Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

On the other hand, it does apply to BurntSynapse's advocacy of quaternions...BurntSynapse has typically ignored references we've provided concerning quaternions and just about any other technical issue he's pretended to discuss.

If we are unable to obtain from an acceptable understanding of our position from a critic, it seems natural they would perceive our response to their evidence as "ignoring", since they are having a different debate than what we are willing.

 

[BurntSynapse]

But physicists understand quaternions, they're not new any more (and this is an apt day to remember Hamilton).
They did revolutionise physics, as an extension of complex numbers into a higher dimension.

What is clearly avoided in every single response is exactly what quaternions were advocated as: an example of a method that could make a difference.

Here, you argue a much stronger position than the one I hold, yet because of emotions, it generates no objection.

That this suggests bias remains invisible, however.

 

[BurntSynapse]

So, yes, I think the question of "why should we believe this cog-sci-history framework" is a legitimate question,

So do I. You refuse to understand my position.

"because experts" is NOT a legitimate answer.

I agree...and you seem to be arguing in apparently deliberate ignorance.

First, in the social sciences, there is no general expectation that "experts", nor even consensus among experts, have access to criticism-proof truths about the world.

Again, you produce this if I would disagree - characterizing my opinions to suit your emotional attachments.

Second, you've latched onto a theory---presented by one expert and disputed by others---which is hardly even a candidate for a general truth.

Apparently dozens of clear, patient, explicit explanations that the HPS and cog sci for scientific revolutions are obviously narrow sub-specialties is insufficient to prevent the belief that I'm advocating the opposite.

There can be no answer to those who refuse to see.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I looked back through the thread. I can't find any explanation except, "Yeah, it's obscure, because history-of-scientific-revolutions is a small field". If there is more of an explanation, sorry, I can't find or recall it---can you provide a link to the post?

I've no idea what "explanation" you're on about.

History-of-scientific-revolutions is NOT a small field.

You mischaracterize my claims consistently, as do typical anti/religionists, political partisans, etc. They commonly argue different, usually weaker point than the opponents.

My view distinguishes between obscurity/generally-known, and the size of the domain to which a given body of knowledge applies.

The History of Science Society has over 3000 members.

This should not suggest to critical thinkers anything about the relative obscurity of a given sub-discipline any more than the size of a wall tells us about the size a particular brick used in its construction.

There are twenty or thirty journals in the field. Thomas Kuhn's book sold 1.4 million copies and one of the most-cited academic studies of all time.

Popularity is unrelated to range of applicability (yes, Kuhn's is high), and unrelated to level of obscurity which is plausibly inverse to citation levels.

I repeat, I hunted through the citation records on this. The records showed that there are enough historians in this field to criticize the work. The records showed that no one has used the work.

So, shall I assume you spent more than the 10s it took me at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1966743936993361656&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=1,5&hl=en

...then you went through them to reach your conclusion the work was cited but not "used"...or is it more likely you are biased to the point of fudging?

Imagine you were a defendant in a courtroom.

By "fudging", I mean to the point you must hallucinate scenarios (again) where I say things that do not reflect facts or my opinions in order not to consider changing your position.

This is something to consider for people interested in critical thinking as opposed to unreasonable nay-saying.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Still unanswered (unless your reply was you saying you were wrong about the "overwhelming consensus"):

For those whose view cannot permit valid evidence, the question must be perceived as unanswered, or at least not validly answered.

There appears nothing anyone can say to a sufficiently committed partisan to see valid claims of an opposing side, AFAIK.

The fact that I can clearly see (and read) prior posts discussing documentation of that consensus (e.g.: the Quantum Universe report), and explanations of both the evidence underlying and the posts citing them, and explanations of the explanations, explanations of the citations, explanations of problems with the criticisms, and then repeating...

If you are more comfortable believing that I've not answered sufficiently, OK.

 

[catsmate]

If we are unable to obtain from an acceptable understanding of our position from a critic, it seems natural they would perceive our response to their evidence as "ignoring", since they are having a different debate than what we are willing.

What is this supposed to mean?

What is clearly avoided in every single response is exactly what quaternions were advocated as: an example of a method that could make a difference.

They did. They do. They're a useful mathematical technique, a tool amongst others.

Here, you argue a much stronger position than the one I hold, yet because of emotions, it generates no objection.

Again, what is this supposed to mean?

That this suggests bias remains invisible, however.

And again.

So do I. You refuse to understand my position.

Then state you position clearly and without evasion.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But physicists understand quaternions, they're not new any more (and this is an apt day to remember Hamilton).
They did revolutionise physics, as an extension of complex numbers into a higher dimension, and are still used today.

In the 19th century, they were revolutionary.

They remain useful in the 21st century, but anyone who thinks quaternions could revolutionalize modern physics knows little about quaternions or modern physics.

Because today is the 170th anniversary of Hamilton's discovery/invention of quaternions, I'll say more: They were revolutionary in mathematics because their algebra was non-commutative. Quaternions led to the study of other non-commutative algebras, which led in turn to an even bigger revolution in algebra: from studying algebras of numbers to studying more abstract algebras of transformations and operators.

That particular revolution is behind us, while its results provided a stable foundation for other revolutions. For well over a century, we've understood the place of quaternions in both mathematics and physics. It's a place of honor, not mysticism.

 

[TjW]

What is clearly avoided in every single response is exactly what quaternions were advocated as: an example of a method that could make a difference.

Here, you argue a much stronger position than the one I hold, yet because of emotions, it generates no objection.

That this suggests bias remains invisible, however.

And a hammer is a tool that can make a difference. But mechanics already have hammers, and know when it's appropriate to use them.
Advocacy for the use of hammers, or quaternions, or any other tool that is already well-known and appropriately used, is not a particularly useful position. You can give advice to an expert craftsman, telling him "Try using a hammer now." Once in a while, of course, this will be the right tool to use. But that doesn't make the advice useful.
One can use a hammer to drive in a screw. But that use is not going to improve construction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

By "fudging", I mean to the point you must hallucinate scenarios (again) where I say things that do not reflect facts or my opinions in order not to consider changing your position.

We haven't had to hallucinate those scenarios. You have actually said things in this thread that do not reflect facts.

Most of what you've said in this thread is not wrong so much as unclear. You continue to fortify my impression that you're being vague and confusing on purpose, as though clear exposition of your ideas might reveal their vacuity.

This is something to consider for people interested in critical thinking as opposed to unreasonable nay-saying.

Agreed. People who are interested in critical thinking usually value crisp exposition over bafflegab.

[size=-2]bafflegab: "multiloquence characterized by consummate interfusion of circumlocution or periphrasis, inscrutability, and other familiar manifestations of abstruse expatiation commonly utilized for promulgations implementing Procrustean determinations by governmental bodies." -- Milton A Smith[/size]​

 

[steenkh]

It doesn't say anything about physics.

It applies to whether or not discussion is worthwhile when talking to someone emotionally attached to a particular view or position to the degree that they simply refuse to understand yours.

So you were effectively addressing your own emotional attachment to the idea that FTL travel is possible?

 

[catsmate]

In the 19th century, they were revolutionary.

They remain useful in the 21st century, but anyone who thinks quaternions could revolutionalize modern physics knows little about quaternions or modern physics.

Because today is the 170th anniversary of Hamilton's discovery/invention of quaternions, I'll say more: They were revolutionary in mathematics because their algebra was non-commutative. Quaternions led to the study of other non-commutative algebras, which led in turn to an even bigger revolution in algebra: from studying algebras of numbers to studying more abstract algebras of transformations and operators.

That particular revolution is behind us, while its results provided a stable foundation for other revolutions. For well over a century, we've understood the place of quaternions in both mathematics and physics. It's a place of honor, not mysticism.

And a hammer is a tool that can make a difference. But mechanics already have hammers, and know when it's appropriate to use them.
Advocacy for the use of hammers, or quaternions, or any other tool that is already well-known and appropriately used, is not a particularly useful position. You can give advice to an expert craftsman, telling him "Try using a hammer now." Once in a while, of course, this will be the right tool to use. But that doesn't make the advice useful.
One can use a hammer to drive in a screw. But that use is not going to improve construction.

Exactly. Quaternions are a tool, like a ratchet screwdriver. Highly useful for some tasks, usable for others, damn all good for some jobs

 

[ben m]

I've no idea what "explanation" you're on about.

Well, neither do I, by you assured me---in exasperated terms---that some sort of explanation had been posted repeatedly.

