I remember reading about this guy quite a while ago when he created quite a stir with his knowledge and theory. I couldn't understand it, so I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan has developed his own "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4]
I worked with a guy who claimed to have made 800's on the LSAT and had a doctorate in philosophy.
More like lipstick on an anus and asking the public to give it a big wet one - with tongue.![]()
Here is Mark Chu-Carroll's take on him:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
~~ Paul
Since the CTMU cannot be proven under the traditional scientific method (involving an observer and that which is observed because in the CTMU observer = observed) it proposes to prove itself. Hence the CTMU can be thought of as supertautological; an axiom of choice; or self-proving.
Does anyone think the 'super genius' is worth spending any more time on?
I just noticed his site, and read a bit about his ctmu... of course, as I do not belong to the "inquisitors movement" here in JREFI can see that he has interesting things to say.. I don't care if his ideas solve any problem, I'm far more pragmatic... and having no ontology to defend, I can read and take what rings a bell on me, and forget the rest.
All in all, he is right in several things, which, I have to agree, are to subtle to be tackled, specially by those who I call "naive materialists" (not talking about anyone in particular) who like to defend some theories as "absolute truths".
For instance, he talks about science as a body of ideas or beliefs that deal with what is called "reality", and he acknowledge something that seems very difficult to grasp, that theories and concepts are abstract constructions that rely on logical properties, and so they are independent from that which they attempt to explain.
Things don't fall because the force of gravity pulls them down... things fall .. and we relate to ourselves how or why with our theoretical accounts.
Ah, excellent find. He takes it apart very thoroughly.Here is Mark Chu-Carroll's take on him:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
~~ Paul
You encapsulate yourself nicely there.I don't care if his ideas solve any problem, I'm far more pragmatic.
You encapsulate yourself nicely there.
I'm not sure who here says any theory is some kind of absolute truth.
This does not seem like a difficult thing to grasp at all. Theories are not actually "reality", but the models that we have created which give the best fit to available evidence. If new evidence is found the model cannot accommodate, the theory is tossed.
But this is more a philosophical point than anything. How is it useful or important insofar as "revolutionizing" science goes?
In 500 years, they're going to uncover his works and conclude that he was the Thomas Aquinas of our time.
So in the future, they will dig up his work and conclude that he, like Aquinas, wasn't all that clever?
Pretty much, yeah.
.Sort of...
In as much as we can be even more super-genius than him.
Have i ever told you my theory of everything minus one?
All its missing is something. Something I can't quite put my finger on.
The same finger I cut off with a band saw, accidentally.
.I noticed that someone else mentioned in the second-to-last comment on the blog page (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php) that they managed to understand what it was saying, but that it's "subtle" and you need a "broad" education to grasp what it means. What do you make of that?
.In 500 years, they're going to uncover his works and conclude that he was the Thomas Aquinas of our time.
If it's on magnetic media, not much chance.
Get it down on good quality print media.
We can still read Chaucer's and Willy Shakespeare's stuff..
But even 3-1/2" disks are damn near unreadable today, due to the lack of disk readers!
I think current ideas revolve around changing within an envelope of possibilities coupled with a sort of default. So, for instance, I could make myself become left handed (having been born a righty) and it would take some applied effort, but whether or not I could ever manage to play the harp properly might depend on my finger span, something I couldn't change.
I don't know how plastic human personality is in this way. Could I create a tyrant out of a pleasant little girl with the right psychological drivers? If mental gifts in the form of IQ are expressed at an early age, I suspect other mental events might be as well, although, as I said before, I am not at all well-read in developmental psychology and how trauma shapes personality.
We do know that personality degrades with physical brain events like a steel rod through the noggin or chemical treatment. So the argument is one about possibilities and whether or not we become less malleable with age.
Getting back to the OP though, I'm going to give his paper a shot because of his lauded IQ. It's a good exercise, along the lines of the Unibomber Manifesto -- not that I think going in there is anything criminal or wrongheaded, but rather that it is a worldview from someone who's brighter than I am.
Which is the precise opposite of pragmatism.hi there PixyMisa
Yep, thing is, I do not believe he has a theory, but since I don't have any ontology to defend I do not care about his words that much. All I did was to read here and there, to see if he has anything relevant to say that had any meaningful insight for me.
Oh don't worry you will know them. Some people in here are not really skeptics, but fundamentalists that need to have certain knowledge to feel comfortable. As being a religious fundamentalist is seen as "uncool" they resort to being fundamentalists about "science" (more what they understand by it). Not to worry, JREF also have interesting and very intelligent people around.
