudoscience
40 points: Includes the words like “truths”, “God”, “secret”, “breakthrough”, “revolutionary”, “mystery”
50 points: Includes topics from our banned topic list
Bonus! Turn it into a Crackpot Bingo game!
Source: member micromass
Resources:
A Layman’s Guide to: Lies, Damned Lies and Pseudoscience
John Baez’s Original Crackpot Index
I have a BS in Information Sciences from UW-Milwaukee. I’ve helped manage Physics Forums for over 22 years. I enjoy learning and discussing new scientific developments. STEM communication and policy are big interests as well. Currently a Sr. SEO Specialist at Shopify and writer at importsem.com
We've been there, done that, and we learned that it's hopeless. We had "Theory Development" and "Independent Research" forums. What a waste of time and energy. There are forums that allow crackpots to post, you can certainly try to help them on those forums.PF is quite enough for me now, when I learn enough here to teach, well perhaps…
:thumbs:
no! NO ONE EXPECTS…
umm…nevermind :biggrin::biggrin:[SUP]2[/SUP]
I think there's a difference between being called a charlatan by, say, the Physics Forum Staff, and, hmm…. the westboro baptist church?
I'm sure if Galileo had expected :rolleyes: the spanish[SUP]*[/SUP]no! NO ONE EXPECTS…
* Whatever….. Nerd!umm…nevermind :biggrin:
What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend.Indeed. I think this is akin to how some people get actual enjoyment from tormenting others, or playing practical jokes on someone whose temperament is not suited to being on the receiving end of such. I.e., it's a form of bullying.
…
Nope, he wasn't but at that time he did his work he was called a charlatan.
…I think there's a difference between being called a charlatan by, say, the Physics Forum Staff, and, hmm…. the westboro baptist church?
I'm sure if Galileo had expected :rolleyes: the spanish[SUP]*[/SUP] inquisition, he may have only shared his scientific revelations with peers.
hmmm…. Did Galileo have any peers?
————————–
* Whatever….. Nerd!
What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend.IMO the essence of crackpottery is stupidity, not ignorance. Of course many of them are ignorant as well, but not all. The ones who got a mainstream science education before they lost the plot are usually more fun to watch (from a safe distance!).
Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it.We've been there, done that, and we learned that it's hopeless. We had "Theory Development" and "Independent Research" forums. What a waste of time and energy. There are forums that allow crackpots to post, you can certainly try to help them on those forums.
I'm not talking about figuring out if someone is a crackpot, I'm talking about someone who has already shown themselves to be a crackpot. We get plenty of people who post nonsense but end up just being ignorant. Most of these people prove willing to learn and are not crackpots.
Well that's just wrong. A crackpot has removed themselves from the possibility of being educated well before they are ever ridiculed. The fact that they are ridiculed is a direct result of their inability to accept that they could be wrong and may not know what they are talking about.Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it. And in case of a persistent negative result the mentors always have the right to close threads or ban members as they see fit. The non-constructive and unfruitful act of ridicule does not help either the 'crank' nor the 'educator' (shall we say), except perhaps giving a momentary pleasure of superiority in the later. As I said before I shall maintain my stand on this position and as you will on yours, essentially rendering this debate a waste of time, while we could spend it other constructive activities.
Regards.
And its usually by ridicule that it is thrown as such.Well that's just wrong. A crackpot has removed themselves from the possibility of being educated well before they are ever ridiculed. The fact that they are ridiculed is a direct result of their inability to accept that they could be wrong and may not know what they are talking about.
…….Once you reach the point of ridicule, the possibility of education has usually been thrown out the window, so I see no relationship between the two.And its usually by ridicule that it is thrown as such. What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend. I will continue to defer on this point and I see no argument that will bring you around, so let us just agree to differ on the merits of ridiculing people and their ignorance.
It depends. Some people are quicker to ridicule than others… especially on the internet where everyone has balls of steel.
