This site seems to be an active beam-path crossing of reputable scientists and crackpots. (What strange types of heavy scientists are created in such collisions? I don't know.)

After reading many of the things these crackpots have to say here and on some of the 10^19 other crackpot pages on the internet, I have pieced together a short list of what it takes to be a crackpot. Enjoy.

1) Pick a piece of reputable science that seems beautiful to you, preferably one at a high-school or earlier level (since, after all, you didn't take any collegiate science courses). Bonus points are assigned for choosing a piece that has been proven wrong and abandoned by modern science. The Bohr "solar-system" model of the atom, for example, will do nicely.

2) Misunderstand some fundamental point of your pet scientific principle.

3) Read about your pet scientific principle in a variety of $5.95 paperbacks sold at the front counter of the newsstands in malls.

4) Misunderstand even the qualitative descriptions and word-bound "math" provided therein.

5) Use that one piece of trivial scientific theory to explain everything in the observable universe. Yes, the beginning of time, the size of the Universe, black holes, and all the rest. Ascribe some silly properties to things that don't actually have those properties; for example, talk about the "speed" of electrons, and use the speed to explain the beginning of time. Don't be greedy and try to involve any other bits of real science; your theory has to have a definite focal point. What better focal point is there for an all-encompassing theory of the Universe than that piece of beautiful outdated science you learned in ninth grade?

6) Forego all use of math, since math is hard (you abandoned real science for the same reason, remember?). Besides, you've already convinced yourself that no one would ever order a Universe so complex that you'd actually need something as hard as math to describe it. If you do attempt to use math, make sure it's entirely unrelated to your thesis. Make use of the prettiest symbols as often as possible -- if say, you like the looks of the symbol for an integral over a closed region, just make all of your integrals over a closed region. Since you're making up dimensions, quantities, and symbols anyway, you can do what you like. Just think of the symbols as window dressing.

7) Make up at least a dozen new words. Even better, reuse the same words scientists use, but give them new, entirely different, meanings. Be careful not to give them precise definitions, though; leave a little wiggle room. Using your new lexicon, you can escape the barrage of criticism you'll receive later by revealing "your" definitions piecemeal. This bait-and-switch tactic soon wears out any would-be critics; when they give up on you, pat yourself on the back for having created an impregnable fortress of a theory.

8) Write at least one sentence that uses all of your new words at the same time. Make liberal use of nested prepositional phrases and passive voice. Since you don't actually understand science, you read a science book and see nothing but meaningless jumbles of words grouped into complicated sentence structures; it makes sense that you should emulate this as best you can. This "topic sentence" also becomes a great tool for weeding out your crackpot fellows from the background noise of reputable scientists. Anyone who reads the sentence "The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a 'tilting' of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions." and actually claims to "get it" is immediately identified as a colleague.

9) Do your best to ignore every shred of the contrary evidence collected by hundreds of thousands of independent scientists, in millions of experiments, over the span of hundreds of years. There are a variety of ways in which you can dodge the evidence:

- You can simply ignore it.
- You can explain that all of those scientists, helplessly unarmed by having not yet experienced the epiphany embodied in your theory, simply did the wrong experiments, or intepreted the experimental results incorrectly.
- You can refer to the International Scientific Conspiracy, who has encased all of the real scientists (who would immediately give you the Nobel prize for your discovery) in concrete, leaving only the riff-raff underachievers to do such poor experiments.
- You can make use of the paranoid idea that the only experiments which are conclusive are those which involve the human senses directly. If you can't feel it heating up with your hand, or see it glowing with your eye, then you haven't done a real experiment. Why should anyone, especially you, believe anything that a machine says? After all, the International Scientific Conspiracy certainly has a few well-stocked machine shops.

10) Whenever someone criticizes you, be sure to try to make him feel guilty for being so closed-minded that the only thing he'll accept is cold, hard reality. Tell him that scientists like Einstein invented new branches of physics only by being as open-minded as you are; ignore the fact that the assertion is not true (or invoke the International Scientific Conspiracy).

11) Submit your paper to reputable scientific authorities, like PRL and Nature. When no one bothers to even respond with a rejection letter, come to one of two possible conclusions: either that modern science has no rebuttal to your theory, you have shattered their collective scientific ego with your brilliance, and they have chosen not to respond because they are too proud to admit defeat; or that the International Scientific Conspiracy has immediately destroyed your paper because you got too close to the Truth. Either way, your theory is actually strengthened by the silent dismissal, and that's all that really matters anyway. Now you can tell anyone who cares to listen that modern science cannot rebut your theory, so it must be right. You can go a step further, become proactive, and actually solicit rebuttals directly from the individuals in the reputable scientific community. When none of these scientists is willing to waste his time trying to teach you tenth-grade physics, you can proudly announce that science cannot disprove your theory.

