Well, I had read all of your post about distingushing the crackpots and the rather rational theories. Nasor, chroot and shmoe had provided lists with rules which looks to some extend reasonable. But I dont see any simple way to make the difference between a reasonable but contradicting with modern physics theory and a crackpot. Probably this problem is too complex to be solved by several simple rules.
Xgen: Have you read this? [thread=18984]Science vs. Pseudoscience - A primer[/thread] A crackpot is somebody who peddles pseudoscience. For the difference between science and pseudoscience, see the linked thread.
Simply Xgen is now in very strange situation: he has opened this thread ... against people like ... me. And what he got? The thread against people like ... he!
The late review was necessary as I hadn't read it through uintil now. Any previous post here was incomplete. Do you actually believe that the truth of a matter needs a peer review and the other things you mentioned? You are saying that the system will provide the truth? What of the reviewers ifbiased, in error, caught up in the rush of momentary excitement? Has this aver happened? Repeat bility? I have brought such matters to your self described astute frame of mind that indicated lack of repeatibility, you hand wave things away as you utter the "thousands of scientific experimental results support etc . . .and you have never wondered on occasion why I and others, doth protest, pr aps a bit too much. . ." This post and some of your action posts are sympathetically ill and only unmask the workings of a propagandist, though to be sure a sincere propagandist. Systems touted as being there for you to start cranking out the truth are more than highly suspect, they are by definition corrupt. geistkiesel.
The truth is that you are more crackpot then me. We both are presenting here and at other places in the web ideas which I think that most properly can be called "extreme" to modern physics. Your Vacum Liquid Theory is as much extreme as my own theory about relativity (called VDT - Vacuum Displacement Theory), my theory about el. particles (called Snake Model) , my theory about space-time and so on. The difference is that I can present the essense of my theories to a one sheet of paper. I will lose only 5 minutes from your time, and if it is bullshit ok tell me so , I had heared and before (I am not a touchy one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We stop our conversation and everyone folows his way of studing the Nature. And what are doing you? You make enormous posting, you flood the forum with tousend and tousends of words, you had made books with many and many pages, speaking about some strange unprovable your visions about some waves, the space-time, particles, gravity .... You are the crackpot here Yuriy. I can't prove it (it is very hard to prove anything to a person that produce so much information) but your approach is wrong. Since I had not experimentaly validated my models and theories, from outside I may look as a crackpot so there is nosense to go further. In this kind of the mood of the modern physics I had no chance. So I will shut my mouth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and I will watch the show. But you dont know what you are missing guys...
My respect to your thread James. Acually your criteria is close to mines. But things are much more complex in reality. Lets thake your first rule: There is one thing called math. If one prove something with math he dont need to make any kind of experiments or tests. Also a really sub-structural theory about particles and space-time would be very hard for validating. For example I think that I can describe very well what is the graviton and how happens gravity at micro scale. But noone, nowhere and never will be able to detect one graviton and to prove explicitly and experimentaly that this particle exist. The reason is that it is too simple. This however do not means that it do not exist. Without it all the particle and theirs interactions cant be described and understood. Another complication. Many experiments are imposible or too expensive to be realized. In CERN for example experiments are taking some time more then decade and sometimes hundeds of milllions $. And only result from them is that more experiments are needed. The truth is that there are no complete theory about particles. I remember an interview with Jack Steinberger in 2001. He is maybe the most experienced experimenter in history of particle physics (nobel prize winner for muon neutrino detection in 1988). There he says that he do not believe that experiment is the way and that we need a new theory of particle which goes far beyond the Standard Model. If we closely stick to the experiment we may need a milenium to understand what is going on down there. Not that I am againt the experiments. But developing theories is also important. And the science had reach a level where incident discoveries are very unlikely to happen. Only a theory can enlighten the situation. As Einstein had said - you will see the truth not with your eyes but with your mind. And even if I had ideas for experiments who will give me the millions of dollars to realize them? Who will give me the super-computers and particle accelerators? If you had noticed I constanty offer experiments - PASD, muon beams experiment, doppler experiments and so on. But I cant do everything by myself. And why do I need?