I agree that we shouldn't ridicule cranks. When I see someone dedicating years of their life trying to prove that relativity is wrong, for example, I think it's a sad waste, and mockery is not the answer.There is no answer. If someone generally thinks they are right and all of science is wrong then I WILL laugh at them. Why? Because it's preferable than feeling sorry for them for no good reason. Honestly, why would I feel sorry for someone who deliberately chooses to go that rout? No, if they have dug themselves into their hole, and retain full capability of getting out of it at any time yet choose not to do so, then I have no pity for them. Just like I have no pity for a common criminal who knows what they do is wrong yet doesn't care.
I am well aware of that Milady, but my concern lies in their ridicule which to me defiles the beauty of the process of education. That is the sole thing I am against.Once you reach the point of ridicule, the possibility of education has usually been thrown out the window, so I see no relationship between the two.
No true Scottsman!
Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.I am well aware of that Milady, but my concern lies in their ridicule which to me defiles the beauty of the process of education. That is the sole thing I am against.
And Nugatory- Challenger is good…though a bit funny
Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178It ended with 13 posts? Doyle's signalling you from the grave, mischief's afoot…
Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).Well, I was talking about Doyle's argument, which is easily and often misappropriated as justification for crankery.
I agree that we shouldn't ridicule cranks. When I see someone dedicating years of their life trying to prove that relativity is wrong, for example, I think it's a sad waste, and mockery is not the answer.
It has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178
Renowned writer and skeptic Martin Gardner, in the first chapter of his book "Fads and Fallacies", had given a classic description of the crank/crackpot:
[Some cranks] are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article — well-written and impressively learned….
[C]ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers…. The modern pseudo-scientist… stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field….. The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and — until recently — publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.
Gardner further prepared a list of "five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies tend to be exhibited" (as quoted by physicist-turned-statistician Cosma Shalizi in his review of Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science"):
(1) He/she considers himself/herself a genius.
(2) He/she regards his/her colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself/herself.
(3) He/she believes himself/herself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.
(4) He/she has strong compulsions to focus his/her attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name of physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton.
(5) He/she often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms or phrases he/she has coined.
Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.
"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.DoyleIt has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.
I could buy the claim that (for some definition of "grew") chemistry grew from alchemy and astronomy from astrology. I don't buy the same claim for Mesmerism and experimental psychology, although I could be persuaded that Mesmer was indeed seeking after truth and just happened not to find it.
It's a huge stretch, possibly huge enough to justify inclusion in Crackpot Index, to conclude from this history that "The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow". Semmelweis (already mentioned by another other poster in this thread) is a rare exception indeed, an exception that is worth studying in its own right because it is so extraordinary.
Historical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).
As with regards to Jim's comment: it would seem to apply only to category a) but a prime example of it being applied wrongly would be in case of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Chandra's discovery might well have transformed and accelerated developments in both physics and astrophysics in the 1930s. Instead, Eddington's heavy-handed intervention lent weighty support to the conservative community astrophysicists, who steadfastly refused even to consider the idea that stars might collapse to nothing. As a result, Chandra's work was almost forgotten.I've never found education through ridicule to be a very attractive prospective, and have always thought that it to be derogatory to the subject itself; but this of course just my opinion.
And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!Eh? It's a matter of historical record that he was a practicing astrologer. It was part of his duties as a math professor to cast the horoscopes of nobles and the well-to-do.
Science at the time was completely tangled up with Aristotelian beliefs, and those beliefs had gone through the Middle East and come back to Europe mixed up with, I believe it was Zoroastrian, ideas about astrology. It was de rigeur at the time to learn astrology alongside Euclid.
Here's a link to a review of a collection of scholarly papers that explore Galileo's involvement with astrology:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty…als/renaissance_quarterly/v059/59.1boner.html
It's peer-reviewed, yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MUSE
"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.DoyleHistorical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.
I don't see it as cruel. Especially if it wakes them up.
As an old guy, if I can't laugh at my folly I haven't much to laugh about.
Others should enjoy it too.