12) Misunderstand the essence of the scientific method. Forget the fact that theories must provide falsifiable or directly verifiable predictions to be taken seriously. Since your theory is a crackpot theory, it is incapable of providing directly verifiable predictions. You were careful to avoid making your definitions precise, weren't you? The same wiggle room that allows your theory to explain just about any experimental result is also responsible for preventing your theory from making any concrete predictions of anything. It doesn't matter what number pops out of the particle physicist's machine; your theory doesn't even use math, so any number you'd like can be explained by it. Your theory is immune to the scientific method, and that makes it better. Your theory cannot be proven wrong, so it must be right.

- Warren

chroot:

Welcome. :)

Very funny and, sadly, very accurate. ;)

Now that I think about it, there may even be further steps...

13) Make up a name for your theory. Reputable scientific theories have wacky-sounding names like "Quantum Electrodynamics" and "Special Relativity," so yours should, too. Use latin whenever possible, since latin sounds scientific; nevermind that you don't understand how to conjugate latin verbs. "Genesis Continuous," "Shadows," and "Time Cube" are all excellent names. Bonus points are assigned for crackpots who manage to bastardize the names of reputable theories. For example, "God Almighty's Grand Unified Theory" is at least ten times as good as "Shadows," because it provokes fear and awe while simultaneously including a buzzword that has recently attracted a great deal of reputable attention.

14) Found your very own organization dedicated to the research of your new theory of everything. It doesn't matter if some of your compatriots are actually 18th century French poets, are imaginary, or are canines -- all that matters is that you have an organization. Give it a good official-sounding name. You've surely heard of Caltech and MIT; using the "Institute of Technology" moniker will definitely make everyone take you seriously for a change. The "Offapit Institute of Technology," for example, is repsonsible for "God Almighty's Grand Unified Theory," which is poised to soon change the way all of humankind will think about science, if only the editors of PRL will give up their hubris and accept its superiority.

- Warren

O-M-G, im gonna be a rich man :D

And how about a survey of our local neighborhood sciforums.com cranks? There are surely more than just these, but here's what I found browsing for a few minutes:

Dwayne D.L.Rabon: he's an extreme noob, but he's shown to be a heavy hitter somewhere between Steps 9 and 10. He deserves extra credit for the sheer quality of his delusions.

ProCop: As much as I want to rank him in the upper class of cranks, I think he falls somewhere just shy of Step 9. His theory is just too nebulous, philosophical, and nonsensical to even relate to any known experiment. Perhaps that means he's actually already hit Step 12?

jeffocal: One of my favorite contenders. He's already tipped the scales just shy of Step 14. Why just shy? He's so far refrained from actually giving his organization a name. Come on, Jeff, what's with the hesitation?

Frencheneesz: He is a fledgling crackpot, clinging somewhere between Steps 6 and 10. Many of his posts intimate various different components of crank thought. He doesn't understand science or math very well, has created a number of small crank theories, likes to accuse others of being too closed-minded, and likes to summarily dismiss contrary evidence. Perhaps as his neurosis deepens he will be able to assemble his legion of small crank theories into the crank theory analogue of Voltron, and place himself squarely on Step 10.

- Warren

chroot:

I recognize many people of my acquaintence in your "12+ steps".

Most specifically a poker-playing buddy of mine. For years--approx. 10--we've had countless discussions about his theory of gravity. He rejects Special Relativity, is fixated on the Michaelson-Morley experiment, says gravity isn't SR's mass-induced space-time curvature but rather space-time particles sucked up by mass-sinks, the flow of said particles produce the drag effects we call gravity. He has written his own computer program to calculate General Relativity-consistant numerical quanties based on data derived from his 'model', and because his program provides him the very numbers he must have to support his hypothesis his model must be the death of SR. He has designed a satellite-based Michaelson-Morley experiment, but he has made no testable predictions beyond the original M-M experiment. He cannot get a response from the Journals, and the Secret Service is trying to steal his papers and programs. He finally got an internet account about 18 months ago and since has found a home in the newsgroups. His name is John.

Hmmm. That reminds me. Weren't all the Lectroids in The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension named John, too?

Just a thought. Another theory forming as we speak.

Oh, and I would be remiss were I not to include:

ted_roe: Since he isn't a physical crank (he's into UFOs) he doesn't really fit my Program too well. However, I feel he intuitively hits the end of the line (Step 14) for using a fake organization (called "NARCAP" to gather credibility by sounding like a government agency) populated by fake NASA employees to push a fake UFO theory on everyone. He's definitely got the International Scientific Conspiracy in his sights.

John MacNeil: he's argumentative, loony, and has an affinity for credential pissing contests. He's another UFOgey, though, and again doesn't exactly fit into my Program. (Perhaps I need to develop a UFO/Paranormal 12 Step Program?) He's definitely managed to find himself near Step 10, if you can accept the analogy.

