Are Crackpot Theories Welcome in Scientific Discussions?

[k!rl]

I thought some of the reasons mentioned might have some subjective merit no use arguing over and I was about to agree to disagree but then I saw this TED talk just now, which sort of touched on the nature of my objection.

http://www.ted.com/talks/e_o_wilson_advice_to_young_scientists.html

At about 6:37 he talks about how science is as much about imagination and intuition as it is about rigorous math. That's why I don't feel fringe science should be dismissed outright (at least not as a matter of policy). Interested laymen can think too. It might be inspiring if nothing else, like Star Trek can be inspiring even though you know some things are not true (making this distinction is what's important). A dedicated forum section can help laymen to make this distinction and allows for contained crackpot squabeling nobody's forced to indulge in. Even though indiviual crackpots may not always be convinced, the general public is at least able to make up their mind by reading the discussion, and those wonderfull ribbons help to separate wheat from chaff.

I wish it would be possible to discuss interesting "crackpot" theories in a civilised but informal manner without a degree in physics. I'm familiar with forum dynamics (I'm a mod on a programming board) and I understand the how tiresome it can be to endlessly argue against deaf ears and I do think it's possible to lock such threads individually.

I guess it's the sense of a strong dislike of anything fringe here is what I find surprising, because I can enjoy both science and fiction (best fiction weaves in science elements). I can't be offended by some delusional nut claiming to be the new Einstein at all. I find reality (acording to science) is often much more surprising then many of the most imaginative fiction, and if it wasn't proven so extensively and repeatedly I might not have believed it true.

If serious scientists will not touch popular crackpottery (as a matter of policy), it's left to the general public and we all know where that got us, what with todays extremist religions and all...

 

[micromass]

You have to consider that it's sometimes not possible to convince the public by using simple arguments. Some theories might indeed have merit, but are disproven by experiment and other theories. There is often no way to explain why a theory is wrong other than to say: read this and this book and do this and this experiment. The public is not willing to do this, so we have to resort by saying: just believe us.

If somebody comes here and asks for references for self-study, then we will be happy to give it. If they come here with misconceptions, we are happy to correct them. But if they have no interest to learn real science and real math, then there's only so much we can do.

In the end, it always comes down to rubbish like:
- How do you know the Earth is round?
- We have went in outer space and took pictures.
- You haven't been to outer space, it's a conspiracy by the government. You faked the pictures.

If you're not willing to believe us, then you should investigate the evidence and study the math. If you're not willing to do this, fine, but don't come spouting crackpottery here.

 

[Antiphon]

I met a Crack-pot who was fair
She said "look at me, but don't stare"
"I've a rather large mole
that's become a black hole"
Worry not, dear Crackpot, it's got hair!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If serious scientists will not touch popular crackpottery (as a matter of policy), it's left to the general public and we all know where that got us, what with todays extremist religions and all...

Whenever I see people post things like this I'm flattered because is the erroneous implication is that we are the only/best group to tackle the debunking of crackpots In actual fact there are plenty of organisations and forums out there that do this sort of thing. PF exists for people to discuss and learn about mainstream science and that's what's so attractive about about it for so many people. Personally I don't want to spend time debunking crackpots here for the same reason that I wouldn't want to go to the gym and have to spend half the time debating the obesity epidemic, yes they are very related and important but no I am not there for that.

Meet me in any other walk of life and I'll be happy to discuss a range of topics that are banned here, gladly spend time exploring new/unpublished theories and vehemently debunking and challange crackpottery/pseudo-science. I'd say that this is true of many PF members but that's not what we do here.

EDIT: Another thing I'd just like to quickly address; yes science definitely needs imagination. It's the very embodiment of thinking outside the box but we do not do science here we teach and discuss it. A difference that can't be overstated enough. If someone comes here looking for help designing an experiment they could get it, if they want to learn about the background of something they'd like to investigate they can do it, if they need help deciding on an academic or career path they can find advise. But this is not the place to start developing theories about how the world works.

Especially because in my experience the majority of people who come here to do that can't think outside the box (as much as they claim to and accuse others of not doing) because they have no idea what the box is and where it's boundaries lie. They may think they're striving out to discover new ground but in reality they're often staring at their feet in a field that was well understood long ago.

 

[Integral]

You cannot think outside of the box if you have not idea where the box is. You must learn known physics before you can advance it.

 

[OmCheeto]

You cannot think outside of the box if you have not idea where the box is. You must learn known physics before you can advance it.

Eureka!

I now know how to advance my crackpot theories: Ask about the fundamentals of science upon which they are based, and never let on why I'm asking so many questions, until... the warp drive engine is completed. Bwah ha ha ha ha...