“Hey boss, did you ever seen a more splendiferous crash? "alexis zorbahttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057831/
What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.True. Seems like they start down the mainstream science path but they take a wrong turn, and become convinced that 'This can't possibly be right. There's no way nature can be this complex, I bet I can simplify everything!'
And there seems to be a prevailing belief that science happens in bursts of genius. Sure things can happen that way, but most of the time progress is a slow slog. Crackpots really don't understand that.
What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.I'd say crackpots are persistent about their "revolutionary theories" and beliefs to the point of not learning due to arrogance or…. crackpot-ness? As long as they learn and find out that their crackpot beliefs are false, I think it is fine.
What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.BAN 'EM EVO!!!
Kidding; Having no basis is not the best reason to make fun of people, educating them would be much more constructive…though most 'crackpots' here, tend to be quite stone headed…
What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.
Note that Doyle believed (among other things) in the existence of fairies, and was taken in by faked photographs of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_FairiesHe also is believed to have given a message from the dead. *snigger*:biggrin:
Doyle during his later years was quite barmy after he joined the spiritualist movement.
no wonder he couldn't stand the mention of Holmes…
And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature? Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer? Hello? I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks! And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!
These kinds of statements should be challenged and not taken as if it is a word of "god". It certainly shouldn't be perpetuated as if it was.
Zz.Wow, just wow…talk about overreactions…a small relevant quote on the topic of the previous poster…
Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer?Nope, but if I edited the line I would be guilty of spreading misinformation. Other than that I have no defense for it.
I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacksI could show you more. Much more…(hundreds not dozens.)
Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!Nope, he wasn't but at that time he did his work he was called a charlatan.
Not to mention that the earliest astronomers evolved from astrologers.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy] [Broken]
There are countless examples of people who were initially thought to be crackpots but turned out to be pioneers, you are probably more well versed about them than me…
And that was an interesting article but it just proves a just point that you should stay within the system while trying to change/correct it. That just reinforces the view of the poster who posted before me that cases like these occur in recent times too, and that we should not go out of our way to ridicule people with some new strange idea (which I took a small part in regretfully).
Oh and in searching for the article I found your blog on it incidentally, quite well reasoned, if I may say so…
And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature?Note that Doyle believed (among other things) in the existence of fairies, and was taken in by faked photographs of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Which reminds me of this quote:
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the
work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical
mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously…States of Matter, by David Goodstein
Crackpot has a spectrum of meanings. It's ok to get a low score on the crackpot index, in my opinion.
One of the more formal and still simple definitions of crackpot is "one who holds beliefs/interpretations different than his contemporaries". In this case, it's a matter of consensus reality. In other words, it doesn't speak to a refutation of objective evidence, but of interpretations of the evidence (and what they imply about underlying mechanisms/etc). And if it's later testable that the less popular interpretation was correct, then that person ceases to be a crackpot.
But hopefully, they haven't by this time, already killed themselves (R.I.P Boltzmann).
I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.And I will point out to you the account of Dan Koshland in his article "Crazy but Correct" (D.E. Koshland, Jr., Nature v.432, p.447 (2004)), and how one should work within the system to try and break the prevailing idea which may be inaccurate or incorrect.
I will leave the details of his story for your own enjoyment of discovery.
Zz.
"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.DoyleAnd since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature? Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer? Hello? I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks! And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!
These kinds of statements should be challenged and not taken as if it is a word of "god". It certainly shouldn't be perpetuated as if it was.
Zz.
Facing adversity of such labels is part of being a revolutionary :)
If I ever got the physicsforums crackpot award, I'd change my handle to my real name and get my book up to #1.
I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery."The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle
I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.
Darkness shall rule yet…
I got everyone beat.
From a PM with someone recently.
No it's completely with reality, because even the Big Bang needed energy to create the universe and that came from outside the universe itself-in nothingness/nowhere, whatever you want to call it.
So that nothing has energy which somehow transformed into work.
