It happens in science blog comments, and more so in discussion boards where you get some crank with their pet theory of some science subdiscipline, and how it’s the new paradigm ready to emerge and topple the orthodoxy. And it’s almost formulaic like a Hardy Boys mystery (or even a Robert Ludlum novel) with the same arguments cropping up in different combinations. Read several in a row and the commonalities jump out at you.<\/p>\n
Hmmm. A finite set of arguments, appearing seemingly at random. Sounds like bingo to me! Strawman<\/strong> – use of the strawman fallacy I’ll add more if worthy ones are suggested.<\/p>\n Card generator available here<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It happens in science blog comments, and more so in discussion boards where you get some crank with their pet theory of some science subdiscipline, and how it’s the new paradigm ready to emerge and topple the orthodoxy. And it’s … Continue reading
\nHere are the major points, many of which are shamelessly cribbed from the crackpot index<\/a><\/p>\n
\nUnbelievable<\/strong> \u2014 use of the argument from incredulity fallacy (I don’t understand, therefore it’s wrong)
\nGedanken<\/strong> \u2014 use of a thought experiment to debunk a theory or actual experiment
\nALLCAPS<\/strong> \u2014 extensive use of ALLCAPS or large font
\nGalileo<\/strong> \u2014 as in, comparing themself favorably (i.e. persecuted)
\nEinstein<\/strong> \u2014 as in, comparing themself favorably (i.e. I am the next one)
\nNobel <\/strong>\u2014 claiming they will win one
\nSchool<\/strong> \u2014 listing degrees and\/or schools attended
\nDropout<\/strong> \u2014 usually a proud declaration
\nMany years<\/strong> \u2014 how long they’ve worked on their theory
\nPrize<\/strong> \u2014 offer a prize to anyone debunking their work
\nTerminology<\/strong> \u2014 new terms or acronyms
\nParticles<\/strong> \u2014 new particles proposed (Tachyons don’t count)
\nInteraction<\/strong> \u2014 a new interaction is proposed
\nEponym<\/strong> \u2014 naming something of their work after themselves
\nMath<\/strong> \u2014 admitting to be unable to do it or doing it horribly
\nTheory<\/strong> \u2014 as in, “it’s only a theory” argument to dismiss accepted science
\nMetaphysics<\/strong> \u2014 the work explains “why” or what some phenomenon “really is”
\nCensorship<\/strong> \u2014 complaints about work being censored
\nRue <\/strong>\u2014 “you’ll rue the day you ignored me” or similar warning
\nReligion<\/strong> \u2014 claiming science is a religion
\nPriest\/Bible<\/strong> \u2014 scientists are high priests, or some work is the science bible
\nGifs<\/strong> \u2014 animated, very pretty, meaningless
\nGraphs<\/strong> \u2014 must have unlabeled axes or be otherwise incomprehensible
\nSee?<\/strong> \u2014 claiming the model explains\/predicts many phenomena, but without actually presenting evidence
\nHuh? <\/strong>\u2014 befuddlement over lack of instant acceptance of new paradigm
\nWe<\/strong> \u2014 the royal we; “we don’t understand X” applied to a well-understood issue
\nYou<\/strong> \u2014 “You don’t understand X” directed toward an individual with significant experience in the field
\nPredicts<\/strong> \u2014 model predicts phenomena that have never been observed, but should have been
\nTurtles<\/strong> \u2014 all the way down: all of physics is due to one fundamental particle
\nQuotes <\/strong>\u2014 supports position by selective quoting
\nLike<\/strong> \u2014 argument by analogy
\nTopology<\/strong> \u2014 use of mobius strip or klein bottle in argument
\nMum<\/strong> \u2014 won’t divulge details for fear of idea being stolen
\nPolly<\/strong> \u2014 simple repetition of claims, unchanged, after being debunked
\n\u2014\u2014
\nIndignation<\/strong> \u2014 at being asked for evidence or other corroboration (added 5\/11)<\/p>\n