|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
23rd April 2006, 05:49 PM | #1 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
The Final Theory: Mark McCutcheon
So I was browsing the Science section at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I came across a book called "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy" by Mark McCutcheon. After skimming through it, it appeared to be a standard crackpot work in which some guy thinks his own pet theory is going to supplant everything that has been accomplished in physics for the past 400 years. Mr. McCutcheon's work was discussed at some length in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=27983.
The back cover had one favorable review by some nobody, in addition to some very misleading quotes from esteemed scientists like Steven Weinberg. The quotes were listed so as to appear as if these scientific heavyweights were endorsing the book, when in fact it was obvious that the quotes are not referring to the book at all. When I got home, I decided to check out the book on Amazon. To my surprise, the average customer review for this book was 4 and a half stars! Now, I know there is no shortage of credulous people out there that could be taken in by the author's theory, but something about a lot of the reviews seemed kind of fishy. There seemed to be quite an abundance of lengthy and detailed reviews gushing all over Mr. McCutcheon's book and his "theory". Here is the amazon link to the book's reviews: Amazon Reviews On the first page alone, there are reviews from Matt Coleman, Steven Knight, Garry Shaw, and Frank Ellis that read less like reviews from enthusiastic readers, and more like "this is how I would want a review of my book to look like" reviews. Does Amazon have an official policy on setting up sock puppets to create reviews? Apparently, reviews of this book on Amazon have already generated some controversy when it was found that many negative one star reviews of this book were being removed by Amazon (presumably at the request of the author). Some background here. The writing style of all these positive reviews seems pretty similar, but it may be I am just seeing what I want to see. I was just curious if anybody else here had the same opinion, and if so, is there anything we could do to get Amazon to remove those reviews (probably not, since sock puppetry would probably be pretty hard to prove). |
24th April 2006, 10:57 AM | #2 |
Designated Hitter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,259
|
I looked at the current reviews and found a few that are negatives. Not a single rating of 1, but several 2's. They may have modified their stance in response to your efforts. They may also have an internal policy of no 1's no matter what. Hard to tell. I agree they contradicted themselves on what is permitted in a review.
CT |
__________________
Happiness should not be a zero sum game. |
|
24th April 2006, 11:17 AM | #3 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 457
|
I gave it a bad review (I think I posted it in the other thread) but Amazon, in their infinite wisdom, did not post it. I know they got it, since I posted a positive review of another book at the same time, which WAS posted a few days later.
I should note that I haven't actually read the book, but his website was enough to make me cry. |
__________________
I wish I would have a real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I'd just quit my job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about doing that anyway. -Jack Handy |
|
25th April 2006, 08:29 AM | #4 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
This was discussed in Luboš Motl's blog:
Original post Newest post If you make a search on the blog, you will find more. It seems they have been actively trying to post 1 star reviews, but they kept being erased. |
26th April 2006, 12:11 PM | #5 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
Thanks, eri. Did you mention in your review that you did not read the book? If so, I would say that it would not be unreasonable for Amazon to have a policy of removing reviews by people who have not read the book. Not that you need to read the entire book to know that this guy is full of it.
There are two issues with the Amazon reviews. One is the removal of negative reviews, which has been hashed out elsewhere. The reason I started this thread is that it appears to me as if the ballot box is being stuffed with pro-McCutcheon reviews written by Mr. McCutcheon himself and submitted through sock puppet Amazon accounts. Going through the reviews, all of the similar reviews (glowing praise, surprising familiarity with the details of McCutcheon's work) all have a common denominator: The name listed under the review isn't designated as "Real Name", meaning that all it took to set up the account was an email address. "Real Name" means that the name has been linked to a credit card that Amazon has on file, and would thus be harder to set up duplicate accounts. Also, for every reviewer like this, their only review on the Amazon site is for McCutcheon's book. This isn't proof, of course, but it just doesn't smell right. |
26th April 2006, 12:21 PM | #6 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,253
|
Funnily enough I read the same reviews quite a while ago and thought exactly the same thing. Not only are they suspiciously gushing, but they're all written as a very deliberate tease - they don't give away anything about his theory.
I don't think Amazon give a damn though. They had hundreds of 'reviews' of the last Star Wars movie months before it was released. |
26th April 2006, 01:06 PM | #7 |
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,202
|
More likely the reviews were removed because they violated Amazon policy. Amazon has a list of criteria available on the site which delineates exactly what will get a review blocked or pulled. Profanity is one, and the most common. Links to other websites will get pulled, as will any sort of personal attack. Reviews where it's obvious that the poster hasn't read the book will also get pulled. Reviews which are just crude disparagement (eg. "This book is garbage, and the writer is just a self-important quack") will often get pulled as well. The last two are most often the case with negative reviews of controversial books; particularly if there's a flood of similar reviews posted in a very short period of time. There's no real formal process for checking reviews, mostly it's an automated system; but authors of these sorts of books frequently keep a close eye on their reviews and are quick to report even the most minor violations on a negative review. In some cases, Amazon will filter and screen all reviews posted about certain problematic books (and other items).
