Are you a quack?




It is easy to distinguish the quacks; although they may seem reasonable at first, they degenerate into absurdity progressively with any conversation. Quacks want only to talk and not to listen. They are paranoids with delusions of grandeur: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be. Eventually the true quacks make the same remarks, some version of almost all those listed below. Generally, their comments are of 3 types:

Attacks on established theories, based on distaste

"I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics/... is wrong."
You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? I didn't think so. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it's an elementary system, whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim that you can prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I'm willing to give you $2+$2 change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found an inconsistency, you have probably made an assumption that is not implied by the theory. The fact is that these theories are not only well confirmed by experiment, but practical use is made of them every single day.
Note: You will not dispell a quack's distaste for modern physics by relating it to classical physics, since they usually do not understand that either. This is an unusual example of "Familiarity breeds contempt."

"But it's obvious nonsense!"
Then why does it work so well?
"You're wrong!"
That's just contradiction, not an argument.
"BUT I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG!!"
I already responded to that remark. And your caps lock key is stuck.
(Maybe you should use a bigger font.)
Promotion of a new unified theory, based on laziness and pride

"My theory is prettier than the accepted one."
Take it to an art dealer.
"But Einstein/Feynman/... himself said that a theory must be pretty."
You have already admitted you reject their theories.
"My theory is better philosophically".
Take it to church.
"My theory agrees with the Bible/Quran/..."
The author of that book has not written any papers with testable predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed (quite violently) in most parts of the world.
"My theory cures the common cold".
Take it to the hospital. (You now qualify as a quack in the strictest sense.)
"My theory makes more sense."
What could possibly make more sense than to have a theory that agrees with nature, as determined by experiment? If your theory only makes you feel better about its subject, it is a placebo, not a cure.
"Experimental verification isn't important in science."
Look up "scientific method" in the dictionary. Science is the study of the real world. If you make a claim in court, you need real evidence to back it up. If you make a bet, you have to provide a way to test that bet in a way that is unambiguous. It must be either right or wrong; there is no third alternative for a meaningful statement.
Note: The quacks I get are always theorists. I don't think that's just an accident, or because I'm also a theorist, but because theory is easier for quacks than experiments. (People who do cold fusion or sell snake oil are a level above these sorts.) It never occurs to them that there are a large number of experiments with which their new theory must agree.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Obviously, the author of the above diagnosis is a quack himself! He knows very little about true debates. He knows almost nothing about the psychology of debates. He knows nothing at all about the management of opposing views. He knows only a bunch of derogatory and insulting words to threw over and over again on his opponents. And so he is a real quack. But worst of all, this miserable 'man' has betrayed the people who trusted him and used their private debates with him as raw materials for investigation and for insulting them all.




http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Talk/talk.atheism/2007-09/msg00085.pdf

cinci: Aw AAF, you're just upset becasue he described you to a "T".

I'm not a crook:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I