|
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. |
11th December 2010, 12:17 PM | #1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Why is there so much crackpot physics?
I am curious: What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology? They do not seem to be very knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, other than having mastered a lot of jargon. They seem to be quite ignorant of mathematics. Yet they seem to be passionate to an extreme about their views -- to the point of behaving like religious zealots. How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?
What do they gain out of this avocation? Appearing wise to their friends and relatives and the uninformed at cocktail parties? Are they delusional narcissists? Do they hold myriad other unorthodox opinions about he world (like, say, political conspiracy theories and Internet driven puffery)? Any opinions? |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
11th December 2010, 12:29 PM | #2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
As an addendum:
Before I discovered this forum, I had no idea that so much crackpot physics existed. I had never heard of electric universe, plasma cosmology, etc. Previously, my only familiarity with crackpot science was creationism. I have come to be fascinated by these people and I have been struggling to understand them, what drives them, why and how they can adhere to their patently false ideas. I have no intention of insulting anyone; so I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
11th December 2010, 12:31 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
Well, yes, obviously. But I think that specifically physics draws a specific kind of crackpot. Physics describes the rules by which the universe operates, and there's a certain kind of mind that likes the idea of knowing The Rules; if you don't like the way the universe operates, then obviously that's because other people don't understand The Rules. This obviously ties in to a lot of traditional beliefs like "names have power," which has a lot of psychological traction and is a popular magical theory for that reason.
There's a general feeling among the population at large that scientists are modern magicians, and similarly a feeling that among scientists, physicists are the ones with the most fundamental understanding of The Rules. Hence you see more crackpot physicists with their "Theory of Everything" (now there's a loaded term....) than crackpot, I dunno, geologists or marine biologists.
Quote:
|
11th December 2010, 12:37 PM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
Professional physicists have to deal with letters from these people all the time. The Randi forum is rare in that it's a forum open to anyone in the world and very VERY lightly moderated (unlike the actual professional physics forums), but still has some professional level scientists who participate on a regular basis. So it's actually got some very high quality science discussion on it.
If you can't hang on arXiv, the JREF isn't a bad second place. |
11th December 2010, 12:44 PM | #5 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
I guess they see themselves as another Ignaz SemmelweisWP or Alfred WegenerWP up against a dogmatic scientific establishment.
Many seem to be fans of the Schopenhaur's quote: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." |
11th December 2010, 12:45 PM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Comparing atheists to narcissists.
The analogy that comes to mind is like you comparing atheists to narcissists because they dare to be "non believers" in "non empirical entities". The reason "non believers" seem to be drawn to cosmology specifically is directly related to the mainstream's "faith in the unseen (in the lab)". Atheists tend to 'lack belief' in non physical entities (lab no shows). Likewise "critics" of mainstream theory tend to "lack belief" in the mainstream's "dark" (aka invisible) sky beings. All the math in the world doesn't make up for a complete dud in the lab in terms of tangible empirical physics.
You're essentially ignoring the *EMPIRICAL* flaws in mainstream theory, *CLAIMING* your math geniuses are beyond reproach and yet their trio of mythical friends produce *NOTHING* tangible in the lab of any use whatsoever to the real world here on Earth. You're created a nice 'pseudo-math-religion' that professes that empirical laboratory physics is irrelevant and all that matters are mathematical expressions (that they happen to agree with). Note that little clause at the end since the mainstream *BLATANTLY IGNORES* any maths not to their *PHYSICAL* liking. Your insults aside, what tangible goods have come of some kind of "faith" in invisible sky entities? |
11th December 2010, 12:54 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
There are many things that drive crackpot physics, here's a short list:
I don't agree with your characterization of all crackpots, though. Some of them are well-meaning idiots, they don't intend to be misled, it's others that mislead them with their prior bias and common error-prone methods. |
11th December 2010, 12:57 PM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:00 PM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
What kind of "addendum" is that? You have no intention of insulting anyone, *INCLUDING* those narcissistic PC crackpots that you compared to "creationists"? Oy.
This sounds a lot like someone comparing an 'non believer' to the devil, calling them evil and then claiming they "didn't mean offend anyone". Sheeesh. |
11th December 2010, 01:01 PM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Understanding actual physics and the mathematics behind it is too difficult for most people to do. It's easier for some people to just make something up or believe something that's made up and is easier to comprehend (even if it is wrong). There's a reason why these people don't understand actual physics.
|
11th December 2010, 01:03 PM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:03 PM | #12 |
Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,265
|
It's easier than real physics.
|
__________________
What I tell you three times is true. |
|
11th December 2010, 01:04 PM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
"What it really looks like..."
Much of real physics is counter-intuitive, and requires more than a cursory glance. for example: "Heavy objects fall faster than light objects..." can be demonstrated easily, using a piece of paper and a packaged ream of paper. |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
11th December 2010, 01:05 PM | #14 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
"Physics" falls into two categories, USEFUL TANGIBLE PHYSICS and "point and the sky, make up invisible sky entities that have no effect on Earth, and add math physics". Which kind of "physics" are we talking about because I *LOVE* the first kind that produced my computer.
|
11th December 2010, 01:06 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
We might actually agree on that topic, but only because I think mainstream theory is a "crackpot" theory, and I believe what makes it attractive is the fact it's "easier' and "simpler" than "real world physics" in the lab. As long as it works in sim-world, it's a "go" for publication, regardless of whether or not it actually works in the lab.
|
11th December 2010, 01:07 PM | #16 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:07 PM | #17 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
This. That attitude also reflects a gross misunderstanding of what science is and isn't and the role that mathematics must play in physics. In addition, a number of crackpots buy into what I call the "Einstein fallacy", in that they think it's a David vs. Goliath sort of thing: they have "the truth" and they're going up against the big, bad, close-minded, dogmatic physics establishment. Such a worldview has little, if anything, to do with actual science & its methods and much more to do with the psychology of the crackpot.