When posting negative reviews, it's important to do so without resorting to crude, dismissive language; and it helps to use examples from the book to support any negative comments. If you haven't actually read the book, at least in part, then chances are your review is not going to stick around. Amazon will also pull reviews posted by the author of the book. There was a major incident a little while ago involving Anne Rice getting her comments pulled for multiple violations. Several individuals posted some strongly negative, but still entirely valid, reviews of some of her books; at which point she threw a huge hissy fit, posted several reviews that were nothing more than strident screeds aimed at the people who gave her the negative ratings. Her posts got yanked pretty quickly. I used to work at Amazon years ago, and part of my job was dealing with review violation reports and screening. To my knowledge, they've never pulled a negative report simply because an author didn't like what was said. In fact, I've heard complaints from several authors that they couldn't get negative reviews pulled (in most cases, the reviews were legit and valid); even when said reviews were actually in violation of policy. |
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. |
|
26th April 2006, 02:54 PM | #8 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,380
|
Another interesting thing is that some/all/most of the low-star reviews have "[...]" in them, which seems to mean that someone has edited them. This seems extremely weird; why is Amazon being so anal about reviews for this one book? Is it because the author is harassing them about it? Because someone at Amazon loves the book? Erasing the bad reviews for arbitrary reasons goes against the entire point of having a rating system.
I hope everyone goes to Amazon and apropriately clicks on the yes/no button for "Was this review helpful for you?" I wonder if that is rigged, too. |
30th April 2006, 02:14 AM | #9 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
Update: the book has just fallen to 2 stars, because of about 200 one star reviews that suddenly (re)appeared.
|
30th April 2006, 10:43 AM | #10 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
|
30th April 2006, 11:00 AM | #11 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
If you read some of the positive reviews (and some of the negative reviews of people who have done some research), you'll see that they are at the very least highly suspicious. Most of the 5-star reviews share a common theme: 'I finally understand lots of things I've been wondering about since childhood', they are long and made by people with no other reviews. Most of them are very likely sock puppets. So the review system in Amazon is not perfect, no big deal, provided they don't remove again all the 1-star reviews...
Parts of the book are available for free on the Internet. I only read two pages, because I thought I was going to die of an anaphylactic shock. The arguments the author uses are childish and extremely stupid. He claims to have a degree in engineering 'with several advanced physics courses'. The truth is that a high school physics student knows more than he does. If he did take those courses and passed, either he bribed the instructors or he suffered some kind of trauma or mental illness afterwards. (Note: the sections I read are one concerning the concept of work and another one about light refraction. Both of them were not even wrong). |
13th May 2006, 11:06 AM | #12 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
Well, crap. The average review is back up to 4 1/2 stars, based on 93 reviews. It looks like the 200 negative ones were removed again. What's going on at Amazon?
And the socks keep coming ("Carl Benkis" raves - "I can't fault this new theory no matter how hard I try, and even the objections raised by others who I discuss it with are soon put to rest with a little thought. I have never seen anything like this in all my years of searching, and I doubt I ever will again. This is a read not to be missed!"). There is another 5 star review from "Truthsayer" that I suspected of being another sock, until I read his review a bit more carefully. Here's the review:
Quote:
|
13th May 2006, 04:01 PM | #13 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 457
|
Well, it wasn't me. But yes, I probably did mention the fact that I didn't read the book in my (extremely negative) review. Did I also mention the fact that I have a physics degree? I hope I did.
(If anyone was planning to burn their physics textbooks, I'll take them - I could make a fortune selling second-hand copies of Jackson!) |
__________________
I wish I would have a real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I'd just quit my job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about doing that anyway. -Jack Handy |
|
13th May 2006, 07:15 PM | #14 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
|
13th May 2006, 07:18 PM | #15 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 990
|
Here's his web page, which includes summaries of the chapters and even an excerpt.
Judge for yourself. |
__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein "The common man marvels at the uncommon; the wise man marvels at the commonplace." --Confucious "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell |
|
13th May 2006, 11:07 PM | #16 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
Blasphemy! Gaussian units PWN.
Seriously, most theoretical physicists still use Gaussian units (along with natural or geometrised systems). They are more logical and convenient for several things. For example, E and B have the same dimensions in them, so they are easier to compare. Also, the fundamental constant appearing in the equations is c, a better choice than epsilon_0 and mu_0. |
14th May 2006, 11:49 AM | #17 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
The most funny one
|
14th May 2006, 12:22 PM | #18 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
Then they should have taught us that way from the beginning. But when I learned epsilon_0 and mu_0 as an undergrad, it was a bit hard changing gears like that. It's like showing up for your first math class in the sixth grade and being told that from now on, you need to do long division in base 7, with roman numerals.
|
14th May 2006, 12:38 PM | #19 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
I don't think changing systems of units is that complicated. You need to know both anyway, if you want to read older books or tables.
