4 ms·

But you didn't learn about the millions of cranks that turned out to be wrong.

medo-bear 4y ago
sure i did. but what you say doesnt invalidate what i said. if someone finds this interesting they can pursue answers perhaps. personally i find it entertaining. also apparently this guys work has been published in a reputable journal
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  the point was that "the unpopular, unconvincing hypothesis is right" need be treated as a possibility only if the probability is high enough, and knowing that the vast majority are wrong is an important bayesian input in properly estimating that probability
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    help me out. historically, at what point in bayesian probability estimation did "there is no such thing as ether" theorists go from crank to lets pay attention to these guys
    - danaris 4y ago
      This is cherry-picking. Your interlocutors have already stipulated that on occasion, the scientific establishment has been wrong, and the cranks have been right. Their point is that this is almost never the case. There are and have been cranks who dispute the scientific consensus on almost every point since the scientific method was first developed. Are you also suggesting we should believe the anti-vaxxers who still back Andrew Wakefield's paper? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say climate change isn't real? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say the earth is flat? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say that our current trees aren't "really" trees, and all the "real", giant, trees were killed long ago? [0] All of these are cranks who disagree with the established scientific consensus—sometimes in bizarre but harmless ways, sometimes in extremely damaging and disturbing ones. If your point is genuinely "we should listen to cranks because they have a good track record", why not them, too? Why not all of them? Or is there, in fact, something specific about this one that makes you think it's got something going for it besides "they might be actually super smart and seeing something the rest of us are missing"? If so, maybe lead with that, instead? [0] https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        im not suggesting any of that. the burden of proof should be on the presenter sure. but calling this guy a crank is stretching the definition of a crank a fair bit. hes been funded by nasa and was published (once ?) in an astronomy journal personally i dont think big bang theory deserves to be held up to same regard as classical and quantum mechanics, electro and thermodynamics, and relativity. and i dont think questioning it is anywhere close to flat earthism or creationism. still i happen to believe it is the currently best supported model, albeit one with plenty of questions to answer
        eecc 4y ago
        The Big Bang is indeed a form of Creationism. It was first conceived by a priest, Georges Lemaître, in an attempt to reconcile scripture and astronomical observations. So…
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      I literally composed my post excluding the word "crank", because I felt "unpopular, unconvincing hypothesis" was a less judgemental way of phrasing it, and one that focused on the idea, not the ideator, but you went ahead and used crank anyways anyways, the threshold is likely when the hypothesis becomes convincing enough to a sufficient proportion or number of experts in the field
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    The vast majority of doctors did not believe in germ theory 170 years. There were like one or two people called cranks telling surgeons to wash their hands before surgery. The vast majority can often be wrong. It’s a terrible input

sure i did. but what you say doesnt invalidate what i said. if someone finds this interesting they can pursue answers perhaps. personally i find it entertaining. also apparently this guys work has been published in a reputable journal

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
the point was that "the unpopular, unconvincing hypothesis is right" need be treated as a possibility only if the probability is high enough, and knowing that the vast majority are wrong is an important bayesian input in properly estimating that probability
- medo-bear 4y ago
  help me out. historically, at what point in bayesian probability estimation did "there is no such thing as ether" theorists go from crank to lets pay attention to these guys
  - danaris 4y ago
    This is cherry-picking. Your interlocutors have already stipulated that on occasion, the scientific establishment has been wrong, and the cranks have been right. Their point is that this is almost never the case. There are and have been cranks who dispute the scientific consensus on almost every point since the scientific method was first developed. Are you also suggesting we should believe the anti-vaxxers who still back Andrew Wakefield's paper? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say climate change isn't real? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say the earth is flat? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say that our current trees aren't "really" trees, and all the "real", giant, trees were killed long ago? [0] All of these are cranks who disagree with the established scientific consensus—sometimes in bizarre but harmless ways, sometimes in extremely damaging and disturbing ones. If your point is genuinely "we should listen to cranks because they have a good track record", why not them, too? Why not all of them? Or is there, in fact, something specific about this one that makes you think it's got something going for it besides "they might be actually super smart and seeing something the rest of us are missing"? If so, maybe lead with that, instead? [0] https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      im not suggesting any of that. the burden of proof should be on the presenter sure. but calling this guy a crank is stretching the definition of a crank a fair bit. hes been funded by nasa and was published (once ?) in an astronomy journal personally i dont think big bang theory deserves to be held up to same regard as classical and quantum mechanics, electro and thermodynamics, and relativity. and i dont think questioning it is anywhere close to flat earthism or creationism. still i happen to believe it is the currently best supported model, albeit one with plenty of questions to answer
      - eecc 4y ago
        The Big Bang is indeed a form of Creationism. It was first conceived by a priest, Georges Lemaître, in an attempt to reconcile scripture and astronomical observations. So…
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    I literally composed my post excluding the word "crank", because I felt "unpopular, unconvincing hypothesis" was a less judgemental way of phrasing it, and one that focused on the idea, not the ideator, but you went ahead and used crank anyways anyways, the threshold is likely when the hypothesis becomes convincing enough to a sufficient proportion or number of experts in the field
- throwoutway 4y ago
  The vast majority of doctors did not believe in germ theory 170 years. There were like one or two people called cranks telling surgeons to wash their hands before surgery. The vast majority can often be wrong. It’s a terrible input