I've explained the obscurity of cognitive and philosophical researchers studying revolutionary paradigm change enough times that attempting *yet again* strikes me as a waste of all our time

 

[ben m]

So, shall I assume you spent more than the 10s it took me at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1966743936993361656&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=1,5&hl=en

...then you went through them to reach your conclusion the work was cited but not "used"...or is it more likely you are biased to the point of fudging?

Do you remember the post where I went through this? Apparently not. I explained exactly what I did---found some of ABC's scholarly articles (because Web Of Science does better with article-citations than book-citations), skimmed a dozen or articles that cite those articles, and gave what I believe to be accurate summaries of why and how they cite ABC's ideas. I'm sorry that you misremember this as "less than 10s of fudging". It's almost as though you are failing to read or understand opposing arguments, but are simply sticking to your preconception that your opponents are stupid.

OK, you've listed citations to their book. Let's begin, shall we?

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...2jxjoiFAJKaEYZdA#v=onepage&q=andersen&f=false

They cite ABC only to say "ABC argue that <this example I'm using> is not a good example of paradigm change, but I disagree".

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/2/295.abstract

Basically conflates ABC and Kuhn. "Science isn't perfect, it proceeds by paradigm shifts which show that evidence and disproof are socially constructed; see Kuhn, ABC, etc. etc." Doesn't use their specific cognitive methods for anything.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389041709000035

"It has long been held in cognitive science that scientific problem solving lies on a continuum with the way people use reasoning to solve more ordinary problems. Much research drawing from the history of scientific practices provide studies of how scientists extend and refine basic cognitive strategies, in explicit and critically reflective attempts, to devise methods for probing and understanding nature^1" Citation #1 is a generic splat of 16 articles discussing cognition and science, including ABC which is not otherwise discussed specifically.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...rBBI_JDM2CW1LqR8#v=onepage&q=andersen&f=false

is a book with a chapter written by Andersen.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01048.x/full

In a discussion of visual images, "New information can force a reevaluation of what external representations are supposed to represent, especially if it presents anomalies (Anderson, Barker, & Chen, 2006, pp. 59–65)"; no other reference to this work. This article actually discusses "process models", so it's as close as we've come to a hit.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...R-xpL9dBoiBMX7L8#v=onepage&q=andersen&f=false

In the intro, mentions ABC without comment in a wall-of-citations literature survey.

http://spontaneousgenerations.libra...ontaneousGenerations/article/view/11938/11182

I quote: "This latter type of work has in turn given rise to work that models conceptual change in science on cognitive theories of concepts (e.g., Andersen et al. 2006). Interesting as this latter work is, I shall not be paying attention to it here ... " At least she calls it interesting, let's call that a hit.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10849-008-9078-1

I quote: "A smaller literature does specifically address semantic networks in applications such as professional communication (Khalifa and Liu 2006), education (Jonassen 2005), experimental cognitive modeling (Barsalou 1992), modeling conceptual change in the history of science (Andersen et al. 2006; Hyman 2007), the use of concept mapping tools (which are essentially semantic networks without formal semantics) to express knowledge (Novak 1998), and so on. However, so far, operationalization of the results through the computational applica- tion of the networks is uncommon."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...V3SwbT2NiEWgsg4I#v=onepage&q=andersen&f=false

Cites Andersen for specific interpretations of specific cases, "Andersen (2006) is right to give credit to Kepler ...", that disagree with aspects of Kuhn.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...g26C7BXDQ6INQSWs#v=onepage&q=andersen&f=false

Cites Andersen for disagreeing with a specific point of Kuhn's.

http://frankzenker.de/downloads/Zenker 2010 From Features via Frames to Spaces.pdf

Flat-out disagreement. "In a recent review of Andersen, Barker and Chen (2006), who prefer the term ‘dynamic frame’, Thagard (2009: 844) points out: "Although the attribute-value account of represent- ation continues to be influential, there are several other approaches that suggest that the dy- namic frame account of concepts used by Andersen, Barker and Chen is at best incomplete and at worst seriously inaccurate" "

http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1514&context=amcis2009

No distinction from Kuhn: " First, Hevner et al. (2004) ... do not address the incommensurate nature of natural science and behavioral theories (Andersen et al. 2006; Kuhn 1962). "

http://jigpal.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/430.short

Finally! A clean hit. This article cites ABC extensively.