Some physics books have adopted SI in newer editions (you mentioned Jackson, another very common undergraduate book that is now in both systems is Kittel's Introduction to Solid State Physics). But when it comes to practical work, people will use the most convenient units. For example, atomic transition energies are always given in cm-1, which seems an odd choice for an energy until you notice that what you actually measure are wavelengths and this makes it very easy to handle them. |
14th May 2006, 12:44 PM | #20 |
FAQ Creator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,125
|
McCutcheon is posting under the username "Homo Mysticus", over on the Skeptics Society forum. His pitch for his book can be found here.
Here's a summary of the thread: Me: "Present the theory, in a way which costs me nothing, or this will be my last post in this thread." Him: "Good Bye." |
__________________
Administrator Emeritus, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum |
|
14th May 2006, 03:07 PM | #21 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 445
|
There was definitely another thread on this a while back, but I'm too lazy to find it.
Basically, the theory he's pushing is expansionism, where all matter is expanding at an accelerating rate and this is why things accelerate towards each other (gravity, ya see?!). Of course, you have to hypothesise that things expand at 4.9m/s^2 on the surface of the Earth. That bit works. The inverse square rule causes the whole thing to completely break down, although he's damned if he'll admit it. In order for different gravitational accelerations to be observed, things would need to be expanding at different rates, and thus we would observe things getting either exponentially larger or smaller as time passed. It's 100% Grade A bullsh!t. |
__________________
There is no statement, no matter how monumentally stupid, that someone, somewhere, won't accept as Holy Truth On homeopathy: "I 100% agree with you [that a smaller and smaller physiological effect will be observed in increasing dilution until 24X is reached, at which point there is absolutely no effect.]" Dr A. Sheikh. |
|
14th May 2006, 03:32 PM | #22 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
|
What a sad loser.
And why is amazon removing all the low reviews? |
__________________
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. " |
|
25th September 2006, 08:27 AM | #23 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
|
Just joined the forum recently after browsing the web in an idle moment and finding here a reference to my review of McCutcheon's book at Amazon. I have to admit to being that TruthSayer who gave it a five-star review, but I'm Simplicious at Barnes and Noble; a bit of a schizophrenic you might say.
I don't wish to reopen the debate on the book itself. I was just wondering if anybody here has actually/read bought the book. Nobody I speak to has even heard of it, despite it being a "best seller". Most of the five-star reviews read like anti-ageing cream commercials and cannot be taken as real customer comments. I'd be very interested to find out what a geniune advocate of this book is like. I imagine that they are the sort of people who think the X Files is a serious critique of FBI policy, but I may well be wrong. Has anybody met one, even if only in cyberspace? |
25th September 2006, 08:51 AM | #24 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
|
25th September 2006, 09:45 AM | #25 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 826
|
There were some chapters available for free on the Internet. I started reading them, so I could comment, but couldn't go on after a couple of minutes. The author knows less about physics than a high school drop out and his arguments were so childish that no one in his right mind, no matter his background, would buy it. Most (if not all) the positive reviews are surely sock puppets. They are made by people with no other reviews on Amazon, are long and reasonably well written (grammatically, I mean) and isomorphic in their content.
Welcome to the forum! |
29th September 2006, 07:20 AM | #26 |
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
|
Well would you believe it! After several months, my one-star review of McCutcheon's great work has disappeared from the Barnes and Nonle website, just a few daysafter joining this forum and admitting I hadn't read it (well who would?). Do you think someone is watching us? I had assumed Barnes and Noble were above thses Amazon type antics.
Anyway, my five-star review as Truthsayer at Amazon is still there. Maybe he liked the joke after all! Perhaps he assumes that his readers are so stupid they won't see the irony. After all, they critcize us for not having read it while they criticize physicists for misusing a "work function" that they couldn't even quote. I wonder if McCutcheon is reading this? |
18th October 2008, 12:12 AM | #27 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1
|
Having bought the book and been utterly gobsmacked at its ludicrous content, I came across this site by doing a websearch and have now become a member. I too have been very suspicious about the lack of negative reviews on Amazon and yesterday sent in this following review ...
_________________ If you are interested in fairies, the paranormal, homeopathy or astrology then this just might be the book for you. If, on the other hand, you have an serious interest in science or a scientific education like myself then avoid it like the plague! I have never in my life read such an amalgamation of pseudoscientific claptrap. The author seems to have no grasp of basic science, scientific technique or mathematics, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physical principles. There is so much in the book which is so laughingly, absurdly and farcically wrong that I wouldn't know where to start quoting them. If it were possible to give a negative star rating I would rate this as a minus five. I shall be much more selective in future about any recommendation I receive from Amazon. _________________ It remains to be seen if Amazon publishes it! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|