Why is there so much crackpot physics?

BurntSynapse said:
"Expect" is sufficiently vague as to encompass both rational or irrational confidence in an acceptable outcome.

So the assertion "you cannot" as well as "you can" may both be true, depending on what is meant by "expect".
Click to expand...
No. There simply are some things that are impossible in physics and no amount of good project management will make it possible. Of course, you cannot know this in advance, and if you set yourself a goal that is already considered impossible by physicists you will have every chance of wasting the effort on a wild goose chase.
 
ben m said:
I miss the point you haven't attempted to explain? Of course I do! That's why you are supposed to explain things.
Click to expand...

He appears never to have heard about that part of the scientific method. I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what these three critical factors are.
 
BurntSynapse said:
BurntSynapse...Assume, for now, that I am one of the readers of your posts in this thread who, in their heart of hearts, wishes that you are right.
Click to expand...
About what, exactly?
Click to expand...

About this (to take just one example):

BurntSynapse said:
...
The possibility of FTL remains unknown, but I believe we are more likely to make better resource allocation decisions using the best available information rather than not, and currently we are not incorporating the knowledge of history & philosophy of science revolutions into our planning & assessments of potentially transformative research which delivers such revolutions.
Click to expand...

I agree that "we are more likely to make better resource allocation decisions using the best available information rather than not" (who could possibly disagree!); however, I think you have failed to show how - exactly - "the knowledge of history & philosophy of science revolutions" can be incorporated "into our planning & assessments of potentially transformative research" (beyond what's already being done).
 
Why is there so much crackpot physics?




Because there are so many people whose pots have been cracked and they refuse to notice or acknowledge it. And, not just in physics - though physics seems to be the most popular area for the nutcases to roam vaguely around in .
 
DeiRenDopa said:
About this (to take just one example):



I agree that "we are more likely to make better resource allocation decisions using the best available information rather than not" (who could possibly disagree!);
Click to expand...
Those who believe this is already being done, among others.

DeiRenDopa said:
I think you have failed to show how - exactly - "the knowledge of history & philosophy of science revolutions" can be incorporated "into our planning & assessments of potentially transformative research" (beyond what's already being done).
Click to expand...

Expecting "exactness" during early stages indicates low familiarity with basic principles of project management.
 
dafydd said:
So what are the ''three critical factors''? You appear to either misunderstand or the miss the point of questions.
Click to expand...
1. An attempt to solve specific problems;
2. the use of conceptual, analytical, and material resources provided by the cognitive-social-cultural context of the problem; and
3. dynamic processes of reasoning that extend ordinary cognition.
 
BurntSynapse said:
1. An attempt to solve specific problems;
Click to expand...

Which we do, unless you're using a weird meaning of the words "specific problems", in which case obviously you have to explain.

2. the use of conceptual, analytical, and material resources provided by the cognitive-social-cultural context of the problem;
Click to expand...

Which (making allowances for how you're probably going to tell me that I fail to understand what you mean) I think we already do.

3. dynamic processes of reasoning that extend ordinary cognition.
Click to expand...

Like what? This is one where I can't begin to imagine what you mean, unsurprisingly given that again you haven't explained it. In this case, rather than asking whether this is something we already do---the construction of the phase seems to suggest your answer is "no"---let me ask whether you have any evidence that "dynamic processes of reasoning" is something you know how to manage in a forward-looking way (as in: given people X doing Y, you as the manager can give concrete guidance Z that implements this) or whether it's something that Andersen et. al. (or Nercessian, or another author you'll identify for me) parsed out, retrospectively, from a collection of historical examples.

As always, a concrete illustration would be great, but I've half given up asking. Would it be futile to remind you of this post?

ben m said:
If, in 2004, you had been looking for possibilities for a paradigm shift in the study of spacetime, you would have looked away from "Coplanarity In Twistor Space Of N=4 Next-To-MHV One-Loop Amplitude Coefficients" by Britto, Cachazo, and Feng http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0411107 . What if the IT-based analysis had diverted funding away from that and towards (picking from the 400+ hep-th uploads on that day's arxiv) "The Exact Geometry of a Kerr-Taub-NUT Solution of String Theory" or "Dark Entropy: Holographic Cosmic Acceleration" or "Chromogravity - An Effective Diff(4,R) Gauge for the IR region of QCD"?
Click to expand...

Those four studies arose within, and were funded by, the current HEP management structure. Can your new management ideas parse these in any way? Do these studies "attempt to solve specific problems", use "dynamic processes of reasoning", and/or "conceptual, analytic, and material resources suggested by the cognitive-social-cultural context"? Explain.
 
BurntSynapse said:
Those who believe this is already being done, among others.
Click to expand...

You're really persistent in getting this mixed up.

a) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program with no management at all. There is a pot of money at the DOE and anyone with a physics Ph.D. walks in and takes it and never gets audited. This is not what we have. No one is advocating this.

b) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program "managed" by having all-physicist study groups, like P5 and HEPAP and Snowmass, set physics priorities, which are communicated to DOE/NSF/NASA program managers, which decide how to respond to peer-reviewed funding requests. This is what we have now. It's better than (a). It is pretty darn good. It is not perfect.

c) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run better than the DOE/NSF/NASA---DOE HQ is hardworking but desperately understaffed---but without any input from BurntSynapse. For example, rethinking the grad-student/postdoc/faculty pipeline; better facilitation of certain kinds of communication and travel; killing off the overpriced conferences (Lake Louise, $300/night? Please make it stop.); paperwork reduction; etc.

d) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run by BurntSynapse. Using the yet-to-be-explained management principles that BurntSynapse has discovered/invented/etc. Having something to do with cognition or something.

Let's get this straight. You are advocating (d). I am criticizing (d). Do not get confused: I am not saying (a) is better than (b,c,d). I am not saying (b) is better than (c). I am not saying (c) is impossible. I am not saying (b) is impossible. I'm saying, very specifically, that given your explanations so far I think that (d) sounds worse than (b). Is that clear?
 
ben m said:
You're really persistent in getting this mixed up.

a) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program with no management at all. There is a pot of money at the DOE and anyone with a physics Ph.D. walks in and takes it and never gets audited. This is not what we have. No one is advocating this.

b) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program "managed" by having all-physicist study groups, like P5 and HEPAP and Snowmass, set physics priorities, which are communicated to DOE/NSF/NASA program managers, which decide how to respond to peer-reviewed funding requests. This is what we have now. It's better than (a). It is pretty darn good. It is not perfect.

c) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run better than the DOE/NSF/NASA---DOE HQ is hardworking but desperately understaffed---but without any input from BurntSynapse. For example, rethinking the grad-student/postdoc/faculty pipeline; better facilitation of certain kinds of communication and travel; killing off the overpriced conferences (Lake Louise, $300/night? Please make it stop.); paperwork reduction; etc.

d) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run by BurntSynapse. Using the yet-to-be-explained management principles that BurntSynapse has discovered/invented/etc. Having something to do with cognition or something.

Let's get this straight. You are advocating (d). I am criticizing (d). Do not get confused: I am not saying (a) is better than (b,c,d). I am not saying (b) is better than (c). I am not saying (c) is impossible. I am not saying (b) is impossible. I'm saying, very specifically, that given your explanations so far I think that (d) sounds worse than (b). Is that clear?
Click to expand...

To me, yes. Otherwise, probably not. Generally depends on the strength of the (artificial) wall surrounding the thinking faculties. AKA: " That boy's got a mind like a steel brick!!!"
 
Reality Check said:
BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?
Asked 15th October 2013. 8 days and counting.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. Would you not say that because our two best models of the behavior of the universe, QM and GR -- both if which have overwhelming experimental confirmation, but are not compatible in certain situations, calls for some sort of significant change?
PS: I despise cliché expressions like "revolutionary paradigm change."
 
ben m said:
Which we do, unless you're using a weird meaning of the words "specific problems", in which case obviously you have to explain.
Click to expand...
You think I believe/asserted we don't work on specific problems?

That's the opposite of what I believe, teach, and present in talks.

Refresher: I claim the Nersessian Model is an example of CSoSR related work that I believe appears have "reached a level of specificity in the last 10 years that it can support well established PM processes for information systems", and that I could be wrong.

That is a very different claim than the one you assert I obviously "have to explain".
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
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?
Click to expand...


The 'refined' maverick could give you a short answer: the underdetermination of theory by data (the fact that Science was cumulative at limit in the last 100 years, simplicity/Occam's Razor, Bayesianism etc do not really solve the problem) + basically all well established scientific theories have anomalies and 'puzzles' + the history of science shows that even seemingly degenerative research programs at certain points in time can become progressive later (replacing what seemed to be the Truth at a certain point).

Of course we can still talk of 'normal' science of the day but I'm afraid we cannot make a clear cut distinction (valid once and forever) between science and pseudo-science*. So it deserves to probe even paths which diverge sharply from the mainstream (of course if a healthy dose of fallibilism is never dropped + no claims that the maverick hypothesis should become immediately 'normal' science or that all rational people should follow the same path etc). Now it is understandable that many scientists prefer to follow paths which prove to be progressive on short term but this is in no way evidence that all maverick programs are wrong (although these paths are seemingly stagnant, if not degenerative, on short and medium run).