Just because can't measure it doesn't mean it's there, it is always there, but you can't detect it, you can't measure it, calculate it.
And just because you can't do all that it doesn't mean physical, if it exists, it is 100% physical, the key difference is you can't measure it, you can't detect it, you can't calculate it with math.
No, it's not against a science, if it is, than science has to change some of its paradigms.
Darkness is physical 8maybe it's not a an object but it exists, and everything what exists it has energy (it doesn't matter if it's in the form of work or in the form of something else) otherwise it would not exist in the first place and it would not be able to create anything, darkness does have energy, but that energy is not in the form of work, that's all.
Darkness still has size-which means it is spatial-which means it is not absolute nothingness, it something after all.
And don't forget [itex]1^2 + 4^2 + 8^2 = 9^2[/itex]
Just came across a new quote today — hadn't seen this exact one before…
"Please take me seriously, I know proving <insert conjecture/theory here> is not easy but I may have just proved it for a special case"I am not convinced it was a crackpot. 3[SUP]2[/SUP]+4[SUP]2[/SUP]=5[SUP]2[/SUP] – I have just proven Pythagorean theorem works for a special case :wink:
OK, I'll bite. Where exactly did Einstein proclaimed that Newton was wrong? Incomplete, an approximation, sure. But wrong? Would someone proclaim that and then write a tribute such as this?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on-newton.html
Zz.From your link:
The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena, which has been described above, may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought. But while the construction of the theory of fields was still actively in progress, the facts of heat radiation, spectra, radioactivity, and so on revealed a limit to the employment of the whole system of thought, which, in spite of gigantic successes in detail, seems to us today completely insurmountable. Many physicists maintain, not without weighty arguments, that in face of these facts not only the differential law but the law of causality itself—hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science—fails.
The very possibility of a spatio-temporal construction which can be clearly brought into consonance with physical experience is denied. That a mechanical system should permanently admit only discrete values of energy or discrete states—as experience, so to say, directly shows—seems at first hardly deducible from a theory of fields working with differential equations. The method of [Louis] De Broglie and [Erwin] Schrödinger, which has, in a certain sense, the character of a theory of fields, does deduce, on the basis of differential equations, from a sort of consideration of resonance the existence of purely discrete states and their transition into one another in amazing agreement with the facts of experience; but it has to dispense with a localization of the mass-particles and with strictly causal laws. Who would be so venturesome as to decide today the question whether causal law and differential law, these ultimate premises of Newton's treatment of nature, must definitely be abandoned?Einstein is saying Newton's view isn't working anymore. He doesn't like saying it, but he's saying it.
Just came across a new quote today — hadn't seen this exact one before…
"Please take me seriously, I know proving <insert conjecture/theory here> is not easy but I may have just proved it for a special case"
:rofl: :thumbs: Hilarious!
I started to write some biological description before, but I did not feel inspired and I did not get any further than:
"
Crackpot (Fractum scaphium sciphus)
Habitat: Youtube, Vixra, WordPress
Distinct calls: "Newton", "Einstein", "Feynman"
"
I can't say I know Latin, but it ought to be more or less correct; Fractum scaphium sciphus ought to mean "broken pot". It might be fractus instead of fractum, though, I don't know.Keep it at Homo crackpotus.
The Crackpot is nowadays a rare sight […]:rofl: :thumbs: Hilarious!
I started to write some biological description before, but I did not feel inspired and I did not get any further than:
"
Crackpot (Fractum scaphium sciphus)
Habitat: Youtube, Vixra, WordPress
Distinct calls: "Newton", "Einstein", "Feynman"
"
I can't say I know Latin, but it ought to be more or less correct; Fractum scaphium sciphus ought to mean "broken pot". It might be fractus instead of fractum, though, I don't know.
Claiming Newton is wrongIn that case are you claiming that Sir Newt On was right on the account that light was composed of particles then it would travel faster in a denser medium like water but if it were composed of waves, then a denser medium would slow it down while he maintained that light was particles, not waves…chalk me up 60 points :biggrin:
Then Einstein would get 100 crackpot points instead of 30.OK, I'll bite. Where exactly did Einstein proclaimed that Newton was wrong? Incomplete, an approximation, sure. But wrong? Would someone proclaim that and then write a tribute such as this?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on-newton.html
Zz.
The Crackpot…:rofl:
You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted.Sometimes we do leave one of their threads around, if they took a subtle approach so we didn't recognize them immediately, and there was useful discussion in the meantime. For example:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=708068
David AttenboroughThe Crackpot is nowadays a rare sight on the Physics Forums. This magnificent creature, once ubiquitous in this part of the web, is facing extinction due to overhunting by the local admins.
Crackpots are omnivorous scavengers, sustaining themselves on any fringe science readily available in the environment. However, their digestive system tends to specialise with age, forcing them to maintain their chosen dietary composition throughout the latter part of life.
Characteristic of a Crakpot is the vacuous misinformation it extrudes to attract other members of the species, or when faced with predation. It is a substance resembling common science, if only under the most superificial scrutiny. When viewed under a microscope, however, it shows significant lack of coherence, while the reasoning lattice is ridden with sizeable holes, often arranged in aesthetically-pleasing patterns.
The exact composition of misinformation varies depending on the particulars of a Crackpot's diet, the prevalence of education in its breeding area, and the size of its ego glands.
In certain parts of the world, the misinformation is sought after by unscrupulous individuals, who collect and further disseminate it among the general populace. Thought to be a multi-million pound market, misinformation is sold in book and television programme form semi-openly, often under the guise of reputable science. Yet, despite the known adverse effects of its use, especially among the young and impressionable minds, the sale of misinformation remains a gray area both ethically and within the confines of the law.
While in the wild the Crackpot is nearly bereft of natural predators, only rarely stalked by the members of genus Professoria Academica, it is considered a pest by admins of scientific forums. Often killed on sight, traditionally with the ritual tribal weapon called "the banhammer".
It is hard to argue against the reasoning behind such a strict behaviour, as the crops cultivated by science forums are, without doubt, adversely affected by the Crackpot's misinformation. An unchecked infestation can easily spoil any valid discussion, subsequently requiring an inordinate amount of work to weed out the impurities.
As a result, the population of feral Crackpots dwindles in places like Physics Forums. Their future fate either starvation, or capture by the aforementioned misinformation cartels.
And even though there are other factors behind their seemingly inevitable extinction, including the widespread adoption of educational pesticides, or poaching by debunking websites, the actions of admins are certainly among the most immediate of threats.
So, should you ever see the wild Crackpot rear its magnificent head from between the neatly trimmed lines of scientific topics, take a picture. Copy and paste. Save the memory of the nature's exuberance for posterity.
View attachment 163802
I just got 50 points in my kitchen this morning. But then again, it might be my FBD.
ps. Can you give that new kid, Emigman, half an infraction point for me. My kitchen is a mess! :grumpy:Who's that? :biggrin:
You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted. Personally I've found hours around 8AM-1PM GMT the most abundant, as it would appear the mentors and admins are in their temporary unconsciousness/regeneration phase of life cycle around that time.Couldn't help laughing when I read this, Bandersnatch. This sounded like something from David Attenborough's documentaries.
sock puppets aren't very convincing without googly eyes; but then you just ruin a good pair of socks.
50 points: Creating a sockpuppet to agree with you.Man, that's sure a sad and desperate measure. But it's an entertaining thought. Sadly I know such things can happen. I've tried using sock puppets elsewhere, but they never agreed with me :confused:.
Can we have a Crackpot Award to go with awards like Community Spirit and Most Humorous?First few years we did have one, but since they don't stick around long, it doesn't make sense. :D
Can we have a Crackpot Award to go with awards like Community Spirit and Most Humorous?
So 35 points for the OP so far.. ^^haha yes, 35 points is not too bad though :D
5 points: Obvious copy and paste
5 points: Wall of Text
20 points: No math shown
Desperate measures
5 points: Post offers a complicated analogy rather than a descriptive modelSo 35 points for the OP so far.. ^^
"I need some help to express this in maths."
"Maths isn't the right tool for thinking about this."
I have seen an example of the latter where he preferred a system of drawing arrows and adding them together. Apparently the arrows were completely unlike vectors (notably, they lacked an underlying system of rigorous thought – or indeed any thought at all).
yeah. It would be worthwhile to investigate whether the person suffering from crackpotitis is displaying symptoms of the acute or chronic progression of the disease. Is it of a hereditary nature. Or even contagious in which case how does one go about protecting oneself from becoming contaminated with the pathogen. Is there an incubation periiod during which time an individaul can become a carrier, to the time to a full blown progression. Is there a cure in sight. IMHO there is little understanding of its nature as there are a good many questions with very few answers.
At the very least we have a list of the symptoms to look for when suspecting someone is a sufferer.
When in doubt, though it would be best to contact your friendly neigborhood physicist for a proper and qualified diagnosis, and recommended treatment.
This looks like a fine sticky topic in the psychology sub-forum.
Gee. I wonder if someone could use the whole list in a post. The ultimate crackpot.
They sometimes seem to come in bunches, right around the time of the full moon. For some reason, this weekend has produced at lot of zombies posting, but I guess the moon must be full somewhere.
I think claiming Newton was wrong should be 100 pts at the least xPThen Einstein would get 100 crackpot points instead of 30.
I think it would be funny if you locked their account into a specific sub-forum (so that they can use PF, but only on that sub-forum).. A locked sub-forum, only those who get "labeled" as crackpots by mentors are allowed to post there. However, everyone else is allowed to read!
It would be amazing seeing them argument with one another, haha.
I think claiming Newton was wrong should be 100 pts at the least xP
5 points: Putting mentors / science advisors on ignore.wow….
Is that like an auto-eject button on a James Bond car?
You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted. Personally I've found hours around 8AM-1PM GMT the most abundant, as it would appear the mentors and admins are in their temporary unconsciousness/regeneration phase of life cycle around that time.That's true for some of them but for the rest of us those times are closer to our mornings at work :wink: in other words there is a time when the west-Atlanticans are asleep and the east-Atlanticans are at work so mentoring gets a bit patchy.
In which sub-forums does one catch that? General Discussion?Usually the "Physics" or "Astro/Cosmo" forums
You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted. Personally I've found hours around 8AM-1PM GMT the most abundant, as it would appear the mentors and admins are in their temporary unconsciousness/regeneration phase of life cycle around that time.
It would be fun to be able to access the deleted topics, if only to amuse yourself by playing micromass' bingo.In which sub-forums does one catch that? General Discussion?
You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted.True, we have an expert team of crackpot hunters. They generally look like this
View attachment 163775
I've read a lot about those so called "crackpots". However, I never found one here. I know there used to be a "Own research" or whatever it was called forum here, on PF, and that it was a festival for the "quacks" (?). Is there, perhaps, some lost topic, so I can read it? Link me!You generally need to be lucky to catch one before it gets deleted. Personally I've found hours around 8AM-1PM GMT the most abundant, as it would appear the mentors and admins are in their temporary unconsciousness/regeneration phase of life cycle around that time.
It would be fun to be able to access the deleted topics, if only to amuse yourself by playing micromass' bingo.
I've read a lot about those so called "crackpots". However, I never found one here. I know there used to be a "Own research" or whatever it was called forum here, on PF, and that it was a festival for the "quacks" (?). Is there, perhaps, some lost topic, so I can read it? Link me!
…
50 points: "I just discovered the laws of physics are wrong"
…I just got 50 points in my kitchen this morning. But then again, it might be my FBD.
ps. Can you give that new kid, Emigman, half an infraction point for me. My kitchen is a mess! :grumpy: