sbannist comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong

3 [deleted] 02 November 2009 01:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (539)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (539)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2009 03:54:51PM 7 points [-]

This comment scores a full 68 points on the Crackpot Index. That doesn't make it wrong, but if it's right, I think you need to explain yourself more clearly.

To start with, as Psy-Kosh asked, what theory are you talking about, anyway? Where is it published, by whom, and what predictions have been made with it?

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2009 05:39:26PM * 2 points [-]

Are you ... taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn't seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That's why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like "this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers" - because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.

I haven't read the paper you linked here, but the titular "ECE" - "Einstein Cartan Evans" - returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.

Comment author: sbannist comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: RobinZ 04 November 2009 04:01:22AM * 3 points [-]

I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.

(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem - it's an important distinction.)

(Edit: To summarize the link, "ad hominem" goes, "you're an irrational person, therefore you are wrong", whereas we are saying, "your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational". We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you're stupid - in fact, I don't think you're stupid, just mistaken.)

Comment author: sbannist 05 November 2009 01:01:20AM -2 points [-]

Ok. Well, I just don't think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don't have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.

I'll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.

If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.

So thanks for the consideration.

Comment author: Cyan 05 November 2009 04:20:09AM 2 points [-]

130+ in the last few years

And not one review article?

Comment author: RobinZ 05 November 2009 02:59:17AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for your input - I'm sorry we could not be more helpful. Be well.

sbannist comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (539)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (539)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login