- Warren

Lucas Kovar had some insightful things to say on this subject:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/close-minded.html

I should print this and put it on a wall somewhere near my computer...:D

Let's not forget the eloquent ranting and railing, fueled by delusions of personal attack when obvious flaws are identified and exposed.

Originally posted by (Q)
Let's not forget the eloquent ranting and railing, fueled by delusions of personal attack when obvious flaws are identified and exposed.

Perhaps. I intended to intertwine paranoia liberally with all of the steps, since I think it's an integral part of the psychology of all cranks-to-be, rather than just a stop on the end of the road.

Perhaps there should be an additional step for those who raise their intellectual hackles and begin using terse, formal, 18th century language, often including large words they can't even define, to attack those who point out that their theory can't possibly be right.

- Warren

Every addition to human knowledge first comes to light on the lunatic fringe, believed in only by crackpots.

Or if you hold on to the conventional wisdom you also become a crackpot:

"Nobody knows anything about the true shape of the world," he contends. "The known, inhabited world is flat. Just as a guess, I'd say that the dome of heaven is about 4,000 miles away, and the stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston."

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm


How about a moment of greatful silence for the crackpots :)

Originally posted by m0rl0ck
Every addition to human knowledge first comes to light on the lunatic fringe, believed in only by crackpots.

Welcome to Step 10.

- Warren

Welcome to Step 10.


Thanks. :) To celebrate my arrival I'd like to paraphrase Newton, "I got here only by standing on the shoulders of other crackpots".


"The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut."

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

chroot: Not sure how long you've been lurking/posting, but there used to be an annoying little twerp by the name of truthseeker who would make up theories without actually referring it to any previous body of knowledge, and laid out whoppers like Stephen Hawking's work is pure mysticism, even though he admittedly didn't waste his time to read the book. He liked to use a lot of emoticons, especially the one with big grinning teeth. I hate emoticons. It made me sick when ( usually a female) would defend him like he was a precious-moments-like babe in the woods who needed a little humoring, who deserved a chance to speak. I and the multitude who subjected him to the harsher aspects of Darwinian thought felt we deserved the chance to speak too. Eventually, he said he was leaving because we were too mean and close minded. This process took a few months, and I tried to get everyone to ignore him, but people kept trying to point out his logical flaws as if he would learn.

Man I feel so superior now. Just thought I would add this guy to your catalog. It might seem a little harsh to spotlight these guys on the carpet, but perhaps we need a hall of shame to hold these guys to the idea of peer review and community dialog, and to quit thinking they're always right. Nobody arrives at the truth alone like Clint Eastwood. Before you start overturning decades of thought, you should think, "How long have I been at this now?" There should be a note in the user agreement that says, "Think Socrates. You are not right about everything. In fact, you are probably wrong about most things."

Le Coq

chroot,

I like your list a lot.

I have taken the liberty of posting a copy of your first post on the Australian <a href="http://www.abc.net.au" target="_blank">ABC</a> <a href="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn" target="_blank">Self-Service Science Forum</a>, in <a href="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic193280.shtm" target="_blank">this thread</a>

I hope you don't mind.

"Not sure how long you've been lurking/posting, but there used to be an annoying little twerp by the name of truthseeker who would make up theories without actually referring it to any previous body of knowledge, and laid out whoppers like Stephen Hawking's work is pure mysticism, even though he admittedly didn't waste his time to read the book. He liked to use a lot of emoticons, especially the one with big grinning teeth. I hate emoticons. It made me sick when ( usually a female) would defend him like he was a precious-moments-like babe in the woods who needed a little humoring, who deserved a chance to speak. I and the multitude who subjected him to the harsher aspects of Darwinian thought felt we deserved the chance to speak too. Eventually, he said he was leaving because we were too mean and close minded. This process took a few months, and I tried to get everyone to ignore him, but people kept trying to point out his logical flaws as if he would learn."

God how I miss Nelson, hahahahaha. Nelson was 100% sure that he was the only human being in the world ever who fully understood god, the universe and the ultimate truths of all humanity. The one thing I liked about him is that he wasn't afraid to admitt he thought this. Of course, immediatly afterwards he would call me cocky for not being open-minded enough to believe him. Go search for "Truthseeker" threads and you'll see what we mean!

Can we also add Prosoothus and Brad Guth to this list. Don't go near http://uplink.space.com, more nuts than on a Chestnut tree. At least we have no ardent Velikovskians around here or the likes of <a href="http://www.zetatalk.com">Nutty Nancy</a>, the bane of news://sci.astro.

Valuable tools you might be interested in are,

<ul>
<li><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html">The Baez Crackpot index</a>. Though created for Usenet it is still useful.
<li>Always keep an eye on http://www.crank.net. Maintained by Eric Max Francis, it has a list of crank web sites. Brad and Jeff are listed there.
<li>http://www.skepdic.com. Many common myths are dispelled there.
<li>The redoubtable http://www.snopes.com
<li>http://www.talkorigins.com. Anti-Creationist web site.
</ul>

I'm sure more pages can be added.

ted_roe: Since he isn't a physical crank (he's into UFOs) he doesn't really fit my Program too well. However, I feel he intuitively hits the end of the line (Step 14) for using a fake organization (called "NARCAP" to gather credibility by sounding like a government agency) populated by fake NASA employees to push a fake UFO theory on everyone. He's definitely got the International Scientific Conspiracy in his sights.

I will have to say that the denouncement of Ted Roe is unfounded. The reason why is because he's easy to check out.

Some of you have said NARCAP is a crackpot organization, but I have found plenty of evidence to the contrary. Granted NARCAP has become associated with UFO's but this is truly unavoidable for ANY organization claiming to be involved in any kind of unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. Space.Com in fact, mentions NARCAP. The charge that it is intended to sound like a government agency is foolish, considering that it does not claim to be, and in fact states it is an independent, non-profit organization.

However, what's bothered me is how some of you claim NARCAP has "ficticious" former NASA employees. A simple search of NASA's website for the name Dr. Richard F. Haines, found examples of work he did for NASA, which include the following research papers available online:

Human-Computer Interfaces Required in a Modern Air Trafic Control Room
http://ffc.arc.nasa.gov/about_us/technical_papers/human_computer_interfaces.html
http://ffc.arc.nasa.gov/about/tech_papers/HCI_99.html

Dr. Richard F. Haines worked at the AMES Research Center in an area related to Air Traffic Control. Since NARCAP's stated mission is to improve Air Traffic Safety by studying UAP, it makes perfect sense that someone with those said qualifications would be the chief scientist at NARCAP. The fact that none of you checked him out and someone claimed he didn't even exist proves quite disturbing to your credibility as skeptics.

When you as a skeptic have made a negative claim, you must also shoulder the burden or proof.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon: he's an extreme noob, but he's shown to be a heavy hitter somewhere between Steps 9 and 10. He deserves extra credit for the sheer quality of his delusions.

Well, to be honest, his crowded posts make his words difficult to read through. I have not read enough of his stuff.



ProCop: As much as I want to rank him in the upper class of cranks, I think he falls somewhere just shy of Step 9. His theory is just too nebulous, philosophical, and nonsensical to even relate to any known experiment. Perhaps that means he's actually already hit Step 12?

Haven't read any of his theories yet. I'm so friggin lazy...



jeffocal: One of my favorite contenders. He's already tipped the scales just shy of Step 14. Why just shy? He's so far refrained from actually giving his organization a name. Come on, Jeff, what's with the hesitation?

Again, I've been too lazy.



Frencheneesz: He is a fledgling crackpot, clinging somewhere between Steps 6 and 10. Many of his posts intimate various different components of crank thought. He doesn't understand science or math very well, has created a number of small crank theories, likes to accuse others of being too closed-minded, and likes to summarily dismiss contrary evidence. Perhaps as his neurosis deepens he will be able to assemble his legion of small crank theories into the crank theory analogue of Voltron, and place himself squarely on Step 10.

This is getting embarrassing. I tend to only read the physics threads I have a specific interest in.



ted_roe: Since he isn't a physical crank (he's into UFOs) he doesn't really fit my Program too well. However, I feel he intuitively hits the end of the line (Step 14) for using a fake organization (called "NARCAP" to gather credibility by sounding like a government agency) populated by fake NASA employees to push a fake UFO theory on everyone. He's definitely got the International Scientific Conspiracy in his sights.

I have no problem with discussing the possibility of spaceships and aliens and such. I consider extraterrestrial life very likely. However, I find it very unlikely that Farmer Bob was butt-probed in his barn by alien sex-fiends. Meaning, most UFO-nuts are crackpots.



John MacNeil: he's argumentative, loony, and has an affinity for credential pissing contests. He's another UFOgey, though, and again doesn't exactly fit into my Program. (Perhaps I need to develop a UFO/Paranormal 12 Step Program?) He's definitely managed to find himself near Step 10, if you can accept the analogy.

Well, yes, argumentative. He's obviously read some books, but reading some books and then claiming to be an expert in certain areas is just annoying.



Adam: Well, I've definitely got a billion crackpot theories, but at least I keep in mind they are all pure speculation and fantasy until I or someone else delivers evidence.

Nah, this guy's a nutter.

Xevious

If NARCAP was a legitimate organization, why then are all references cited completely concerned with UFO's ? Why are there no references and no information available on aviation safety from any aviation organizations ? Why is NARCAP interested in UFO conspiracy theories ? Why would NARCAP be interested in ET ? Why would NARCAP even consider mentioning anything at all to do with ET ?

In my opinion, NARCAP is fraudulent and Ted Roe is a UFOlogist. If you think otherwise, I would suggest you place a call to any aviation safety organization and find out for yourself. In fact, let me help you:

http://courses.unt.edu/madden/WWW/wwwlinks.html

BTW - did you notice NARCAP anywhere on the site I linked ? ;)

Well, Xevious, I'm a pilot. And I've never heard of NARCAP in any context in any of my ground-school or dual instruction time. I'm working on earning my IFR rating, and I still have never heard of NARCAP. By itself, this doesn't mean NARCAP is a fraud -- but it certainly is damning evidence when considered alongside the kooky stuff he claims to "study." It seems no one in the aviation industry, or in the governmental aviation regulation agencies, gives much of a hoot about NARCAP.

The fact that he lists several ex-NASA employees is also not enough to really convince me these people really work for him. I honestly believe he's simply name-dropping to make himself sound more credible. I've seen neither work from these fellows on NARCAP stationery, nor any references to any. Proof is in the pudding.

- Warren

Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I am glad you heard me out and didn't flame me at least. I do appriciate you showing me why you consider him a crackpot. It's just that I run into flamers all the time and can't tell "skeptics" apart from skeptics somtimes. If you aren't careful about how post, how can I tell the difference?

At the risk of damning myself, If I may ask, why didn't I make the crackpot list?

Originally posted by Xevious
At the risk of damning myself, If I may ask, why didn't I make the crackpot list?

Would you like me to go review your posts and assign you a score?

- Warren

Heck, someone do a critique of Adam and put him on the list!

Originally posted by Adam
Heck, someone do a critique of Adam and put him on the list!

People who refer to themselves in third person are automatically crackpots. :p

- Warren

Pfft! I'll refer to myself in the fourth or fifth person if I can figure out how to do it.

Originally posted by chroot
Would you like me to go review your posts and assign you a score?

- Warren

me please!

thanks

;)

ps: if clarification is needed feel free to msg me!

Adam

Wouldn't that be:

She talked about him, being me?

Or something like that.

spookz:

Well, you don't post much to the Physics or Astronomy forums -- which are my areas of expertise. You may post crackpot theories to the Psychology forum, but I am be unable to evaluate you in that field. On the basis of what I found from you in the Physics and Astronomy forums, though, there's only one example of strong crackpottery: your post on the "Holographic Model," which is nicely situated at Step 13. However, you didn't defend the model, you just quoted someone else's recap of it. Therefore, the conclusion is:

inconclusive

- Warren

I don't mind you looking me over, either.

Originally posted by Xevious
I don't mind you looking me over, either.

You really want me to? (heh-heh)

- Warren

chroot
i must confess i am disappointed by your findings. anyway when i posted the "holographic model" it was because i was intrigued and found it plausible enough.to post. it is actually two theories, one for the universe (bohm) and the other for the brain (pribram) i was disappointed by the lack of response and then assumed it must considered a "crackpot theory" by sciforumers. i had done some googling on the originators of the theory and came up with david bohm and karl h pribam. their credentials seemed adequate enough to prevent me from dismissing it out of hand

crackpot #1

"Born in Wiles-Barre, Pennsylvania on December 20, 1917, he studied under Einstein and Oppenheimer, received his B.Sc. degree from Pennsylvania State College in 1939 and his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1943. He was the last graduate student to study with Oppenheimer at U.C. in the 1940s, where he remained as a research physicist after Oppenheimer left for Los Alamos to work on the atomic bomb. He worked at Berkeley on the Theory of Plasma and on the Theory of Synchroton and Syndrocyclotrons until 1947. From 1947-1951 he taught at Princeton University as an Assistant Professor and worked on Plasmas, Theory of Metals, Quantum Mechanics and Elementary Particles.

Bohm was a member of the Royal Academy, the originator of the causal interpretation of quantum theory, and the author of a famous text on quantum mechanics and of numerous articles and other books. The best-known recent work was Wholeness and the Implicate Order. He wrote his classic book, Quantum Theory, in an attempt to understand quantum theory from Nils Bohr's point of view. After completing the book and communicating with Einstein on it, Bohm remained unsatisfied with the theory. Bohm's challenge to the conventional understanding of quantum theory has led scientists to re-examine what it is they are doing and to question the nature of their theories and their scientific methodology"

http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html


crackpot # 2

"Karl Pribram was trained as a neurosurgeon and then devoted his career to elucidating the structure and function of the cerebral cortex, relating human clinical experience to his neurophysiological and neurobehavioral studies on nonhuman primates. He discovered the visual functions of the temporal lobe and the relationship of the anterior frontal cortex to the limbic system. His theoretical writings include the topics of perception, emotion, memory, and planning.

Born: Vienna, Austria
February 25, 1919

Education:
University of Chicago, B.S. (1938)
University of Chicago, M.D. (1941)

Appointments:
Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology (1946)
Yale University (1948)
Center for Advanced Studies, Stanford University (1958)
Stanford University (1959)
Distinguished Professor, Radford University (1989)

Honors and Awards (Selected):
NIH Lifetime Research Career Award (1962)
International Neuropsychological Society (President, 1967)
American Psychological Association
Division of Physiological and Comparative Psychology (President, 1967-1968)
Division of Theological and Philosophical Psychology (President, 1979-1980)

Menfred Sakel Award, Society for Biological Psychiatry (1976)
Realia Honor, Institute for Advanced Philosophic Research (1986)
Outstanding contributions Award, American Board of Medical Psychotherapists (1990)
Honorary Ph.D. in Psychology, University of Montreal, Canada (1992)
Neural Network Leardership Award, International Neural Network Society (1994)
Honorary Ph.D. in Neuroscience, University of Bremen, Germany (1996) "

http://www.cts.cuni.cz/events/pribram.html


would it be possible to explain how this theory qualifies as a "step 13". how it goes against established models, what laws are being flouted etc
( i am a physics and math illiterate so keep it simple)

thanks for your time

;)

ps: a few links relating to the subject matter are provided below

review of talbots book @ amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0586091718/ref%3Dbr%5Fac%5Ftop5%5F1%5F4/qid%3D1030729690/sr%3D1-4/202-3364332-6431818)

Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation (http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/)

Models of the Universe (http://www.inthelight.co.nz/spirit/gurus/pg-univ.htm)

Quantum Millenium, Quantum Universe. Quantum Worlds, Quantum Man. (http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/cmg_quan.htm)

The Holographic Principle and M-theory (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/)

How Holographic Memory Will Work (http://www.howstuffworks.com/holographic-memory.htm) (this is for computers-same principle?)

holographic universe@google (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=holographic+universe)

holographic brain@google (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=holographic+brain)

spookz,

Your point is....?

I have never asserted that Bohm or Pribram were crackpots. I have several of Bohm's books, including the Dover edition of "Quantum Theory," on my shelves.

I simply stated, quite correctly, that the "Holographic Model" is a crackpot theory.

Many similarly talented folks can be found doing similarly foolish work (brane cosmology, etc.). Luckily most of them get back on track sooner or later. I find no fault in someone exploring a new possibility -- only in someone dismissing contrary evidence to protect a new possibility. Most scientific pursuits end in failure -- the few who do not accept this are those I label "crackpots."

- Warren

Go ahead and rate me, Charoot. I'm curious...

ok
a crackpot theory maketh not a crackpot scientist.
my mistake.

so in theorizing about the holographic universe, i am wondering what laws or established conventions bohm flouted. what is the evidence to the contrary he ignored?

my point to all this is pure academic curiousity.

;)

The idea of nonlocality can be supported, experimentally and theoretically by physics under certain conditions. However, if one extends nonlocality, as Bohm implies, to include the entire universe, then the uses of nonlocality in these cases are very different and are not supported by physics.

A scientific model carries scientific information and leaves no room for non-scientific interpretation, regardless of its implications. The holographic model, which extends past scientific interpretation therefore, enters another realm, that of metaphysics.

:)

Xevious,

Well, I browsed through the first seven pages of the search results for your posts, and I didn't find anything particularly crackpotty. But then again, most of the threads you post to (about UFOs, etc.) bore the shit out of me, and I didn't bother to read any of them critically. Maybe you are a crackpot, maybe you aren't.

Why do you care what I think anyway?

- Warren

Originally posted by (Q)
The idea of nonlocality can be supported, experimentally and theoretically by physics under certain conditions. However, if one extends nonlocality, as Bohm implies, to include the entire universe, then the uses of nonlocality in these cases are very different and are not supported by physics.

A scientific model carries scientific information and leaves no room for non-scientific interpretation, regardless of its implications. The holographic model, which extends past scientific interpretation therefore, enters another realm, that of metaphysics.

:)

by this you mean just because the speed of light under controlled conditions (lab) can be exceeded doesnt mean it can be replicated in a natural environment (universe)?

spookz

by this you mean just because the speed of light under controlled conditions (lab) can be exceeded

This, as far as I can tell, has not been done. If so, can you provide a reference ?

However, I think you're missing the point. Bohm attempts to combine the scientific interpretations of his model with that of non-scientific concepts. That is why it is considered metaphysics and is not accepted as rational scientific theory.

excellent. thank you q

"The meaning of a negative group velocity is illustrated in figure 2. Within the cell, the peak of the pulse travels backwards relative to the direction it is moving in outside the cell. Long before the incident light pulse reaches the cell, two peaks appear at the far end: one travelling away from the cell at c, the other travelling back towards the entrance. This second pulse travels 300 times more slowly and is timed to meet up with the incident peak. The transmitted pulse travelling at c appears to leave the cell some 60 ns before the incident pulse arrives, enough time for it to travel an additional 20 metres.

What is shocking is that such an effect has been observed for the first time without a great deal of attenuation, amplification or distortion of the pulse. It appears as though energy has, in fact, travelled faster than light."

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/9/3


*the article then goes on to say how this did not really happen.
(i obviously was not paying attention when i read it)


;)

q
one more question

why do you think bohm found it necessary to postulate a new theory of the universe. what did he find lacking in the current model

spookz

Bohm was attempting to explain the findings of Alain Aspects experiment on nonlocality; EPR (Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen). His radical explanations (Holographic Model) became an anathema of scientific thought hence he was ostracized by the physics community.

coolness

unfortunately i am gonna embrace bohms crackpot ideas and become a bonafide crackpot myself!

Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study."

Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm)

;)

thanks again pal

spookz

Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.

That is a perfect example of my point. Bohm wishes to use science in order to study further the merits of non-scientific ideas such as paranormal phenomena. He would have made a great "Ghostbuster." ;)

i gotta confess i was a bit stunned when i saw all the new age terminology

;)

It is not a question of annihilating science, but of controlling it. Science is totally dependent upon philosophical opinions for all of its goals and methods, though it easily forgets this.
—Friedrich Nietzsche


*a letter


Dear John:

I too have been frustrated, in a variety of contexts, with how difficult it is to get people to see the importance of the "discovery business." Your thought that it would help if everyone came to understand that creativity is a deep, common, essential, and shared attribute is very much along the lines of my own thinking, but I had not previously been thinking so concretely in those terms. So let me take a crack here at saying what we both think we know, and if the letter turns into something you can use in your Discovery Scrapbook, so much the better.

People in our culture, by and large, tend to presume that someone, somewhere knows what is "right," and that each individual's task is either to be that particular someone or to work as hard as they can to learn from that someone what "right" is. Why this is so is an interesting question, one we may need and want to understand better, but let's just settle for some relevant pieces here. I knoe the mindset long predates science as a social activity, but that science certainly encourages it, and so it is appropriate that science should contribute to correcting it. In fact, looking across the sciences during the last ten or fifteen years and into the near future, I think such a correction is exactly the message that is emerging (significantly, not only in the sciences, but in the humanities and social sciences as well). In an enormous variety of distinct fields of inquiry the same general pattern is becoming clear: there is no such thing as "right," the very concept needs to be replaced with "progressively less wrong." The difference is far from semantic. "Right" is measured by proximity to some fixed idea, "progressively less wrong" by how far people have gotten from where they started. It is the aspiration to be "right" that leads to rigid hierarchical social organizations of all kinds, including educational systems. Wanting to be "progressively less wrong" takes one (and societies) in quite different directions entirely: it encourages life-long inquiry by every individual, a respect for past wisdwom and enthusiasm for contributing to future understanding, and an appreciation of the enormous value of interactions between unique individuals each of whom has unique perspectives to contribute.

Wanting to be "progressively less wrong" rather than "right" is, however, by itself a tough pill for many people to swallow. This is not only because of the words (we could, perhaps should, come up with something that sounds less negative), but because the underlying ideas themselves are alien and disturbing to many people, who have the feeling they know how to be "right" but have no idea at all how to be "less wrong," and for whom the whole thing sounds defeatist, to be settling for second best. This is the place where I think science has a very special role to play, one to which the work in my own laboratory can contribute. Not only science, but life itself, stands as testimonial to the reality that there is nothing at all either defeatist or second best about becoming "progressively less wrong." That is precisely what science is about, and is the very core of all social and technological "progress." More importantly, being "progressively less wrong" is the very essence of the biological concept of evolution, whose capacity to generate enormously complex and effective organizations has yet to show a limit, and still far exceeds anything of which humans are capable alone.

The trick, of course, is to translate this reality into terms which not only scientists but businessmen, politicians, indeed all individuals, can feel and understand, and to do so in a way which makes it clear that everyone is an active and responsible participant in the overall process, that every individual becoming "progressively less wrong" is an invaluable part of the global doing so. "Becoming progressively less wrong" is, as we both know, not an arcane or difficult skill: it requires only a capability and willingness to try out new things, coupled with an ability to critically evaluate and learn from one's experiments. The importance of critical evaluation is something our culture is aware of; the key importance of creativity, however, we seem somehow to have lost confidence in, become suspicious of, or forgotten entirely. Clearly, if leeches and frogs have the capability and willingness to try new things out (as our experiments indicate they do), then all individual humans certainly have it (as is evident, as you point out, from watching babies). More importantly, creativity and play are not, as sometimes thought, a luxury, to be indulged in only when real work is done, or a vaguely disreputable hazard, to be avoided when things get serious, or something that babies can be indulged to do but one should give up as one gets older. They are instead capabilities which are at the very center of the successes of all living systems, from individual organisms to complex societies.

I share your feeling that there are two ideas that need to be better understood, and that they are indeed closely related. One is the essential importance of the creativity of individuals, and the other is the nature of interactions among individuals, the social structure within which individuals function. As your intuitions have always suggested, the key to the latter is a better understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, which is indeed emerging as part of a broader scientific and intellectual revolution. The key here is the increasing realization that highly sophisticated and effective organizations can, and do in fact, emerge from the interactions of large numbers of independent but closely communicating creative elements. They don't depend on people knowing in advance what is "right," but rather on people having confidence in the creative potential inherent in groups of people sharing different perspectives and ideas, in exactly the same sense that they have (or should have) confidence in the creative potential inherent in all individuals, themselves included. Your tidepool, and our piece of it, is, it seems to me, very much a particular realization of this idea. It is designed not to cause particular things to happen in particular ways, but rather to provide the kind of permissive and supportive environment in which unknown desirable things will happen, simply because of the creativity and interconnectedness of individuals. Needless to say, from my perspective, the tidepool is not only an experiment in how things might work better, but a demonstration that in fact they do.



Best.

Paul Grobstein


how to cope with scientism (http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/cridal/misc/ogawa.htm)

Strategies for Dissenting Scientists (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/martin/1.html)

;)

how to rate a crackpot (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)



THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

28. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

29. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

30. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

31. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

32. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

33. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

most crackpots are crackpots...sometimes they are right (1out of zillion).

when I was still doing some history of science I was reading through the personal correspondence of this scientist. He was calling another guy a crackpot because his theory was so ridiculous. Most people were in agreement with him that this guy was a crackpot. After 5 years however the crackpot turned to be right and most people agreed with him.

this is however extremely rare. And 'genuine' crackpots (the ones that turn out to be not a crackpot) usually don't post their stuff on forums trying to impress the uninformed laymen.

well this kind of genuine crackpot, would score -4 on this scale, probably, whereas most crackpots on this board would score in the 100s.

having an idea that is widely agreed to be false only gets you one point on this crackpot scale.

Chroot

I was sat watching something the other day, and I suddenly was hit by this astounding fact. Crackpots are necessary!

The arguement was simple, If it wasn't for a Crackpot deciding to try and create a machine to fly, we wouldn't be able to go on vacations using Aircraft.

Quite simple I think, but it does prove that Crackpots have an ability that most scientists are scared to use....

(Thats LEAP before consider Looking)

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
The arguement was simple, If it wasn't for a Crackpot deciding to try and create a machine to fly, we wouldn't be able to go on vacations using Aircraft.
Welcome to Step 10.

And exactly who was this "crackpot" who invented flight? We watch birds fly around all the time -- so flight is demonstrably possible. All that was needed was someone to figure out exactly how birds generated lift. The Wright brothers did so. How were they crackpots?

- Warren

Chroot

I wasn't saying "from my opinion they are crackpots" I was suggesting that "from other peoples opinions" they were.

Just look at how many failed attempts at flying devices were created during that period, and when you have a look at what they flew in, would you feel 100% safe knowing that a tear in the fabric or a gust of wind could knock the craft out the sky.

They either had serious "balls" or were just enough of a crackpot to attempt it.

Another one I would mention is Nuclear Fission, although be military's of the world manage to push people into doing crackpot things for national security.

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
I wasn't saying "from my opinion they are crackpots" I was suggesting that "from other peoples opinions" they were.
I would generally define a crackpot as a person who does not follow the scientific method, yet still tries to create new science. I don't think the Wright brothers or Hahn and Meitner were regarded as crackpots by anyone, either living then or now. I think you'll have to stand alone with your opinion.

- Warren

chroot

I don't think the Wright brothers or Hahn and Meitner were regarded as crackpots by anyone, either living then or now.

They were regarded as crackpots by government bureaucrats and individuals alike, and were turned down time and again tying to sell flying machines - mostly because everyone thought that if two bicycle mechanics could build a plane, so could they.

All that was needed was someone to figure out exactly how birds generated lift. The Wright brothers did so.

Fixed-wing aircraft were being experimented with decades before the Wright Brothers - it was that Wilbur and Orville were the first to develop the simple idea of controlling the craft while in the air; ie. roll, pitch and yaw. ;)

....the simple idea....
Now it is. ;)

LOL CHROOT!!! Your my HERO!

My Crackpot Theory (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15526)
Here's a crackpot theory I posted a while ago. At least I knew it was a crackpot theory though, lol.

We watch birds fly around all the time -- so flight is demonstrably possible. All that was needed was someone to figure out exactly how birds generated lift. The Wright brothers did so.

Nicely put chroot - I have the same recurrent difficulty in getting across to some of my non-scientific drinking buddies the difference between a technological limitation ('we can't fly but birds obviously can') and a scientific limitation ('we can't fly FTL and nothing else seems to be able to'). The usual response is that I might be wrong. Of course I might, but it never seems to occur to my buddies that so might they.

Cheers,

Ron.