I would be grateful for any feedback any might offer regarding the general openness of these forums to those with extensive cross disciplinary knowledge, but little to no formal training in Physics or Mathematics.
To explain...
My name is Raphie Frank and for the past year plus, although my background is in the arts and media, I have found myself more than a bit interested in Physics from a humanistic/theoretical standpoint. I am on to what I believe are some very important ideas, including methodologically speaking (i.e. I am developing a process of what I call "metonymic bridging" that makes liberal use of symbolic logic...)), and I find echoes of my thinking in the work of many giants who have come before, from Einstein to Riemann to Euler, Erdos, Feynmann and Dirac, all except forEinstein whom I had never even heard of until this past year.
As such, while I am not quite sure how to approach topics within this milieu -- it's not my specific discipline -- I would yet like to very much in the spirit of Consilience (aka "The Unity of Knowledge") because I both feel I have much to offer and much to gain from discourse over time with trained OPEN minds in the field of physics and/or math. At the same time, I don't care to waste time constantly justifying methods -- meaning fighting against categorical and canonical statements such as "You can't do that!" or "You're wrong" simply because it hasn't been that way YET and simply because I lack formal training. That's not a line of engagement that sits well with me.
As Einstein said, or something close to it: "The only thing that gets in the way of my knowledge is my learning."
To sum up, I'm just trying to get a lay of the land here and would be very appreciative if anyone could give me insight into the general receptivity of those who frequent this online community to new ideas and new approaches.
Best,
Raphie Frank
P.S. This past year I have been learning as I go and have been using what I call a "dialectical" math approach, an "always wrong until it's right" math of approximation not dissimilar to the approach Valentine speaks of in Tom Stoppard's Arcadia, if any have happened to read it. As far as that goes, consider this post the necessary pre-apologia of someone who comes to the table knowing already he has controversial ideas... :-)
I think you will find it has a lot to do with how you present and support these new ideas.
Remember, extraordinary claims tend to require extraordinary proof.
That said, you have little to lose by posting your ideas and see what others think.
Arthur
Remember, extraordinary claims tend to require extraordinary proof.
That said, you have little to lose by posting your ideas and see what others think.
Arthur
You make a good point Arthur. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary proofs. The problem arises when the conclusion need be entertained as a possibility in order to justify the methods.
if I understand your post correctly Raphie, the conclusion should be based on results, for if the conclusion is only one of many possibilities then the results of the other possibilities should be obtained, for if these results are not obtained, your experiment has not been designed correctly. in a well designed experiment the methods will justify the conclusion.
This discussion should be in the "Homework Help" section. The homework in this case being Ralphie reading through some threads in the forum.. That is the only way someone can get a "lay of the land".
Ralphie, you won't get a simple answer to you question in this way. Actually you wouldn't get a simple answer here if you asked: "what is one plus one?"
Ralphie, you won't get a simple answer to you question in this way. Actually you wouldn't get a simple answer here if you asked: "what is one plus one?"
Thank you for your response kjw, if, in turn, I am reading you correctly, your contention that the methods justify the conclusion is logically negated a priori if "A" the methods and/or "B" the initial premises are a priori disqualified. It's the fallacy of circular argumentation -- where the conclusion begs the question -- in reverse, something I call the fallacy of the fallacy of circular argumentation.
The presupposition that something is "bad science" is itself a circular argument based on pre-existing notions and definitions of what constitutes "good science," which is not to say that those definitions are "wrong" per se. They have worked time and again IN THE PAST and so we trust them. But that does not make them "right" any more so than the dinosaurs were "right" for millions of years simply because they dominated the earth. They were "right" every day for millions of years until one day they were no longer "right"
Can we "prove" that the Sun will come up tomorrow? Absolutely not. The assumption is PROBABLY true with a very very high degree of certainty, but that does not mean it is "certainly" true (nor, to borrow from your own phrasing ought we to make any effort to "test the other possibilities :-)) But, now, just as an exercise... imagine saying "the sun will come up tomorrow" every day for the next several billion years or so... and one day you won't just be wrong, you'll actually be IN the sun... probably. Because that is what will probably happen. The sun will expand well past the current earth orbit.
The point is that scientific "dogmas" condemn many good ideas before they can gain traction no less so than the Catholic dogma condemned heretics such as Galileo to death, although Galileo himself, of course was spared after recanting his contention that the earth moves. ("But still it moves!" he allegedly muttered under his breath as he left the proceedings...)
