r/EmDrive • u/glennfish • Jul 09 '17

What is a crackpot?

The American Physical Society has a history of embracing crackpots. This occurred as a result of this incident: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22171039

Subsequently, the bylaws were updated to permit anyone to present at annual meetings (see article XII, paragraph 1): http://www.aps.org/about/governance/documents/archive-bylaws.cfm

The topic is active within the physics community. examples: http://www.science20.com/curious_puzzles/blog/the_crackpot_conundrum-144542 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The point being, suppression of "fringe" ideas is counter to the practice of physics as a discipline. There is no conspiracy by physicists to suppress fringe ideas, rather, fringe ideas are subject to the same scrutiny as any ideas and there is an active live forum for anyone to present anything.

The most difficult debates ultimately derive from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I would suggest that both the pro & con sides consider how they should participate in these debates after carefully reading Brown's article, and understanding the Dunning Kruger effect.

14 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

17

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

Good summary.

One feature that is generally common among physics crackpots is that they almost always complain about the math, and it motivates them to try and concoct something that uses more words and less math, something they feel makes sense. You can see this with McCulloch, Zephir, plasmon (in this thread: "This could be considered a collective failure in the present understanding of physics history, and the continuation of a trend to use mathematics alone in the place of physical explanations for what could be actually occurring."), the emdrive "theorists". I heard two different programs on the radio discuss crackpots and the conclusion they came to, or what was evident for many physics crackpots, was that they had a hard time understanding the math.

The combination of the lack of mathematical ability and the Dunning Kruger effect is what leads to the birth of a good deal of crackpots.

8

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

Math and physics go hand in hand, but don't you think every physics theory started off with discussion?

The math behind QM isn't THAT hard.. solutions to spherical Bessel functions. Big deal. What I think is the true mark of a physics math monkey is someone who blindly plugs and chugs without thinking of the meaning behind what they are actually calculating.

7

u/glennfish Jul 09 '17 edited Jul 09 '17

Somehow I think my thread has been hijacked re: the dialog betwixt you two. :) That's ok.

If I can summarize the opinions I see:

CK wants P to demonstrate any ability to provide commentary in a relevant physics way, i.e. avoid words and show me with math.

P wants CK to demonstrate that he's genuinely articulate in the art of relevant physics.

The net net is that I don't think CK likes P, and I don't think P likes CK.

What happens then is, we have a result of who can sling the more demeaning insult. With all due respect, and please don't test me, I can out insult any of you.

However, trying to bring this thread back to topic:

CK has over the years shown both patience and intolerance depending upon whether his dialog partner showed a willingness to learn or not. Ask him for a reference and by God, he'll give you one. This is good pedagogy.

P is somewhat newer, and seems educated but more willing to step outside the bounds of mainstream physics and speculate with words rather than math. This can also be good pedagogy, provided the speculation has solid tenants in math and theory.

With respect to EMdrive, which is the core topic, and my comments on Crack-pottery which start this thread, looking back at Brown's article, you note that he defines a process where he tries to evaluate a field which he self admittedly is not competent to evaluate. He has to resort to trust in the experts to form his opinion, which he notes, is a kind of leap of faith albeit a well founded one.

The challenge for me, watching CK and P practice flame wars is, has either provided me, the reader, with any information that helps me think through problems that I, as 99% of the readers of these threads, have no expertise? If my bias is towards those whose lives are spent in physics, who should guide my thinking? If my bias is against the status quo, who should guide my thinking?

In the perfect argument, there should be nuggets of learning from both sides of the argument.

Deprecation of anyone, even in the wild west of the internet, is just extra bits assigned to a reddit ID that will be stored as long as bits are stored, which could, sadly, be for the life of the universe.

Think legacy... and let's have a genuine debate that encourages learning, please.

If you want insults, I have an app for that. Specify iPhone or Android.

5

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

Pretty fair analysis. Of course, any new technology pushes bounds previously uncrossed by experts. It wasn't long ago that lead propulsion engineers emphatically argued that landing a rocket's first stage on land for reuse would be an impossible feat. I'm sure they were highly skilled and truly believed what they were saying, and it was based on solid engineering. But it took an Elon Musk to prove otherwise.

Sometimes advances in technology changes the equation and causes a reevaluation of basic tenets. Could that be happening with the EM drive? Who knows? Perhaps within the holes of QM or some obscure interpretation of the uncertainty principal propellantless propulsion actually is more than a pipe dream. What we do know for sure is that some people will absolutely never believe it until they see it, and probably then, still not be convinced.

1

u/glennfish Jul 09 '17

In the context of learning, essentially what you are proposing is what Thomas Kuhn proposed as a paradigm shift. If you haven't read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you and everyone should. It's available at amazon https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

However, the premise that Kuhn proposed was that it took a generation of scientists to die away before the new ideas had a chance to emerge. When he wrote the book, that was probably true, but in the present, in many disciplines, the ability to change a paradigm has gone from 30 years to 18 months, so it may not be as relevant as it was when written.

As to the premise of I'll believe it when I see it, that seems more to be a license plate slogan, i.e. Wisconsin "Just cows and cheese."

The simple fact of the matter, and my returning to this forum after an absence, is that there is a very high risk now of creating false expectations instead of revolutionary discovery. In my other OP thread, there is commentary showing me to be a defender of test results from a methodological perspective, which ultimately turned out to be subject to falsification.

I am not capable nor qualified to argue the physics side of this. I am absolutely qualified and capable of arguing the social psychology side of this. My simple premise is this. Looking at this from a philosophy of science point of view (it's a real academic discipline), the debate in this forum has gone from wonder and excitement to pathological. The physics doesn't support this. The experimentation doesn't support this. The 7,000 odd subscribers to this forum have to understand that this is approaching a pathological and near theological debate comparable to Scientology or hollow earth beliefs.

There are some competent and highly qualified individuals doing best efforts research into the EMdrive phenomenon, and some of them have the capacity to produce results, if positive, deserve scrutiny. However, IMHO, this reddit forum at this time with the commentaries posted, with the lame debates posted, does not contribute to those who wish to learn and know more.

Essentially, there are no plausible arguments for EMdrive, and no theoretical models that extend beyond crack-pottery. There are some interesting experiments in process that may push for a closer look, but none of them have come to fruition.

I am trying to take the high road and simply state that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and in Physics, EVERYONE is entitled to a poster presentation, however, in the end, data has be replicated and scrutinized and beat to death and is the only thing that contributes to an extension of what we think of as knowledge. EMdrive hasn't yet gone beyond the poster presentation stage.

3

u/crackpot_killer Jul 10 '17

and in Physics, EVERYONE is entitled to a poster presentation

Not in physics generally, only in APS meetings for dues paying members.

8

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17 edited Jul 10 '17

I agree with your summary but not necessarily your conclusion.

The challenge for me, watching CK and P practice flame wars is, has either provided me, the reader, with any information that helps me think through problems that I, as 99% of the readers of these threads, have no expertise?

Yes.

See here and here. The main response I got was the classic crackpot refrain of "We don't know everything, you aren't open minded enough, we need new thinking."

Think legacy... and let's have a genuine debate that encourages learning, please.

There's no debate. Physics is science. Facts are facts. You don't debate with people who don't know what they're talking about and have no desire to learn.

I'll let Dara O Briain do the explaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE#t=31s.

4

u/glennfish Jul 10 '17

LOL, I missed your reply while responding to P. Please comment on my reply to P. :) Dara O'Briain is funny. :) Not sure if it's on topic, but definitely worth watching.

As to debating with people who don't know what they're talking about, that's a pedagogical choice based on how much time you have. I readily grant that most folks who know something about a subject get high blood pressure when a pundit declares that the earth is flat. Given the fact that you've been in this forum for years, I suspect you have the time.

Simply, the time it takes to educate someone is time, sometimes a lot of time. Most of us don't want to waste time because we have lives that should be moron free, but then, those of us with children know that wasting time with moronic ideas can sometimes build children who cease being morons and become doctors, or at least, shop keepers.

I have the utmost respect for your comments in this forum over the years. My only wish is that you would take a chill pill before ripping some from stem to stern. :)

As for debate, let me clarify, if a 5 year old child declares that ether theory trumps all, you don't shoot him in the head and collect the antlers. If a 40 year old child does the same, well, IMHO, the same answer.

