-
"Let me begin by saying that the vast, vast majority of the emails and questions I get are really good. But every now and again, I'll get an email where the implied question (if there is any) isn't so much,"Is this theory any good?" but:
How can my crackpot theory be more awesome?
While I've gotten a few that admit of no correction whatsoever, there are a few that still need a bit of work before making it to crackpot greatness.As a public service (and as a bit of a respite after my last few relatively hardcore columns), let me tell you what separates the great crackpots from the also-rans."
-
Congratulations to Bee and Stefan.
More like this
At the AAS meeting in Seattle, Rob Knop risked his own well-being to get the details on a poster that was, shall we say, waaaay out of the mainstream. Quoth Rob:
Much has been written of late about the nature of denialism.
Here's an interesting new blog that I discovered via Trackback.
Scientists probe fireballs with X-rays - physicsworld.com
From someone who appears to endorse flouride conspiracy theories, I'd watch who you call "crackpot"
What on Earth are you talking about? Are you accusing me of endorsing flouride conspiracy theories? The author of that post on crackpottery?
A claim like that requires some sort of documentation either way. How about a link?
I feel bad for you PhDs. in Physics to have to waste your time reading crackpottery. Well, no job is perfect, everything has a downside, what can you do about it? Nothing really. Hopefully the "amusing" aspect counteracts the "annoyance" factor.
While John Baez' The Crackpot Index is amazing in its own right, are you aware of another AMAZING one by Dr. Warren Siegel of SUNY's Dept. of Physics?
It's called "Are you a Quack?" and can be accessed by clicking on this sentence. Good stuff. :-)