Just out of curiousity, where do you get these crackpot criteria if not products of insecure personalities and bias? Lets take a look at some of them: 1) Degree: People are perfectly capable of pursuing understanding of various subjects on their own, in fact some people are merely slowed down by structured learning... What is the logical basis for this type of thinking anyways? Most people don't even remember what they learn in college much less are able to think creatively with it. 2) Theory that contradicts known scientific principles: Most of the time the people claiming this don't even have the philosophical understanding to tell when a theory contradicts what information the scientific body of knowledge has thus far gathered. Or know what a "known scientific principle" really is for that matter. 3) Wary of people brainwashed at Universities: A legitimate concern considering most people don't have the initiative or desire to challenge or think beyond what they are taught in the classroom. Let me ask you something... What percent of people do you think have actually had access DIRECTLY to enough information to have logically justified their beliefs in any one scientific theorem, idea etc? Less than 1% maybe? To most people the claims of science are taken on authority not any kind of direct experience... People do not exist from 3rd person perspectives where they have direct access to a "scientific body of knowledge" floating in space. What percent share the same beliefs regarding science? Most... That is pretty much the DEFINITION of brainwashing. If the content of this brainwashing reflects reality, it may be morally justified but its still brainwashing. But even that much can not be assumed as bias and human error are both factors in the content of the scientific body of knowledge. 4) Proving something which contradicts that which is already known: It happens... where do you think people get the inspiration to try this... 5) Making up terms: Actually everyone does this when they do not agree 100% with someone elses ideas. If they do not, confusion results as they try to redefine known terms according to their theories.. 6) Unwillingness to accept wrongness: Well respected Scientists, Mathematicians and Philosophers all throughout time have had this same problem, most likely being responsible for unessecary delays in progress as they used their weight to dissuade people from following new lines of reasoning. Maybe it would help if you stopped calling people crackpots out of your own insecurities. Perhaps then people would be less fearful of showing the natural human trait of fallibility. 6) logic mistakes: Any logic mistakes made by people asserting theories are usually going to be more complex than blatantly begging the question. And all kinds of intelligent people in the past have made complex mistakes that ultimately reduce to simple fallicies such as question begging. Furthermore often times what people such as you consider a mistake has more to do with semantics and the fact that the person isn't using your (or your establishment's) dogma (terms... which I already adressed). So rather than understand what the person is saying you just construct a straw man argument and beat it down. 7) Presenting complex ideas clearly (that aren't what 90% of the population already know from school) is something extremely difficult that everyone has trouble with and noone has mastered.
Kriminal99 wrote: A degree gives more than just raw knowledge. It cultivates a methodology for doing things successfully in a particular discipline. And most people I know with degrees use their knowlege every day and make lots o' money with it. What kind of illogic plays down a degree of any kind? Yes, especially the people making the claim in the first place. Must... fight... mind... control... aarrrggghhhhh.... You mean the ones who actually succeed at it? By learning the details of their field, then creating and testing hypotheses in order to explain discrepancies or contradictions in the current theory. Creating a new theory of the universe to explain non-problems due to your own inability to understand a theory is crackpotism. Yeah? So? All physicists agree on existing terminology. If a new model is proposed, terms are rigorously defined. This is a suprisingly good point. However, once aired, not all positions deserve equal time and attention. We all have our limits. So (one would hope) do you. There are groups that assert the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, alien bases are inside the hollow earth, etc. Crackpots, every last one. No. If a person is proposing an alternate to SRT (and in fact says SRT is a piece of crap) they better state the new theory in correct physical terms, and define new ones as required, clearly. Just a note: dogma - "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof" Anyone who applies this word to science in general or the terminology used by particular fields is a crackpot and really has no business speaking about science. Completely true. However, some have a much better time of it, especially those trained by years of study and experience in their field.
kriminal99, are you sure you are using the propeer words? I think not. You should be using the word "braindirtied" , not "brainwashed".
