4 ms·

Most impressive: "One of them might even publish a paper soon. Not a proposal for a theory of everything, mind you, but a new way to look at a known effect. A f

Most impressive: "One of them might even publish a paper soon. Not a proposal for a theory of everything, mind you, but a new way to look at a known effect. A first step on a long journey." Hossenfelder must have the patience of Job and a deep teaching vocation. If you are ever even around physics or math at all, you will see the crackpot letters. I was a little surprised engineers are largely unaware of the phenomenon and are shocked, for example, that anyone seriously tries to make perpetual motion machines at all. Here's a couple links about the mathematical equivalent: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks https://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/whattodowhentrisectorcomes.pdf https://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/whattodowhentrisectorcomes.pdf

nerpderp82 5y ago
When I was in Physics this dude from off campus stapled up all these posters that said the inverse square law was rubbish and to come to a conference room in the library on a certain day. There were like 10+ physicists and 10+ grad students in this meeting, they respectful when they smoked this time crystal guy, but of course he just used it as an example of the cabal keeping the truth down.
more_corn 5y ago
Remember when google offered that “ideas to save the planet” contest? I used to wade through those. They fell into a couple easy categories. Perpetual motion machines, casual ideas that are obviously impractical, fundamentally failing to understand the subject area. Not a single one of them seemed new or useful. Then again Nicola Tesla had some strange ideas. Turns out half of them were brilliant and the other half still seem weird. Efforts to demarcate crackpot and real might be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I like the author’s strategy of helping people gain the knowledge to understand what they’re trying to talk about. Teslas ideas about motion and flow as it pertains to physical health were weird but that doesn’t mean he was unable to learn about biology, had he spent time learning about it, maybe he’d have brought his ideas back to reality and contributed something interesting. We should celebrate people for their curiosity, encourage them to gain the knowledge that has already been discovered and help them express their ideas in ways that others can relate to.
strongpigeon 5y ago
That second link was a particularly entertaining read. Thanks for sharing.
robocat 5y ago
From beware cranks (1st link): The mathematical physicist John Baez proposed a “crackpot index”[1] [snip] Mathematician Chris Caldwell was inspired by Baez’s list and devised a mathematical version. Some (lightly edited) examples from Caldwell’s list are 1 point for each word in all capital letters; 5 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous, logically inconsistent, or widely known to be false; 10 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction; 10 points for not knowing (or not using) standard mathematical notation; 10 points for expressing fear that your ideas will be stolen; 10 points for each new term you invent or use without properly defining it; 10 points for stating that your ideas are of great financial, theoretical, or spiritual value; 10 points for beginning the description of your work by saying how long you have been working on it; 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to established experts; 10 points for citing an impressive-sounding, but irrelevant, result; 20 points for naming something after yourself; 30 points for not knowing how or where to submit their major discovery for publication; 30 points for confusing examples or heuristics with mathematical proof; 40 points for claiming to have a “proof” of an important result but not knowing what established mathematicians have done on the problem. [1] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Edit: The second link has a scanned advert at the end from 1983 for “The Science of Programming” by David Gries: the title of the book amuses me.
- linspace 5y ago
  Some points in that list are deeply rooted in human psychology. I will comment on some of them I have hit in the past: > 10 points for not knowing (or not using) standard mathematical notation; I personally hate non-standard notation so I switch to the standard when I know about it, but at first, when moving out of well known waters you may be using non-standard notation. > 10 points for expressing fear that your ideas will be stolen; Ha ha, I don't express fear, but who is not afraid a little? > 10 points for stating that your ideas are of great financial, theoretical, or spiritual value; A lot of papers I have read starts with this actually, not to mention PhD or MSc thesis. > 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to established experts; Most papers boast about how they beat the baseline that everyone uses. I do it myself although I try to be honest about the circumstances when this happens and when it's better the alternative. > 30 points for not knowing how or where to submit their major discovery for publication; Sometimes it happens > 40 points for claiming to have a “proof” of an important result but not knowing what established mathematicians have done on the problem. It has happened lot of times, since the beginning of time that some people rediscover previous results, sometimes famous people on famous and important results. To put an example the FFT, but there are a lot of them. And besides, who likes to read others people code? I think the difference between a crackpot and other people is not accepting the mistake. It's curious it happens so much to engineers. I'm an engineer myself and if I learnt something during my studies is how little I actually know. I usually say that one thing STEM education gives you is the certainty that most of your ideas are wrong.
YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
"What to do when the trisector comes" is very interesting and illuminating and worth reading. In addition, I believe the article demonstrates that in these cases, the facts people are discussing and debating are only part of the picture: there is an emotional undercurrent to what they are saying. Dr. Carl Rogers would likely argue that facts would only change their minds if they felt properly heard / seen / understood. For example: > One summer I went to visit three trisectors... My first trisector was... enormously pleased to see me and couldn't stop talking. He was bursting with energy and couldn't keep still... We talked about his trisection and I tried (I was younger then, and not as wise) to show him the error of his ways. He seemed to be listening to what I was saying, but none of it was making any impression. I'm not saying "feed the trolls," only that there is more going on than meets the eye.
selimthegrim 5y ago
Someone came once to our department and I got tasked with talking to him. He had a big paper with "gravity=levity" and a bunch of marine diagrams, and claimed he could get free energy from sinking (partially hollow) things to the bottom of the ocean and then taking advantage of their buoyancy to drive something on the way back up. Rather than launch into conservation of energy or expound on gravitational potential, I objected "Err, doesn't it take energy to turn them around?" He answered, "Not more than I am getting out of it." I slunk away and left him to his devices.

