From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Detecting crackpots - for laymen?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:19:44 GMT

In article <1541700002@gn.apc.org> antennae@gn.apc.org writes:
>
>
>As a non-physics person who stumbled into this conference by accident
>and stayed out of fascination, it seems to me that you are all behaving
>very oddly towards Professor Abian.
>
>If his theory (not a syllable of which can I understand) is wrong,
>why can't the brainiest of you give a proper scientific proof once and
>for all?

I hope you have received an adequate explanation by now. Briefly, it
can't be refuted because it is nonsense. The concepts as expressed by
Abian only LOOK like physics to a layman, like yourself or Abian. By analogy,
suppose someone were to move into a circle in which you are an active
particpant and insist that "The widget frabitzes the boff!" Then when you
ask what a widget is, he says "That which frabitzes the boff, of course!"
And finally when you ask him politely to find (if he can) a group of
people who might be more interested in his ideas, he yells "The widget
frabitzes the boff and you people are jealous of my brilliance and are
ignoring my ideas out of selfish and dishonest motivations!" 

I think you raise an interesting question, though. Although I am working
in a physical science (planetary fluid dynamics) I am mostly a watcher in
this group, and much of what is discussed here is quite beyond me to
decipher, much less distinguish between sense and nonsense. I suspect that
Abian's is not alone among the nonsense, but I am not equipped to judge
in some other cases. However, in his case it is quite obvious to a mere
oceanographer. I call your attention to his "proof" that 1/(1 + z + z^2)
is unequal to 1/(z^2 + z + 1), for instance. 

I think that the question of how to distinguish nonsense from science is
a very serious one, though I am not sure this is the appropriate forum
to discuss it. Physicists do tend to think of themselves as an elite,
rather than in the public employ, and tend to be particularly weak in  
conveying their ideas to the public. This is certainly due in part to
the nature of the material, but one might wish that more effort could be
made. Judging from this newsgroup my assiduous reading of pop physics
(and my feeble attempts to get something out of the Scientific American
articles on particle physics) have still left me forty years behind on
even a qualitative understanding of current topics.

In climatology, we have to constantly deal with people who are fabricating
or selecting evidence to show that real problems (ozone hole, greenhouse
effect, acid rain) are nonexistent, while another group fabricates evidence
for non-existent problems (vanishing rainforests depleting atmosphere of
oxygen). As these have major bearing on public policy, separating the wheat
from the chaff is a serious practical problem.

In physics, as applications are distant and hypothetical, and understanding
is the real goal, the public policy dilemma is even more intractable if less
urgent. It is enormously difficult to distinguish between genuine insights
into the ever more bizarre knowledge base of physics and nonsense. 

As far as I can see, the best one can do is trust the consensus of the field.
But scientific communities do occasionally go off on wild goose chases and
the less they are in contact with the rest of the world, the more likely
that no one will call them on it. 

I really don't think you are all just more sophisticated versions of Abian,
you physicists, but I am not entirely certain! Can you convince me to the
tune of 4 gigabucks, for instance (the price of a Supercollider) that you
are still making some sort of sense? 

I've gotten some flak in sci.environment for mentioning a "BS detector".
I must say I have a pretty good one, I think, but it isn't infallible.
Can someone suggest a reliable way to filter out nonsense posing as science?

>The oddest thing for me is how those who claim to be most scientifically
>orthodox attack Abian in the most emotional terms.  Has science always
>been conducted in this way?

Crackpots have been posing as scientists ever since there were scientists,
and scientists are enormously frustrated by the fact that they often
manage to attract more public interest than real (sober, serious and
complex) science. The emotional response is understandable, if ill-advised.
One hopes for a better approach. My point is that ignoring this sort of
thing is insufficient, precisely because conveying their results to
the society is what society pays the scientists for, and identifying the
crackpots is the least the professional community can do.

In any case, it is a safe bet that the more emotional outbursts are
coming from less experienced scientists, and, I would bet, mostly 
undergraduates.

>Finally, how much of the physics that all of you spout has been learned
>from books?  And how much by creative thought and experiment?  Are most
>of you merely parroting conventional wisdom and if so, isn't that at the
>very least rather boring?

The answer to this question is much more interesting than a person who
doesn't know much science can fully understand. Despite my provocation
in the above, briefly the answer is no. 

Surprisingly little learning from experiment is necessary to validate the 
astonishing consistency, complexity and symmetry that is found in the books.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to convey this to people who haven't made
the journey themselves. As a result, some tend to undervalue it. On the other
hand, there are those who have made the journey who overvalue it, too.

mt