Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Perpetual Student]

I am curious: What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology? They do not seem to be very knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, other than having mastered a lot of jargon. They seem to be quite ignorant of mathematics. Yet they seem to be passionate to an extreme about their views -- to the point of behaving like religious zealots. How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?
What do they gain out of this avocation? Appearing wise to their friends and relatives and the uninformed at cocktail parties? Are they delusional narcissists? Do they hold myriad other unorthodox opinions about he world (like, say, political conspiracy theories and Internet driven puffery)?
Any opinions?

 

[Perpetual Student]

As an addendum:
Before I discovered this forum, I had no idea that so much crackpot physics existed. I had never heard of electric universe, plasma cosmology, etc. Previously, my only familiarity with crackpot science was creationism. I have come to be fascinated by these people and I have been struggling to understand them, what drives them, why and how they can adhere to their patently false ideas.
I have no intention of insulting anyone; so I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots.

 

[drkitten]

I am curious: What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology? [...] What do they gain out of this avocation? Appearing wise to their friends and relatives and the uninformed at cocktail parties? Are they delusional narcissists?

Well, yes, obviously. But I think that specifically physics draws a specific kind of crackpot. Physics describes the rules by which the universe operates, and there's a certain kind of mind that likes the idea of knowing The Rules; if you don't like the way the universe operates, then obviously that's because other people don't understand The Rules. This obviously ties in to a lot of traditional beliefs like "names have power," which has a lot of psychological traction and is a popular magical theory for that reason.

There's a general feeling among the population at large that scientists are modern magicians, and similarly a feeling that among scientists, physicists are the ones with the most fundamental understanding of The Rules. Hence you see more crackpot physicists with their "Theory of Everything" (now there's a loaded term....) than crackpot, I dunno, geologists or marine biologists.

Do they hold myriad other unorthodox opinions about he world (like, say, political conspiracy theories and Internet driven puffery)?

Many of them do -- they also have a set of Rules that describe how economics, law or politics "really" works. Rules like "if the flag in your court has a gold fringe, then it's really an Admiralty court and rules of statue law don't apply."

 

[drkitten]

As an addendum:
Before I discovered this forum, I had no idea that so much crackpot physics existed.

Professional physicists have to deal with letters from these people all the time. The Randi forum is rare in that it's a forum open to anyone in the world and very VERY lightly moderated (unlike the actual professional physics forums), but still has some professional level scientists who participate on a regular basis. So it's actually got some very high quality science discussion on it.

If you can't hang on arXiv, the JREF isn't a bad second place.

 

[Sideroxylon]

How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?

I guess they see themselves as another Ignaz Semmelweis^WP or Alfred Wegener^WP up against a dogmatic scientific establishment.

Many seem to be fans of the Schopenhaur's quote: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Comparing atheists to narcissists.

I am curious: What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology? They do not seem to be very knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, other than having mastered a lot of jargon. They seem to be quite ignorant of mathematics. Yet they seem to be passionate to an extreme about their views -- to the point of behaving like religious zealots. How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?
What do they gain out of this avocation? Appearing wise to their friends and relatives and the uninformed at cocktail parties? Are they delusional narcissists? Do they hold myriad other unorthodox opinions about he world (like, say, political conspiracy theories and Internet driven puffery)?
Any opinions?

The analogy that comes to mind is like you comparing atheists to narcissists because they dare to be "non believers" in "non empirical entities". The reason "non believers" seem to be drawn to cosmology specifically is directly related to the mainstream's "faith in the unseen (in the lab)". Atheists tend to 'lack belief' in non physical entities (lab no shows). Likewise "critics" of mainstream theory tend to "lack belief" in the mainstream's "dark" (aka invisible) sky beings. All the math in the world doesn't make up for a complete dud in the lab in terms of tangible empirical physics.

You're essentially ignoring the *EMPIRICAL* flaws in mainstream theory, *CLAIMING* your math geniuses are beyond reproach and yet their trio of mythical friends produce *NOTHING* tangible in the lab of any use whatsoever to the real world here on Earth.

You're created a nice 'pseudo-math-religion' that professes that empirical laboratory physics is irrelevant and all that matters are mathematical expressions (that they happen to agree with). Note that little clause at the end since the mainstream *BLATANTLY IGNORES* any maths not to their *PHYSICAL* liking.

Your insults aside, what tangible goods have come of some kind of "faith" in invisible sky entities?

 

[Arthur Mann]

What do you suppose drives crackpot physics and cosmology?

There are many things that drive crackpot physics, here's a short list:

• "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" or "dark matter" or "dark energy"
• unfalsifiable hypotheses like "big bang", which is a myth taken from the book of Genesis in the bible
• government grant funding, encouraged when confirming bias and common error, withdrawn when this bias and error is eliminated with science
• peer review process, it can not combat fraud or deliberate error, and has a dismal success rate catching accidental error and delusion put on paper, yet it convinces people that group consensus is an adequate substitute for scientific rigor

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but this should get you started.