nerpderp82 5y ago

When I was in Physics this dude from off campus stapled up all these posters that said the inverse square law was rubbish and to come to a conference room in the library on a certain day. There were like 10+ physicists and 10+ grad students in this meeting, they respectful when they smoked this time crystal guy, but of course he just used it as an example of the cabal keeping the truth down.

more_corn 5y ago

Remember when google offered that “ideas to save the planet” contest? I used to wade through those. They fell into a couple easy categories. Perpetual motion machines, casual ideas that are obviously impractical, fundamentally failing to understand the subject area. Not a single one of them seemed new or useful. Then again Nicola Tesla had some strange ideas. Turns out half of them were brilliant and the other half still seem weird. Efforts to demarcate crackpot and real might be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I like the author’s strategy of helping people gain the knowledge to understand what they’re trying to talk about. Teslas ideas about motion and flow as it pertains to physical health were weird but that doesn’t mean he was unable to learn about biology, had he spent time learning about it, maybe he’d have brought his ideas back to reality and contributed something interesting. We should celebrate people for their curiosity, encourage them to gain the knowledge that has already been discovered and help them express their ideas in ways that others can relate to.

strongpigeon 5y ago

That second link was a particularly entertaining read. Thanks for sharing.

robocat 5y ago

From beware cranks (1st link): The mathematical physicist John Baez proposed a “crackpot index”[1] [snip] Mathematician Chris Caldwell was inspired by Baez’s list and devised a mathematical version. Some (lightly edited) examples from Caldwell’s list are 1 point for each word in all capital letters; 5 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous, logically inconsistent, or widely known to be false; 10 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction; 10 points for not knowing (or not using) standard mathematical notation; 10 points for expressing fear that your ideas will be stolen; 10 points for each new term you invent or use without properly defining it; 10 points for stating that your ideas are of great financial, theoretical, or spiritual value; 10 points for beginning the description of your work by saying how long you have been working on it; 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to established experts; 10 points for citing an impressive-sounding, but irrelevant, result; 20 points for naming something after yourself; 30 points for not knowing how or where to submit their major discovery for publication; 30 points for confusing examples or heuristics with mathematical proof; 40 points for claiming to have a “proof” of an important result but not knowing what established mathematicians have done on the problem. [1] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Edit: The second link has a scanned advert at the end from 1983 for “The Science of Programming” by David Gries: the title of the book amuses me.

linspace 5y ago
Some points in that list are deeply rooted in human psychology. I will comment on some of them I have hit in the past: > 10 points for not knowing (or not using) standard mathematical notation; I personally hate non-standard notation so I switch to the standard when I know about it, but at first, when moving out of well known waters you may be using non-standard notation. > 10 points for expressing fear that your ideas will be stolen; Ha ha, I don't express fear, but who is not afraid a little? > 10 points for stating that your ideas are of great financial, theoretical, or spiritual value; A lot of papers I have read starts with this actually, not to mention PhD or MSc thesis. > 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to established experts; Most papers boast about how they beat the baseline that everyone uses. I do it myself although I try to be honest about the circumstances when this happens and when it's better the alternative. > 30 points for not knowing how or where to submit their major discovery for publication; Sometimes it happens > 40 points for claiming to have a “proof” of an important result but not knowing what established mathematicians have done on the problem. It has happened lot of times, since the beginning of time that some people rediscover previous results, sometimes famous people on famous and important results. To put an example the FFT, but there are a lot of them. And besides, who likes to read others people code? I think the difference between a crackpot and other people is not accepting the mistake. It's curious it happens so much to engineers. I'm an engineer myself and if I learnt something during my studies is how little I actually know. I usually say that one thing STEM education gives you is the certainty that most of your ideas are wrong.

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago

"What to do when the trisector comes" is very interesting and illuminating and worth reading. In addition, I believe the article demonstrates that in these cases, the facts people are discussing and debating are only part of the picture: there is an emotional undercurrent to what they are saying. Dr. Carl Rogers would likely argue that facts would only change their minds if they felt properly heard / seen / understood. For example: > One summer I went to visit three trisectors... My first trisector was... enormously pleased to see me and couldn't stop talking. He was bursting with energy and couldn't keep still... We talked about his trisection and I tried (I was younger then, and not as wise) to show him the error of his ways. He seemed to be listening to what I was saying, but none of it was making any impression. I'm not saying "feed the trolls," only that there is more going on than meets the eye.

selimthegrim 5y ago

Someone came once to our department and I got tasked with talking to him. He had a big paper with "gravity=levity" and a bunch of marine diagrams, and claimed he could get free energy from sinking (partially hollow) things to the bottom of the ocean and then taking advantage of their buoyancy to drive something on the way back up. Rather than launch into conservation of energy or expound on gravitational potential, I objected "Err, doesn't it take energy to turn them around?" He answered, "Not more than I am getting out of it." I slunk away and left him to his devices.