In terms of "A" above, scientific levels of confidence necessary to "prove" a case are one example of a dogma that is "somewhat" arbitrary. (NOTE: I don't even know what those levels are in physics :-) Feel free to tell me.) Again, not that it's "wrong," but I don't think the Dogons in Mali who knew about Sirius A and B for thousands of years or the Mayans with a calendar more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar or even the Druids of Stonehenge would take much stock in our notions of scientific certainty.
Too arcane as examples? Perhaps, but nevertheless there is indeed an entire new branch of mathematics called "ethnomathematics" dedicated to studying the social milieu in which concepts of mathematics arise, an enterprise of which I am sure Godel would have approved (Godel "proved" that no complex mathematical system could guarantee inconsistency) assuming you got to him before he went off the deep end, that is.
As for "B" above, how about reaching back just to last week's Tuesday Science Times in the New York Times? A primatologist by the name of Van de Waals has spent 40 years "proving" his conjecture that morality has at least a part of its roots in our genetic heritage. For years his ideas gained no traction because he was limited by the "dogma" of, on the one hand, the evolutionary biologists who held that morality is simply an accidental byproduct of evolution and, on the other hand, by all the psychologists "certain" that animals are not capable of emotion.
Rumour has it, by the way, that the dinosaurs were not at all pleased and have been plotting a come back on some remote South Pacific Island ever since...
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One last thing... ever read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku? According to one of the founders of string theory at least, we are living in a day and age where the theorists will have to lead. No one is going to waste time trying to split atoms, after all, if the enterprise is deemed alchemy from the start.
The presupposition that something is "bad science" is itself a circular argument based on pre-existing notions and definitions of what constitutes "good science," which is not to say that those definitions are "wrong" per se. They have worked time and again IN THE PAST and so we trust them. But that does not make them "right" any more so than the dinosaurs were "right" for millions of years simply because they dominated the earth. They were "right" every day for millions of years until one day they were no longer "right"
Can we "prove" that the Sun will come up tomorrow? Absolutely not. The assumption is PROBABLY true with a very very high degree of certainty, but that does not mean it is "certainly" true (nor, to borrow from your own phrasing ought we to make any effort to "test the other possibilities :-)) But, now, just as an exercise... imagine saying "the sun will come up tomorrow" every day for the next several billion years or so... and one day you won't just be wrong, you'll actually be IN the sun... probably. Because that is what will probably happen. The sun will expand well past the current earth orbit.
The point is that scientific "dogmas" condemn many good ideas before they can gain traction no less so than the Catholic dogma condemned heretics such as Galileo to death, although Galileo himself, of course was spared after recanting his contention that the earth moves. ("But still it moves!" he allegedly muttered under his breath as he left the proceedings...)
In terms of "A" above, scientific levels of confidence necessary to "prove" a case are one example of a dogma that is "somewhat" arbitrary. (NOTE: I don't even know what those levels are in physics :-) Feel free to tell me.) Again, not that it's "wrong," but I don't think the Dogons in Mali who knew about Sirius A and B for thousands of years or the Mayans with a calendar more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar or even the Druids of Stonehenge would take much stock in our notions of scientific certainty.
Too arcane as examples? Perhaps, but nevertheless there is indeed an entire new branch of mathematics called "ethnomathematics" dedicated to studying the social milieu in which concepts of mathematics arise, an enterprise of which I am sure Godel would have approved (Godel "proved" that no complex mathematical system could guarantee inconsistency) assuming you got to him before he went off the deep end, that is.
As for "B" above, how about reaching back just to last week's Tuesday Science Times in the New York Times? A primatologist by the name of Van de Waals has spent 40 years "proving" his conjecture that morality has at least a part of its roots in our genetic heritage. For years his ideas gained no traction because he was limited by the "dogma" of, on the one hand, the evolutionary biologists who held that morality is simply an accidental byproduct of evolution and, on the other hand, by all the psychologists "certain" that animals are not capable of emotion.
Rumour has it, by the way, that the dinosaurs were not at all pleased and have been plotting a come back on some remote South Pacific Island ever since...
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One last thing... ever read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku? According to one of the founders of string theory at least, we are living in a day and age where the theorists will have to lead. No one is going to waste time trying to split atoms, after all, if the enterprise is deemed alchemy from the start.
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 25 2007, 11:04 PM)
you won't get a simple answer to you question in this way. Actually you wouldn't get a simple answer here if you asked: "what is one plus one?"
1 + 1?
