CaptainPanic, on 27 October 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:
Just a remark and a worry, no quotes:
The difference between a crackpot and a child is that the crackpot will defend the new theory to the death and refuse to learn, whereas the child will attempt to learn what's wrong with it, and move on or adapt the theory.
Sometimes children can seem like crackpots, because they just don't understand the given explanation why their theory is wrong. Some will keep challenging the explanations (and continue to defend their new theory) simply because the explanations were inadequate. That is our fault, not theirs.
We, as a science forum, were age is irrelevant, need to understand that kids are kids. Kids are not hampered by too much knowledge, and as a result have weird ideas sometimes. Sometimes these are brilliant in their simplicity, and sometimes they are sadly oversimplifying the reality. But they will hopefully learn.
I just wish to express my worries here that we might ridicule people who attempt to actually learn (although I share all your frustrations about the people who categorically refuse to learn).
You are correct, of course. Age has no bearing on learning, except that those who are young often lack the reasoning framework that older "students" rely on to help them improve. That's exactly why I wanted to start this thread, so that framework can be strengthened and people can more easily see the critical thinking necessary to overcome lazy thinking.
I think the members here do a good job discerning the experience of other members, and I hope seeing some bad examples will improve our ability to sort the good learning experience from the bad logic.
Appolinaria, on 27 October 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:
i agree.
we dont have to use quotes to accomplish this, we can just use general ideas.
why even risk making someone feel bad?
I wrestled with this, and finally concluded that a verbatim quote was more honest. Paraphrasing an example could easily be exploited, and that in itself is an example of fallacious logic.
Appolinaria, on 27 October 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:
but why use quotes? why not list common misconceptions or something.
i can easily recall who said something, or just look it up. removing names doesnt do much.
if you put up someones post to critique, in a thread called crackpot quotes, it has a negative connotation.
if you cant see that, i question your intelligence.
We don't make our arguments personal. We attack the idea, not who has it. It's important that the idea remain intact through direct quote, and this way the name of the poster isn't even listed, making it easier to argue the idea on its merits alone.
TonyMcC, on 27 October 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:
I think we should be tolerant of ideas we think of as "crackpot". I have been involved in Brainstorming in the past and it seems to me that a forum such as this could start with a "crackpot idea" which ,as the thread develops, gradually turns into a sensible argument or solution to a problem.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Brainstorming
This also I hope to show. There is a huge difference between a science crackpot and someone throwing out wild ideas to see what sticks. It's extremely important to know the difference, and I do worry that the crackpot label will be used too liberally. Again, I think it's better to discuss it, bring it out where we can examine the differences in an open forum, and in a thread dedicated to nothing but that.
Appolinaria, on 27 October 2011 - 12:14 PM, said:
to be able to properly understand the world around you is a gift. im sure all of you can agree whatever route of science you pursued took many years of hard work.
why separate yourself from someone else because of a crackpot idea? let others be. be good to those weaker, who are blinded with passions/eccentricity.
the supposed purpose of this thread can be achieved other ways.
as we evolve, we become more compassionate.
for the well being of science, dont hinder this process.
I think, if you look at the examples already posted, you'll see that it's not eccentricity that marks them. It's a fundamental hubris, a lack of intellectual honesty and a rejection of normal work study ethics that is the hallmark of the crackpot, not the ideas themselves.
Appolinaria, on 27 October 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:
haha. i genuinely wasnt directing that statement towards you.. i was just trying to make a point.
definitions of crackpot are; foolish, impractical, lunatic.
foolish; lacking in sense, judgement, or discretion
crackpot is a negative word.
and if a crackpot is just unfamiliar with the subject theyre talking about, why not call this the common misconceptions of beginners thread?
clearly crackpots stick to their guns even when disproven. so why bother? the only thing i see coming out of this is ridicule, essentially.
Let me make this clear. I don't want anyone posting
ideas they think are crackpot. I want examples of crackpot thinking that show why the reasoning is bad or fallacious. I will personally make sure it doesn't descend into making fun of people's ideas.
The normal definitions of crackpot don't fit the science crackpot we've come to know here. We can't hide from the way this mindset erodes the learning process. Their methods ARE negative, so the name we give them must reflect that. This will help separate them from the person who truly has wild ideas and inspired but undisciplined thoughts,
but is totally willing to share and learn in the way that science has taught us is honest, meaningful and reflective of the reality we all live in.
Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
MultiQuote
It is a very rare and heart-warming phenomenon indeed. I think we see it maybe once or twice a year. It's nice when you come across real thinkers who will change direction when solid evidence is given that clearly contradicts their fledgling idea...this is the most important quality of a good scientist imo; the ability to let go of an idea when evidence suggests otherwise. Not an easy talent to acquire judging by how rare it is that we see a graceful surrender on these boards.
