4 ms·

I've seriously read some "crackpot" theories just to be sure that they're really wrong, and not just a community backlash. Most of the time, they provide no us

I've seriously read some "crackpot" theories just to be sure that they're really wrong, and not just a community backlash. Most of the time, they provide no useful model. When they do, they are demonstrably wrong. For example, there was a guy who had his "theory of gravity" which failed to produce elliptical orbits (IIRC, non-circular orbits were highly unstable). Other guy tried to explain fusion by drawing electron orbits (not orbitals) of around a nucleus. IMO, skepticism is the way to go with new theories. - No useful model? GTFO. - Model does not fit a lot of experiments? GTFO. - Model is more narrow and complex than existing theories? GTFO. - Model does not have measurable effects with current technology? Well, you have to wait or build it yourself. - Model fits experiments, had successful predictions before experiments, and explains more/unifies other theories? Good, go grab a cookie^W Nobel Prize.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
I mean, you are mostly right, but almost all paradigm shifts go through crackpot-accusation phases where experimental results are either ignored, misinterpreted, or in progress (relativity wasn't validated by an experiment until 1920). The problem is even more profound in computer science, where many sub fields aren't really experimental sciences, and is definitely problematic here, which seems to be more science philosophy...the theory seems sound, the question is mainly about its usefulness (does thinking about possibility and impossibility in physical systems add anything over state transitions?). How do you tell the difference between a crackpot and an out of the box thinker? Sometimes it's obvious (I've squared the circle!), but often times it is ambiguous (probably a crackpot, probably not a genius). In this case, I would argue that it is the latter.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

I mean, you are mostly right, but almost all paradigm shifts go through crackpot-accusation phases where experimental results are either ignored, misinterpreted, or in progress (relativity wasn't validated by an experiment until 1920). The problem is even more profound in computer science, where many sub fields aren't really experimental sciences, and is definitely problematic here, which seems to be more science philosophy...the theory seems sound, the question is mainly about its usefulness (does thinking about possibility and impossibility in physical systems add anything over state transitions?). How do you tell the difference between a crackpot and an out of the box thinker? Sometimes it's obvious (I've squared the circle!), but often times it is ambiguous (probably a crackpot, probably not a genius). In this case, I would argue that it is the latter.