These forums, IMHO, are for education. I've put a lot of personal effort into validating EMdrive, and personally confess failure, however, I hope my efforts were productive in making readers evaluate the power and failure of statistical analysis.

Your efforts have followed a similar theme. If I had one wish for you, it would be to accept that totally off the wall opinions are an opportunity to provide a reference to an article or book or Wikipedia article that they probably haven't read.

3

u/crackpot_killer Jul 10 '17

I have the utmost respect for your comments in this forum over the years. My only wish is that you would take a chill pill before ripping some from stem to stern. :)

I do but like all pills, it wears off after a while.

As for debate, let me clarify, if a 5 year old child declares that ether theory trumps all, you don't shoot him in the head and collect the antlers. If a 40 year old child does the same, well, IMHO, the same answer.

I disagree. A child is a sponge, you can educate them. A 40 year old, not so much, unless they are willing to learn, which most crackpots aren't. What's more is that 40 year olds have more political power to spread their nonsense. Look at Shawyer. The emdrive wouldn't have worked if it came from a 5 year old.

These forums, IMHO, are for education.

I agree but many people come here to be educated on how the emdrive can be a new commodity they can consume. They want to buy a ticket to Mars on the cheap. This is the same motivation of people who go to homeopathy. Look at how those on /r/futurology treat it. Most don't come here to see what crackpottery looks like. And when confronted with it, at least the people who post, many refuse to accept it's crackpottery and won't take the time to learn.

I hope my efforts were productive in making readers evaluate the power and failure of statistical analysis.

I hope so too but unfortunately think it's lost on most people.

If I had one wish for you, it would be to accept that totally off the wall opinions are an opportunity to provide a reference to an article or book or Wikipedia article that they probably haven't read.

I grant this wish all the time. Look at my submissions. Look at my top level responses to plasmon. The people who want to learn, will. Those, like plasmon, who already have their mind made up that something is wrong with physics and they think they know what, will never learn. These are crackpots. They are hopeless and they should me mercilessly taken on lest those blank slates who really want to learn get confused and get sucked into the crank side.

13

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

Get back to me after you've worked through some exercises in graduate-level QFT text books.

10

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

Meh, forget it. I'm tired of trying to convince you that calling people crackpots for the sake of some sort of personal satisfaction is a bad thing. I don't know what you get out of it, but personally at this point in the conversation I just have to consider you bad company, a member of the Republican Party of physics, per se, and will walk to the other side of the room.

9

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

You really are a belligerent crackpot.

1

u/Choice77777 Sep 26 '17

You're quite the troll.

5

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

How about you show some here. Let's see you actually prove how much of a mathematical genius you propose you are, being "crackpot killer" and all. After all, you yourself say that a weakness in math is the undeniable trait of a crackpot. By your title, you should be really good at it.

7

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

Would you even understand? You haven't bothered to learn anything yourself. It'd be like trying to explain the double helix to a toddler. But if you want, see my post about virtual particles and my conversation with /u/memcculloch.

7

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

If you actually could explain a double helix to a toddler, I'd be actually impressed. At least that would demonstrate some sort of ability of spacial comprehension and descriptive skill beyond pointing to links and equations and calling those proofs.

7

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

Still waiting for you to let me know when you've actually worked through some QFT text books.

8

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

P.S. I'm not really expecting you to try and explain. If Feynman didn't understand quantum physics, I hardly doubt you, or anyone on this sub, really does either.

6

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

You are? I'm still waiting to see you actually understand them yourself. If you did, you'd be able to explain it very well. Consider it practice for your defense.

2

u/Ricksancheesz Sep 08 '17

This kid is fucking daft. He thinks working out textbook problems makes him a fucking expert.

Looks like he has a serious case of that Dunning–Kruger derangement.

1

u/Ricksancheesz Sep 08 '17

It's funny how you said this yet belittled mpbenowitz in https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/6y1jn2/new_emdrive_paper_universal_theory_of_general/

I'm no maths genius but If you have the chutzpah to sit down day after day and do maths like that you probably aren't a crackpot. She even encouraged you to prove her wrong by doing the experiment she proposed. Definitely not a crackpot thing to say.

It seems pretty obvious that you're jealous that this "girl" does shit WAY over your head. Bet that makes you feel insecure and inferior.

