Changes

True Crackpots usually have some formal training in science but are often unattached to any university, college, or research institute, and have usually reached a point where their papers and commentaries are refused by standard scientific journals as being of little interest. They form a "fringe" in any field, and it is often difficult to distinguish crackpots from bona fide scientists who hold minority views because the distinction is usually based primarily on behavior rather than on scientific contributions. The consequence is that a bona fide scientist with a minority view is unfortunately sometimes called a crackpot merely due to peculiar or disruptive behavior. Often crackpots are experts in one field but choose to make authorative assertions outside their area of expertise.   

True Crackpots usually have some formal training in science but are often unattached to any university, college, or research institute, and have usually reached a point where their papers and commentaries are refused by standard scientific journals as being of little interest. They form a "fringe" in any field, and it is often difficult to distinguish crackpots from bona fide scientists who hold minority views because the distinction is usually based primarily on behavior rather than on scientific contributions. The consequence is that a bona fide scientist with a minority view is unfortunately sometimes called a crackpot merely due to peculiar or disruptive behavior. Often crackpots are experts in one field but choose to make authorative assertions outside their area of expertise.   

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

2. As a consequence of continuing peer rejection, the crackpot becomes more and more strident with advancing age, until eventually one finds him doing vigorous vocal battle in fringe arenas, open forums, anti-science mailing lists, and magazines devoted to fringe ideas and readers who thrive emotionally on fringe ideas.

2. As a consequence of continuing peer rejection, the crackpot becomes more and more strident with advancing age, until eventually one finds him doing vigorous vocal battle in fringe arenas, open forums, anti-science mailing lists, and magazines devoted to fringe ideas and readers who thrive emotionally on fringe ideas.

3. In any serious discussion of a scientific issue, the crackpot will usually offer polemics rather than reason, invective rather than fact, and a harangue that he's a "revolutionary" against an "establishment". Sometimes he makes accusations of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] against him. At other times, the accusation is of "social control" of the minds of scientists. He appoints himself as the avant-garde of a [[paradigm shift]].

3. In any serious discussion of a scientific issue, the crackpot will usually offer polemics rather than reason, invective rather than fact, and a harangue that he's a "revolutionary" against an "establishment". Sometimes he makes accusations of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] against him. At other times, the accusation is of "social control" of the minds of scientists. He appoints himself as the avant-garde of a [[paradigm shift]]. However, this often represents a  basic philosophical failure in the crackpot to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized ''de post facto'' by historians and almost never while the shift is occuring, and that significant paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists who come up with innovative and significant ideas early in their career, and not of older scientists whose ideas have already been examined and rejected.