When exactly does one become a crackpot?

[Humes fork]

I know that even very bright minds have flaws and that we are all a little nutty. Shermer was for long skeptical of human-caused global warming that might have quite a lot to do with his libertarian politics rather than scientific data (just to be clear, I don't by any stretch consider having a libertarian political preference in itself as nutty). Randi questioned human-caused global warming in a very poorly reasoned way. The SGU crew are fans of Ray Kurzweil who is really a classic case of engineer woo.

And yet most of us wouldn't put them together with the real crackpots, like Deepak Chopra or the Discovery Institute. So where would you draw the line? I suppose there is some line to draw, however unsharp it may be. I guess we won't see Chopra or William Dembski being speakers at TAM anytime soon.

[Wowbagger]

Who says there NEEDS to be a line? There is a little bit of Crackpot inside all of us. Some of us are better at keeping it at bay than others.

Judge the specific deeds done. Not the person.

[IMST]

Thursday afternoon, usually.

[Montag451]

When when maintaining the idea in the face of any new evidence, ignoring existing evidence, cherry picking or just making stuff up.

[Jodie]

Calling speculation a theory or hypothesis.

[Halfcentaur]

They may have been wrong, but they were reasonably wrong. Deepak and the Institute are not reasonably wrong. They aren't reasonable at all.

[Brian-M]

It's not a case of someone being a crackpot or not being a crackpot, there's a sliding scale of crackpottery.

Here's a crackpot index for determining what level of crackpottery a theory falls into: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[JohnG]

When exactly does one become a crackpot?


Usually after ingesting too much crack and/or pot.

[JoeBentley]

There is no magical point or even really a continuous line. It's simply a mixture of dozens of different intellectual standards that can be weakened by appeals to emotions or intellectual laziness.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's not a case of someone being a crackpot or not being a crackpot, there's a sliding scale of crackpottery.

Here's a crackpot index for determining what level of crackpottery a theory falls into: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

That would seem to sum it up rather well.

[Earthborn]

One becomes a crackpot when one expresses a strong opinion about something outsides one's area of expertise.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

There is a little bit of Crackpot inside all of us.

I am going to write a self-help book for skeptics called "Embrace Your Inner Crackpot".

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's not a case of someone being a crackpot or not being a crackpot, there's a sliding scale of crackpottery.

Here's a crackpot index for determining what level of crackpottery a theory falls into: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Perhaps the scale slides, but I think if you hit 53 points you're going to have to present some very heavy evidence to prove you are not a crackpot.

After all, unless you have an empirically-tested GUT, "suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate" (a 30-point claim) is pretty strong evidence of crackpottery.

[ddt]

I see a market opportunity. I think I'm going to develop a course to become a certified crackpot.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

One becomes a crackpot when one expresses a strong opinion about something outsides one's area of expertise.

See also: Dunning-Kruger Effect

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I am going to write a self-help book for skeptics called "Embrace Your Inner Crackpot".

At least it comes in handy when writing fantasy novels.

Originally Posted by ddt

I see a market opportunity. I think I'm going to develop a course to become a certified crackpot.

Scientology has already beaten you to the market by several decades.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Scientology has already beaten you to the market by several decades.

Man, that's cold.

I'm not saying it is wrong , inaccurate, or undeserved in any way. I'm just saying it is cold.

[dasmiller]

(with my heartfelt apologies to Rudyard Kipling)

If you can keep your theory when all about you
Are finding flaws and explaining them to you,
If you can trust your opinion when all experts doubt you,
But blame doubters on orthodoxy, and peer pressure too;

If you can debate and not be swayed by debating,
Or being attacked, accuse others of lies,
Or being disputed, blame others for hating
And not look good, nor sound at all wise:

If you can dream, and your dreams are your master;
If you can think - and not let reason affect your aim
If you can assume you will triumph over disaster
And compare yourself to Galileo just the same;

If you can bear to hear the contortions you've spoken
Untwisted by sages to reveal you as a fool,
Or watch the logic you give your life to broken,
And keep using it, in defiance of logic's rule:

If you can make one summary of all your musing
And to prove it, a public prediction make
And fail, but keep faith despite losing,
And never breathe a word about your mistake;

If you can twist the words of Einstein, Birkeland, Cayce
To fit your scheme long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is no logical base
Except your tunnel vision which says: 'Right on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your ego,
Or dismiss orthodoxy but claim common sense,
If neither foes nor loving friends can dissuade you,
If all men discount you, and none rush to your defense;

If you can spam the unforgiving blogosphere
With sixty hours of Youtube runs -
Yours is the ultimate vision, never fear,
And - which is more - you'll be a crackpot, my son!

[Lamuella]

I think it's a spectrum rather than a line, but I also think that every time you favour the way you think things are over the way the evidence points your pot cracks a little bit more.

[jdc324]

That's fine work there dasmiller.