Hey, I resent that "no bachelor's degree" remark! I dropped out of college at age 19 to pursue my own path of learning. After I wrote a book about the relationship between nature, culture, and human development, I was contacted by the renowned biologist Jonas Salk, who said "finally, someone has appeared on our planet with a paradigm appropriate for our times." When I met him in person, he told me that conventional organizations' non-acceptance of me due to lack of academic credentials was just a part of evolutionary divergence. I have since returned to school to finish a degree, but only because I fell in love with teaching and actually had a compelling reason to go back.
1) But they aren't using their degree or making money with it. A large portion of training is required to take someone fresh out of college and turn them into a valuable employee. Why do you think work experience is considered so much more important than college (or more college for that matter) There might be specific degrees geared toward specifically training someone to work in a field (most are tech schools) but most are not. A few people take things that they know OTHER than what is directly useful in a job field and use it to improve how they do their job, but those people are exactly the ones with the kind of initiative that they wouldn't need structured learning. 2) Without any valid criteria for judging someone as a crackpot, what would be your basis for claiming someone didnt have an philosophical understanding of what contradicts scientific evidence etc? If anything the fact that they aren't accepting the status quo would indicate they have SOME potential for this type of thought. On the other hand aggresion at the slightest hint that someone doesn't agree with you or that which you have agreed with is a probable sign of LACK of philosophical sense. 3)Learning the details of a given field need not be done through the same channels that you might use. The world inspires all understanding of it, no scientist ever invented the reality which makes their theories true. In math and the phenonmenological aspect of psychology no capitol is even needed to pursue research. And in many scientific fields the capitol needed for investigation is not beyond the means of a single interested person. Nikolai Tesla is a good example of someone who on their own had a much better understanding than science on EM fields. In several of his demonstrations he had radio controlled cars long before this type of technology was "invented" by other scientists and engineers. It seems infinitely more likely that you would be angered at the fact that someone could be knowledgable in a field without pursuing the same laborious channels you did, and therefore you (and other likeminded people) would attempt to block them out or take credit for their work. (or claim the things you are claiming) Its not really paranoia, just recognition of human nature. 4)The fact that the "potential crackpots" disagree with the status quo is a seperate issue, so since you agree that terms have to be redefined when a new theory is created weather or not the "potential crackpot" does this is irrelevant. 5) Superficial evaluation of a theory is not always correct. For instance regarding "the world is flat" there is actually a sense this can be argued. People never thought the world was flat in the sense that it didnt have ditches or hills and valleys etc. They had a specific definition of flat in their minds that was reserved just for the appearance of the world. It quite possibly could have been limited to the sense experience that they weren't constantly walking up hill - in which case they could not be claimed wrong because they are not speculating on the appearance of the world from space. You could even put it in today's scientific language: The world is flat in the sense that on average the suface is perpendicular to the earth's gravitational force. Had you told a philosopher in early times that the world was a giant sphere, he might have said "I cannot rule out this possibility". This type of thinking could spawn a new type of logic - (more relevant to philosophy than science) and the person might have used "The world is flat" to get attention. And this is pretty much an extreme case of what you are claiming... Of course if you REALLY have a limited amount of time you should look at what you think is most likely to be meaningful. However for reasons previously outlined you are likely to claim this is the situation when it is not if you were in a position of power over these types of theories. 6) The purpose of the use of the word dogma to describe scientific terminology was to emphasize my point, and I am far from the first person to have done this. The word has many working definitions including a vocabulary related to a specific belief set which has no value due to it making it easier to communicate or due to being somehow closer to reality than any other possible vocabulary set describing the same thing. The minute someone, ANYONE, disputes a scientific theory (or comes up with a better naming system) the vocabulary related to it becomes dogma for the reasons outlined in #4 of my original post. I think you understood what I meant just fine. Pointing to something like this when the purpose of language is to communicate is another sign of lack of philosophical sense... And there is no such thing as absolute proof... 7) Actually what you have claimed is far from the truth. The people who have an easier time presenting complex ideas are those with philisophical sense. While incredibly inefficient, admittedly a person COULD recieve this kind of sense through an extreme amount of experience presenting ideas and having them criticised in their field. On the other hand, they could learn it at the age of 12 arguing with people their age on weather or not god exists. In any case it is something that is the focus of philosophy of language, and philosophy in general. How you would even come to the conclusion that abillity to communicate complex ideas would increase with experience in a field is beyond me. If anything people in this situation, while having the advantage of being recognized as the main effort in a particular field (which is far from being an authority), are basically intellectually isolating themselves from the general populace. They increasingly become wrapped up in their own vocabulary which neither allows them to communicate their ideas effectively nor has any unique claim to realilty.
