Posted: Jul 15, 2011 10:56 pm
The question is what simpler means. Theories are sets of predictions, so we are basically talking about some way to define how simple a set is. One way to go about this would be Komolgorov complexity, but other measures might also be adequate...
On the other hand, quite a bit of pseudoscience I´ve encountered smashes you with a lot of "maths" and the parantheses are there because what this means is a lot of symbols used without the formal logic used in maths.
I have to interject there, because I think I´ve come under attack for this in the past, unfairly I think. QM does provide a justification for using stochastic models in a wide range of fields and that´s a germane point to be made in a lot of places - macroscopic systems are only approximately deterministic in properties for which you can use the law of large numbers, i.e. those that can be expressed as means of microscopic properties. A case in point are point mutations, which are pretty much the breaking up and fusion of some covalent bonds. Covalent bonds are rather stable, but they do break up at random intervals and this stochasticity is an effect of quantum mechanics. Point mutations can have markedly large scale effects and these also occur in a stochastic fashion.
It´s often a good indicator, but not always. Bolzmann felt this way and he was brilliant for instance. And sometimes the scientific community actually is a clique. The key to getting ideas in that seem far out is to show that they are actually better than what´s currently around and sometimes this takes a lot of work.
A final comment on papers: The advantage of a paper is that it´s peer-reviewed. This keeps some crap out. On the other hand some works have been published outside of journals that are good science anyway. Peer review in this case is people citing the publication and using it. Dawin didn´t publish a peer-reviewed article. Or for a more recent case: Signor and Lipps gave a talk on sampling effects in the fossil record in the 80s, which got a short non peer-reviewed article in the conference proceedings. It´s valid statistics and rather important, so this has been cited a lot and there are quite a few articles dealing with the Signor-Lipps effect or backsmearing.
In effect: It´s hard to figure out what to take seriously because there are counterexamples to every criterion.
Darkchilde wrote:Clue No. 1: Usually most people trying to do revelations in physics that are doing pseudoscience, have read a few popular science books and have decided that their pet "theory" is the next revelation in physics. So, they will have absolutely no maths. If you do not see any maths in it, chances are that it is pseudoscience. Notable example: Harley Borgais. No maths whatsoever.
On the other hand, quite a bit of pseudoscience I´ve encountered smashes you with a lot of "maths" and the parantheses are there because what this means is a lot of symbols used without the formal logic used in maths.
Darkchilde wrote:Clue No. 3: look for the word quantum and words that have no relation to QM, and yet they are being shoved together. Example is Nassim Haramein and Deepak Chopra with their "quantum consciousness" woo and similar.
I have to interject there, because I think I´ve come under attack for this in the past, unfairly I think. QM does provide a justification for using stochastic models in a wide range of fields and that´s a germane point to be made in a lot of places - macroscopic systems are only approximately deterministic in properties for which you can use the law of large numbers, i.e. those that can be expressed as means of microscopic properties. A case in point are point mutations, which are pretty much the breaking up and fusion of some covalent bonds. Covalent bonds are rather stable, but they do break up at random intervals and this stochasticity is an effect of quantum mechanics. Point mutations can have markedly large scale effects and these also occur in a stochastic fashion.
Darkchilde wrote:Clue No. 5: anyone claiming that they are misunderstood by the scientific community, that their ideas are scientific but that the scientific community is a clique or similar. persecution complexes, etc.
It´s often a good indicator, but not always. Bolzmann felt this way and he was brilliant for instance. And sometimes the scientific community actually is a clique. The key to getting ideas in that seem far out is to show that they are actually better than what´s currently around and sometimes this takes a lot of work.
A final comment on papers: The advantage of a paper is that it´s peer-reviewed. This keeps some crap out. On the other hand some works have been published outside of journals that are good science anyway. Peer review in this case is people citing the publication and using it. Dawin didn´t publish a peer-reviewed article. Or for a more recent case: Signor and Lipps gave a talk on sampling effects in the fossil record in the 80s, which got a short non peer-reviewed article in the conference proceedings. It´s valid statistics and rather important, so this has been cited a lot and there are quite a few articles dealing with the Signor-Lipps effect or backsmearing.
In effect: It´s hard to figure out what to take seriously because there are counterexamples to every criterion.