Talk:Essay:Crackpot

There was no definition here, and the definition and explanation that I found was taken in the main from : http://scienceweek.com/swbb/messages/bb236.htm. This was an on-line bulletin board and I thought the posting gave a pretty good all round account of a crackpot. I tidied it up a little.--AvengingAngel 14:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with point 4 removal, as it was probably redundant, but I do think we ought to re-insert some of point 3 back, in particular the bits in bold I think are important:

... when usually there is no "paradigm" in any Kuhnian sense, but merely a consensus view about a small scientific question. One basic philosophical failure of the crackpot is the failure to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized after the fact by historians and almost never during the time of the shift, and secondly that paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists and not of older scientists.

I will not revert the edit, but can we discuss this point? --AvengingAngel 15:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The crackpot don't fail to understand that; they tout that reason as further evidence of how their revolutionary ideas could be ignored by the establishment. I also don't think it helps to say that the crackpot can be presumed to be wrong because he is too old. RSchlafly 16:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

(1) Yes but crackpots are generally older, embittered people who for years have been ignored. I was trying to make the difference between young turks with wild new ideas, who have not yet been accepted, and old stagers who have had their day, and had their ideas rejected.

(2) I think the issue about paradigm shifts is well made. They are almost never in the time of the person making the claim, it's always after

The kinds of crackpot I have in mind are well described in a Book called "Do you speak Venusian" by Patrick Moore, or David Icke (an ex-TV Presenter who claims the British Royal family are lizards( you couldn't make this up!). I do think age is an issue here, and the paragigm shift, as they often quote that as the reason for not being listened to. If I rewrite that bit, can I re-insert?

--AvengingAngel 16:29, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

This is an absorbing discussion but it's past my bed-time. One point AA I think the R stands for Roger. NatWest 18:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Martin Gardner's book

Don't have it at hand and the Google Books partial preview lacks some of the key pieces, but in this book he uses the word phrase frequently and has a section in which he details what he says are the typical characteristics of "crackpot science." I think it's likely that he popularized the term. From the Google Books preview, points 3, 4, and 5 are:

3) "the crackpot believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against;"

4) "He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton."

5) "He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined."

Probably worth digging out and using in writing the article. Dpbsmith 18:39, 28 May 2007 (EDT)