You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #38: the point seems to be not forcing non academics out of the equation [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. the point seems to be not forcing non academics out of the equation
Edited on Sun May-24-09 03:22 PM by omega minimo
"Have you ever talked to one of those people who insist that, despite them never having studied any science, their opinion on scientific concepts matter?"

The OP starts off with that. The link is to a physics institute at Stonybrook University. The guy is mocking people who come to his office and want to talk to him about physics. Is he an instructor? What's up with that? Are these students discussing theoretical physics and he's turning them into clowns for his web persona?

"This page is dedicated to the many people who have occasionally drifted into my office, or sent me e-mail, or even mailed me their books, eager to tell me about their new theory, which they know will turn all known physics on its head, even though they have only studied an infinitesimal fraction of the latter. Some of them are just ignorant or naive, but are willing to learn; this page is not about them. It is easy to distinguish the quacks; although they may seem reasonable at first, they degenerate into absurdity progressively with any conversation.

"Quacks want only to talk and not to listen. They are paranoids with delusions of grandeur: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be. Eventually the true quacks make the same remarks, some version of almost all those listed below. Generally, their comments are of 3 types:"


Well, it's true. Some physics students go nuts. Having a mocking macho dick for an instructor probably doesn't help much. Even at the CN Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, where thinking outside the box probably goes with the territory.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/itp /




Wonder how much of the chauvinism toward certain topics is academic one upsmanship and/or woven into the fabric of science over centuries, hmmm?

A history of science would show that science has plowed under many other modes and cultures, incorporating and obliterating, much like the church has.