These are taken from my post so I feel compelled to respond. I'll point out the disclaimer in my original post that I'm better equipped to find the mathematical cranks than the physics ones. My criterea (and my responses here) reflect this. A degree means they have met some academic institutions yardstick of competence. This still allows for a broad range of competence, but call it a second opinion. It's also a certificate that some basics of the subject were at least put in front of them, whether they understood or not. It's not just a matter of recalling many facts tossed at them during school, they will have had ample time for their work (even if it's just homework assignements or tests) to be evaluated and should have some ability to recognize when they've buggered up. One thing I learned pretty quick at university how to tell if my work was total rubbish. The majority of nutters I've seen lacked any formal training in mathematics. There are also nutters who are phd's, so it can go both ways here. The swell thing about math is this just won't happen. If you're going to declare that pi is rational, you're out of luck. Again, the swell thing about math is this generally doesn't happen. For the most part, mathematics is very very cheap. You can scrutinize past work by looking it up in the journals where it's all laid out in front of you. There's no need to build your own multi-million dollar particle accelerator to test an experiment. This is something I've always appreciated about math vs. other sciences, nothing is hiden from me. Now there is the odd result that requires some heavy computer power, but the code or algorithms used is usually available, so that can be scrutinized by anyone. See 2). Of course, if you are definiting some new previously un studied property then you'd need to give it a new name. The problem I was originally refering to is when you take standard terminolgy and use it to mean something non-standard or when you make up your own terms without actually explaining what they mean. Usually I know when my work is crap. If I have something I think is good, and someone else tells me it's crap, I will definitely take the time to consider their points. Most of the nutters I've run into will start getting aggressive no matter how politely you point out there errors. Despite what they may think, it's not always a problem of their work being so brilliant others can't understand what they are doing. Sometimes everyone else can clearly see the crappiness. At this point it's worth re-examining your work, but a dedicated crackpot won't bother. No straw man is necessary when someones 'proof' of the riemann hypothesis involves assuming that the zeta function is one-to-one. Somethings are just bloody wrong, it has nothing to do with semantics. Of course, some people just have a hard time explaining themselves. However, when someone has spent the past x years on their pet theory, why they hell haven't they spent any time polishing it up so it's at least mildy presentable? I'll stress what I said before, none of my criterea are necessary or sufficient conditions for me to consider someone a crackpot. They're all warning flags if you like. The more flags that are waving, the closer you should look.
Well math certainly involves less subjectivity in grading then other classes but I see the following problems related to even math classes. Of course the highest math courses I have had were linear algebra and multivariable calculus so this doesn't really apply to proof based classes because I don't know how they are run. Most math professors often have a serious lack of understanding of the learning process. They frequently encourage the idea of "work hard" rather than "work smart". Basically, they have the mathematical formulas they teach people and then they provide extremely complex real world applications of them as problems. There is a gap of information, namely problem solving and math application skills, that are not strictly considered mathematics so they are left out. To make up for this, math professors ask people to sit there pooring over it for hours until they happen to reinvent the method of applying the formula to that specific brand of problem. The most of a hint they give them is a worked out example to reverse engineer the application skill from. Meanwhile someone outside of school may find the problem solving/application skills directly from various sources OR have derived them from other problem solving skills they previously developed to survive outside school. The point is while university math students may have end up with a limited set of problem solving skills which mostly apply only to the problems they worked in class, someone proficient in math outside of the university would almost have to have a large repitoire of problem solving application skills. (of course there might be people who aren't that good at math but claim to be otherwise) Also I have studied history and philosophy of mathematics as well, and what I have noted is that mathematicians who are responsible for things like current convention, lack all semblance of philosophical sense. By this I mean everything from conducting debates with extremely immature tactics to lack of ability to consider alternative ideas to the ability to look at their own ideas objectively and critically, to providing relatively hollow arguments that more echo current vulgar opinion than have logical value. ( that last one is my opinion of course and only directed at some of them) My professor in that class (a phd in mathematics) even said himself that he believed that from the time of cantor there seemed to be a profound, orthodoxy type commitment to a certain type of thinking that rivals that of the most devout followers of christianity. He claimed that it was to the degree that faith in certain beliefs and values came first and proving them logically came second. He said that he would be afraid to lecture on this in front of the math department for fear of being physically lynched. That mathematics is any less up for debate than any other subject in existence is an illusion. That is exactly the kind of thinking that would lead an outside thinker to categorize someone like you as "brainwashed". If you are familiar with the 1920's debate regarding the foundations of mathematics between intuitionists and formalists you would see clearly what I am talking about. The intuitionists believed that mathematis existed only in the mind and that communicating it was near useless. If you wanted to create a math where 6/7 was zero you could and it might be useful. The formalist believed in creating a mathematical system that was consistent and complete such that everyone could use the same system to solve any problem and so there would be no reason for anyone to have a different system of math than anyone else. The possibility of what the formalists wanted was disproven with the Godel incompleteness theorum. (Not that the intuitionists "prevailed") Yet their type of thinking is still prevelant for different reasons - If everyone had their own math system communication would be more difficult. But then again without the possibility of this the kinds of math problems we can solve is limited. That pi is not rational (as you define pi and rational) is not a complicated issue. This is equivalent to any simple deductive logic operation in any philosophical argument. People never disagree on the clearest reasoning. If you think that math is exempt from the type of murky issues that cause debate you are mistaken. How to deal with the concept of infinity is an obvious example. This is related to your evaluation of people being "nutters". If someone shows up and says pi is rational because it is defined as the limit of some infinite sequence of adding marginal widths of equal side length/ equal angle polygons as the number of sides increases (or subtracting marginal difference in length of diagonols as the number of sides increases) your evaluation of them being a "nutter" would be purely superficial. The sum of rational numbers is always rational, the only reason pi appears to be otherwise is because we never stop adding more fractions to it. If infinity were to end one day, then pi would finally be rational. You haven't gained the ability to tell when your mathematical work is rubbish. You have been swayed into thinking a certain way so that those who hold the most sway in the mathematics community can more easily retain the control and respect they have gathered thus far. And just as a pack wolf defends an alpha wolf, you turn and attack the outside thinker for criticizing or not adhearing to the current thinking. I commend you in choosing math over science however, where at least you CAN look at the reasoning of those presenting the arguments. A subject doesn't have to be new or unstudied for it to be a good idea to make up your own