Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: 30 Jun 2004 10:27:08 -0500

 daryl@atc-nycorp.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>Acme Diagnostics says...
>
>>I've only found one way to test this. Posters who can and are willing
>>to explain, are responsive to criticism, and are capable of
>>cooperative, good faith, dialog. Another way of saying it: posters who
>>attempt privileged positions, as it sounds like you are promoting v.
>>posters who don't, like the person you are replying to.
>
>I think that in mathematics and logic, there really *is* a privileged
>position, and that position is the side that has the mathematically
>rigorous argument.

That's not a privileged position. A privileged position would be: "I'm
a better mathematician, so there is no need for argument - I'm right
and you're wrong. And 100 variations implying same, such as "If you
would go read ABC book you would understand that I'm right."

>That doesn't mean that there are any privileged
>*people*. Being a math PhD carries no weight if you don't have a sound
>mathematical argument. And it doesn't matter if you are a nobody
>without a degree proving your competence---if you *do* have a
>sound mathematical argument, then you deserve to be taken seriously.

Yes, that's what I meant by privileged position. We agree here.

>It's like chess in that regard---there is no subjectivity involved
>in whether you have won a chess game or not.

But you are required to play the game. You are forced to make a move
each time your opponent makes one, and you are forced to be directly
responsive to your opponent's move. No "snipping" that move as we see
all the time on Usenet. Even when you *know* you have a won game,
as I hear claimed incessantly on Usenet, you cannot announce you have
one, nor call your opponent a moron, or a crank, or anything else.
Until your opponent extends his hand, you sit and you play. And once in
a while, it is *you* who turns out to extend the hand even to the
less competent player.

You don't win a chess game by announcing, "I'm obviously a more
compentent player than you, so I win." That would be a privileged
position.

But nobody forces you to play. You have that choice.

In logical argumentation that is uncooperative or in bad faith, i.e. a
debate of some kind, i.e. playing to win, there is a list of signals
for "extending your hand" that relieves arguers of eating humble pie.
If you encounter one, you are justified in claiming a win. But since
almost nobody is a qualified logician in this respect on Usenet, you
have to cure them as you go along (charity) if you want an exchange
to last more than one post. The most astute logical arguer I've
encountered in sci.logic is George Dance. You will never see him
assert a privileged position. The thought is ludicrous.
>
>By the way, I'm *not* a mathematician---I'm an amateur. I have
>no degree in mathematics, nor logic, nor computer science.

Well the smartest and most knowledgeable person I know has no
degree in anything. The apparently smartest Usenet poster I've
encountered claims no degrees AFAIK. I would listen to one of
these two before anyone here regardless of degrees. OTOH I often see
Usenet posters with degrees, including advanced degrees, saying
incredibly stupid or patently untrue things in areas with which I have
a lot of experience. Of course everyone agrees that experience is the
test. Formal education is just supposed to give you the leg up on that.
There are exceptions to everything. Minsky posts once in a while, but
then you really don't think about his degrees but rather his
accomplishments. This preoccupation with degrees on Usenet seems to
correspond mostly with age. People in their teens and twenties attach
great significance. People in their 50's and 60's tend to ignore them
completely, including their own degrees. That would include me.

On Usenet, all that matters regarding qualifications is that paragraph
at the top, at least to most old farts like myself. I think you are one
of the better posters. Didn't you post those logic paradoxes a few days
ago? I lifted them and posted them in talk.philosophy.misc yesterday.
Very entertaining. Thanks.

I don't know anything for sure and appreciate being corrected.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Big Bang or Big Splat? 96 % c in our reality but
    ... > I may be "new" to this particular newsgroup, but I'm hardly new to Usenet ... > shockingly large proportion of posters to this group fit that description. ... > time telling *equally* stupid ignorant people how relatively stupid they ... The big problem is so many people think physics is easy to understand (based ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: ARE THESE SPAM POSTED?
    ... Read the charter of Usenet, ... Making useless jokes at nausea about anybody in a newsgroup about thailand ... Did I read a complaint of you about these? ... That's exactly what is happening with posters on newsgroups. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: JSH: Unskilled and unaware?
    ... >silliness that drives people to post on Usenet, ... >their business to try and pick out posters they wish to drive off the ... why do things like crank.net bother you? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Factoring paper is wrong
    ... >>You're a stain on this newsgroup! ... can control other Usenet posters, ... I understand deluded posters quite well as I admit that at times I ...
    (sci.math)