How to be a Crackpot: a 12-Step System

Status
Not open for further replies.
Xevious

If NARCAP was a legitimate organization, why then are all references cited completely concerned with UFO's ? Why are there no references and no information available on aviation safety from any aviation organizations ? Why is NARCAP interested in UFO conspiracy theories ? Why would NARCAP be interested in ET ? Why would NARCAP even consider mentioning anything at all to do with ET ?

In my opinion, NARCAP is fraudulent and Ted Roe is a UFOlogist. If you think otherwise, I would suggest you place a call to any aviation safety organization and find out for yourself. In fact, let me help you:

http://courses.unt.edu/madden/WWW/wwwlinks.html

BTW - did you notice NARCAP anywhere on the site I linked ? ;)
 
Well, Xevious, I'm a pilot. And I've never heard of NARCAP in any context in any of my ground-school or dual instruction time. I'm working on earning my IFR rating, and I still have never heard of NARCAP. By itself, this doesn't mean NARCAP is a fraud -- but it certainly is damning evidence when considered alongside the kooky stuff he claims to "study." It seems no one in the aviation industry, or in the governmental aviation regulation agencies, gives much of a hoot about NARCAP.

The fact that he lists several ex-NASA employees is also not enough to really convince me these people really work for him. I honestly believe he's simply name-dropping to make himself sound more credible. I've seen neither work from these fellows on NARCAP stationery, nor any references to any. Proof is in the pudding.

- Warren
 
Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I am glad you heard me out and didn't flame me at least. I do appriciate you showing me why you consider him a crackpot. It's just that I run into flamers all the time and can't tell "skeptics" apart from skeptics somtimes. If you aren't careful about how post, how can I tell the difference?

At the risk of damning myself, If I may ask, why didn't I make the crackpot list?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Xevious
At the risk of damning myself, If I may ask, why didn't I make the crackpot list?
Click to expand...

Would you like me to go review your posts and assign you a score?

- Warren
 
Heck, someone do a critique of Adam and put him on the list!
 
Originally posted by Adam
Heck, someone do a critique of Adam and put him on the list!
Click to expand...

People who refer to themselves in third person are automatically crackpots. :p

- Warren
 
Pfft! I'll refer to myself in the fourth or fifth person if I can figure out how to do it.
 
Originally posted by chroot
Would you like me to go review your posts and assign you a score?

- Warren
Click to expand...

me please!

thanks

;)

ps: if clarification is needed feel free to msg me!
 
Adam

Wouldn't that be:

She talked about him, being me?

Or something like that.
 
spookz:

Well, you don't post much to the Physics or Astronomy forums -- which are my areas of expertise. You may post crackpot theories to the Psychology forum, but I am be unable to evaluate you in that field. On the basis of what I found from you in the Physics and Astronomy forums, though, there's only one example of strong crackpottery: your post on the "Holographic Model," which is nicely situated at Step 13. However, you didn't defend the model, you just quoted someone else's recap of it. Therefore, the conclusion is:

inconclusive

- Warren
 
chroot
i must confess i am disappointed by your findings. anyway when i posted the "holographic model" it was because i was intrigued and found it plausible enough.to post. it is actually two theories, one for the universe (bohm) and the other for the brain (pribram) i was disappointed by the lack of response and then assumed it must considered a "crackpot theory" by sciforumers. i had done some googling on the originators of the theory and came up with david bohm and karl h pribam. their credentials seemed adequate enough to prevent me from dismissing it out of hand

crackpot #1

"Born in Wiles-Barre, Pennsylvania on December 20, 1917, he studied under Einstein and Oppenheimer, received his B.Sc. degree from Pennsylvania State College in 1939 and his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1943. He was the last graduate student to study with Oppenheimer at U.C. in the 1940s, where he remained as a research physicist after Oppenheimer left for Los Alamos to work on the atomic bomb. He worked at Berkeley on the Theory of Plasma and on the Theory of Synchroton and Syndrocyclotrons until 1947. From 1947-1951 he taught at Princeton University as an Assistant Professor and worked on Plasmas, Theory of Metals, Quantum Mechanics and Elementary Particles.

Bohm was a member of the Royal Academy, the originator of the causal interpretation of quantum theory, and the author of a famous text on quantum mechanics and of numerous articles and other books. The best-known recent work was Wholeness and the Implicate Order. He wrote his classic book, Quantum Theory, in an attempt to understand quantum theory from Nils Bohr's point of view. After completing the book and communicating with Einstein on it, Bohm remained unsatisfied with the theory. Bohm's challenge to the conventional understanding of quantum theory has led scientists to re-examine what it is they are doing and to question the nature of their theories and their scientific methodology"

http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html


crackpot # 2

"Karl Pribram was trained as a neurosurgeon and then devoted his career to elucidating the structure and function of the cerebral cortex, relating human clinical experience to his neurophysiological and neurobehavioral studies on nonhuman primates. He discovered the visual functions of the temporal lobe and the relationship of the anterior frontal cortex to the limbic system. His theoretical writings include the topics of perception, emotion, memory, and planning.

Born: Vienna, Austria
February 25, 1919

Education:
University of Chicago, B.S. (1938)
University of Chicago, M.D. (1941)

Appointments:
Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology (1946)
Yale University (1948)
Center for Advanced Studies, Stanford University (1958)
Stanford University (1959)
Distinguished Professor, Radford University (1989)

Honors and Awards (Selected):
NIH Lifetime Research Career Award (1962)
International Neuropsychological Society (President, 1967)
American Psychological Association
Division of Physiological and Comparative Psychology (President, 1967-1968)
Division of Theological and Philosophical Psychology (President, 1979-1980)

Menfred Sakel Award, Society for Biological Psychiatry (1976)
Realia Honor, Institute for Advanced Philosophic Research (1986)
Outstanding contributions Award, American Board of Medical Psychotherapists (1990)
Honorary Ph.D. in Psychology, University of Montreal, Canada (1992)
Neural Network Leardership Award, International Neural Network Society (1994)
Honorary Ph.D. in Neuroscience, University of Bremen, Germany (1996) "

http://www.cts.cuni.cz/events/pribram.html


would it be possible to explain how this theory qualifies as a "step 13". how it goes against established models, what laws are being flouted etc
( i am a physics and math illiterate so keep it simple)

thanks for your time

;)

ps: a few links relating to the subject matter are provided below

review of talbots book @ amazon

Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation

Models of the Universe

Quantum Millenium, Quantum Universe. Quantum Worlds, Quantum Man.

The Holographic Principle and M-theory

How Holographic Memory Will Work (this is for computers-same principle?)

holographic universe@google

holographic brain@google
 
Last edited:
spookz,

Your point is....?

I have never asserted that Bohm or Pribram were crackpots. I have several of Bohm's books, including the Dover edition of "Quantum Theory," on my shelves.

I simply stated, quite correctly, that the "Holographic Model" is a crackpot theory.

Many similarly talented folks can be found doing similarly foolish work (brane cosmology, etc.). Luckily most of them get back on track sooner or later. I find no fault in someone exploring a new possibility -- only in someone dismissing contrary evidence to protect a new possibility. Most scientific pursuits end in failure -- the few who do not accept this are those I label "crackpots."

- Warren
 
ok
a crackpot theory maketh not a crackpot scientist.
my mistake.

so in theorizing about the holographic universe, i am wondering what laws or established conventions bohm flouted. what is the evidence to the contrary he ignored?

my point to all this is pure academic curiousity.

;)
 
The idea of nonlocality can be supported, experimentally and theoretically by physics under certain conditions. However, if one extends nonlocality, as Bohm implies, to include the entire universe, then the uses of nonlocality in these cases are very different and are not supported by physics.

A scientific model carries scientific information and leaves no room for non-scientific interpretation, regardless of its implications. The holographic model, which extends past scientific interpretation therefore, enters another realm, that of metaphysics.

:)
 
Xevious,

Well, I browsed through the first seven pages of the search results for your posts, and I didn't find anything particularly crackpotty. But then again, most of the threads you post to (about UFOs, etc.) bore the shit out of me, and I didn't bother to read any of them critically. Maybe you are a crackpot, maybe you aren't.

Why do you care what I think anyway?

- Warren
 
Originally posted by (Q)
The idea of nonlocality can be supported, experimentally and theoretically by physics under certain conditions. However, if one extends nonlocality, as Bohm implies, to include the entire universe, then the uses of nonlocality in these cases are very different and are not supported by physics.

A scientific model carries scientific information and leaves no room for non-scientific interpretation, regardless of its implications. The holographic model, which extends past scientific interpretation therefore, enters another realm, that of metaphysics.

:)
Click to expand...

by this you mean just because the speed of light under controlled conditions (lab) can be exceeded doesnt mean it can be replicated in a natural environment (universe)?
 
spookz

by this you mean just because the speed of light under controlled conditions (lab) can be exceeded

This, as far as I can tell, has not been done. If so, can you provide a reference ?

However, I think you're missing the point. Bohm attempts to combine the scientific interpretations of his model with that of non-scientific concepts. That is why it is considered metaphysics and is not accepted as rational scientific theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top