These prepared lists and attitudes are why so many potential discussions here crash and burn or never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"Are you a quack?" - A nice essay about science. Smith_3  May-24-09 09:08 AM   #0 
  - K&R. Thanks for posting...nt  SidDithers   May-24-09 09:20 AM   #1 
  - Excellent! K&R  cosmik debris   May-24-09 09:21 AM   #2 
  - Don't post this in the dungeon.  Buzz Clik   May-24-09 09:35 AM   #3 
  - so both sides are paranoid  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:40 PM   #15 
  - That is how religious arguments go.  theoldman   May-24-09 09:36 AM   #4 
  - Non-religious as well. Many treat their own opinions as facts regardless of facts  stray cat   May-24-09 09:55 AM   #5 
     - ...making them religious arguments. n/t  Orsino   May-24-09 03:05 PM   #30 
  - Ha! I love this one:  progressoid   May-24-09 10:52 AM   #6 
  - I think the word he was looking for is "crank", not "quack".  Towlie   May-24-09 11:21 AM   #7 
  - A prof at the place I went to grad school studies the history of crankdom  Posteritatis   May-24-09 12:55 PM   #11 
  - what was he afraid of?  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:44 PM   #18 
     - Man, all the self-professed mind-readers in this thread are hilarious (nt)  Posteritatis   May-24-09 02:52 PM   #21 
        - Cheerleaders? Pens with feathers? Clowns? Publishing? Health food?  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:54 PM   #22 
  - yes, it is. which speaks volumes about the literacy level of the author.  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:41 PM   #52 
  - I sent this link out to a church vs. atheists group I participate in.  immoderate   May-24-09 11:23 AM   #8 
  - Not even wrong By Peter Woit  struggle4progress   May-24-09 04:51 PM   #63 
     - Actually, some formulations of string theory (or more correctly "M-Theory") are falsifiable.  Odin2005   May-24-09 05:42 PM   #66 
        - After several decades of research, it would be nice to have a concrete example of  struggle4progress   May-24-09 09:30 PM   #73 
           - A string theorist does not claim that string theory makes predictions when it doesn't.  Smith_3   May-25-09 05:16 AM   #120 
  - Thanks for this  malaise   May-24-09 11:32 AM   #9 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   May-24-09 12:34 PM   #10 
  - "They laughed at Galileo and Einstein"  Retrograde   May-24-09 01:33 PM   #12 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-24-09 01:48 PM   #13 
  - Clowns are scary  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:40 PM   #16 
  - In fact, it's fairly frequent for research which falls outside the prevailing  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 03:58 AM   #113 
     - and leave us not forget the epitome of crankdom, lamarck:  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 04:27 AM   #116 
  - I find the problem as mostly two-fold.  Festivito   May-24-09 02:33 PM   #14 
  - because  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:43 PM   #17 
     - Well, hidden agendas can be just money driven at times.  Festivito   May-24-09 03:08 PM   #33 
  - "My theory doesn't need any complicated math." - BWAHAAHAHAAA!!!  BlooInBloo   May-24-09 02:48 PM   #19 
  - Having an open mind doesn't mean having it so exposed that your brain falls out.  Odin2005   May-24-09 02:50 PM   #20 
  - Having an open mind doesn't mean being disconnected from the world around you.  omega minimo   May-24-09 02:55 PM   #23 
     - Having an open mind doesn't mean I think the rantings of Schizophrenics are true.  Odin2005   May-24-09 02:59 PM   #25 
        - well  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:03 PM   #27 
           - Ack, I wasn't taking anything you said personally!  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:05 PM   #29 
              - smack  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:10 PM   #35 
  - Science has a long history of being wrong, & doing atrocious things in the name  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 02:57 PM   #24 
  - No, people have a history of abusing science for evil ends.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:02 PM   #26 
  - and science has a long history of being *wrong* & enforcing its wrongness.  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:09 PM   #34 
  - I know the history of science.  Hanse   May-24-09 03:13 PM   #37 
  - Exactly. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are NOT scientific. They are BS.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:16 PM   #39 
  - What is your definition of pseudoscience?  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:24 PM   #43 
  - Indigo children.  Hanse   May-24-09 03:31 PM   #46 
  - Ah so the reductionist Kill It and Cut It Up To See How The Parts Work method  omega minimo   May-24-09 04:18 PM   #60 
     - A Systemic (I prefer not to use the term "Holistic") understanding requires a "reductionist" base.  Odin2005   May-24-09 05:38 PM   #65 
     - Apparently  omega minimo   May-24-09 05:44 PM   #67 
     - As opposed to just making things up and having faith they're true?  Hanse   May-25-09 12:59 AM   #82 
  - It is pseudoscience if it's not falisifiable.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:37 PM   #49 
     - then why do you have such problems with criticisms of experts & science?  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:33 AM   #104 
        - I don't. I have problems with suspicion towards experts just because they are experts.  Odin2005   May-25-09 07:41 AM   #122 
  - they're not? works for plants & animals.  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 11:16 PM   #76 
     - Social darwinism and eugenics works for plants and animals?  Hanse   May-25-09 01:01 AM   #83 
        - breeding for "superior" qualities or to weed out "undesirable" ones works for plants & animals.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:21 AM   #84 
           - That's called selective breeding.  Hanse   May-25-09 01:26 AM   #85 
              - elucidate the distinction for me, oh wise one.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:31 AM   #86 
              - Why don't you finish reading that primer on wiki and then get back to me.  Hanse   May-25-09 01:35 AM   #87 
                 - not an answer. i suspect because you don't have one.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:41 AM   #89 
                    - If you'd read more, you'd have known better.  Hanse   May-25-09 01:44 AM   #90 
                       - right. & you won't enlighten me because the esoteric knowledge you possess  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:53 AM   #94 
                          - #16  Hanse   May-25-09 01:56 AM   #95 
                             - you got nuthin. pfft.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:04 AM   #98 
                                - #4  Hanse   May-25-09 02:11 AM   #101 
                                   - nuthin.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:34 AM   #105 
              - I am so thankful for the ignore feature.  Quantess   May-25-09 01:39 AM   #88 
                 - Yeah, I was talking to a "scientist" the other day.  Hanse   May-25-09 01:45 AM   #91 
                 - "willfully ignorant of hs science"? "spurious" claims, is it? now how could you possibly  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:46 AM   #92 
                 - Well first you just claimed that eugenics "worked."  Hanse   May-25-09 01:50 AM   #93 
                 - eugenics does work. & your belief that i fail to realize humans are  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 01:58 AM   #96 
                    - "Eugenics doesn't work? But it works for plants and animals!"  Hanse   May-25-09 01:59 AM   #97 
                       - nuthin but straw.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:04 AM   #100 
                 - Did you teach at college & university level?  Quantess   May-25-09 02:45 AM   #107 
                    - i don't give a damn what you believe.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 03:26 AM   #110 
                 - btw, if you're using the ignore feature, how do you know of whom you are speaking?  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:36 AM   #106 
  - "breakdown of scientific method"- is that your straw substitute for science being wrong &  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:44 PM   #55 
     - There is nothing..  sendero   May-24-09 09:12 PM   #71 
     - Well now we know how to perform parenteral nutrition properly, don't we?  Hanse   May-25-09 12:58 AM   #81 
        - it enforced its wrongness to the degree of feeding patients until they died.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:18 AM   #102 
           - But the establishment never supported feeding patients until they died.  Hanse   May-25-09 02:53 AM   #108 
              - they didn't advocate feeding people til they died. they just advocated  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 03:22 AM   #109 
              - It's used all the time and the major complications are just physical insertions of the catheter, and  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 05:48 AM   #121 
  - I'm not sure what you mean by "science has a long history of being wrong"  Smith_3   May-25-09 09:29 AM   #124 
  - the point seems to be not forcing non academics out of the equation  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:16 PM   #38 
     - The point is about forcing ignorati out of the equation.  Hanse   May-24-09 03:23 PM   #41 
     - How do you know who he's talking to or what they say? You have a lock on what all students do?  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:28 PM   #45 
        - Because I read his comments?  Hanse   May-24-09 03:32 PM   #47 
           - You make an assumption and claim it is definitive. Sounds like scienciness, not science.  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:39 PM   #51 
              - I never alledged my comment was scientific .  Hanse   May-24-09 03:43 PM   #53 
                 - No, you just claimed it was correct, based on your assumption, which was flawed.  omega minimo   May-24-09 03:46 PM   #57 
                    - My comment was more correct than your assumption  Hanse   May-24-09 03:48 PM   #58 
                       - Your assumption of my assumption is incorrect  omega minimo   May-24-09 04:31 PM   #61 
     - There has to be a balance in such things.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:23 PM   #42 
        - Balance is good  omega minimo   May-24-09 04:39 PM   #62 
        - "Empathy deficit" is bullshit just on the face of it.  eridani   May-25-09 03:29 AM   #111 
           - "My son wouldn't hurt a fly, provided that he understands that the fly is being hurt." Exactly!  Odin2005   May-25-09 07:45 AM   #123 
  - Just couldn't help yourself, could you?  depakid   May-24-09 03:05 PM   #28 
  - Hannah Bell is as predictable as a cookoo clock.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:06 PM   #31 
     - "cuckoo." yes, i'm not a worshipful follower, nor do i call folks names for  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:12 PM   #36 
        - I have no respect for the anti-vax nuts for very obvious reasons given that I'm...  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:26 PM   #44 
           - your position on the autism spectrum makes you an all-knowing seer?  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:38 PM   #50 
           - No, the evidence makes anti-vaccers dumbasses.  Hanse   May-24-09 03:44 PM   #54 
           - one study is not a hard-and-fast conclusion make.  Odin2005   May-24-09 03:46 PM   #56 
           - nope, it doesn't. neither does a 100 studies. that's the nature of science.  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 03:57 PM   #59 
              - Except, 100 studies show no link between vaccines and autism...  Spider Jerusalem   May-25-09 04:24 AM   #115 
                 - no one on this thread said anything about vaccines & autism, so i'm not sure who you're talking to.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 04:38 AM   #117 
           - And a measles epidemic here in Wales, for the first time in a generation.  Spider Jerusalem   May-25-09 04:21 AM   #114 
              - no one mentioned measles vaccines, either.  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 04:51 AM   #118 
           - Neurological conditions and vax  Mamacrat   May-24-09 08:52 PM   #69 
  - Thank you for pointing out a glaring omission from the guy's quack-list.  BlooInBloo   May-24-09 11:46 PM   #78 
  - Looks like this thread's pissed off the resident cranks.  Hanse   May-24-09 03:07 PM   #32 
  - Sad that you can predict who makes half or so of the responses in these threads (nt)  Posteritatis   May-24-09 03:36 PM   #48 
     - Yeah, and half of them come up as "Ignored"  mr blur   May-24-09 04:54 PM   #64 
        - good, someday there'll be nothing left to read that doesn't offend your  Hannah Bell   May-24-09 11:18 PM   #77 
           - My sensibilities are far from delicate - I just have a low tolerance level  mr blur   May-25-09 02:04 AM   #99 
              - glad to be on the ignore list of folks who prefer snark to facts, & announce they're  Hannah Bell   May-25-09 02:22 AM   #103 
  - Excellent!  Taverner   May-24-09 03:22 PM   #40 
  - Another: "Are you saying that I'm wrong?"  eridani   May-24-09 08:38 PM   #68 
  - That's from a Wolfgang Pauli quote.  girl gone mad   May-24-09 08:58 PM   #70 
  - String theory has so far failed to formulate a feasible experimental confirmation.  JackRiddler   May-24-09 09:16 PM   #72 
  - And yet Margulis is content to hold onto the "5 kingdoms" system of classifaction for no good reason  Odin2005   May-24-09 09:41 PM   #74 
  - "Cranks" "that happen to be right in a few things"  JackRiddler   May-24-09 10:01 PM   #75 
  - research/$$ adds another layer to the topdog chauvinism of the "science establishment"  omega minimo   May-25-09 12:53 AM   #79 
  - Science is a collective enterprise--the only self-checking story that our species has come up with  eridani   May-25-09 03:34 AM   #112 
  - they might also be honest about public funds exploited for private profit based on their research  omega minimo   May-25-09 12:55 AM   #80 
  - some of my friends are like this  Cobalt-60   May-25-09 05:01 AM   #119 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC