Science Forums: swansont - Viewing Profile - Science Forums

It's been pointed out that we have a bit of a conundrum regarding recurring topics: many people hate thread necromancy, but also repeating themselves in topics that keep cropping up. So here's a chance to post your favorite links and also (especially) discussions here on SFN on recurring topics. These can be debunking zombie arguments (the ones that won't die) such as creationism/evidence for evolution, perpetual motion, WTC, zero-energy, climate change, relativity, or simply topics that continue to crop up, like quantum entanglement/teleportation.

Please be as specific as you can describing the link you provide, because there will be a lot more copy/paste going on than serious editing. This will (eventually) go in a new sorted/organized post that we sticky somewhere, so one can browse without having to go through the disjointed thread this will probably become.

Credit where it's due: mooeypoo suggested this; I'm just following through on it.

Copied over from "An indictment of scientific process" since it is OT for the Ethics board.

gfellow, on 5 February 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

I've added this to one of the locked sticky threads, but have reproduced it here for discussion.

———————

It's human nature to categorize people, and if you're introducing a new subject for discussion — some new, possibly untested idea that is not part of the standard curriculum of science — you don't want to be classified as a crackpot.

Here is some the behavior you must avoid.

1. Vocabulary

Crackpots misuse terminology, especially terms like theory, or dogma. You don't want to be the one who proclaims "it's only a theory" or "you're being dogmatic" and make it clear you don't know the definitions of the words. Unless your posts actually get redacted, don't claim "censorship," either, unless you want peoples' irony meters to explode. You also don't want to get caught making up new jargon, especially not terms you've named after yourself.

2. Background knowledge

Crackpots generally have little grasp of the theories they are critiquing and/or are unaware of the breadth and depth of experimental knowledge that exists (which often leads to the building of straw man arguments). Few things will get you dismissed faster than stating a claim that is trivially found to be false. Nobody will take the guy who proposes that the moon is made of cheese seriously.


3. You need Evidence

Crackpots generally don't understand what is acceptable as evidence and often make assertions which they treat as facts. In a science discussion, evidence means scientifically-obtained data rather than anecdotes or assertions. And evidence is king. The only way to test your idea is to compare it to nature; it doesn't matter how logical it is to anyone — if it disagrees with actual experiment it's not correct.


4. Smoke and mirrors are no substitute for evidence

Crackpots will often try and sidestep the question of evidence either by appealing to some conspiracy or engaging in personal attacks. Any excuse to follow up on a comment that leads away from the demand for evidence will be seized upon. Even the demand for evidence will often be viewed as a personal attack.

Worse than this is when they go on the offensive and claim science is a religion, often coupled with the vocabulary issue mentioned above (dogma).

5. Don't act like you are the smartest person in the room

You aren't going to dazzle the audience with your brilliance. If people can't understand what you are talking about, they aren't going to simply accept it as true. If you avoid the tough questions, or your response is to simply repeat your points, people will notice that you are dodging. Don't compare yourself to Galileo or Einstein. While it's possible that you are smarter than any single member of the audience, it's unlikely that you are smarter than all of the audience put together.


6. Speak the language

One of the most common attributes of a crackpot is the unwillingness to express things mathematically. If you can't do the math, you are attacking the problem with an exceedingly dull instrument. Math is precise and has a very high information density — it is very powerful. Descriptive language is a poor substitute. At the other end of the spectrum is the numerologist, who works with a lot of numbers but doesn't connect them to reality in any scientifically meaningful way; there is no link to any mechanism or scientific model.

A comment in another thread:

Wanted to comment on this without hijacking the thread in which it appeared

 iNow, on 29 December 2011 - 07:23 PM, said:

From the second link: One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families.

I think that's true. If your life is hard, you can lean on religion and the thought that a better life awaits you.

Old article, but I only came across it recently.

http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html

I thought the "bad conversation drives out good" comment (the reference to Gresham's law) was particularly insightful. It's why there we have moderation. The really bad conversation — spam and its ilk and obvious trolling — is eliminated as soon as we discover it. The lesser infractions have a weaker feedback, in an attempt to improve the quality.