Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death

From: gswork (gswork_at_mailcity.com)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: 10 Jun 2004 00:45:39 -0700

Clevine@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine) wrote in message news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...
> cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...
>
> <twaddle snipped>
>
> Long time no hear from Chuckie.
>
> I think I posted this a couple of years ago in reply to one of
> your...odd...rants (I didn't creat this. It can be found using a
> Google search):

[snipped]

I like that list. I've read a few 'crackpot' theorists and do indeed
see these points in many of their posts.

several things surprise me about the people who generate these
theories though:

a) not given due process in peer review, maybe because peers are part
of the 'conspiracy', but then you'd think the truth of their theory
would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that
resists new ideas naturally, but really does cave in when the
experiments give consistent data. I have reada couple of them claim
that their theory is about to hit the big time, and peer review, this
is good - if it happens

b) These theories are not often idle or intellect-free musings, they
are often quite intricately constructed drawing on quite a broad cross
section of skills and have clearly received quite some effort over
time, even if they fall over due to an inconsitency on page 1. This
makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect.
Such is the commitment devoted to the theory that (ironically like the
scientists they hold in low regard) the purveyor is unwilling to 'let
go' of it.

Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, it stirs the pot
(well, at least a good one can) and actually helps re-affirm the
veracity of the theory they set out to depose by confirming that even
a reasonably well thought out attempt to offer an alterantive doesn't
cut it.

Very occasionally there is 'crackpot' theory which does in time turn
out to be true, the qualitative difference is that such theories are
self-consistent and lend themselves to some kind of experimental proof
(or support anyway)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Some questions for Christainsen
    ... obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. ... have been published in peer reviewed journals ... In *those* papers her methods ... peer review, to make sure that the *science* is sound. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Some questions for Christainsen
    ... obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. ... Thats not how peer reviewed articles work. ... Dr. Thiering long ago was published in peer-reviewed journals and has ... FLAT STATEMENT - the entire system of peer review ...
    (soc.history.ancient)