Why 10, of course! We're speaking Base 2 of course, correct? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Babylonian, in which case it's 2 or 61, depending on the spacing?
Or is it eleven?
Hmmm...
I might be in the right place after all.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Homework Section, yes, I will check it out most certainly and appreciate the guidance. At the same time, I do also have a thing or two to offer myself and it would be a pity to "position" myself that way, speaking of which, what direction exactly were those ones moving again and what was the velocity?
1 + 1?
Why 10, of course! We're speaking Base 2 of course, correct? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Babylonian, in which case it's 2 or 61, depending on the spacing?
Or is it eleven?
Hmmm...
I might be in the right place after all.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Homework Section, yes, I will check it out most certainly and appreciate the guidance. At the same time, I do also have a thing or two to offer myself and it would be a pity to "position" myself that way, speaking of which, what direction exactly were those ones moving again and what was the velocity?
Raphie Frank, I was trying to convey that if the experiment is well designed, the results will be self concluding ie if the experiment controls, or excludes, certain variables (ideally all but one) then what else can give a variable result ? you need to validate your method for that which you are attempting to measure, other wise your results are interpretable.
whats an example of a scientific dogma ? sounds like an oxymoron
whats an example of a scientific dogma ? sounds like an oxymoron
Hi Ralphie,
You probably know of a book called the glass bead game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game ) - since it doesn't seem to be the same book that I read read many years ago I would suggest we concentrate on 'game' mentioned in the title.
You probably know of a book called the glass bead game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game ) - since it doesn't seem to be the same book that I read read many years ago I would suggest we concentrate on 'game' mentioned in the title.
QUOTE (wiki+)
The precise rules of the game are only alluded to, and are so sophisticated that they are not easy to imagine. Suffice it to say that playing the Game well requires years of hard study of music, mathematics, and cultural history. Essentially the game is an abstract synthesis of all arts and scholarship. It proceeds by players making deep connections between seemingly unrelated topics. For example, a Bach concerto may be related to a mathematical formula .
In my humble opinion the only possible 'real' players within the last century would be Richard Feynman (the famous one) and (maybe) rpenner (a not so famous one) .
Best wishes,
-C2.
Flattery? Of course I want a favour ..
SU(1,c) * ? = ? or what?
In my humble opinion the only possible 'real' players within the last century would be Richard Feynman (the famous one) and (maybe) rpenner (a not so famous one) .
Best wishes,
-C2.
Flattery? Of course I want a favour ..
SU(1,c) * ? = ? or what?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 26 2007, 01:28 PM)
1 + 1?
Why 10, of course! We're speaking Base 2 of course, correct? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Babylonian, in which case it's 2 or 61, depending on the spacing?
Or is it eleven?
Hmmm...
I might be in the right place after all.
yes, I think you'll fit right in.
I was being a bit facetious about suggesting the homework help, though I do belive that participation is the best way to find out how a forum behaves.
Why 10, of course! We're speaking Base 2 of course, correct? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Babylonian, in which case it's 2 or 61, depending on the spacing?
Or is it eleven?
Hmmm...
I might be in the right place after all.
yes, I think you'll fit right in.I was being a bit facetious about suggesting the homework help, though I do belive that participation is the best way to find out how a forum behaves.
QUOTE (kjw+Mar 26 2007, 12:43 AM)
if the experiment is well designed, the results will be self concluding ie if the experiment controls, or excludes, certain variables (ideally all but one) then what else can give a variable result ? you need to validate your method for that which you are attempting to measure, other wise your results are interpretable.
whats an example of a scientific dogma ? sounds like an oxymoron
Thank you kjw. Many thanks in fact. I am not at all desirous of being contentious and you speak common sense and...
I LARGELY AGREE WITH YOU.
Without question, my belief also is that if an experiment is well-designed it will place controls and exclude variables. I am simply stating -- perhaps we are talking apples and oranges here -- that experimentation is not the ONLY way to advance scientific knowledge and not all scientific challenges fall first before the empirical test, and certainly not in one go around. Experiment is but one tool in a set that we can use to expand scientific inquiry.
What's another tool?
Observation.
Darwin and Galileo, for instance, both made their cases via years and years of painstaking observation and copious note-taking. Both built their cases like lawyers, or like a fish net, one strand of conjecture at a time, and both did so largely privately because both knew their assertions were unbelievable and flew in the face of religious dogmas, if not scientific ones, of the time (but the fact is, quite simply, that at that point in time, scientific and religious dogmas were inextricably intertwined, especially back in the day of Galileo).