terms. Of course you have to define them but if you simply disagree with the established argument on a subject you might want to define new terms to better distinguish your argument from theirs. Im not sure if you were arguing with this or not... Excessive aggresiveness is not a good sign you are right of course. However don't be too critical I mean after all bad arguments usually take the form: if A were true then B would be too, and the person just hasn't considered all the possible reasons why A might be untrue. They aren't really just plain stupid, and outside thinkers who are prone to anger usually get that way because they know that professionals criticize excessively out of insecurity that they didn't follow the same channels, and they know that sentiment may not be justifiable logically. (Im leaving the defense of the professionals to others, I'm not saying they are bad either) If the outside thinker is smart, he will get to the same point you speak of. After all, that we are having this conversation means that you, a professional, have criticized the work of some of these "nutters" which is exactly what you said is an important factor of what is experienced at school. You say that some situations are blatantly a case of being wrong. I say that even in those cases it isn't so simple. Lets say you teach a math class and 200 previous students come and "prove the riemann hypothesis by assuming the zeta function is 1 to 1". All of these students when you point it out say "oops your right I didn't think of that". Lets say then #201 comes along, but this time he has a good reason to believe that the zeta is 1 to 1.(hypothetically) This argument might even contradict reasoning that was thought to have been solid. But you never ask him and just count it wrong. You have just used a straw man argument. Now lets assume his argument is right, and not only that but his argument is what was driving the intuition that the zeta function was 1 to 1 in the previous 200 students and they just didn't know it. The situation has suddenly become a lot more complicated. Kind of hard to run a class when you take this into consideration. Thats why University tries to force people to think and act a certain way, so they can control, organize etc. At the same time this prevents alternative thinking. For some of these people polishing their pet theory is all that concerns them. There may be people that died with a theory of relativity long before einstein due to lack of communication skills. In my linear algebra book, it speaks of chinese farmers practicing matrix algebra since ancient times. It really just depends how far away their motivation is from social recognition and how close it is to need for truth. However I happen to agree with you that at least some social interaction is needed to develop the ability to criticize your own work. (and in fact I believe this is where my understanding of reasoning came from) "The more flags the closer you should look" - Nothing wrong with that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And you think this sort of statement shows you to be something other than a nutter? "If infinity were to end one day, then pi would finally be rational" ??? You nutters crack me up.
If by 'university math student' you mean someone who hasn't left the second your 'regurgitation type' classes then perhaps. We clearly have vastly different perspectives in what a math honours (or graduate) student will learn in the course of their degree, but I'll tell you creative problem solving is very much encouraged. Sure, you can debate whether or not the accepted foundations are good, or even usefull. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about this. Some mathematician once said that mathematics is about studying how numbers behave, not what they are (can't find the exact quote right now). What isn't for debate is what I care about, how things actually behave under the widely accepted system. I don't really care if the current way of things is ideal or not, because it's still friggin fun to work with. This would mean one of two things to me, either they don't have a clue on how limits work, or they are using their own version of things and are working in their own system. If someone want's to live in their own little mathematical world, that's fine. But they should not make claims about anyone else's, especially if they don't understand it. I'm glad to know that you, who admit to no math courses beyond a multivariable calc class and really don't know me from a hole in the ground, know what I've learned in my classes. Sure, but why the hell would you not stick with established conventions? I'm going to call "doors" "fibblworfs" from now on. I'm going out the fibblworf now. If you're talking about the same thing, just use the established words. If you're talking about something new, than don't use old terminology to refer to your different concept. It's just common sense to avoid confusion. Let's suppose these 201 students come in with their belief that zeta is 1-1. I stand and stare at them in shock. I ask them "where the hell were you when I taught you about the functional equation? How the hell do you not remember all them trivial zeros? How the hell do you expect a function with more than one zero (actually infinitely many) to be 1-1?" Maybe I should have used a more obvious example, but this was one of my favorites. It's as wrong as someone telling me I have 17 legs. Some things are just wrong. I guess I just didn't notice the mind control at university. Must have been that low-protein gruel they were feeding me along with the sleep deprivation and constant bellitlement.
