Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[dasmiller]

Someone earlier mentioned engineers with respect to crackpot physics. Here is an interesting discussion about that:

Certainly many of the crackpot candidates that we run into here are not engineers; they show an aversion to almost any form of calculation while most engineers are pretty comfortable with numbers (and if they're not, they're in the wrong field).

But there does seem to be a disproportionate number of engineers making crackpot websites.

I'm an engineer myself, and I work in a very engineering-heavy field, so I know lots of engineers. I'd be fascinated to find out how many of the crackpot engineers are successful as engineers and have the respect of their engineering peers. Engineering (at least in aerospace) is a very collaborative effort, and I'd think the traits that make an outspoken crackpot wouldn't be compatible with working well in an engineering team, but of course I have nothing but speculation to go on.

But I'd be fascinated to find out more about it.

 

[rwguinn]

Someone earlier mentioned engineers with respect to crackpot physics. Here is an interesting discussion about that:



LINK

That's the one.
Apparently a number of people--especially here-- believe this is true.
I believe that 95% of statistics are made up to prove a point...

 

[Perpetual Student]

Certainly many of the crackpot candidates that we run into here are not engineers; they show an aversion to almost any form of calculation while most engineers are pretty comfortable with numbers (and if they're not, they're in the wrong field).

But there does seem to be a disproportionate number of engineers making crackpot websites.

I'm an engineer myself, and I work in a very engineering-heavy field, so I know lots of engineers. I'd be fascinated to find out how many of the crackpot engineers are successful as engineers and have the respect of their engineering peers. Engineering (at least in aerospace) is a very collaborative effort, and I'd think the traits that make an outspoken crackpot wouldn't be compatible with working well in an engineering team, but of course I have nothing but speculation to go on.

But I'd be fascinated to find out more about it.

Coincidentally, I first discovered JREF following some links about one Terence Witt (LINK), who sponsored full page ads about his (crackpot cosmology) book in a number of periodicals. He is an engineer by education and profession. The infamous hero, Alfven, of our friend Mozina was also an engineer.
However, the engineers who I have known personally never demonstrated any crackpot beliefs. How could one confirm the statement of the author (Pascal Boyer) that 95% of physics crackpots are engineers? It's a hard claim to swallow.

 

[Dinwar]

I found this website by accident one day, and have had it in my Favorites every since. The article linked to here has particular relevance to this discussion.

I seriously doubt that 95% of physics crackpots are engineers--on my admittedly unscientific and biased-as-crazy personal experience I've found crackpots to exist in all walks of life, and that engineers aren't more or less crackpotty than anyone else. But the ones I know (civil engineers) are more vocal--comes from running multi-million dollar construction jobs using crews that can't pass a GED if their lives depend on it (no insult intended--there are great people working in the construction field. The people the civil engineers I know work with are not among those). I think that has an affect.

Also, engineers know a little about physics. Not as much as a Ph.D. in physics or something, but more than enough to impress people with the technobabble. Someone like me, who's just read popular works and ran screaming from physics once I realized integrals are involved, couldn't convince anyone. Someone who can spout out some of the jargon, on the other hand...

 

[Perpetual Student]

I found this website by accident one day, and have had it in my Favorites every since. The article linked to here has particular relevance to this discussion.

I seriously doubt that 95% of physics crackpots are engineers--on my admittedly unscientific and biased-as-crazy personal experience I've found crackpots to exist in all walks of life, and that engineers aren't more or less crackpotty than anyone else. But the ones I know (civil engineers) are more vocal--comes from running multi-million dollar construction jobs using crews that can't pass a GED if their lives depend on it (no insult intended--there are great people working in the construction field. The people the civil engineers I know work with are not among those). I think that has an affect.

Also, engineers know a little about physics. Not as much as a Ph.D. in physics or something, but more than enough to impress people with the technobabble. Someone like me, who's just read popular works and ran screaming from physics once I realized integrals are involved, couldn't convince anyone. Someone who can spout out some of the jargon, on the other hand...

The cliche, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind. However, I think one can make the case that "a little knowledge is better than none" in most cases. Perhaps, the problem with crackpots is they have "a little knowledge with a big narcissistic disorder."
So, one who becomes familiar with some physics in pursuit of different goals (like engineering or architecture) and has a narcissistic personality can be prone to physics crackpottery.
I would not be surprised if medical crackpots occur in a similar way among professions like pharmacy and nursing.

 

[Emet]

The cliche, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind. However, I think one can make the case that "a little knowledge is better than none" in most cases. Perhaps, the problem with crackpots is they have "a little knowledge with a big narcissistic disorder."
So, one who becomes familiar with some physics in pursuit of different goal (like engineering or architecture) and has a narcissistic personality can be prone to physics crackpottery.
I would not be surprised if medical crackpots occur in a similar way among professions like pharmacy and nursing.

I believe you can find many MDs who are crackpots, sometimes educated at prestigious medical schools.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Also, engineers know a little about physics. Not as much as a Ph.D. in physics or something, but more than enough to impress people with the technobabble. Someone like me, who's just read popular works and ran screaming from physics once I realized integrals are involved, couldn't convince anyone. Someone who can spout out some of the jargon, on the other hand...

Engineers who work in industry (as most do) often know more physics and math than anyone with whom they interact on a regular basis. Over time, that may lead a few of them to overestimate their expertise in those subjects.

Most research scientists regularly encounter people who know more than they do about at least some aspects of their own research specialties. Those encounters may moderate incipient megalomania.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I believe you can find many MDs who are crackpots, sometimes educated at prestigious medical schools.

Interesting! I have a cousin who comes to mind. He is a cardiologist who harbors a number of crackpot opinions about stuff in and outside of medicine.

 

[rwguinn]

I found this website by accident one day, and have had it in my Favorites every since. The article linked to here has particular relevance to this discussion.

I seriously doubt that 95% of physics crackpots are engineers--on my admittedly unscientific and biased-as-crazy personal experience I've found crackpots to exist in all walks of life, and that engineers aren't more or less crackpotty than anyone else. But the ones I know (civil engineers) are more vocal--comes from running multi-million dollar construction jobs using crews that can't pass a GED if their lives depend on it (no insult intended--there are great people working in the construction field. The people the civil engineers I know work with are not among those). I think that has an affect.

Also, engineers know a little about physics. Not as much as a Ph.D. in physics or something, but more than enough to impress people with the technobabble. Someone like me, who's just read popular works and ran screaming from physics once I realized integrals are involved, couldn't convince anyone. Someone who can spout out some of the jargon, on the other hand...

Interesting link.
I am going to revise my stand, somewhat. Thinking back, I have actually met a fair number of "crackpots" in my career as an engineer, ranging in crackpotiness from the guy who didn''t believe in putting doors on home bathrooms, to the "flat-earther" working on Titan missiles, to the student who devoted all his spare time to his Perpetual Motion Machine, to the anti-vax/NWO/9-11 was an inside job/Federal Reserve-is-evil/moon-hoax/geo-centric bleever...
****** Engineers, when they go crackpot, do NOT mess around...

 

[ben m]

Engineers who work in industry (as most do) often know more physics and math than anyone with whom they interact on a regular basis. Over time, that may lead a few of them to overestimate their expertise in those subjects.

Most research scientists regularly encounter people who know more than they do about at least some aspects of their own research specialties. Those encounters may moderate incipient megalomania.

Good point. There are two sides to scientific isolation: you never talk to experts, and you do talk to nonexperts.

The "missing experts" problem is the obvious one---you don't know what the field is actually up to, what the common pitfalls are, what the standards-of-proof are, etc., if your only exposure to it comes from trade paperbacks in from the "science and nature" section of Waldenbooks.

But you're right about the too-many-nonexperts side of things. Too many people saying "Wow, grandpa, you read that Hawking book, you must be so smart." That does prod in the direction of the known crackpot psychology.

 

[Skwinty]

I think that any endeavour that relates to new and untested scientific thought breeds crackpots.

Not that the term is offensive as it really means that your theory does not hold water. However in mitigation, many crackpots are vindicated in the long haul.

Of course the majority crash and burn. No amount of education and experience can inoculate a person against this malaise.

 

[Dinwar]

However in mitigation, many crackpots are vindicated in the long haul.

Of course the majority crash and burn.

These two statements imply opposite concepts. They don't state them, and therefore there's some wiggle room, but if many are vindicated it seems odd to say most crash and burn.

I think that any endeavour that relates to new and untested scientific thought breeds crackpots.

This doesn't explain them all. Many crackpots misunderstand science that has been known for hundreds of years. For example, many Creationists misuse the Principles of Stratigraphy, which were written down prior to the American Revolution. They also fail to understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, which were established by Newton. Some of them scew up Kepler's Laws. And here I'm referring only to crackpots active today--obviously crackpots who abused those theories when they were new would fall under your statement.