The further along they went, the more convinced they became because the theoretical "nets" they constructed "caught" more fish that what had come before. Once they came forward with their ideas, the scientific world was forever changed. Darwin, thankfully for him, got to see it in his lifetime.
Even now, String theory, for instance, which seemingly fulfills the "fish net" test is being derided in some circles as "philosophy." Why? Because it seems not to be empirically verifiable and because there is more than one theory that is internally consistent within its own set of "rules." But that is the case now. Perhaps it will not be later. The well-designed experiments you speak of are indeed needed, but we are far more likely to get those experiments conducted because of the theorists tying it all together. (no pun intended. :-) )
As for the issue of "oxymorons," for the sake of argument, let's just say that scientific method is infallible. That does not mean that WE human beings are. We've but barely scratched the surface and the youngest child can yet pose questions to stump the wisest man.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. A few scientific dogmas through history, some of which are currently still held? Hmm... Off the top of my head... "The earth is flat." "Man will never be able to fly because we are heavier than the air." "Animals are not capable of feeling emotion." "Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light." "Men are more capable of withstanding pain than women, less prone to depression..." "Language is an arbitrary set of symbols created for the purpose of expressing ideas..."
whats an example of a scientific dogma ? sounds like an oxymoron
Thank you kjw. Many thanks in fact. I am not at all desirous of being contentious and you speak common sense and...
I LARGELY AGREE WITH YOU.
Without question, my belief also is that if an experiment is well-designed it will place controls and exclude variables. I am simply stating -- perhaps we are talking apples and oranges here -- that experimentation is not the ONLY way to advance scientific knowledge and not all scientific challenges fall first before the empirical test, and certainly not in one go around. Experiment is but one tool in a set that we can use to expand scientific inquiry.
What's another tool?
Observation.
Darwin and Galileo, for instance, both made their cases via years and years of painstaking observation and copious note-taking. Both built their cases like lawyers, or like a fish net, one strand of conjecture at a time, and both did so largely privately because both knew their assertions were unbelievable and flew in the face of religious dogmas, if not scientific ones, of the time (but the fact is, quite simply, that at that point in time, scientific and religious dogmas were inextricably intertwined, especially back in the day of Galileo).
The further along they went, the more convinced they became because the theoretical "nets" they constructed "caught" more fish that what had come before. Once they came forward with their ideas, the scientific world was forever changed. Darwin, thankfully for him, got to see it in his lifetime.
Even now, String theory, for instance, which seemingly fulfills the "fish net" test is being derided in some circles as "philosophy." Why? Because it seems not to be empirically verifiable and because there is more than one theory that is internally consistent within its own set of "rules." But that is the case now. Perhaps it will not be later. The well-designed experiments you speak of are indeed needed, but we are far more likely to get those experiments conducted because of the theorists tying it all together. (no pun intended. :-) )
As for the issue of "oxymorons," for the sake of argument, let's just say that scientific method is infallible. That does not mean that WE human beings are. We've but barely scratched the surface and the youngest child can yet pose questions to stump the wisest man.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. A few scientific dogmas through history, some of which are currently still held? Hmm... Off the top of my head... "The earth is flat." "Man will never be able to fly because we are heavier than the air." "Animals are not capable of feeling emotion." "Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light." "Men are more capable of withstanding pain than women, less prone to depression..." "Language is an arbitrary set of symbols created for the purpose of expressing ideas..."
you will have no hiccups here, if you tow the mainstream current.
if you choose to deviate too far from the mighty river of human consensus, however, you will be harangued as good as hanged.
the ultimate litmus, 9/11, has shown that this site favours the party line. whether it is due to coercion or cooperation is moot.
on the other hand, for the tenacious and caring, it is a great proving ground for revolutionary ideas because of this.
[edit to change a period into a comma. if only real life were so reversible.]
if you choose to deviate too far from the mighty river of human consensus, however, you will be harangued as good as hanged.
the ultimate litmus, 9/11, has shown that this site favours the party line. whether it is due to coercion or cooperation is moot.
on the other hand, for the tenacious and caring, it is a great proving ground for revolutionary ideas because of this.
[edit to change a period into a comma. if only real life were so reversible.]
Thank you C2. No, I am not aware of the Glass Bead Game, but you've hit the nail on the head with respect to my interests and the general slant of my thinking. Many, many, MANY thanks for the lead. You've made my day just to know that the book exists.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Ah, C2... Magister Ludi. I've heard of it, indeed... simply by another name. Thank you, again. In return, I will suggest "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. A dense but worthwhile read...
