From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: In defense of crackpots ( was Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture: )
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:14:57 GMT

In article <6774@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>In article <C03HC5.98n@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:
>[..]
>>1)  Some of the great ideas of science were once ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
>>2)  My ideas are ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
>>3)  Therefore my ideas are some of the great ideas of science.
>[..]
>I've seen this argument so often that I begin to doubt it. I mean,
>crackpot logic isn't that stupid. The logic is, I think (but who can
>fathom the abysses of a crackpot mind?):
>
>1) My ideas are unconventional, so you laugh at them;
>2) But unconventionality, even apparently ridiculous, is no counterproof;
>3) The example of XXX shows that the implication "ridiculous ->wrong"
>   doesn't hold.
>4) Therefore your observation that it's ridiculous is not sufficient to
>   prove me wrong.

That sounds reasonable.  I have the impression that the Galilei argument
above is a sort of try to get us more open-minded, which is of course based
on the misperception that we aren't...  First break the ice with those
ignorant skeptics by surprising them with the new fact that science changes
 - "they laughed at Galileo", "more things between heaven and earth" -
then perhaps they will think a bit and finally take your new theories more
seriously.

In fringe discussions one often sees arguments ripped out of context, and
this could be one of those cases.  (The "the doctor exerts greater tidal
force than planets" argument shows that tidal forces are not the reason for
astrology, but it is of no use as a general reason against astrology.
Nevertheless it is often used that way by people who heard it somewhere,
liked it, but didn't understand the context.)

Maybe those general remarks about ridicule of great ideas were once made
by someone who thought along the lines of 1 - 4 above when confronted with
something like "That's ridiculous!", and now they are repeated again and
again by others who never knew the real intention behind them.

>Maybe it would be a good point to know which "great ideas in science"
>started out (supposedly) as crackpot ideas, and some information about
>how quickly they were accepted would come in handy too.
>
>Here's for starters:
[..]
>The Wright brothers.  (Often quoted by TM people). Did people laugh at

What is TM?  Transcendental Meditation?  Technical Mechanics?

[..]

Columbus.  Opposed by laymen who didn't even know the earth was round,
and by experts who didn't buy his low figures for the earth radius (which
were wrong).  Had he suggested another continent instead of a round-
the earth trip, on the basis of driftwood coming from the west, maybe more
people had believed him.

Wegener, anyone?

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
"Every three months I tell all of the new recruits that they are supposed to
stand here and not there to get their uniforms, but they just don't learn!"
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2676 alt.conspiracy:13637 alt.alien.visitors:9543 sci.skeptic:21927 alt.paranormal:2741