Are You A Quack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yazata said:
The expression of frustration/rant in the O.P. was apparently written by a physicist. But despite not being a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist, he's nevertheless purporting to identify what he describes as a new 'psychosis', a new psychiatric illness, one that's unrecognized by the professionals in the mental health field and is most definitely not in the DSM-5.

Isn't that the definition of "quackery"?

Kind of self-refuting, I'd say.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the step "condemn anyone who disagrees with you as a psychotic quack" in the scientific method. It doesn't bode well for science if it can't handle criticism. It becomes more like a dogmatic religion at that point. Demonize and ostracize but never hear out opposing views. I thought truth was strong enough to defend itself...
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Hey it's your personal cap. You're the one who tailored it. Are you calling me a quack now?
Click to expand...
it's not his "personal crap"...
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-you-quack.html

Magical Realist said:
Are you calling me a quack now?
Click to expand...
how well do you fit the profile? test yourself - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

because i can guarantee that others also score your posts (and others) based upon a similar index or list


Magical Realist said:
It doesn't bode well for science if it can't handle criticism. It becomes more like a dogmatic religion at that point. Demonize and ostracize but never hear out opposing views,
Click to expand...
science is effective because it HAS criticism. it is based upon it... but it is not criticism by belief, rather it is criticism based upon evidence.

this is the big difference between a "quack" and another scientist making a critique (or point) because a counter to any scientific point should be based upon evidence or some logical argument that can be tested, verified, validated and repeated.
 
This is precious. The only people who would object to this thread and take it personally are those who acknowledge it applies to them.
 
how well do you fit the profile? test yourself - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

because i can guarantee that others also score your posts (and others) based upon a similar index or list
Click to expand...

I don't profile myself or submit to profiling. I'm not a profile. I'm a human being. And who is "scoring" my posts? What's so hard about just reading them and thinking about them like any normal person would do?

science is effective because it HAS criticism. it is based upon it... but it is not criticism by belief, rather it is criticism based upon evidence.
Click to expand...

No...not all criticism requires evidence, and not all evidence is sufficient. A case can be made against a theory on rational and logical grounds as well.
 
Magical Realist said:
In other words, if you don't agree with the OP, then you must be a psychotic quack. How scientific! lol!
Click to expand...
More like: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It doesn't much matter whether you agree with the duck or not.
 
sideshowbob said:
More like: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It doesn't much matter whether you agree with the duck or not.
Click to expand...

So the walking like a duck is the disagreeing with the OP, and the duck is a psychotic quack. Makes perfect sense. lol!

 
I think a 'quack' is someone who tries to pass off opinions/beliefs/philosophies as factual, and uses circumstantial ''evidence'' or fabricates ''evidence'' to back up their assertions. I don't recall Magical Realist ever doing this. He tends to posit his own beliefs, and how he's come to them, but that doesn't make him a 'quack.' Forcing others to believe what you believe with no objective ''evidence'' to back it up, would fall under ''quackery.''
 
sideshowbob said:
Are you too busy laughing to answer it? Why would you get bent out of shape if somebody noticed your hair colour?
Click to expand...

So we've gone from being called a psychotic quack for disagreeing with an OP to someone just noticing your hair color. LOL! I can't stop laughing..
 
sideshowbob said:
How can you "force" others to believe anything?
Click to expand...

''Force'' meaning becoming argumentative when someone doesn't agree with your beliefs. Religious people do it, philosophers do it. There seems to be a notion here that Magical Realist does it, and I don't think he does. He usually just presents his beliefs on a subject (for example, ''time travel'') and then presents what he feels is fitting evidence. But, he's not saying that we should all believe it as fact. He is stating why he believes it to be potentially true. That's not a quack to me.
 
wegs said:
''Force'' meaning becoming argumentative when someone doesn't agree with your beliefs. Religious people do it, philosophers do it. There seems to be a notion here that Magical Realist does it, and I don't think he does. He usually just presents his beliefs on a subject (for example, ''time travel'') and then presents what he feels is fitting evidence. But, he's not saying that we should all believe it as fact. He is stating why he believes it to be potentially true. That's not a quack to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think part of the forcing that occurs on the part of the conventional science fans here is this blackballing of posters who present views and evidence that contradict their own worldview. It's a typical sociological phenomenon which can be seen from country clubs to gangs to political parties. It's how the ever vulnerable herd defends itself from outside invaders who would present subversive ideas and facts and threaten the unity of the group. The group's credo is enforced like a law on the members and all must march in lockstep to the cadence of infallible science. Heretics are quickly sniffed out, labeled, and banished all in the name of the holy standards of the group. Conform like sheep or be cast out into the outer darkness.
 
Last edited:
Just in the interests of Siegel's emotional stability, he probably needs to stop reading unsolicited communications from individuals who aren't professional physicists, if those communications make him so angry that he launches into violent rants. (Does he throw things at the walls too?) He sounds too tightly wound in my opinion. (I'm not a shrink, so I'm not diagnosing any sort of mental illness.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top