i used to be very open minded and i used to love posts like this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2847726&postcount=64)and this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2847695&postcount=19), for me they were utter geniues, an intellectual blend of philosophy and art that has science sticking out everywhere, but i find myself when reading those posts now[ as opposed to bishadi's similar posts about a year ago], i find myself thinking; "what a deluded bunch of idiots who think science is some hippy poetry", it was that type of skepticism that i was going to reply from to M. Mansouryar about his preposition of using the piezoelectric effect to produce significant electric power to help with the electric load of a hybrid[or fully electrical] car, throughout my bachelors study i've only come across the piezoelectric effect as being used in strain gagues, and producing very very low voltage to power anything like a lightbulb, let alone an electric car.

however, before i got to say that to him, he did me the favor of posting a wikipedia snip about piezoelectric motors, to my astonishment, they did exist, and gave electric power power of magnitudes more than my "engineering sense" thought they possibly could, and so i found myself instead of the one about to lecture the woo woo on his absurdity and nonsense, to being his student who's happy he learned he was wrong about something.

this whole thing reminds me of a scene from the movie "law abiding citizen", in sciforums we accept or reject something based on how it is phrased or structured, if the sentence is structured like science, full of references[which may be not so relevant, but nobody bothers to go through them anyway, just being there serves their purpose], and written in good english, it receives respect and not everybody gets to bash at it. if however it leaves much room to open thought, and isn't full of scientific terminology which most people just don't understand, then the masses just don't give it serious consideration, they reject and challenge it by default, because it is presented in a format they can wrap their minds around easily and play with in their hands.


how do we differentiate geniuses with clumsy communication skills from woo woos? are they really different??
how do we know we're not being like the church was to Galileo?
why does staying so long on sciforums make you sure the guy opposite to you is spouting nonesense? where does that confidence come?

Well there's one of your problems: thinking Bishadi had anything worth saying or that his nonsense had any value with regard to science (or reality for that matter).


how do we differentiate geniuses with clumsy communication skills from woo woos? are they really different??
Um, by reading the post carefully? They certainly are different.


how do we know we're not being like the church was to Galileo?
Ever notice anyone ask for evidence?
That's one way of distinguishing a crank from a Galileo. One will provide it, the other can't.


why does staying so long on sciforums make you sure the guy opposite to you is spouting nonesense? where does that confidence come?
Two possibilities:
1) you learn more about real stuff, and that lets you recognise what is and isn't worth anything.
2) you learn how the cranks comport themselves. Many can be spotted by their language (I've proved Einstein was wrong! My theory will be taught in all schools within five years! etc) without even reading what their claim is.

Yes sir. :)

I've learned a lot, hanging out here... become a better thinker. My best friend and I were texting...I forget what he said, but I said "What? what's your evidence?" and he said "Agh! the curse of Sciforums..."

Actually, I met my best friend, hanging out here, so it's been a good place for me.

why does staying so long on sciforums make you sure the guy opposite to you is spouting nonesense? where does that confidence come?

Learning the differences between shit and shinola.;)

Well there's one of your problems: thinking Bishadi had anything worth saying or that his nonsense had any value with regard to science (or reality for that matter).
lol, you've got it too personal with him to pass an objective judgment, i know you'd skin the scalp off his head if you were given the chance. however, i know that he spoke in riddles and mixed topics in a wild way, in a manner close to how me gi kal or emil post, english is not their first language and they come from cultures very different and share little with the westren world, no wonder even the way they interpret scientific facts and corrolate between them and their implications see weired. i really don't think bishadi is stupid, or that he's a quack, he's kinda like the buddha :D... i'd still won't trust him as a teacher for example, but i think if you give him a pure scientific or mathematical problem in his field i think i'd trust his solution.

on another note, what are my "other problems"? -besides being a theist of course :D-



Um, by reading the post carefully? They certainly are different.

a single post will not enable us to tell a genius with [I]communication problems from a woo woo with knowledge and information problems.

when you read the post carefully you're looking for something, the writer of the post may not have payed much attention to include what you're looking for in his post.

he may be asking for open mindedness in considering a new unorthodox idea and you may proving(to him) your close mindedness by demanding proof before all else.


Ever notice anyone ask for evidence?
That's one way of distinguishing a crank from a Galileo. One will provide it, the other can't.

excellent!
one may not be putting forward his idea or whatever through the scientific scope, in which case demanding "proof" in the scientific sense would be off context, in the same way galileo offering scientific evidence to religous people was off context.
lets not forget that the world and people in general do not adopt the scientific method in validating most of the information they gather in their lives, there's no reason to do that here.



Two possibilities:
1) you learn more about real stuff, and that lets you recognise what is and isn't worth anything.
true, but is that good?
won't that make you accepting new "real stuff" which isn't in league or doesn't follow the trend of all the real stuff you knew harder?
doesn't that more or less "indoctrinate" you what real stuff are and aren't?
it's a two edged sword really. like hardness and elasticity :(



2) you learn how the cranks comport themselves. Many can be spotted by their language (I've proved Einstein was wrong! My theory will be taught in all schools within five years! etc) without even reading what their claim is.

this is more dangerous
many times they sound cranks when they're not, you treat them like cranks, and end up making a fool out of yourself, this has already happened to me once with a guy who didn't reference his "wild" claims, and almost happened again here on sciforums.. both in those past few days, which is the reason i started this thread.

lol, you've got it too personal with him to pass an objective judgment, i know you'd skin the scalp off his head if you were given the chance. however, i know that he spoke in riddles and mixed topics in a wild way, in a manner close to how me gi kal or emil post, english is not their first language and they come from cultures very different and share little with the westren world, no wonder even the way they interpret scientific facts and corrolate between them and their implications see weired. i really don't think bishadi is stupid, or that he's a quack, he's kinda like the buddha... i'd still won't trust him as a teacher for example, but i think if you give him a pure scientific or mathematical problem in his field i think i'd trust his solution.
As far as I'm aware not only was English Bishadi's first language it was his only one.
And he didn't know any science. He knew the terminology and made up the rest. His main problem (apart from that) was that he was also incapable of expressing himself clearly.


on another note, what are my "other problems"? -besides being a theist of course
Isn't Bishadi enough? And I can just about forgive you for being a theist. ;)


a single post will not enable us to tell a genius with [I]communication problems from a woo woo with knowledge and information problems.
A single post won't be able to let us know that someone's a genius, but in many cases it's certainly enough to distinguish a crank.


when you read the post carefully you're looking for something, the writer of the post may not have payed much attention to include what you're looking for in his post.
I try to look at the claims made...


he may be asking for open mindedness in considering a new unorthodox idea and you may proving(to him) your close mindedness by demanding proof before all else.
Um, evidence, not proof. The first indicates that there may be something to consider. The second shows that it's been considered and is viable.


excellent!
one may not be putting forward his idea or whatever through the scientific scope, in which case demanding "proof" in the scientific sense would be off context, in the same way galileo offering scientific evidence to religous people was off context.
Galileo's evidence was self-consistent. Plus it explained facts already known. Cranks usually want to throw the baby out with the bath water.


lets not forget that the world and people in general do not adopt the scientific method in validating most of the information they gather in their lives, there's no reason to do that here.
This IS a science-based forum.
And the vast majority of cranks are looking to "replace" known science. Therefore shouldn't they conform to scientific practise to be considered as serious scientists?


true, but is that good?
won't that make you accepting new "real stuff" which isn't in league or doesn't follow the trend of all the real stuff you knew harder?
Don't new discoveries "follow the trend" of old ones? Science is an internally consistent discipline. No one part of it can be true if it contradicts the rest of science. This is where a lot of cranks fall down.


doesn't that more or less "indoctrinate" you what real stuff are and aren't?
it's a two edged sword really. like hardness and elasticity
Indoctrinate?
Science is about examining the evidence and seeing where it leads. If there's no evidence then you can't follow it can you?


this is more dangerous
many times they sound cranks when they're not, you treat them like cranks, and end up making a fool out of yourself, this has already happened to me once with a guy who didn't reference his "wild" claims, and almost happened again here on sciforums.. both in those past few days, which is the reason i started this thread.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree, BUT if someone claims something without presenting evidence then, regardless of whether they're a crank or not why should you take any notice? Any fool can make an unsubstantiated claim, therefore anyone who expects to be taken seriously should be prepared to support his claims. If he doesn't it's his own fault.

Great thread,Thank you to all those who posted...., keep them coming : )