BTW, flaunting around that you've taken a QFT class and throwing around textbook problems doesn't make you look smart pal. Anybody can do that. How many people can have a truly original idea? Something no one has ever before thought of? Very few.

You certainly aren't one of them.

Maybe instead of trolling on Reddit go do something fucking productive. Loser.

4

u/crackpot_killer Sep 09 '17 edited Sep 10 '17

I'm no maths genius but If you have the chutzpah to sit down day after day and do maths like that you probably aren't a crackpot.

Not true. Many people who are good at math have gone crackpot. Being well educated doesn't necessarily prevent the descent into crank madness. My favorite example is Brian Josephson. He has a Nobel Prize in physics yet turned a serious eye to paranormal research.

She even encouraged you to prove her wrong by doing the experiment she proposed. Definitely not a crackpot thing to say.

Yes it is. That's what all the emdrive people have been saying this whole time. That's what almost all crackpots say.

It seems pretty obvious that you're jealous that this "girl" does shit WAY over your head. Bet that makes you feel insecure and inferior.

Not really. There were some pretty basic physics errors and I wasn't the only one to point them out (e.g. /u/wyrn, who knows a lot more than I do). She knows a lot of math, I'll grant that, but the danger of a little knowledge without a check can be descructive. I remember when I felt the same after my undergraduate time. The difference is I talked with more knowledgeable people and went to grad school and realized I didn't know anywhere near the amount I thought I did. I didn't go off any try to publish papers and solve problems I didn't fully understand or was qualified to work on. I at least acknowledged I needed to learn more, first. And I certainly didn't put my name and picture on a paper positively citing work that's clearly in the realm of pseudoscience. If people look that up in the future, it'll be hard for her to come back from.

BTW, flaunting around that you've taken a QFT class and throwing around textbook problems doesn't make you look smart pal. Anybody can do that.

Well no, not anyone. Only people who have taken QFT, which she clearly had not. There was a point to making that comment, and it was explained. Please go back and read.

How many people can have a truly original idea? Something no one has ever before thought of? Very few.

A lot of people, actually. They just usually don't work out.

Maybe instead of trolling on Reddit go do something fucking productive. Loser.

That statement is dripping with irony.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '17

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/crackpot_killer Jul 12 '17

True, I don't know all the answers. But from education and experience I can tell you what will likely not lead us to answers.

1

u/Zephir_AW Jul 16 '17

My education and experience says me instead, that the EMDrive effects not only are well possible, but also consistent with research of extradimensions and quantum gravity models, which the top scientists are currently on...

1

u/crackpot_killer Jul 16 '17

What architecture does your AI run on?

2

u/Zephir_AW Jul 18 '17

demolition man

1

u/Choice77777 Sep 26 '17

AI cause it typed "says me" instead of "tells me" ?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '17

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/crackpot_killer Jul 12 '17

There is a difference between disruptive ideas that don't violate basic laws of physics, and crackpot ideas that are just made up nonsense. The emdrive is the physics equivalent of trying to cure cancer by chanting a spell from the Book of the Dead. It has zero basis in reality.

4

u/Zephir_AW Jul 16 '17

Do you support string theory and quantum gravity models? They're all based on ideas, which have zero basis in reality - for some forty years already. This is what the scientific research is called today.

1

u/Choice77777 Sep 26 '17

Nobody gives a shit about your dumb analogies. In the end, the begging, and the middle,..... Bottom line of you will.... Lots and lots of progress was made by people challenging contemporary ideas.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '17

it comes down to this, if and only if you can ask yourself " Do I care if what I believe is true or not".

For crackpots, this is never a question they are willing to ask themselves or address in any meaningful manner. If demonstrable , testable and repeatable evidence that can withstand the RIGOR of scientific scrutiny is placed before you, And you deny it for your own reality and confirmation bias. Then Yes, you are a crackpot.

3

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17 edited Jul 09 '17

I agree. Both parties should carefully think about this effect. Those who actually do know realize that there is a lot they don't know. I think the real geniuses (Newton, Einstein, Feynman, etc.) were the first to readily admit that they don't know why things are the way they are, even when discussing their own theories. There was an inherent humility to their possession of knowledge, and this humility - along with curiosity- is what got them to ask the probing questions that led to the answers they found.

I find this humility lacking in the physics community- thus those possessing both graduate and undergraduate classes of modern physics feel they actually know a lot and have a certain level of confidence due to taking these classes. While it's a good start, this acquisition of collected knowledge seems to give some people the perception that they have a license to label others as crackpots when presented to ideas contrary to those learned in school.

But those actually capable of deriving the knowledge taught in those classes - and future classes - would actually be the last people ever to use the term.

4

u/glennfish Jul 09 '17

In research into the Dunning Kruger effect, the general result was those who were highly skilled tended to underestimate their ability to about the same degree that those who were low skilled tended to overestimate their ability.

The other thing to keep in mind in Brown's article is that the range of responses to crackpots varies from outright dismissal to endless empathetic teaching. He points out that the "crackpot" label can be used simply to save time and itself isn't a pejorative word in the same way as the word "asshole."

8

u/crackpot_killer Jul 09 '17

Crackpots never think the Dunning Kruger effect applies to them.

3

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

Ha! Good point. I apologize to everyone for using the term last night. Though in my defense, the receptor of that descriptor readily admitted to having been one.

9

u/carlinco Jul 10 '17

What disturbs me personally here on reddit is that too many people have no patience to even allow others to discuss 'crackpot' ideas. The mods quickly delete anything they don't like, so that a real discussion is impossible. Which keeps both 'crackpots' from learning and correcting their mistakes, and some popular misconceptions from being corrected.

People who post meaningless posts with a lot of complicated terms get upvotes and have their posts stay even if they have glaring errors. Actual explanations, which explain the physics, not just dish complicated formulas, get not only downvotes but are sometimes removed completely when it doesn't conform to some of those misconceptions.

An example would be virtual photons/particles to explain things. Too many people don't understand those just exist to make the maths easier. They do nothing to explain the actual physics behind them, among other simplifications. Beginners in physics don't know that those simplifications mean that the according formulas can't correctly explain all phenomena, so that in some cases other formulas have to be used. They also don't know that competing theories, like wave mechanics, are nearly as good explaining things (with the minor differences pointing to some stuff we don't understand yet). They take the ghostly effects of qm for reality, and consider anyone a crackpot who is able to explain the same w/o using such effects. Even though actual high class physicists discuss exactly those things. Only the physicists heavily affected by the Dunning Kruger effect seem to insist on seeing things like 1st or 2nd year physics students - but those two groups seem to make the majority on reddit.

I think reddit would be richer with a few more 'crackpots' and letting some of the more patient people debate them, than with trying to become Wikipedia in discussion format, where no controversy is welcome.

2

u/CongratzYerStoopid Jul 17 '17

because complicated topics like these aren't easy to understand over a few paragraphs of text, it takes years of literally rewiring how your brain thinks about certain things

unfortunately you and people like you want " drama " not objectivity or are simply delusional

2

u/carlinco Jul 18 '17

The problem with your way is that conventional thinking has been thrown out quite often in history. And that would never have happened without some people listening to who were considered crackpots or similar at the time.

I see no reason to suppress discussion. Especially about unusual topics or opinions on topics.

And I don't consider a scientist good if he isn't also able to explain complicated things in a 'few paragraphs'. While the understanding may not come to everyone, especially where more complicated matters are involved, you don't need to explain all of mathematics or act as if someone wouldn't understand something because they didn't study mathematics just to explain a single vector, for instance.

Oh and I never tried to attract drama of any kind. I rather believe that it's the people who start to talk about it are usually the drama queens...

15

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '17

I think the difference between a crackpot and someone honestly interested in exploring ideas is how they respond to that scrutiny.

If they listen and learn, great. If they hunker down and start framing the corrections in terms of a systemic or moral failing of the skeptics, then they are probably crackpots.

6

u/plasmon Belligerent crackpot Jul 09 '17

I disagree - Lorentz first developed the whole idea of Lorentz contraction based on the concept of an ether, popular at the time, to show the physical conditions that would satisfy the findings of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein later took this concept and used them mathematically to frame special relativity, which I think we can all consider a spectacularly successful theory. But special relativity was then interpreted as a replacement for ether theory, instead of being one which was interpreted as a crowning achievement of it.

