Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

I don't recall anyone asking you "to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category"

I don't either. You attack a position I don't hold.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Have you sunk to the level of interpreting Gödel's incompleteness theorems to mean assumptions can't even be documented?

Obviously not. You question a position I don't hold and haven't claimed.

Of course we document assumptions in PM. Criteria include they are identifiable and appropriate (such as cost of information evals).

If not, we don't document them and use efficient heuristics, just like physicists doing math.

 

[The Man]

I don't either. You attack a position I don't hold.

So "I'm not offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category" is a position you "don't hold"?

 

[BurntSynapse]

So "I'm not offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category" is a position you "don't hold"?

That, and any other particular position about which there is no evidence should be treated as such by those placing a priority on reliable thinking.

 

[ben m]

That, and any other particular position about which there is no evidence should be treated as such by those placing a priority on reliable thinking.

Huh. Your "answer" has no bearing whatsoever on the question quoted. Oh well.

Meanwhile, it's by now obvious that your actual project-management idea (if, indeed, you had one) is half-crackpottery and half-doublespeak.

Seriously, if I ever hear of your name getting within 200 meters of the DOE Office of Science, I'll make objections.

 

[The Man]

Absence of response is evidence of being ignored?

No "Absence of response". Here is your response, in case you have forgotten…

Unfortunately many do apparently enjoy investing themselves in ""lots of crackpot physics" worldview and discussions".

Appearance depends overwhelmingly on our focus and perspective.

If there's any objective metric to suggest that group represents a statistically significant percentage of the general population, or that they produce a level of harm for which it would be rational to invest ourselves in preventing, I'd be interested to know what it was, especially given the classic demarcation problem in philosophy of science.

…where you evidently ignore the questions asked in the post you were responding to and only quote one sentence from.

I'd disagree even if I didn't know it was materially inaccurate.

Disagree with what? “materially inaccurate”? How?

My reply here technically ignores the question being asked because of its fault premises. Since I'm interested in obtaining real criticism of my actual positions & claims, other discussions tend to be of insufficient priority, just as they are for all of us.

Technically, no, it doesn’t because you are remarking to some “fault premises” you perceive in those questions. Perhaps you are just confusing not asserting what you think “its fault premises “might be for ignoring the questions. As those questions asked before and here above go directly to assertions of your position here it is part of “real criticism”. You asked for it and you’re getting it, questioning your position and assertions is being critical of them.

 

[The Man]

So "I'm not offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category" is a position you "don't hold"?

That, and any other particular position about which there is no evidence should be treated as such by those placing a priority on reliable thinking.

OK, so not holding that position you are “offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category". Great, guess away.

That, and any other particular position about which there is no evidence should be treated as such by those placing a priority on reliable thinking.

Huh. Your "answer" has no bearing whatsoever on the question quoted. Oh well.

Meanwhile, it's by now obvious that your actual project-management idea (if, indeed, you had one) is half-crackpottery and half-doublespeak.

Seriously, if I ever hear of your name getting within 200 meters of the DOE Office of Science, I'll make objections.

Yeah, evidently any “real criticism” is just “of insufficient priority”. Though I can’t blame him for wanting to get more practice with his douslblespeak as evidently it needs a lot more work.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Huh.

This means you don't understand.

Your "answer" has no bearing whatsoever on the question quoted.

This confirms you don't understand, and that you're incautious...pronouncing judgement so definitively on something uncertain. You're also mistaken, but you'd have no way of knowing that without a more careful reading of my reply. Spoken, I'm sure the confirmation of the supposition in your question would have been more clear.

When one replies to a question structured as yours, "That, and...X" means I confirm the core of the question and have something to add. Example: "Do you like to wear blue more than red?" Answer: "That, and I actually avoid red!"

Meanwhile, it's by now obvious that your actual project-management idea (if, indeed, you had one) is half-crackpottery and half-doublespeak.

Absent any referent, this is not an argument. Clearly you object, but unlike a specific claim (Anubis dating error, for example), "half-crackpottery and half-doublespeak" is unusable for critical analysis, and does not enable me to take any corrective action.

Seriously, if I ever hear of your name getting within 200 meters of the DOE Office of Science, I'll make objections.

Perhaps your objections to them will be better supported.

 

[BurntSynapse]

OK, so not holding that position you are “offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category". Great, guess away.

I don't think you meant to word this as it appears.

There is a common fallacy I was thinking about on a flight recently relating to what I think you mean.

I'm looking at the wing and and I see something like "Do not step outside this line." We properly interpret this as implying "Stepping inside the line is OK."

Logically speaking however, that inference is invalid. The warning actually says nothing about "inside the line". We have no evidence for any claim about that, if we are in a discussion where the distinction may have some importance. This is the kind of everyday assumption we use for efficiency in everyday affairs, but is problematic for navigating more complex and/or unfamiliar situations.

 

[ben m]

This means you don't understand.

This confirms you don't understand, and that you're incautious...pronouncing judgement so definitively on something uncertain. You're also mistaken, but you'd have no way of knowing that without a more careful reading of my reply.

Quite the opposite, I read your response and its meaning was quite understandable. I read The Man's question---basically a statement of incredulity about a particular nonsequitur of yours---and I think it's clear that your answer was misdirected.

When one replies to a question structured as yours, "That, and...X" means I confirm the core of the question and have something to add. Example: "Do you like to wear blue more than red?" Answer: "That, and I actually avoid red!"

The Man was quoting a non sequitur of yours. There is no way to "confirm the core of the question" because the core of the question was nonsense. The "something to add", though clearly an attempt at a general avowal of intellectual integrity and perhaps relevant to the thread generally, did not clarify or intensify the statement you attempted to agree with.

Absent any referent, it not an argument. Clearly you object, but unlike a specific claim (Anubis dating error, for example), "half-crackpottery and half-doublespeak" is unusable for critical analysis.

<sarcasm>
I'm not criticizing a "specific claim"? Ooo, you're right, golly gee. Heck, I ought to have asked you to MAKE specific claims! Clearly I am to blame for not asking for these details---or not asking forcefully enough. Anyone who reads the thread will find it immediately obvious that neither I, nor anyone else, attempted to elicit any "specific claims".
</sarcasm>

<not sarcasm>
For crying out loud.

If you want to see my specific objections to your (extraordinarily scanty) details, see the rest of the thread, including the post where I surveyed the citation history of your key literature, the posts where I read and criticized a paper you submitted to FXQI, etc.. It is my executive summary of this criticism---mine and others'---that your work is, overall, crackpottery and doublespeak. I am sure you have read an executive-summary or two in your day, and you are aware that the summary contains the conclusions, not the analyses used to arrive there.
</not sarcasm>

 

[steenkh]

I claim it is easily documented and that I welcome examples that skeptics would consider valid test cases.

You actually said "any math by any physicist". That would seem to imply that you could pick your test case yourself. If we picked any math by any physicicst, you might be at a disadvantage.

I cannot and did not claim to provide examples skeptics might like.

So not "any math by any physicist" after all? Please decide which claim you are running away from.

 

[The Man]

I don't think you meant to word this as it appears.

You would be incorrect.

There is a common fallacy I was thinking about on a flight recently relating to what I think you mean.

I'm looking at the wing and and I see something like "Do not step outside this line." We properly interpret this as implying "Stepping inside the line is OK."

Logically speaking however, that inference is invalid. The warning actually says nothing about "inside the line". We have no evidence for any claim about that, if we are in a discussion where the distinction may have some importance. This is the kind of everyday assumption we use for efficiency in everyday affairs, but is problematic for navigating more complex and/or unfamiliar situations.

The difference of course being that you did say something about “offering to guess what a particular discussion member might consider within that category". Frist “I'm not offering…”, then asserting that I “attack a position” you “don't hold”. When ask if it is “I'm not offering…” that is the “position” you “don’t hold” you assert to the affirmative “That”. You are not a warning line and someone trying to double talk, contradict themselves, switch the burden of proof for their claims and present non sequiturs is neither complex nor unfamiliar to me.

You might learn something from your “says nothing about” example. Don’t assume one is attacking “a position” other than what is stated and try harder to be consistent in what you are in fact stating.

Let’s cut to the chase shall we…

That, and any other particular position about which there is no evidence should be treated as such by those placing a priority on reliable thinking.

That assertion would tend to indicate that you are a skeptic.

I claim it is easily documented and that I welcome examples that skeptics would consider valid test cases.

I cannot and did not claim to provide examples skeptics might like.

So as a skeptic yourself you can indeed “provide examples” at least one skeptic “might like”. Which may be more than any other skeptic, not holding the same position as you, might be able to do.

So as we have now gotten your stated objection out of the way you can proceed with providing skeptical examples to support your claim.

 

[The Man]

It was you who said that it was easily documented. I just took you on your word...

I claim it is easily documented and that I welcome examples that skeptics would consider valid test cases.

I cannot and did not claim to provide examples skeptics might like.

This last exchange struck me a bit funny but I just couldn't put my finger on it at first. Wasn't BurntSynapse claiming that some or certain assumptions of science or physics were 'not well documented'? Now he appears to be claiming that said lack of documentation for such assumptions "is easily documented". I wasn't sure if this might just be an attempt at the Bugs Bunny Gambit




But it doesn't seem to matter as such "easily documented" claims about those assumptions also documents those assumptions making them, well, documented. Given the inherent self-inconsistency of the position as stated and restated I'm not sure there could be a valid test case of assumptions having an easily documented lack of documentation.

 

[ben m]

Given the inherent self-inconsistency of the position as stated and restated I'm not sure there could be a valid test case of assumptions having an easily documented lack of documentation.

It makes about as much sense as requesting that a claim like "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has implications for physics" be rebutted by counterexample.

 

[The Man]

It makes about as much sense as requesting that a claim like "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has implications for physics" be rebutted by counterexample.

Yep, incomplete or inconsistent, take your choice but having done that one can only present it for what it is and the inconsistent choice will be presented, well, inconsistently.

ETA:

For further edification, I present the perhaps not so well documented (or at least generally known) position of Dialetheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Of course the problem with Dialetheism is that once you try to give it formal structure that structure, necessarily, negates itself.

There was an intriguing and rather unsympathetic quote on there before from whom I can't now remember, but it amounted to...

'Anyone who thinks not being beaten and burned on a stake is the same as being beaten and burned on a stake. Should be beaten and burned on a stake until they agree that there is a difference.'

 

[BurntSynapse]

Quite the opposite, I read your response and its meaning was quite understandable. I read The Man's question---basically a statement of incredulity about a particular nonsequitur of yours---and I think it's clear that your answer was misdirected.

Awesome! That's a much clearer statement than "huh".

The Man was quoting a non sequitur of yours. There is no way to "confirm the core of the question" because the core of the question was nonsense.

His assertion that someone doesn't hold an opinion seemed to make sense, if worded perhaps deliberately in an overly byzantine style.

The "something to add", though clearly an attempt at a general avowal of intellectual integrity and perhaps relevant to the thread generally, did not clarify or intensify the statement you attempted to agree with.

Yes.

If you want to see my specific objections to your (extraordinarily scanty) details, see the rest of the thread, including the post where I surveyed the citation history of your key literature,

I'm really more interested in strong, well-structured objections than specifically what they are or who produces them.

As I recall in the citation history example, a significant amount of effort seemed directed to refute my assertion that Andersen, Barker, & Chen's work appears important in their specialized area of expertise.

Your analysis highlighted instances of disagreement with various ideas they've put forward, which in no way undermines the claim ABC's model is important. If we were unable to find any fights over their model, it would be much stronger evidence against the plausibility of the importance claim. This didn't help me, support your position, and you clearly put in a significant effort - so I thought it was a lose-lose dialogue...not what we would hope for.

The more analysis (including objections) we find, typically the more important we tend to regard the theory, which I didn't point out at the time because I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to get good criticism, but becoming convinced I made a mistake in where I went looking.

A common recurring theme here is attacking opinions I don't have, and very often: with which I'd strongly disagree. When I don't defend as it is imagined I would, this seems perceived as intellectually dishonest.

Another problem is name calling & hasty generalization fallacies, as in:

It is my executive summary of this criticism---mine and others'---that your work is, overall, crackpottery and doublespeak.

Which could be true, but if the only evidence in support of such a claim is:

...the summary contains the conclusions, not the analyses used to arrive there.
</not sarcasm>

...then there's not much to work with.

 

[BurntSynapse]

So as a skeptic yourself you can indeed “provide examples” at least one skeptic “might like”.

Errors here appear to include equivocation: using skeptic as "a person with a generally questioning attitude" vs. my use of skeptic here as "a person in this forum vocally opposing my claims".

Also a non-sequitur of unrelated premises: A person can be a skeptic and yet unable to provide any examples for an infinite number of reasons. Those examples may or may not be acceptable for another infinite number of reasons. Skeptic status and example acceptance status are uncorrelated.

My reason is that I'm skeptical such digression will help obtain good criticism. If you would like to present something plausible, I'll be as happy and grateful to correct my preconception as I am for the Anubis correction.

 

[Roboramma]

Which could be true, but if the only evidence in support of such a claim is:

...the summary contains the conclusions, not the analyses used to arrive there.
</not sarcasm>

...then there's not much to work with.

There is a difference between not giving evidence and pointing out that the evidence was presented elsewhere.

 

[Cuddles]

Errors here appear to include equivocation: using skeptic as "a person with a generally questioning attitude" vs. my use of skeptic here as "a person in this forum vocally opposing my claims".

As I'm sure you've been told before, making up arbitrary definitions of well understood words and pretending that you've been using your newly invented definition all along without telling one isn't exactly the best way to make yourself understood. Although it's unsurprising that you attempt to lay the blame on everyone else for not using your rather idiosyncratic and previously unstated definition, given that getting things wrong and then blaming it on everyone else is pretty much all you've done so far.

Of course, that's all assuming we ignore the problem that your definition is simply nonsensical, since we have so far been entirely unsuccessful in actually getting you to state any meaningful claim. Word salad is not nourishing enough to support a healthy opposition.

 

[dafydd]

Errors here appear to include equivocation: using skeptic as "a person with a generally questioning attitude" vs. my use of skeptic here as "a person in this forum vocally opposing my claims".

Also a non-sequitur of unrelated premises: A person can be a skeptic and yet unable to provide any examples for an infinite number of reasons. Those examples may or may not be acceptable for another infinite number of reasons. Skeptic status and example acceptance status are uncorrelated.

My reason is that I'm skeptical such digression will help obtain good criticism. If you would like to present something plausible, I'll be as happy and grateful to correct my preconception as I am for the Anubis correction.

So no examples then?