3 ms·
The difference between a crank and someone like Nelson is the ability to admit that their crazy disruptive idea, their challenge to orthodoxy, is after-all wron
by jonnycomputer 5y ago
The difference between a crank and someone like Nelson is the ability to admit that their crazy disruptive idea, their challenge to orthodoxy, is after-all wrong. We need people to challenge orthodoxy; its healthy. But we also need people to admit when they are wrong. Nelson has my respect.
- busterarm 5y agoPeople challenge orthodoxy and are willing to admit their crazy ideas are wrong all the time. The problem is that outside the field of mathematics, challenging the orthodoxy worked up an angry mob and they probably torched the person's house before it could be worked out.
- chithanh 5y agoWhat is true is that since we have computer-based theorem provers / proof checkers, "working it out" becomes a matter of getting your challenge past one of those, and the orthodoxy will have a hard time arguing against that. But OTOH you see many people in other disciplines challenging the orthodoxy (in Physics: string theorists, MOND proponents, etc.) and while their views aren't always taken fully serious, their houses aren't being torched either.
- busterarm 5y agoClearly some sciences are better than others. You can put air quotes around sciences if it helps make my point any clearer.
- tzs 5y agoAnother major difference is that Nelson's mistake was in a field in which he was an expert. Cranks are almost never experts in the fields they are making claims about.
- jonnycomputer 5y agoTrue. In another context, I recall long conversations between different physical anthropologists in a forum about one person's unorthodox belief that humans' closest common ancestor is shared with the orangutan, not the chimpanzee. While there was some occasional irritation, for the most part the conversations were civil, and informative, because the person who held this view was very knowledgeable about the field.