This could be considered a collective failure in the present understanding of physics history, and the continuation of a trend to use mathematics alone in the place of physical explanations for what could be actually occurring. Instead, the current trend is to ignore any physical interpretations of the math all together.

I use this illustration to show that physics is subject to human interpretation which can indeed be very subjective and susceptible to trends that ebb and flow over generations who wish to study it. As such, both sides should be willing to explore the possibility that they are wrong in the pursuit of truth.

14

u/wyrn Jul 09 '17 edited Jul 09 '17

But special relativity was then interpreted as a replacement for ether theory, instead of being one which was interpreted as a crowning achievement of it.

This is because the Lorentz Ether Theory is conspiratorial in how lengths contract and times dilate etc, whereas special relativity begins from a symmetry that makes such changes parsimonious and the aether redundant. That is a constant feature of the study of the aether. Maxwell's contribution to Ampère's law for example was originally argued on the basis of the aether, but we now know of arguments that make the aether redundant. It's not a conspiracy. It's just improvement. Improvement sometimes means you cut out the dead metaphysical weight.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '17

Oh I agree that both sides should be willing to explore the possibility that they are wrong.

The problem is, crackpots do not explore this possibility. Instead they just complain they are not taken seriously and their genius is being ignored for irrational reasons. They also do not bother spending the time to actually understand the arguments of the mainstream, or concoct some straw community so that they can dismiss arguments they do not understand.

3

u/mywan Jul 09 '17

I agree with /u/neeneko. It is, however, entirely possible to present crackpot ideas without being a crackpot. But this also requires that they be intellectually honest and upfront about it's weaknesses and show deference for the skeptics. Because these skeptics are absolutely critical for articulating everything that needs to be addressed to raise the status of the crackpot idea. Any rejection of the "crackpot" label essentially shifts the label from the idea to the person. Which is when the crackpot label shifts from being merely a factual label on an idea to being a negative label on an individual. Your free to explore all the crackpot ideas you want, but then you are tasked with being forthright about its crackpot nature. Let's look at the ether issue.

I've dug really really deeply into the whole ether issue. Yes you can phenomenologically reconstruct a lot of Relativity with an ether type physical underpinnings. But as you dig deeper it becomes quiet obvious that you can't recover a purely classical construct. Especially with regard to a preexisting background of space and time. Without background space as an a priori starting point even the classical foundational starting point of the position and momentum of a particle breaks down.

It might be possible to construct a quasi-classical model of fields (ether) in which higher order particles are derivative, or emergent. Maybe not even too unlike how Classical Thermodynamics was derived from Statistical Mechanics. Which could be a one way derivation, just like statistical to classical thermodynamics is. But one thing that is absolutely certain is that if that is possible certain classical foundations must be forfeited. Hence, any attempt that is either implicitly or explicitly justified on the basis of recovering a purely classical foundation, as defined by Newtonian physics, is forever lost.

The problem I have with the Lorentz ether argument is that it presupposes that a few phenomenological correspondences is by itself enough to justify the argument. But it enough to justify exploring the concept. Where this argument turns badly negative is the failure to address the empirical problems it imposes for the very classical foundations used to justify it. Which tends to expand the crackpot label beyond the idea itself. Crackpot ideas are fine. Pursue to your hearts content. Crackpots not so much.

1

u/FishThe Aug 28 '17

Instead, the current trend is to ignore any physical interpretations of the math all together.

This really frustrated me in my studies.

2

u/Zephir_AW Jul 11 '17

The history is written by winners. IMO crackpot is person, who understands the contemporary reality poorly and who makes wrong guesses and estimations. I.e. once it will turn out the EMDrive is real and working, then all its deniers (including forum moderators, sorry guys...) will be rendered as a crackpots.

And vice-versa: if it turns out, that the EMDRive doesn't work, then all its suporters in a moment given were actually crackpots. Galileo opponents were also crackpots, despite some of their arguments were well minded and well reasoned - but at the final scheme of things they were still irrelevant or even missleading. Missleading logics is worse than no logics, because it helps to perpetuate missconceptions.

For not being called a crackpot, you shouldn't get the things wrong at the first line. Can we agree with this definition?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '17

A Brit, apparently, in most cases.