Nice nice.. but you really think that this is general knowledge? think about truths, people LOVE truths. Think about the relation between what is true and what is real.
I'm far more interested in what happens when no new evidence is found? Humans tend to be dogmatic (no, it is not a flaw of character, it is simply human nature) and so, when something is believed for a long period of time, somehow it transforms itself from a theory to "reality". Think about the flat earth. Was it an idea? something that was believed only momentarily? or.. a hard truth? (at the time of course).
All other things being equal, one chooses the simplest theory - Occam's Razor.
When no new evidence is found, what can you change theories to, anyway? I suppose one could try coming up with alternative theories that give the same results as the current ones (otherwise new evidence would be required), but what good would changing to those *do*, exactly? And what would motivate choosing any one over any other?
I think "dogmatism" occurs when someone does not want to accept new evidence (even just new to them).
This happens all the time with fundamentalist religions, e.g. there's piles and piles of evidence to support evolution, yet hardline "creationists" staunchly reject it all. Lack of change is not itself dogmatism -- dogmatism is active *resistance* to change in the face of a motivating force like new evidence, resistance that is not based on rational thought. That last part is important.
It *is* dogmatic, however, to resist evolutionary theory 'cause I've been taught by my pastor that you've gotta take that Bible literally and as a totally infallible revelation from God so if it says the Earth is 6000 years old and God made Adam and Eve and there was no death 'till they sinned then that's the way it is -- "science" be damned! The fossils? Pah! Planted there by Satan! Or God the Deceiver, depending on which church I was taught in. Or it was Noah's Flood, or any other number of silly ideas to attempt to push away everything that threatens the dogmas in question.
.All other things being equal, one (if reason is operating one should) choosesthe simplest theory - Occam's Razor.
Oh don't worry you will know them. Some people in here are not really skeptics, but fundamentalists that need to have certain knowledge to feel comfortable. As being a religious fundamentalist is seen as "uncool" they resort to being fundamentalists about "science" (more what they understand by it). Not to worry, JREF also have interesting and very intelligent people around.
Nice nice.. but you really think that this is general knowledge? think about truths, people LOVE truths. Think about the relation between what is true and what is real.
I'm far more interested in what happens when no new evidence is found? Humans tend to be dogmatic (no, it is not a flaw of character, it is simply human nature) and so, when something is believed for a long period of time, somehow it transforms itself from a theory to "reality". Think about the flat earth. Was it an idea? something that was believed only momentarily? or.. a hard truth? (at the time of course).
I didn't understood the thing about revolutionizing anything.
You seem to have mistaken ignorance for creativity. Being wrong is not creative, it's just wrong.
There is one good reason; Epistemology. Taking for granted that common knowledge is synonymous with THE TRUTHtm leads to obscurantism, inquisitions and witch hunting. And yes, people tend to take their beliefs as truths (it is how we are hardwired).
I think dogmatism occurs when someone reacts with aggression when confronted by people with different beliefs.
I have problems with this assertion. For instance, it neglects the way humans relate to ideas, specially those which are taken as "knowledge". When somebody can't see what other considers evidence is because their worldviews is not able to apprehend such evidence, this is the easiest way to put it. It is not because they are *resisting* a higher truth, or whatever, is because they are unable to see it (the way you see it). Why? because they look at it from a different perspective. They see a different thing.
Being capable of perceiving evidences as evidences, require training, learning, understanding.. until, somehow, the point of view is changed.
Speaking in general, any fundamentalist (religious or not) will actively *resist* to change. Change is dangerous and means they are wrong, and biologically, we are hardwired to believe we are right, it is a survival aspect of our psyche (extending to our cultures, in a broader sense).
Exactly, you miss an important point here. For them, their theory is correct because they can deal with the evidence! "planted by satan". Why do they need to change?
A last point, any "evidence" needs interpretation, and the interpretation comes (or not) with the theoretical account everyone has to face the world. And the problems begin here of course, subjectivity, bias, fear, etc.
That's exactly right. Science works, in a way nothing else does, because it is tested against observable reality. We accept it for purely pragmatic reasons.Another problem could arise if they think they can somehow make things "better" by teaching creationist theory. Creationist theory has led to precisely zero advances in knowledge, technology, etc., unlike evolutionary theory. So evolutionary theory is superior in this sense. If creationist theory were to displace it, then all that advancement would simply stop.
Because the evolutionary theory works so well, explains so much in a consistent instead of ad-hoc fashion, and even predicts discoveries of evidence in advance, it is considered to be closer to "reality" than creationist "theory" is. This of course does not make it absolute truth as nothing in science is such. If someone has a truly better theory than evolutionary theory, I'd be curious to hear about it.