Crackpot Bingo - Advanced Reference Materials

References for Individual Card Entries

Built-in cards have a code at the lower right of each square. Below you will find a point-by-point list of references for the items listed in the squares.

It is important to note that many of these, if not most, are not guarantees that a position is inherently flawed; they are just major warning signs that the position warrants critical examination before being accepted. Jumping on every and any example of fallacious reasoning puts you at risk of the Fallacist's Fallacy, because not all immediately indicate falsehood.

We are not infallible. If you find mistakes below, corrections are welcomed. But be prepared to back up your claims.

Quick jump to a reference code:

Code:

Codes are found at the lower right of each square.

No such code: "ph004"

Physics Crankery
Logical Fallacies
Creationism
Intelligent Design
Anti-Vaccinationists

Physics Crankery

ph001

Cannot show entire theory in case of theft

Science works in the open. If no one can see your entire theory, your calculations, predictions and data, it cannot be independently verified, and is no better than a bald assertion. Cold Fusion, Piltdown Man, and numerous other instances of false discoveries tried to bury their evidence, and it was only through full disclosure of all of the evidence that they were revealed to be fraudulent. By scientists, checking the work of others.

Penalties for fraud in academia are severe: censure, automatic rejection of journal submission, and spurning by colleagues; and there are methods that can be used to indicate ownership, varying from (occasionally flawed) intellectual property laws (copyright, patents, etc.), to more simple solutions. There is simply no excuse for not publishing one's work.

If you are in this situation, for a simple solution, you may consider writing/printing out all of your work, and mailing it to yourself. If your country does not list the date on postmarks, you can use a return-receipt request. The postmark should be admissible in court if it were to ever be an issue.

ph002

Claims relativity or quantum mechanics misguided

Both of these theories are validated by copious amounts of evidence.

Some of the evidence for general and special relativity:

Some of the evidence for quantum mechanics:

The evidence all works in tandem supporting itself, and fits within the expectations of the respective theories. In order to overturn these, a new theory must at minimum be able to explain all of the above, as well as provide additional explanatory power.

It is worth noting that both of these, at the time of their discovery and formalization, overturned well-accepted theories (Newtonian mechanics in the case of relativity, and relativity in the case of QM.) Thus, there was great motivation to disprove both of them. But the evidence of their predictions and effectiveness became irrefutable, and because of the evidence, they were eventually accepted. These are therefore perfect examples of the principle of "following the evidence".

ph003

Begins description of theory by stating time spent on it

While this is not an immediate indicator of a flawed hypothesis, and in fact may be a point in its favor, the amount of time spent working on something in and of itself does not directly indicate how true it is.

ph004

Invents / inserts fudge factors to get desired answers

Another one that is not an immediate strike-out for the proposal, but is a major red flag, especially when the factor has no apparent bearing on the calculation at hand.

As an experiment, come up with some arithmetic combination (+,-,*,/) of your age and your shoe size, multiplied by any coefficients you like, to get the number 42. You will see that it is very easily done. And you will also see that it provides no explanatory power, and does not even qualify as a coincidence.

However, as I said, this is not itself an immediate indicator of crankery. Einstein famously did this with his Cosmological Constant, to try to make the universe stationary. He regretted it, but perhaps to his credit, it posthumously turned out to be useful to explain the pressure of dark energy.

ph005

Calls you Nazi / brownshirt / jackboot thug, etc.

Pure ad hominem.

Critical analysis by supporters and detractors is part of the process of validating a hypothesis (alongside testability and predictability.) If a hypothesis is valid, it will stand on its own, regardless of what anyone says about it. For instance, arguing about the reclassification of Pluto does not change the fact that there is an object out there orbiting the Sun every 248 years.

Calling critics of one's hypothesis names is almost always a red herring to distract from a lack of substance, evidence or explanatory power.

ph006

Multiverses, therefore anything goes

Multiple universes, parallel universes, the "Ultimate Ensemble", the "Many Worlds" interpretation, and other similar hypotheses have been discussed and proposed as possible explanations for some of the seemingly "fine-tuned" constants in our universe, some peculiar behavior at the quantum level, and other seemingly strange and counter-intuitive aspects of our shared reality.

However, as of yet, there is no concrete evidence for such interpretations, and thus attempting to use it as an explanation for postmodernist "anything goes" relativism is an example of a flawed premise. There are actual constraints on reality in our universe, whether we like it or not, and ignoring this fact offers no explanatory power.

This is not to say that multiple universes will eventually not become the case, but right now, as there is no evidence for it, it is jumping the gun to draw conclusions based on assuming it is true.

The anthropic principle provides a perfectly parsimonious explanation for these values: we could only be living in a universe that is capable of giving rise to us. To a species who was never around, it wouldn't even be able to say that the universe was not "fine-tuned" for it. Furthermore, we are only capable of surviving in a vanishingly small portion of our own planet, much less the universe as a whole.

We evolved to fit our environment. To assert fine-tuning is not unlike imagining a puddle marvelling at the shape of the crack it is sitting in being perfectly tailored to itself.

ph007

Antigravity, therefore ...

Like the last entry, there is as yet no evidence of a repellent force similar to gravity, and thus drawing conclusions assuming it exists is flawed.

It is indeed peculiar that gravity is so much weaker than any of the other forces, and does not have a corresponding anti-force, but it may be the case that it is simply not possible in our universe.

Asserting knowledge in this area is, again, jumping the gun.

ph008

Names something after self

Again, not an indicator of the truth of the proposition itself; more an insight into the character of the proposer. It may be a warning sign that the person is more motivated by personal glory than discovery. It is mentioned here because it often goes hand-in-hand with many of the other items on the card, often with hilarious results.

If a proposal has truth value, explanatory power, and utility, it will stand on its own, regardless of the discoverer. And if it is truly revolutionary, the theory will be inextricably linked with the discoverer down through history.

However, people are flawed and of diverse personalities, and scientists are people, and as such, arrogance is not unheard of, even among great discoverers.

ph009

Favorably compares self to Galileo

Speaking of arrogance...

Galileo was great not because he challenged the extant orthodoxy, but because his ideas turned out to be true, and they offered great explanatory power.

It is not sufficient to just challenge what is perceived as "orthodoxy" (though in his case, it was rigidly enforced); you also have to be right.

Sometimes (often, actually) the prevailing notion is in fact true. And as stated before, to challenge current theories backed by evidence, your proposal has to explain all of the current evidence, and provide additional predictive power.

ph010

Implies repression by scientific cabal

There is no scientific cabal.

Science and the scientific method thrive on disproving well-accepted ideas. In fact, overturning the prevailing idea of the day is an almost sure-fire route to receiving the Nobel prize.

But this is achieved on the strength of the proposal itself, and not on any other criteria. If a proposal has great explanatory power and incontrovertible evidence, it will stand on its own, in public, for all to see.

There is a peer review process which can be occasionally fraught with inefficiencies and personality clashes, but a great idea that is blocked for untoward reasons in one publication can easily be submitted to another, and if it has great merit, will very possibly collapse the original publication, when their integrity is called into question.

However, notice that this is entirely dependent upon the merits of the idea itself.

ph011

Illuminati / Reptilian / Alien Conspiracy

First, there is no evidence for either alien visitation or "reptilians". They are both likely a psychological phenomenon that is a combination of 20th century science fiction (V, X-Files, War of the Worlds, etc.) and various related experiences common among humans of "shadowy figures" and our general tendency toward seeking patterns.

Prior to reports of alien abductions in our modern, science-oriented era, people used to believe in incubuses and succubuses to explain away the "shadowy figure" seen or felt during sleep paralysis and night terrors. In addition, some recreational drugs can induce similar phenomena. Shortly before and into the 20th century, many of these reports shifted into stories of alien visitation, spurred on by various science fiction stories that started becoming popular around that time.

These phenomena are interesting on their own, and having had a couple of instances of sleep paralysis myself, they are indeed frightening experiences, but a much more simple explanation is that we all share pretty much the same neurophysiology, and thus are predisposed to have similar experiences. It strikes me as more interesting to figure out what is really going on, than attribute it, without evidence, to some external phenomena. (But there I go again, all interested in the actual truth.)

As far as the "Illuminati" goes, this has been variously attributed to Freemasons, Jews, and other groups, and generally corroborated by lists of successful people who are members of the group in question.

Isn't it more likely that given any list of large numbers of people, members of many groups will be represented? And are you taking into account the even larger set of people that do not fit into the proposed conspiracy model? Or are they "in on it" too, just not in a way you have currently figured out?

Classic confirmation bias, and perhaps genuine psychological paranoia at work.

ph012

X is "only a theory"

The person is conflating, intentionally or unintentionally, the scientific and colloquial definitions of "theory."

In layman's terms, a "theory" is just a whim, an idea, a flight of fancy, something come up with perhaps down the pub, with no testing done to support it.

On the other hand, a theory in science is the final stage through which an idea goes, when it has bypassed testing and has predictive power.

Gravity is "only a theory". Atoms are "only a theory". Electricity is "only a theory". Genetics is "only a theory". Plate tectonics is "only a theory".

However, all of the above have mountains of evidence (literally!) which works independently and collectively supporting them, and a proposal which seeks to overturn them or other prevailing theories had better be prepared to cough up the goods and explain all of this evidence and more.

ph013

Cites self-published authors

Not a direct indication of flawed reasoning, but another warning sign.

Momentous ideas, supported by evidence and data, have a tendency to be accepted for wide publication quite quickly, and with great fanfare, as they greatly increase the prestige of the publishers as well as the author.

Other ideas, less so.

ph014

Invents words without definition

Science is hard enough without cluttering it up with needless obscurantism.

The purpose of communication is just that: to disseminate ideas accurately and effectively. It seems counterintuitive, and the jargon used in science, medicine, technology, and many other fields may seem opaque, but is necessary, because the agreed upon vocabulary has very precise definitions, which is required to convey the complicated ideas and interactions exactly and without confusion.

However, someone who is not trying to dupe you should gladly explain the definitions of esoteric terms if asked.

Someone who has something to gain by confusing you may be less inclined to do so.

A red flag.

ph015

Mentions 2012 / Nibiru / Mayan Calendar

More numerology nonsense. The Mayans had no special insight into what would happen when their calendar ended, as all of our calendar systems and time divisions are completely arbitrary.

What is a second? It is now defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, but that is a completely arbitrary division to be roughly similar to what we previously expected it, albeit to fit slightly better with our own arbitrary Gregorian calendar.

The common claims made by Nibiru fanatics:

The solar system does not align with the plane of our galaxy in 2012.
The Earth's magnetic field is not expected to reverse polarity in 2012.
The Mayan calendar simply flips over and continues. (Why would the universe care what some extinct culture wrote on a piece of paper, anyway?)

More references, with point-by-point rebuttals of all claims:

If you insist on pushing this "hypothesis", note that I charge $5000 in the form of a post-dated check to Dec 22, 2012 before continuing to discuss the matter.

ph016

"You cannot disprove X!"

Science is not in the business of "proof". Proof is reserved for mathematics and logic. Science works with evidence.

The more evidence for something, and the more predictions that an explanation for that evidence can make that subsequently turn out to be accurate, the more likely an explanation is to accurately reflect reality. On the contrary, if reproducible evidence turns up that goes against the predictions made by a theory, it will be discarded until a new explanation can be put together for the new evidence.

Proofs in logic are straightforward, but while in logic, a conclusion must necessarily follow from true premises, that is not the case in reality.

Take this example:

All mice are green.
Ralph is a mouse.
Therefore, Ralph is green.

This is a valid syllogism. If all mice were green, and Ralph was a mouse, it necessarily follows that Ralph must be green.

However, it is not a sound syllogism, as all mice are not green. The premise is false because it does not represent reality.

In the field of reality, in order to disprove something, one has to have perfect knowledge of everything in order to state that it in fact does not exist. But this is not usually necessary, as most of the time, specific claims are made about the way something interacts with the universe, and thus, those specific claims can be tested.

When all of the claims made about some phenomenon are rigorously tested, and shown to be false, the only reasonable course of action is to suspect the claim itself is false.

Sure, the explanation provided by the claim may be true, and it just sits back and absolutely does nothing to interact with our universe. But then, this ineffable claim is indistinguishable from simply not existing, and it makes no sense to continue to think that it exists.

This is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. It is not sufficient to simply say "X necessarily exists until proven otherwise" for the reasons listed above. It sure would be cluttered around here if that were the case.

ph017

Trans-Dimensional Unified Field Theory

This is not well-known, it is simply a "theory" proffered by one of the cranks that inspired me to make this site. It fails on so many levels, it is almost not worth mentioning, but for completeness, here is a review.

ph018

Invents equations that are mathematically flawed

Fairly straightforward. If a person is presenting a hypothetical conclusion, based on mathematical results that are demonstrably flawed, it* is a simple matter of showing the math to be incorrect to show the conclusion to be false.

* It's not always this simple. In fact, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule, and it's a very good sign you might be dealing with a crank.

ph019

Expanding Earth hypothesis

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAH

Ahem.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ok, I feel much better.

In short: provide evidence that the Earth is or has ever been expanding, or shut up.

ph020

Astrology

Ah, the old stand-by.

The star alignments do not control your destiny. Get over it.

If you have evidence to the contrary, James Randi has $1,000,000 sitting in a bank account waiting for you to claim it.

ph021

Overunity / perpetual motion

No. Just... No.

This is a bright, blinking red flag.

All experiments to date since 1824 have shown that the First Law of Thermodynamics is more than just a good idea (it's the law!).

This is the "Free Energy" crank standby. Many wacky attempts have been made, and people still try, but it appears to be a rule in our universe.

Not a good investment.

ph022
Free Energy

See #21.

ph023

The LHC will destroy the Earth in a black hole

No, it won't.

This was a big concern in late 2008. In short, prior to CERN turning on the Large Hadron Collider, the world's highest energy particle accelerator to date, widespread paranoia ensued. It got to the point where lawsuits against turning it on were filed, death threats were sent to CERN, and a poor, ignorant Indian girl committed suicide out of fear.

The LHC has now already started, and reached energy levels that make it the most powerful in the world, and is gearing up to reach its mid-point energy levels right now, so I won't even address the ridiculousness of the prior claims. Here are a few of them if you still have concerns.

Fear of the unknown is a normal reaction, and almost certainly provided a survival advantage in our evolutionary history, by making us respond strongly to novelty. However, in our modern, knowledge-driven society, ignorance is much more dangerous. Educate and inform yourself.

I think physicist Brian Cox put it best when he said, "Anyone who thinks the LHC is going to destroy the world is a twat."

tl;dr: Do you think CERN employees don't have families and people they love?

ph024

Abuses Zero-point energy

Zero-point energy is a real phenomenon, but it cannot be harnessed. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't understand it.

And skip the investment.

See also: #21 (Can you tell this is a popular one?)

ph025
Refers to holy book as scientific document

You're doing it wrong.

ph026

Quote-mines any scientific paper

This is often used, not just in science crankery, but to try to "prove" the opposite of the author's intent.

The best defense against this patently dishonest (and sometimes criminal) tactic is just to look at the paper yourself. Demand a full citation and look at the context.

ph027

Anthropomorphizes inanimate objects

It can be poetic to think of the Earth or the Moon as goddesses, or imbue nature itself with a spiritual nature, and it may even serve a purpose in getting people to appreciate and take care of their surroundings. (That is, if you feel the end justifies the means, which I don't, and I feel doing so causes demonstrable harm.)

But when describing or needing to make decisions in the Really Real World, it's simply that: poetry.

Besides, we already are actually related to all life on earth and the universe around us.

Isn't reality beautiful enough, without having to make stuff up?

Don't be like Satya Harvey.

ph028

Karma

An interesting concept. Probably comes from our ancestors looking around, seeing things are unfair, and making up a metaphysics that seeks to impart fairness upon us externally.

Sorry, life is unfair, and pretending otherwise is rather silly.

In any case, there is no evidence for it, and thus is it not considered seriously when attempting to describe how the universe actually works.

ph029
"You'll be sorry!"

"I won't hold my breath!"

ph030

States credentials

Attempted argument from authority.

Essentially, "I am X, therefore everything I say is correct," which is obviously absurd.

It is similar to, but distinct from, an argument from expertise, which may or may not be slightly more valid. But in either case, it depends on the claim being made, not the person making the claim.

