
The Crackpot Index - scott_s
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
======
shadytrees
This list made an appearance on This American Life.

<http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1090> (Act 3)

------
nazgulnarsil
_10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts
phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide
a "mechanism"._

this one can be legitimate. I suppose they could all be legitimate in the
right context (actually being right) but this one shows up fairly often in
non-crackpot science. we are still trying to find the mechanism for gravity
for example.

~~~
Eliezer
Where do people get this idea that "we" don't know the mechanism for gravity?

<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html>

"Mechanisms" that don't give you better predictions really are almost always
crackpot. Really understanding a new mechanism usually comes with better
predictions of _something_ \- though not always everything.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I was speaking of the propagation of gravity which defies C as a limit on
mechanical interaction.

you also missed the point of the overcomingbias post, which wasn't that his
uncle was wrong, but that he was right for the wrong reason. If an idiot tells
you the sky is blue that doesn't make it false. His uncle wasn't making a
specific claim against the theory of gravitation, but using gravity as an
example of the ignorance of scientists as evidence against listening to their
claims in general. this kind of reasoning is common and dangerous.

~~~
Eliezer
_the propagation of gravity which defies C as a limit on mechanical
interaction_

Nazgul, you've obviously got no clue how gravity works. You may not realize
it, but you don't.

Physicists, on the other hand, do.

This may seem surprising and even insulting, but it shouldn't. This is not a
tiny little hunter-gatherer tribe and it's not surprising that there are
people out there with knowledge of incredible specialized depth built upon
ages of scientific labor all of which you have not the tiniest hint even
exists.

Such is the point of the essay.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
right, but I'm not using my own ignorance as evidence that I should ignore
scientists when they claim that they do in fact understand the mechanism of
gravity.

I was under the impression that this was one of the main problems with our
understanding of gravity. Have any pointers on material? all wikipedia says
that is useful to me is that bodies don't transmit information about their
position faster than c, which does solve that particular problem. I just can't
wrap my head conceptually around how that works from the frame of reference of
the body being acted upon.

------
DanielBMarkham
I like crackpots.

I would say more, like defending the idea of unusual thinking or pointing out
great people in history who have been thought of as crackpots, but, alas, that
would make me a crackpot too.

I love a system that prevents itself from being criticized.

Let's just say that if you're trying a startup with true world-changing
potential, like Google, FaceBook, YouTube, etc -- don't read the list because
you're a crackpot too.

What's the old saying? Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people
aren't out to get you. Well just because you are a crackpot doesn't mean you
can't change the world, either. Lots of crackpots have.

~~~
scott_s
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

\- Carl Sagan

Unusual thinking itself is not valuable. Unusual thinking with _rigor_ is.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Sure. But unusual thinking does not mean a lack of rigor. Simply because you
qualify as a crackpot doesn't mean you lack rigor or potential. Just means
you're provocative and "out there"

And I liked Bozo the Clown.

~~~
scott_s
Then we have different definitions of "crackpot." My working definition is
someone who is convinced their ideas are better than orthodoxy despite no
evidence in their favor and reasoning that lacks rigor.

The author of the list is a mathematical physicist. I assume the list is
inspired by the letters he receives from people who are sure they've disproved
relativity or quantum mechanics.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Rigor is relative, unless you're talking about formal proofs. This struck me
as simply a guideline to use in regular conversations with anybody you might
meet on the street.

I know who the guy is. I'm just saying there's a fine line between busy and
can't be bothered and a pompous asshole with poor social skills.

The list makes me lean towards the latter opinion.

~~~
motoko
Please consider revising your comment.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You're right.

The last comment was too harsh. If I still had editing capabilities, I'd
revise it.

Oddly enough, I'm guilty of the very point I was trying to make.

Thanks for catching it. Apologies to the group for my poor taste.

------
jacquesm
I think '8' should be amended with Nikolai Tesla.

------
tocomment
So what do you do with the credits/index once you figure it out? Does 100 mean
you're a crackpot? Is 10 ok?