I think the term crackpot has generally been reserved for people who are trivially wrong--meaning that they're wrong, and there's nothing to be gained from proving them wrong. Dolf Seilacher was often wrong, and in fact often knew he was wrong, but his ideas were non-trivially false--meaning that in figuring out how they were wrong the science of paleontology advanced. Similarly, Newton's concept of gravity was non-trivially false. Both Seilacher and Newton's ideas were still scientific, however, in that they followed established protocols and did not (generally) violate any broadly supported scientific theories. A flat-earther is a crackpot, because his ideas violate many broadly supported scientific theories, generate far more questions than they answer, etc.

Simply being wrong isn't enough to call someone a crackpot--we're all usually wrong in science. There's more to it than that.

 

[Skwinty]

True, I should have said some are vindicated.

It is bedtime now.

Good idea to stop digging holes for today.

 

[Dinwar]

Bah--nothing is as fun as digging holes! How are you going to find coal for the torches if you don't dig for it?

 

[ben m]

I think that any endeavour that relates to new and untested scientific thought breeds crackpots.

Actually, I think most crackpots flock to old and very well tested science. The nature of spacetime, the double-slit experiment, the structure of the atom---the early-20th-century stuff. New and untested scientific thought? Like gamma ray bursts, the QGP phase transition, spin glasses, string theory? The one thing crackpots seem to agree on is a desire to reject string theory.

Not that the term is offensive as it really means that your theory does not hold water.

It means much more than "your theory did not hold water". The everyday business of physics involves hundreds of people coming up with theories that turn out not to hold water. The term "crackpot" has more to do with how you react to criticism of your theory.

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, I think most crackpots flock to old and very well tested science.

This is true. I've noticed that Creationists tend to not discuss things like ecosystem stability, planetary-scale ecology, or the various types of cladistics and the like--they focus on systematics, stratigraphy, etc. All stuff that has more or less been worked out. They don't have much to say on the newest paleontological or geological work, except to point out any example of error as disproof of the field.

An interesting observation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is true. I've noticed that Creationists tend to not discuss things like ecosystem stability, planetary-scale ecology, or the various types of cladistics and the like--they focus on systematics, stratigraphy, etc. All stuff that has more or less been worked out. They don't have much to say on the newest paleontological or geological work, except to point out any example of error as disproof of the field.

An interesting observation.

That would be consistent with the observation that crackpot theories are simplistic (or incomplete) compared with their counterpart real scientific theories --no surprise there!

 

[sol invictus]

It means much more than "your theory did not hold water". The everyday business of physics involves hundreds of people coming up with theories that turn out not to hold water. The term "crackpot" has more to do with how you react to criticism of your theory.

My pithy definition of crackpot is: "someone that thinks everyone before him* was wrong".

Then there's curmudgeon: "someone that thinks everyone after him* was wrong".

* (they always seem to be men)

Smart, knowledgeable crackpots are great - but rare. What seems to be much more common are the kind of megalomaniacal incompetents with a persecution complex that so often post here.

One theory I've developed is that they have so much invested in being right, they've spent so much time, energy, and possibly money arguing for their view, that they become literally stupefied - when people challenge them, they get a little afraid they might be wrong, and rather than face such a painful prospect their mind shuts down its own ability to think (I believe this is called "cognitive dissonance"). It seems to rise to the level of a mental illness in the truly far gone ones (like Mozina, probably Johan, Bjarne, etc.).

 

[Perpetual Student]

Although he was not a physicist, Alfred Wegener seems to have been considered to be a crackpot in his time. He did study physics at the graduate level, earned a PhD in astronomy and worked in meteorology and climatology. Sometimes, people we label as crackpots turn out to be correct.

 

[Dinwar]

Wegener was not correct. Continental Drift is an invalid theory--it does not present a mechanism (the main complaint), and it requires forces which have never been demonstrated (how continents moved through the oceanic crust). It was replaced by the theory of plate tectonics, which has been updated with ridge push/slab pull concepts. Really, Wegener WAS a crackpot. The difference is that Wegener was a USEFUL crackpot. He was working in a time when it was obvious that there was something going on, but no one could figure out what. Wegener was properly rejected by most scientists, and many of them rejected him for the correct reasons.

In short, Wegener should not be the hero of the crackpot crowd.