Credentials in science are nice, but they bear no relevance to the truth value of a statement you make. The lowliest graduate student can disprove the longest standing theory, with reproducible experiments and evidence.

The peer review and publishing system in and of itself may arguably have its own intrinsic flaws, but this has no bearing on the actual process of presenting evidence for an effect that takes place in reality, publicly, for all the world to see and reproduce on their own.

An tongue-in-cheek example of this reasoning error.

ph031
Cosmic consciousness

See: Anthropomorphizes inanimate objects

ph032

Misuses "quantum"

This is very common, both now and historically.

Any time there is a (popularly) little-understood subject in science, the quacks crawl out of the woodwork to claim that their WhizzBang Frakulator 9000 uses that. It has happened with magnetism, electricity, radioactive substances, various "magic boxes", and now quantum mechanics, despite many of the details of quantum mechanics being fairly-well known for decades.

This can be a tough one to see through, as it takes a decent amount of work to understand quantum mechanics, but it is possible. (But really, study QM. It's fascinating.)

Ask the person to go into detail of precisely how their theory or device works. Often, quacks readily give themselves away when they cannot or will not do this.

Some commonly misunderstood or misrepresented points:

Simply "looking at" (with your eyes) or "thinking about" something doesn't change the results. The actual reason for this effect is due to the very small amounts of energy required to affect particles, and how you have to measure things at that scale.
The multiverse hypothesis has not been tested, and thus doesn't make the postmodernist "anything goes" mentality true. Someone claiming this is so is making an assertion without evidence.

ph033

"I'm not good at math, but..."

Put simply, mathematics is the language of physics, and thus they are almost certainly not qualified to speak on the decades (and in some cases, centuries) of work and empirical evidence that lie behind the prevailing modern theories.

It is possible that they are the (very) occasional exception to the rule, and they have done an experiment that shows a very peculiar result, that has hitherto been undiscovered. But, the proper way to go about this is for them to ask someone more knowledgeable, and if they are simply trying to convince random bystanders of the infallibility of their new theory, it very probably is simply not true.

ph034

Suggests self deserves Nobel prize

Pure hubris. However, as there have been examples of egotism in various scientific personalities before, still, not a guaranteed indicator of crankery.

But, it is a good indicator that the person's motivation is not with the science itself, but instead with fame. The Nobel Prize is bestowed upon others, and has a peer nomination process, and is often awarded decades later, when the real impact of someone's work becomes apparent to all.

Premature self-congratulation and egotism like this is a potential symptom of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

ph035

Implies sharing theory with you is like casting pearls before swine

More egotism, and a clear lack of understanding of the process of science.

Science works in the open. If a person is unable or unwilling to explain how their new breakthrough works, chances are reasonably high that they don't have one.

This is not always the case, of course, especially when it can be turned into a profitable enterprise, so this is a consideration when making judgment. But, for pure science, it's the way things are. A patent can still be granted to the person after they publish their work, if they choose to monetize it, so there should be little motivation for hiding much in pure science.

ph036

Uses strange,,, punctuation; speling, cAPItaLIzaTIOn or "quotes"

A very peculiar, but common, symptom of crankery. I have no idea why this is the case amongst cranks in particular. Hard to say much more, but those familiar with cranks will know what I mean.

ph037

Uses science fiction as if fact

This is pretty easy to catch, and fun to point out. Some things have made the leap from fantasy to reality, but some things are out of our reach for centuries to come, or likely (sadly) actually impossible. Reifying them into the present is ... just not correct.

Genuinely conflating reality and fiction, and persisting when corrected may be a sign of genuine mental illness. Consider that before choosing the ridicule option.

ph038

Defends self by bringing up past ridicule

This is often coupled with the Gandhi quote:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Except, of course, he was talking about politics.

Perhaps the idea was actually ridiculous?

Perhaps people got tired of arguing with you, and were laughing at your inability or unwillingness to see the flaws in your position?

If the idea is worth considering, that will become apparent, even if it takes time.

Not all ideas deserve respect. (But most people do.)

In the end, when describing reality, it's the evidence that matters.

Phun phor the whole phamily.

navi

References for Individual Card Entries

sleep deprivation productions, llc