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
11th December 2010, 01:08 PM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
Now you have.
ah you mean like "big bang" Mainly it's about conformity. If 98% of the population believes in deities, there is pressure on the 2% to conform. If 98% believe in "black hole" or "big bang", there is pressure on the 2% to conform. We can't even really say for sure that 98% does believe in these ridiculous fables, but if it isn't the full 98%, it's just more evidence for the power of conformity. It's good that you carefully chose your words to avoid a direct conflict with the rules of the forum, while still using inflammatory language directed at users of the forum. What sort of person is it that uses those tactics, I forget. |
11th December 2010, 01:09 PM | #19 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
|
A similar question was posed on a physics forum:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=300150 |
11th December 2010, 01:09 PM | #20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:15 PM | #21 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" has plenty to say on the subject and is a good read.
|
11th December 2010, 01:16 PM | #22 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:16 PM | #23 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 364
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:18 PM | #24 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 364
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:18 PM | #25 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:19 PM | #26 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
You could make similar ridiculous statements about the implications of evolution and biology, btw, but that doesn't invalidate the science one bit.
Denying a well-supported theory because you don't like how it looks or what it states is actually what is at issue here. |
11th December 2010, 01:20 PM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
You're kidding yourself if you think there *ISN'T* a big difference between the two. TANGIBLE physics produces *TANGIBLE* goods. Physics like electrical engineering physics brought me this computer I'm working on today. It created a cell phone I use on a daily basis. It created the washing machine in my house, the dryer, the electrical lighting, etc, etc, etc. These have a TANGIBLE and REAL effect on my life.
The "invisible sky entity physics" produces *NO* tangible goods here on Earth, no useful products based on inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They have created a nice "creation mythos' that is entirely dependent on invisible sky entities that are *IMPOTENT* on Earth and produce nothing TANGIBLE in the real world. Big difference. |
11th December 2010, 01:21 PM | #28 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:22 PM | #29 |
Free Barbarian on The Land
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
|
|
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC |
|
11th December 2010, 01:23 PM | #30 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 364
|
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. The Big Bang is not creationism because it is not a supernatural entity, and physicists don't worship it as such. Also, to my understanding, the Big Bang only caused the beginning of the universe. It did not create the world as we know it all at once.
You're not making any sense. Black holes and the Big Bang have much more evidence than the existence of deities. |
11th December 2010, 01:23 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:23 PM | #32 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Astrophysics will come in very handy when we have the means to move around planets. Just because we aren't there yet, doesn't mean the science isn't sound.
You might as well complain about most of the science that led to those "tangible" goods. Frankly, a lot of this stuff starts out as "useless" without any applications. It is only by continuing the exploration of nature that we eventually reach a point where we can apply what we know to make stuff. Btw, Dark Matter is perfectly potent on Earth. If it wasn't, then we'd fly off into the void since our galaxy wouldn't hold itself together. |
11th December 2010, 01:24 PM | #33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:25 PM | #34 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
11th December 2010, 01:27 PM | #35 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
The only difference is that the mainstream has "supernatural dead entities', and some currently existing yet physically impotent on Earth entities. So what?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th December 2010, 01:29 PM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:31 PM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
I think you're a little confused, the crackpots are the ones with the consensus view, as is typical. Theism is a good example, the consensus view is that deities exist. Which group is the crackpots? The popular myth is that bumblebees have been "proven" unable to fly for aerodynamic reasons. This is not the case. It's not even what scientists have suggested, which is that bumblebees don't appear to intake enough calories to keep their bodies in the air. Subsequently it was discovered these animals have a springy muscle between their wings that captures and re-uses energy from wing flaps. We have good science that shows their flight is possible, and not only do most people still perpetuate the myth that it's "proven" they can not, they also get the reason why they "can not" wrong. So which group there is the crackpots, the consensus view or the scientists? I could give endless examples, but I'm sure you can think of many others where "the majority is always wrong". Is the majority typically on the cutting edge of physics and cosmology, or is it always a tiny minority of people? Suffice it to say, most of what most people think they know is wrong. A full demonstration of this lies outside the scope of this thread, but perhaps that tangent can proceed in another thread. I'd love to see it.
|
11th December 2010, 01:32 PM | #38 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Inflation isn't an energy source.
Big Bang Theory doesn't state where matter/energy came from anymore than Evolution states where life came from. Honestly, it doesn't seem like you understand what your are criticizing (big surprise). |
11th December 2010, 01:33 PM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
|
11th December 2010, 01:33 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
"Tangible Physics" already comes in handy to GET US to planets. Mythical sky being physics will NEVER produce a tangible good, let alone anything useful to move planets around with.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|