ETA: OK, let's get to the uncomplicated point. You propose that physics should be managed differently, because you identified ABC (2006) as a cognitive-science technique that you claim can be applied to research management and guide it towards paradigm changes. It is your job to defend this claim, and if there's support for this claim in the scholarly literature it is your job to point it out. If I'm missing something in my lit survey here, well, sorry---lit surveys are supposed to be your job, not mine.

 

[Reality Check]

For those whose view cannot permit valid evidence, the question must be perceived as unanswered, or at least not validly answered.

For those that do not present any evidence at all, the question remains unanswered, BurntSynapse.
You have this assertion that we assume that you (being a reasonable person) based on evidence. All you need to do is cite the evidence that you based your assertion on, BurntSynapse!

The fact is that prior posts, e.g. about the Quantum Universe report, are not documentation of the consensus. They are examples and not often about the need for a "revolutionary" paradigm change.
ETA: From ben m on 29th April 2013

Let me be absolutely clear: nothing in that report is talking about "what underlies quantum uncertainty" or whatever. This report, and all of its authors as far as I know, take the 100%-mainstream-physics view of quantum uncertainty, i.e. the view you're criticizing.

 

[Cuddles]

OK, you've listed citations to their book. Let's begin, shall we?

Once again getting back to the topic of the thread, has anyone else noticed the habit crackpots often have of providing long lists of citations without bothering to actually check if any of them support the claim being made? BurtSynapse even proudly boasts here that he didn't bother doing any more than a 10 second Google and hasn't actually read any of the citations himself. Part of the answer to why there is so much crackpot physics certainly appears to be that some people are just unable or unwilling to do any research themselves, and instead just hope that if they throw enough crap at the wall eventually someone else will go and check to see if any of it has stuck.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What is clearly avoided in every single response is exactly what quaternions were advocated as: an example of a method that could make a difference.

As has been stated many times, quaternions and their association with vectors are well understood by mathematicians and physicists. The problem here is that because you are not educated in these fields, you think they have some magical quality. You are wrong!

 

[BurntSynapse]

What is this supposed to mean?

Exactly what's stated...but is unintelligible if one cannot remember the topic

They did. They do. They're a useful mathematical technique, a tool amongst others.

True...which, as I have carefully stated many times, is entirely NOT the point.

Again, what is this supposed to mean?

If one is familiar with critical thinking, it's most common significance would be that it matches the definition of a straw man. If one is not so familiar, the meaning would be obscure. My hope was that members of this forum would primarily be in the first group.

And again.

Any answer I can think of at the moment would probably be equally meaningless to you, sorry.

Then state you position clearly and without evasion.

http://youtu.be/tuHmUrpd9Ww
"Clarity" for non-trivial claims requires a level of detail generally eschewed in this thread. If you're unwilling to pay attention, I can't help.

 

[BurntSynapse]

In the 19th century, they were revolutionary.

They remain useful in the 21st century, but anyone who thinks quaternions could revolutionalize modern physics knows little about quaternions or modern physics.

All true...and anyone who thinks quaternions are not the type advance consistently seen within the process of revolutionary paradigm change and unable to understand using Q's as an illustrative example, such a person knows little of the history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, and is exercising meager effort at reasoning well.

 

[Cuddles]

Exactly what's stated...but is unintelligible if one cannot remember the topic

Indeed. Another reminder, the topic is - "Why is there so much crackpot physics?". It certainly appears that you're having trouble remembering that, although I admit you are doing very well at providing an object example.

 

[BurntSynapse]

We haven't had to hallucinate those scenarios. You have actually said things in this thread that do not reflect facts.

I suppose I could agree you haven't "had to hallucinate", but imaginary scenarios where I'm whispering into Einstein's ear things I would never say, and more recently:
"Defense: Has anyone used it before?
P: "No, it's a very obscure technique."

This hallucinated statement of P was used to indicate HPS and PM disciplines have never been used. This hallucination was intended to refute my assertion these fields appear likely to assist physics research in obtaining the revolution described in documents like the QU report as necessary to resolve the big questions.

A word on critical thinking: Nothing I've posted has any bearing on whether hallucinated scenarios have been invented and presented as justification. This is a non-sequitur fallacy.

Careful parsing of your words that "we haven't had to" (in the sense of being forced) to hallucinate fallacies seems reasonable, if missing the point.