Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schilling.klaus · 03-05-2008, 12:00 AM

only eccentric theories are trustworthy,
as truth is only understanddable by the eccentric few,
not by the broad masses,
as already known by Plato.

Klaus Schilling

dog-on · 03-05-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

only eccentric theories are trustworthy,
as truth is only understanddable by the eccentric few,
not by the broad masses,
as already known by Plato.

Klaus Schilling

You kill me, man... keep up the good work.

Solitary Man · 03-05-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I wouldn't know. Anglophone editors all consider it their duty not to discuss such subjects, so, whether the contributors think this or not, they cannot get publication.

It's still an appropriate for philosophical and theological journals, but the former are self-censured, and the latter do not like to put out something so blatantly questioning of their beliefs. How many prominent atheists speak at ETS?

Solitary Man · 03-05-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Well... theories come and go. But a good edition remains for centuries.

Hear! Hear!

mountainman · 03-05-2008, 04:34 AM

Touche.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

By the way, the biggest crank theory is of course the historical Jesus one!

The Historical Jesus is a well tenured and (still, after almost 1700 years, tax deductible and/or exempt) theological hobby horse.

We all know the idea has no evidence in the 1st century either from the Jews, or the Roman authors of that period. We all are simply refusing to swallow the bitter pill of the implications of this objective assessment. That is, we are not dealing with a history. We are dealing with a pseudo-history.

Sooner or later, the solidus will drop.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

No one would think of denying the label scientist to Kepler, right?

I would. Had the word scientist been invented then?

Oh, and let's try this formulation.

Quote:

Bacon, Francis
The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes the middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of philosophy (science); for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay up in the memory whole, as it finds it, but lays it up in the understanding altered and disgested. Therefore, from a closer and purer league between these two faculties, the experimental and the rational (such as has never been made), much may be hoped.

Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Liberal Arts Press, Inc., New York, p 93. (5) Available from Amazon.com

http://naturalscience.com/dsqhome.html

And I'm sorry, people who believe in the supernatural are by definition cranks and eccentrics. Just because they are a majority or scholars is irrelevant.

Solo · 03-06-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Though they do not always seem to feel anything.

Insensitive bastards.

spin

No, what Ben's talking about relates to Luke 10:19.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 03-06-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

No one would think of denying the label scientist to Kepler, right?

I would. Had the word scientist been invented then?

No. Had the word general been invented in the time of Alexander? Would you deny that Alexander was a general?

Quote:

And I'm sorry, people who believe in the supernatural are by definition cranks and eccentrics. Just because they are a majority or scholars is irrelevant.

This is the exact misuse of the term crank that I was referring to. You have invented your own definition for the term.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-06-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I would. Had the word scientist been invented then?

No. Had the word general been invented in the time of Alexander? Would you deny that Alexander was a general?

Quote:

And I'm sorry, people who believe in the supernatural are by definition cranks and eccentrics. Just because they are a majority or scholars is irrelevant.

This is the exact misuse of the term crank that I was referring to. You have invented your own definition for the term.

Yes, indeed, he has -- especially when one compares it to what's in the OED:

Quote:

5. colloq. (orig. U.S.). A person with a mental twist; one who is apt to take up eccentric notions or impracticable projects; esp. one who is enthusiastically possessed by a particular crotchet or hobby; an eccentric, a monomaniac. [This is prob. a back-formation from CRANKY, sense 4.]

But what this forum is really drowning in is posters who lay claim to knowledge about, and an expertise in, matters biblical, mythological, historical and academic that they demonstrably do not have -- and are unwilling to acquire.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-06-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think the term crank theory has been misused on this thread several times. A key ingredient of a crank theory, it seems to me, is its eccentricity. American Heritage Dictionary:

An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous.

Believing in miracles or in divine providence over the texts is not eccentric. It may be wrong. But it is the opposite of eccentric; it is quite traditional. Give scholarship enough time and maybe belief in miracles will be eccentric enough to qualify as cranky, as it were, just as belief in a flat earth has become by now.

To my mind, the difference in terminology here is that a person, no matter how smart, can embrace a traditional viewpoint, no matter how wrong, passively. He or she learned it from his or her parents, grandparents, childhood church, society, or what have you. But a crank theory has to be actively pursued, often against heavy social pressures; one does not passively inherit it, even if it is relatively well known. Doubtless exceptions might be sought out and even found, but I think this is generally true.

I urge, moreover, that neither traditional nor crank is to be cleanly equated with right or wrong. But I myself am suspicious of both.

Ben.

Hey Ben,

That is a good summary statement.

More than a decade ago, I was invoved in discussions
in the fields of physics, at which time there was created
what was termed a crackpot index which was
briefly described as "a simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics."

Out of parallel interest, here it is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAEZ

The Crackpot Index

A simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics.

1) A -5 point starting credit.

2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein,
or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence).

13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to ones past theories.

15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..

16) 30 points for claiming that when ones theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen as the sham it truly is.

17) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy"
to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

John Baez

Keen observers will note that there is nothing ad hominem
in any of the above, and that the key things being rated
are the ideas, not the personalities. It is the message and
not the messengers that are the subject of analysis with
respect to any rating on this physics related crackpot index.

Perhaps a simple crackpot index should be fashioned for BC&H?

Obviously the field of physics and the field of BC&H are not the
same. yet in their study, and in their analyses, certain similarities
do exist, such as the logical development of theories from one
or more postulates, or hypotheses, and the regard for that thing
people call "evidence".

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2008, 12:00 AM	#141
schilling.klaus Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 267	only eccentric theories are trustworthy, as truth is only understanddable by the eccentric few, not by the broad masses, as already known by Plato. Klaus Schilling

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.