I ran a cross some comments over at A Quantum Diaries Survivor, in a book review, that raised my eyebrows (note that I haven’t read the book being reviewed and I’m not specifically commenting on the author in question):

However, after a first quick look, I was left wondering about the soundness of my pre-judgement. For one thing, the book contained no formulas at all. I mean none, not even a few. This did not quite fit the crackpot idea I had put together.

Which runs counter to my experience on science discussion-boards (SFN and others). Many crackpots, in my experience, want nothing to do with math. They run away as fast as they can from any suggestion that they quantify things. The ones that do show math, generally, either can’t do it, and fall prey to the simple mistakes that you find in 1+1=1 “proofs,” or their work is a mishmash of numerology.

Well, there’s crackpot and crackpot. Yours are more crackpot than mine, evidently ðŸ™‚

Jokes aside, what I meant to say is that I was expecting a mathematical discussion of some concepts in the book, and that is why I was surprised to find it devoid of formulas. Why I was expecting some math has to do with the image I had built of the person asking for my review…. I agree, most of those with a theory of everything in the pocket do not like math at all.

Cheers,

T.