I don't agree with your characterization of all crackpots, though. Some of them are well-meaning idiots, they don't intend to be misled, it's others that mislead them with their prior bias and common error-prone methods.

 

[drkitten]

I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots.

Well, so much for that hope.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As an addendum:
Before I discovered this forum, I had no idea that so much crackpot physics existed. I had never heard of electric universe, plasma cosmology, etc. Previously, my only familiarity with crackpot science was creationism. I have come to be fascinated by these people and I have been struggling to understand them, what drives them, why and how they can adhere to their patently false ideas.
I have no intention of insulting anyone; so I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots.

What kind of "addendum" is that? You have no intention of insulting anyone, *INCLUDING* those narcissistic PC crackpots that you compared to "creationists"? Oy.

This sounds a lot like someone comparing an 'non believer' to the devil, calling them evil and then claiming they "didn't mean offend anyone". Sheeesh.

 

[Drachasor]

Understanding actual physics and the mathematics behind it is too difficult for most people to do. It's easier for some people to just make something up or believe something that's made up and is easier to comprehend (even if it is wrong). There's a reason why these people don't understand actual physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, yes, obviously. But I think that specifically physics draws a specific kind of crackpot.

If by "crackpot" you main "non believers" in "non physical entities", then yes, I suppose you're right, non believers are certainly drawn to invisible sky entity theories.

 

[LibraryLady]

It's easier than real physics.

 

[rwguinn]

"What it really looks like..."
Much of real physics is counter-intuitive, and requires more than a cursory glance.
for example:
"Heavy objects fall faster than light objects..." can be demonstrated easily, using a piece of paper and a packaged ream of paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Understanding actual physics and the mathematics behind it is too difficult for most people to do. It's easier for some people to just make something up or believe something that's made up and is easier to comprehend (even if it is wrong). There's a reason why these people don't understand actual physics.

"Physics" falls into two categories, USEFUL TANGIBLE PHYSICS and "point and the sky, make up invisible sky entities that have no effect on Earth, and add math physics". Which kind of "physics" are we talking about because I *LOVE* the first kind that produced my computer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's easier than real physics.

We might actually agree on that topic, but only because I think mainstream theory is a "crackpot" theory, and I believe what makes it attractive is the fact it's "easier' and "simpler" than "real world physics" in the lab. As long as it works in sim-world, it's a "go" for publication, regardless of whether or not it actually works in the lab.

 

[Uncayimmy]

How can they possibly believe tens of thousands of specialists (many quite brilliant) are all wrong, but somehow (although they lack the education) they have stumbled on the truth?

I think you answered your own question. That's a very appealing thing to some people. Combine that with a simple understanding that makes sense to them, and there's your recipe.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Understanding actual physics and the mathematics behind it is too difficult for most people to do. It's easier for some people to just make something up or believe something that's made up and is easier to comprehend (even if it is wrong). There's a reason why these people don't understand actual physics.

This. That attitude also reflects a gross misunderstanding of what science is and isn't and the role that mathematics must play in physics. In addition, a number of crackpots buy into what I call the "Einstein fallacy", in that they think it's a David vs. Goliath sort of thing: they have "the truth" and they're going up against the big, bad, close-minded, dogmatic physics establishment. Such a worldview has little, if anything, to do with actual science & its methods and much more to do with the psychology of the crackpot.

 

[Arthur Mann]

I had never heard of electric universe, plasma cosmology, etc.

Now you have.

Previously, my only familiarity with crackpot science was creationism.

ah you mean like "big bang"

why and how they can adhere to their patently false ideas.

Mainly it's about conformity. If 98% of the population believes in deities, there is pressure on the 2% to conform. If 98% believe in "black hole" or "big bang", there is pressure on the 2% to conform. We can't even really say for sure that 98% does believe in these ridiculous fables, but if it isn't the full 98%, it's just more evidence for the power of conformity.

I have no intention of insulting anyone; so I hope to hear mainly from non-crackpots.

It's good that you carefully chose your words to avoid a direct conflict with the rules of the forum, while still using inflammatory language directed at users of the forum. What sort of person is it that uses those tactics, I forget.

 

[Emet]

A similar question was posed on a physics forum:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=300150

 

[Drachasor]

"Physics" falls into two categories, USEFUL TANGIBLE PHYSICS and "point and the sky, make up invisible sky entities that have no effect on Earth, and add math physics". Which kind of "physics" are we talking about because I *LOVE* the first kind that produced my computer.

You're kidding yourself if you think there's a big difference between the two in terms of science -- I assume you're making some ridiculous jab at astrophysics.