I might have to steal that and claim it as my own.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

(with my heartfelt apologies to Rudyard Kipling)

If you can keep your theory when all about you
Are finding flaws and explaining them to you,
If you can trust your opinion when all experts doubt you,
But blame doubters on orthodoxy, and peer pressure too;

If you can debate and not be swayed by debating,
Or being attacked, accuse others of lies,
Or being disputed, blame others for hating
And not look good, nor sound at all wise:

If you can dream, and your dreams are your master;
If you can think - and not let reason affect your aim
If you can assume you will triumph over disaster
And compare yourself to Galileo just the same;

If you can bear to hear the contortions you've spoken
Untwisted by sages to reveal you as a fool,
Or watch the logic you give your life to broken,
And keep using it, in defiance of logic's rule:

If you can make one summary of all your musing
And to prove it, a public prediction make
And fail, but keep faith despite losing,
And never breathe a word about your mistake;

If you can twist the words of Einstein, Birkeland, Cayce
To fit your scheme long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is no logical base
Except your tunnel vision which says: 'Right on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your ego,
Or dismiss orthodoxy but claim common sense,
If neither foes nor loving friends can dissuade you,
If all men discount you, and none rush to your defense;

If you can spam the unforgiving blogosphere
With sixty hours of Youtube runs -
Yours is the ultimate vision, never fear,
And - which is more - you'll be a crackpot, my son!

Nominated

[Stomatopoda]

Definitely a spectrum of crackpottery, but I'd say there is a crackpot point of no return when you start seeing any contrary evidence as evidence of a conspiracy.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by jdc324

That's fine work there dasmiller.

I might have to steal that and claim it as my own.

Originally Posted by JohnG

Nominated

aww, thanks, both of you. I was originally just going to do the last verse, and I wasn't going to sweat the rhyming, but it kinda grew . . .

[Tricky]

Try the Crackpot Index.

(I'll quote a few, but I'll try to avoid the spam rule. Follow the link for more.)

Originally Posted by Crackpot Index

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.

{snip}

[Beanbag]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Definitely a spectrum of crackpottery, but I'd say there is a crackpoint of no return when you start seeing any contrary evidence as evidence of a conspiracy.

Fixed that for you.

One becomes a crackpot when one reaches the crackpoint.

There. I've made my big accomplishment for the good of all mankind. I can die now.

Beanbag

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Beanbag

crackpoint of no return

I hope this becomes a new meme, because it is awesome!

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by Beanbag

Fixed that for you.

One becomes a crackpot when one reaches the crackpoint.

There. I've made my big accomplishment for the good of all mankind. I can die now.

Beanbag

*slow clap*

[Beanbag]

Thank you, thank you all..

Beanbag

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Man, that's cold.

I'm not saying it is wrong , inaccurate, or undeserved in any way. I'm just saying it is cold.

And in space, it is very very cold. Very cold indeed.

[Gr8wight]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

When exactly does one become a crackpot?

When the tea starts leaking out?

[Gr8wight]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

(with my heartfelt apologies to Rudyard Kipling)

If you can keep your theory when all about you
Are finding flaws and explaining them to you,
If you can trust your opinion when all experts doubt you,
But blame doubters on orthodoxy, and peer pressure too;

If you can debate and not be swayed by debating,
Or being attacked, accuse others of lies,
Or being disputed, blame others for hating
And not look good, nor sound at all wise:

If you can dream, and your dreams are your master;
If you can think - and not let reason affect your aim
If you can assume you will triumph over disaster
And compare yourself to Galileo just the same;

If you can bear to hear the contortions you've spoken
Untwisted by sages to reveal you as a fool,
Or watch the logic you give your life to broken,
And keep using it, in defiance of logic's rule:

If you can make one summary of all your musing
And to prove it, a public prediction make
And fail, but keep faith despite losing,
And never breathe a word about your mistake;

If you can twist the words of Einstein, Birkeland, Cayce
To fit your scheme long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is no logical base
Except your tunnel vision which says: 'Right on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your ego,
Or dismiss orthodoxy but claim common sense,
If neither foes nor loving friends can dissuade you,
If all men discount you, and none rush to your defense;

If you can spam the unforgiving blogosphere
With sixty hours of Youtube runs -
Yours is the ultimate vision, never fear,
And - which is more - you'll be a crackpot, my son!

Awesome and Awesomer!

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by IMST

Thursday afternoon, usually.

I never could get the hang of Thursdays. - Arthur Dent

[NobbyNobbs]

Quote:

When exactly does one become a crackpot?

Either at conception or at birth, depending who you ask.

[rambaldi]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

One becomes a crackpot when one expresses a strong opinion about something outsides one's area of expertise.

As long as someone realizes his opinion is just an opinion it's not that bad. The real crackpottery begins when people start posting their opinions as if they are undisputed facts (especially if said opinions are thoroughy debunked).

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

One becomes a crackpot when one expresses a strong opinion about something outsides one's area of expertise.

I disagree. Going outside of one's area of expertise CAN make one a crackpot, but it does not NECESSARILY make one a crackpot. The way you put it makes it all about credentials, and frankly it's rather trivial to find well-credentialed crackpots. The debate over plate tectonic and that over the Alvarez Hypothesis demonstrate that quite well. One of the guys involved in discovering DNA is a Creationist.

The key issue is how well reasoned something is, and the quality of the data supporting that reasoning. When a person makes statements absent supporting facts, or which are contradictory to available facts, they're a crackpot. If their statements do not contradict known facts and are supported by facts, they are not, no matter how wrong they may be. That really is the line, as there's no fundamental difference between crossing it a little and crossing it wholesale.

Also note that the availability of data is a key issue here. A deluded Creationist who was never exposed to evolutionary theory is wrong, but not a crackpot--they don't have the data. Kent Hovand has the data, and therefore is a crackpot. Equally, a scientist who finds data counter to the current paradigm and rejects it is a crackpot, while one who argues for their interpretation in the face of opposition because that's what the evidence currently states, despite being wrong (Wagner again comes to mind), is not a crackpot. That's important, because too often the term "crackpot" means nothing more than "one who disagrees with me".