But I would suspect that the vast majority of those supporting 'crank' science have many in common with the dogmatic religious, they come somehow to be persuaded by the truth of their theory and become immune to contrary evidence (seeing only the evidence which corroborate their theory, no real fallibilism). I'm afraid that, unfortunately, the 'non-refined' mavericks are the norm. The solution were to persuade them to become 'refined' ones :) (by teaching them some philosophy of science and make them understand that dropping militantism and allowing a healthy dose of fallibilism about their theory is the only rational path).


*
Looking for the footprints of the deity is not necessarily unscientific. What is unscientific is to decide ahead of time on the answer and search for God with the determination to come up with a positive result. That is precisely what William Dembski, Michael Behe, and other ID advocates seem to be attempting. Knowing the answer in advance and being immune to contradictory evidence are typical of pseudoscience.

A pseudoscientist tries to prove that something is true; a good scientist tries to find out whether it is true. This distinction is important. If we attack a problem, certain of the answer, then we will find that answer, whether it is right or not. - Mark Perakh and Matt Young (in "Why Intelligent Design Fails. A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" Chapter 13 "Is Intelligent Design Science?" Rutgers University Press 2004)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
I'll bite. Would you not say that because our two best models of the behavior of the universe, QM and GR -- both if which have overwhelming experimental confirmation, but are not compatible in certain situations, calls for some sort of significant change?
PS: I despise cliché expressions like "revolutionary paradigm change."
Click to expand...
No.

Did you see the end of the Houston presentation where I talked about the Feynman quote in your sig?
 
Last edited:
BurntSynapse said:
Quantum Universe Committee report, et al. Answered many times.
Click to expand...
That would be a lie, BurntSynapse.
The Quantum Universe Committee report is a report on existing QM and it was a "revolutionary paradigm change":
To discover what the universe is made of and how it works is the challenge of particle physics. Quantum Universe presents the quest to explain the universe in terms of quantum physics, which governs the behavior of the microscopic, subatomic world. It describes a revolution in particle physics and a quantum leap in our understanding of the mystery and beauty of the universe.
Click to expand...
You are talking about a "revolutionary paradigm change" that has not happened.
The Quantum Universe Committee report does not include any survey that establishes an "overwhelming consensus".
You have never cited any "et al" so the question is still unanswered:
BurntSynapse: Evidence for "overwhelming consensus that a revolutionary paradigm change is needed"?
Asked 15th October 2013. 8 days and counting.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
I'll bite. Would you not say that because our two best models of the behavior of the universe, QM and GR -- both if which have overwhelming experimental confirmation, but are not compatible in certain situations, calls for some sort of significant change?
PS: I despise cliché expressions like "revolutionary paradigm change."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately BurntSynapse insists on a revolutionary paradigm change (possibly his imaginary project management stuff). The theories that combine GR and QM are within the existing paradigm.
 
ben m said:
You're really persistent in getting this mixed up.

a) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program with no management at all. There is a pot of money at the DOE and anyone with a physics Ph.D. walks in and takes it and never gets audited. This is not what we have. No one is advocating this.

b) It is possible to run a theoretical-physics program "managed" by having all-physicist study groups, like P5 and HEPAP and Snowmass, set physics priorities, which are communicated to DOE/NSF/NASA program managers, which decide how to respond to peer-reviewed funding requests. This is what we have now. It's better than (a). It is pretty darn good. It is not perfect.

c) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run better than the DOE/NSF/NASA---DOE HQ is hardworking but desperately understaffed---but without any input from BurntSynapse. For example, rethinking the grad-student/postdoc/faculty pipeline; better facilitation of certain kinds of communication and travel; killing off the overpriced conferences (Lake Louise, $300/night? Please make it stop.); paperwork reduction; etc.

d) You can imagine a theoretical-physics program run by BurntSynapse. Using the yet-to-be-explained management principles that BurntSynapse has discovered/invented/etc. Having something to do with cognition or something.

Let's get this straight. You are advocating (d). I am criticizing (d). Do not get confused: I am not saying (a) is better than (b,c,d). I am not saying (b) is better than (c). I am not saying (c) is impossible. I am not saying (b) is impossible. I'm saying, very specifically, that given your explanations so far I think that (d) sounds worse than (b). Is that clear?
Click to expand...

I don't think getting my position "straight" is possible for you, nor do I agree with most of (d), which obviously means I'm not advocating (d).

To answer your final question: Yes, your explanation is clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom