Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Crackpottery

The Sensitive Scientists’ Guide to Crackpots

All you need to know to make an informed choice as to the type of crackpot you want to be:

Type 1. The Pre-crackpot.

Choose a way-out idea; the more outlandish, the better.
Shout loudly about its veracity. Post in large font with lots of bold type and vivid colours.
Deny the qualifications and/or sanity of anyone who does not accept your theory without question.
Frequently indulge in name-calling.
Berate and verbally abuse anyone who asks a question.
Never accept that any part of your idea could be wrong.
Never answer questions, or even give the impression that questions might need to be answered.
Always be rude and abrasive.

Type 2. The Fin-crackpot.

Select an idea. Spend lots of time and effort turning it into a theory that will overturn accepted scientific belief.
Write a book.
Acknowledge that your idea could be wrong (but, of course it isn’t).
Accept that any relevant experimental results are valid, but question the interpretation of such results.
Appear to answer questions, even if you usually evade them.
Use plenty of repetition.
Never indulge in name-calling, however tempting it might be.
Always be courteous, it’s very disarming.

Type 3. The Sorin-crackpot.

Think of a theme, rather than an individual theory. (E.g. all current scientific belief is absurd).
Post long, involved explanations about various scientific ideas that demonstrate your point.
Link to lots of obscure references in languages that few (if any) will understand.
Use emotive terminology.
Suggest that all current scientific ideas are maintained by some form of conspiracy.
Having posted, vanish until you are ready to fire your next broadside.
Always avoid discussion.
Never answer questions.

Type 4. Rev-crackpot.

Select a broad-based concept.
Post long rambling contributions, about anything.
Where possible, answer a question with another question. Where this is not possible, answer a different question.
Make your answers as long and convoluted as possible.
If you agree with something someone has said, do it in such a way as to suggest something else might have been better.
Ensure that any point you make can be taken in as many ways as possible, this makes it easy to wrong-foot people.
Occasionally mis-interpret something someone has said so you can be “hurt”.
Counter a perceived criticism by defining a word from the “critical” post, whether the definition is relevant or not.
Always be polite.
Never paint yourself into a corner where God is concerned.

Type 5. BS-crackpot.

Think of an idea that has “infinite” ramifications.
Defend it with lavish verbosity.
Admit that your ideas are probably wrong, but act as though they were right.
Persist, niggle, argue; always politely of course; never back down.
Resist being drawn into mathematical arguments; you will undoubtedly come off worse.
Always answer questions. Whatever the question, try to refer to infinity somewhere in the answer.
Never let a serious discussion stand in the way of getting silly.

NB. This is purely a work of fiction any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is completely accidental.

I'm glad I don't recognize any body from SAGG in your post. It is nice to have a forum where we have nice polite discussions about real science.

Bill Gill

On almost any other forum I would suspect a touch of sarcasm there, but not on SAGG, of course.

I note that an instance of Type 1 has reared its ugly head again. One must accept that mods sometimes have a tricky task weighing freedom of speech and expression on the one hand against crass provocation and abusiveness on the other. In such cases, the ball tends to be in the court of forum users, and it's my hope that they will not demean themselves by providing direct responses to that uniquely unsavory brand of Crackpottery.

Never seen any of those types ... really I haven't :=)

I checked out the link. The thing that I really liked in it is the reference to string theory. I tend to agree with what was said. I am far from being able to understand any of the math, but string theorists are talking about stuff that doesn't seem to have much to do with the real world, they can't even tie their work to any real observations. It is all mental gymnastics, with no evident reality.

Bill Gill

Bill, I'm a little sorry to say this, because I have a sneeking liking for string theory, but I have to agree with you. With much less regret, I have to say the same for multiverse theories. Having said that, I'm only a hitch-hiker, so what do I know.

At least you could tie string theory to other stuff!

That's (K)not bad!

I was just thinking how easily a thread can become silly, then I remembered; this one was silly when it started.

Im glad we now have a few established guidelines for reference purposes just in case we get a real crackpot in the forum.

this way we can tell who the actual crackpots are.

mostly I believe that most people who are considered to be crackpots are being considered to be crackpots by actual crackpots!

but the actual crackpots actually believe themselves to be
non crackpots because the so called knowledge they have acquired along with the so called knowledge that there peers have acquired fits into the same sized box with the same lettering.

and if someone comes along and tries to put more stuff into their box they and there peers reject the stuff because there boxes are already full , they didnt get expandable boxes.

and besides their boxes have a lock on them that prevents insertion of new stuff.

it doesnt really matter if the stuff is right or wrong stuff , it just wont fit in with the stuff they already have in their boxes.

so they just decide that any new stuff couldnt possibly be correct or worthwhile stuff that should be put in their boxes even if they could put more stuff in their boxes.

which they cant.

they will have to get expandable boxes first.