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Ah, C2... Magister Ludi. I've heard of it, indeed... simply by another name. Thank you, again. In return, I will suggest "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. A dense but worthwhile read...
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 26 2007, 01:56 AM)
I was being a bit facetious about suggesting the homework help, though I do belive that participation is the best way to find out how a forum behaves.
Thank you for this advice, Nom. I have indeed discovered by participation how this forum "behaves." It has been a very interesting experience to say the least.
Best,
Raphie
Thank you for this advice, Nom. I have indeed discovered by participation how this forum "behaves." It has been a very interesting experience to say the least.
Best,
Raphie
Thank you for revitalizing a post you started but that was dead over 6 months ago. I am sure you are familiar with this piece of work, but on the odd chance that you are not, it could be a very valuable tool.
I hope this adds to your interesting experience.
The very most possibly kindest regards,
Occidental
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
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".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 John Baez
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
I hope this adds to your interesting experience.
The very most possibly kindest regards,
Occidental
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
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".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 John Baez
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
Of course I am familar with it occidental! That would be John Baez's famous "Crackpot Index" and I actually posted a link to it myself not too long ago in relation to Lubos Motl and Garrett Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everthing."
See... http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=284158
John Baez, incidentally, is a fan of Lisi's. He highlighted him in one of his "This Week in Mathematics." You can find the link one post down from the post I refer you to up above.
But thank you for posting that. Much appreciated :-)
Best,
Raphie
Ah, yes, "back from the dead" is this thread. But for a reason, oc. I knew what I was getting myself into from the beginning. You might even think about reading the thread. There might be a thought or two you can even agree with. :-)
See... http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=284158
John Baez, incidentally, is a fan of Lisi's. He highlighted him in one of his "This Week in Mathematics." You can find the link one post down from the post I refer you to up above.
But thank you for posting that. Much appreciated :-)
Best,
Raphie
Ah, yes, "back from the dead" is this thread. But for a reason, oc. I knew what I was getting myself into from the beginning. You might even think about reading the thread. There might be a thought or two you can even agree with. :-)
POST FACTO CORRECTIONS
CORRECTION #1
I wrote: (Godel "proved" that no complex mathematical system could guarantee inconsistency)
That should have read "consistency," and actually it's a bit more complex than that. More here:
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_i...eteness_theorem
excerpt
---------
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are also of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete Theory of Everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
=====================================================
=====================================================
CORRECTIONS #2
I also mistakenly referred to "Frans de Waal" as "Van de Waals..."
excerpt from that post...
--------------------------------------
A primatologist by the name of Van de Waals has spent 40 years "proving" his conjecture that morality has at least a part of its roots in our genetic heritage. For years his ideas gained no traction because he was limited by the "dogma" of, on the one hand, the evolutionary biologists who held that morality is simply an accidental byproduct of evolution and, on the other hand, by all the psychologists "certain" that animals are not capable of emotion.
Rumour has it, by the way, that the dinosaurs were not at all pleased and have been plotting a come back on some remote South Pacific Island ever since..."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=192589
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
===================================================
The NY Times article is well worth a read, both regarding the substance of it and the insight it might give a few folks regarding the resistance within the scientific community to ideas that counter prevailing orthodoxy...
Best,
Raphie
CORRECTION #1
I wrote: (Godel "proved" that no complex mathematical system could guarantee inconsistency)
That should have read "consistency," and actually it's a bit more complex than that. More here:
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_i...eteness_theorem
excerpt
---------
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are also of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete Theory of Everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
=====================================================
=====================================================
CORRECTIONS #2
I also mistakenly referred to "Frans de Waal" as "Van de Waals..."
excerpt from that post...
--------------------------------------
A primatologist by the name of Van de Waals has spent 40 years "proving" his conjecture that morality has at least a part of its roots in our genetic heritage. For years his ideas gained no traction because he was limited by the "dogma" of, on the one hand, the evolutionary biologists who held that morality is simply an accidental byproduct of evolution and, on the other hand, by all the psychologists "certain" that animals are not capable of emotion.
Rumour has it, by the way, that the dinosaurs were not at all pleased and have been plotting a come back on some remote South Pacific Island ever since..."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=192589
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
===================================================
The NY Times article is well worth a read, both regarding the substance of it and the insight it might give a few folks regarding the resistance within the scientific community to ideas that counter prevailing orthodoxy...
Best,
Raphie
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.