10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence)
I am not alone as a scientist and engineer to point out that if a theory requires as one of its foundation elements a probability function anywhere in its defining equations, then the necessary science behind the hypothesis is "incomplete" and unknowns exist that may extend and revise the current theory. Using statistical physics to prove natural science is problematic - it allows one to create good working guidance for experiments and even engineering but it does not mean that one knows (completely) what one is talking about. It does signify that one (including most quantum theory adherents) wants to believe that the work is done and understood when it may only be a parlor-trick. The evidence against QT is that it requires two levels of reality and physics when a simpler explanation (not discovered yet) should permit physical laws to be enforced at both the subatomic and macro (our) world levels simultaneously. Do I qualify?
Yes, yes, all very funny, but---
This kind of thinking glosses over the interesting fact that THERE IS NO PARTICULAR CONNECTION between a person's "sanity" and the possibility that they may make a great contribution to society.
Newton was SO religious that people today would call him a nut.
Galileo was SO obnoxious that today he'd almost certainly be sued out of any academic or business setting.
And, in other contexts, such as the arts, people like Paul Cezanne were flat out crazy...
(In fact, if you make a list of "influential" people from the past, it's difficult to find _anyone_ who wouldn't be called a crackpot for one reason or another today.)
Maginalizing people because they don't fit socially is a pretty bad practice because the whole world then misses out on the potential contributions such people can make.
Mark W.
He's not a conspirator.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
An acquaintance of mine, a university science dept. head, told me a few years ago, that the stupidist things that will be done in the next couple of decades will be done in the name of science.
For example, I will freely admit that every theory I have ever posted to FR is something made up on the spur of the moment, especially if I found it on the newswires. Doesn't mean I am not a crackpot, nor does it mean I am a scientist.
How many points? :)
1. Not a marvelous new invention that would change the course of human events
2. Not a breakthrough that would result in me garnering acclaim and fortune beyond my wildest dreams
I have given up the idea of becoming a scientist.
This was quite a shock for me, finding this out at the tender young age of 30.
Oh, I meant to say this at the bottom of my first post, but I forgot.
Another thing which gets over-looked in this smile fest about crackpots is that now and then (I actually stopped myself from saying "frequently") very buttoned-down people get labeled "crackpot" even though they score very very low (or zero) on this index! (And I'm not even talking about Fred Hoyle!) That's just not fair!
For instance:
The primary goals of the Julian Jaynes Society are to foster discussion and a better understanding of the life, work, and theories of Julian Jaynes (1920–1997), the implications of his bicameral mind theory of consciousness, and the topic of consciousness in general.
Born in West Newton, Massachusetts, Julian Jaynes did his undergraduate work at Harvard and McGill and received both his master’s and doctoral degrees in psychology from Yale. Julian Jaynes was a popular teacher, and he lectured in the Psychology Department at Princeton University from 1966 to 1990. In addition, he had numerous positions as Visiting Lecturer or Scholar in Residence in departments of philosophy, English, and archeology and in numerous medical schools. Julian Jaynes was an associate editor of the internationally renowned journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences and on the editorial board of the Journal of Mind and Behavior.
Julian Jaynes published widely, his earlier work focusing on the study of animal behavior and ethology, which eventually led him to the study of human consciousness. His more recent work culminated in 1976 in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, a nominee for the National Book Award in 1978. Criticized by some and acclaimed by others as one of the most important books of the 20th century, it remains as controversial today as when it was first published. Expanding on this book are several more recent articles published in a variety of journals such as Canadian Psychology, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The History of Ideas, and Art World.
"It all began in the mid-1980s, when a camera aboard a NASA spacecraft called Dynamics Explorer presented me with data that many scientists would have ignored or overlooked. [okay, that's a few points... mw] Curious black spots appeared in the images of Earth's aurora, one of the phenomena I have devoted my career to studying as an experimental physicist. I came to realize that the black spots in the images were not caused by "instrument noise," as many scientists believed, but were evidence of a remarkable geophysical phenomenon occurring unnoticed right above our heads.
"In the spring of 1986, I published my explanation of the black spots in a scientific journal: The Earth's atmosphere was being bombarded by house-sized, water-bearing objects traveling at 25,000 mph, one every three seconds or so. That's 20 a minute, 1,200 an hour, 28,800 a day, 864,000 a month and more than 10 million a year. Spelled out in this way, the numbers truly boggle the mind. These objects, which I call "small comets," disintegrate high above the Earth and deposit huge clouds of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. Over the history of this planet, the small comets may have dumped enough water to fill the oceans and may have even provided the organic ingredients necessary for life on Earth." Louis A. Frank
Mark W.