Hopefully there is a major flaw in the very beginning. My warp drive engine is the size of a small planet, and would most likely cause catastrophic, Earth dooming, orbital shifts when I turn it on.

 

[k!rl]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Dismissing anything and everything that isn't formulated in mathematics is a waste of the uneducated but well informed publics views and ideas.

 

[berkeman]

I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

That is a ludicrous statement. I hope you are joking.

 

[Pengwuino]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Name one physical, experimentally verified theory that has no mathematics at its core.

 

[k!rl]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone? Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Math is a tool for rigour and proof after conceptualising an idea in your head. Intuition and imagination is where it's at, mathematics is a powerful tool but worthless on it's own. Mastering mathematics will not give you sponteneous new insights in how the world works, using it to model the world does.

Name one physical, experimentally verified theory that has no mathematics at its core.

I never claimed there was, I said math isn't required for understanding the world, it is one of many vehicles towards understanding.

 

[berkeman]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone? Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Math is a useful tool for rigour and proof after conceptualising an idea of how something works in your head.

Intuition and imagination is where it's at, mathematics is a very powerful tool but worthless on it's own. Mastering mathematics will not give you sponteneous new insights in how the world works, using it to model reality does.

I think you should answer the penguin's question. Math is a necessary tool, not just a tool. It's fine to be creative, but without the technical knowledge to go along with it, you are just wasting your time, and the time of those who are reading your words, IMO.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think you should answer the penguin's question. Math is a necessary tool, not just a tool. It's fine to be creative, but without the technical knowledge to go along with it, you are just wasting your time, and the time of those who are reading your words, IMO.

To add to this, what if I were to say that if you were to make a single photon have a high enough energy, that it should be able to spawn a particle-antiparticle pair? Well, to the layman who knows of "E = mc^2" and some crude understanding of quantum mechanics, why the hell not?

Well it turns out that known physics (which IS math) says that such a thing is impossible. It's not impossible because someone just decides it's impossible, it's impossible because the math says it is impossible. Of course, no one has ever observed a photon spontaneously turning into particles like that.

I don't understand this thinking, by the way. Why do people think that physicists need to be so ridiculously open to the layman's ideas but no one ever tells cancer researchers to be more open minded to joe-schmoe's ideas on how to cure cancer with toothpaste and basil?

 

[Integral]

Meaby you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not pulling the ole "you're not thinking outside the box" argument, I was trying to say math isn't required for understanding the world. It is just a handy modeling tool.

Dismissing anything and everything that isn't formulated in mathematics is a waste of the uneducated but well informed publics views and ideas.

As with the others, I completely disagree. I believe that the ONLY way to understand the universe is through the math. If you do not understand the math behind a phenomea you do not understand the phenomena.

 

[micromass]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone?

No.

Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Yes. They are absolutely clueless when it comes to modern physics. Words can only describe so much. Words do not have quantative and predictive power. For example, with language we can accurately describe "what goes up, must come down." But with math, we can say exactly how fast it comes down and at what time it must hit the earth. This is impossible without the use of mathematics.

In short, a theory without mathematics is doomed to be imprecise rubbish.

 

[AlephZero]

I would go a step further: if you look the history of science since Newton (and even more so in the 20th century), there is a clear pattern: if you can't describe or understnad the world using the mathematics that already exists, the way forward is to invent more math.

Neither Newton nor Leibniz invented calculus just because it was a fun thing to play aroud with...

 

[k!rl]

I don't understand this thinking, by the way. Why do people think that physicists need to be so ridiculously open to the layman's ideas but no one ever tells cancer researchers to be more open minded to joe-schmoe's ideas on how to cure cancer with toothpaste and basil?

I never said you should be more open minded, I'm asking why you aren't...

You say: you need math.
I say: not for understanding
We are here -> ...

 

[George Jones]

Can you not describe the way the world works by language alone? Do you think people without a background in mathematics are clueless about the world and offer no hope for new insights in science?

Watch the second lecture in Feynman's Messenger Series,

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/...data=3|d71e62e2-0b19-4d82-978b-9c0ea0cbc45f||

Better yet, read the chapter in Feynman's book based on the lectures, The Character of Physical Law,

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262560038/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I seem to have lost my copy of the book. I have a theory about where it went, but I know better than to post my theory here.

 

[micromass]

You say: you need math.
I say: not for understanding

Then you clearly don't understand the point of science. Good luck in understanding science without math, but we are not going to do such a thing in this forum because it doesn't work that way.

I think this thread is pretty much over now...