Problem solving skills were VERBALLY encouraged where I went to school as well. But thats not what I am referring to. What I am saying is that their methods of encouraging this are very ineffective. Mainly, that they want people to do tons of similar problems until they learn how to apply math to a certain type of situation. What I am claiming is that if they consiously became aware of more general versions of these types of application skills then they could teach them directly and the net result would be people could use this in combination with their formulas to analyze all kinds of situations mathematically without doing 1000 similar problems. If I am going to try and teach myself math then I know Im going to need help. So basically what I do is look all over the internet for people explaining the reasoning they use to apply math skills or look for books that are recognized as the most effective teaching tools. The foundations of mathematics are only irrelevant if mathematics is well founded. If a lot of mathematical proofs are based on poor reasoning and mathematics has misused the concept of infinity then it could impede progress in fields which depend on this reasoning. Trying to understand our concept of number is just a way to try to find the answer of how we should deal with the infinite and the continuum, not the goal of people who look into these types of things. That a math set is socially accepted, or even coherent does not mean it has any use. What if poor reasoning ingrained into our current math system is impeding our progress? Have you ever heard of the diagonol argument for why real numbers are non denumerable? Er I wasn't b s 'ing on that PI thing btw. Think about it... If something is the limit of the sequence that means the difference between the result of that sequence and the limit is infintessimally small (or else something else would be the limit), anotherwords they are equal. (Proof, .33 repeating equals 1/3, 1/3 * 3 = 1, .33 repeating * 3 equals .99, therefore .99 repeating = 1) But the sequence I just depicted, the limit of which is pi, will always be rational. Therefore Pi must be rational, or math is self contradicting. You might instead hold that math IS self contradicting, but then you could hardly call someone saying pi is rational flat out wrong. Btw there is no such thing as a perfect circle. That would be an infintessimally small length followed by an infintessimally small change in angle repeated an infinite number of times. This non-mathematical fact is the very reason why pi is a so- called "transcendental" number. There is no "real" value of pi floating around at the limit of the formula I provided that is not rational. It simply doesn't exist. The net result of what I am trying to point out is that someones math work being rubbish is subjective. If you are looking for social acceptance then if people tell you your work is rubbish you will believe them. Thus your work will center around following convention, or doing other things that you think will make people like you like giving other people credit for things you figure out by saying things like "this is related to what so and so did" (that ones not as big in math but in other fields it is) If on the other hand you are simply searching for truth for its own sake and don't really care what other "hairless monkeys" (just giving an insight into this line of thought) think or weather or not they can understand your work, then your work will revolve using whatever methods it takes to figure something out. These people have their work called rubbish by people that don't understand it all the time. The terminology thing is not as clearcut as you might like to think, and this problem CAN even effect mathematics. For instance you might talk about sets and be talking about the same thing in general as everyone else, but believe that they have to be defined a certain way. If someone else shows up and hears you saying something based on this belief, but they don't believe in the same requirements as you, then confusion will ensue. Therefore people come up with a new name to differentiate the old sets from the new, even though they are alike in almost every way other than one small requirement. This is why people make up new terms for old words - because they aren't EXACTLY the same idea. My response to the zeta function was hypothetical (if that was not obvious) because I don't know the zeta function (although I probably have a book with it in it). Really the only capacity for someone to be wrong objectively is when they are self contradicting. This IS of course very possible because people do not follow the consequences of their reasoning to their very ends nor do they always seek out their reasons for beginning to believe in something. But you can never be sure that someone else has not thought of something you have not, seen a later consequence that you have not, or found a condradiction with the foundations that you may not have. The latter is of course the most likely to happen because moth mathematicians concentrate on the first two. The last one could very well happen, and if someone realizes that a certain type of proof or reasoning contradicts the foundations of math (consious or otherwise) and they are able to prove it then they have a good argument. For example people are always trying to prove that the cantor diagonol argument for why real numbers are non denumerable is bogus, but have trouble because the answer of how to deal with infinity really lies in phenomenology or psychology not mathematics. Also I happen to believe for example that proof by contradiction is not a proof. I will tell teachers this as well when they try to give one and the usual response (despite being unable to deal with my argument why) is to stomp their feet and give me worse grades for the remainder of the class irrespective of the quality of my work. To be honest I'd rather be a nutter than just plain stupid. No person ever has the capacity to use or concieve of PI now as anything other than a rational number. That is noone uses an infinite chain of digits to represent pi in a calculation. Whenever you talk about PI you point to a rational number. If the sequence that were to create pi ever ended it would be a rational number. Yet somehow there is this magical concept of pi floating between the finite and the infinite that is not rational, but that noone could ever give a value for? It doesn't exist.
What, I didn't necessarily call him stupid... I merely stated that I'd rather be a nutter than stupid. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
