Crackpots and their convictions

- Robert P Crease, Physics World, may01, p14 (physicsweb.org)

Receiving crackpot letters is an occupational side-effect of writing about physics. …. One or more of the following are generally mentioned …. Electromagnetism ….

Hardly anyone I know throws them out. They quickly scan the letters, then toss them into a "nut letter" drawer rather than the bin. ….

I once asked a physicist who had seen Christofilo's original papers why they'd been ignored. "The first violated Maxwell's equations," he said, shrugging to indicate that this was equivalent to mentioning psychic phenomena. Bad physics does not necessarily make a crackpot. [See In German, Catt I, "The Hidden Message in Maxwell's Equations", Wireless World nov85 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ekkehard_Friebe/Catt-85a.htm ])

"Pais's theory is far crazier than Ehrenhaft's," Goldstein asked Siegert. "Why do we call Pais a physicist and Ehrenhaft a nut?"

Siegert thought for a moment. "Because," he said firmly, " Ehrenhaft believes his theory."

The strength of Ehrenhaft's conviction, Siegert meant, had interfered with the normally playful attitude that scientists require, an ability to risk and to respond. (Conviction, Nietzsche said, is a greater enemy of truth than lies.) What makes a crackpot can be not simply our prejudices, nor the content, but our recognition of the disruptive effects of the author's conviction. ….

[ Absolute Truth , a lecture by Ivor Catt. Lecture ends with a proof that absolute truth exists. Rejected for publication worldwide.]

 

Absolute truth.

There are four people; Luca Turin, Biophysics lecturer in London University; Theocharis and Psimopoulis, and myself, who all agree that the pivotal question this century is whether absolute facts exist. Lacking the discipline of objective fact, we fall into the hands of the salaried Establishment, whatever its technical ignorance and nonsensical excesses.

Consider the statement, "It is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths." However, this is probably cheating, although worth pondering. More generally, the position that there are no absolute truths triggers all sorts of major difficulties. However, it is non-PC to analyse current PC dogma.

Theocharis (who published on this issue in Nature, 15oct87, Theocharis, 200a Merton Rd., London SW18. tel 081 870 6191) challenges the "opinion" that if Smith jumped off a high place, he would die. He challenges Smith to accompany him to the high place, and jump off, in order to test the relative strengths of Smith's imperfect view and T's certainty, that Smith will die.

For my part, I assert that the concept "Energy" was propounded. This is absolutely true, and has nothing to do with my point of view. It is an objective fact, not subjective. It is also absolutely true that no other person slept in my bed last night, apart from me. This is not a subjective view; it is objective fact. It is absolutely true that at this moment I am typing into a computer. We are immersed in a sea of objective facts. (We have direct access to them, not needing the mediation of paid knowledge brokers.) Anyone who denies the existence of these facts must deny the purpose of any communication whatsoever, and so should shut up. Communication is a superstructure based on an array of agreed absolute facts. Denial of the existence of any facts necessarily implies denial of the possibility of communication. We are left merely with mutually supportive noises of uncertain import.

In a lecture, the test of absolute truth is to ask a dissident in the audience whether it is absolutely true that he is attempting to listen to a lecture. If he demurs, he has to be ejected from the lecture hall because he is an intellectual terrorist. He denies the possibility of developing and extending a body of knowledge. The fact that he is merely going along with the vandals who have captured learning throughout most of the twentieth century does not excuse his nihilism.

For my part, I say that I hereby intend to write a sentence which starts and ends with the word "For". I have also probably succeeded, but this next step is unnecessary in order to establish an absolute truth, about my intention. Even more succinct, I intended to start and end a sentence with the same word. Absolutely true. Anyone who disputes this is disputing the possibility of any meaningful communication whatsoever, and so should not be talking, since they believe they are wasting their and our time. Disputing the validity of this exercise, the disputant is asked to communicate something (anything) within their nihilistic universe of discourse (and such activity serves a purpose). They will fail. Thus, I believe the assertion "There are no absolute truths" becomes the assertion "No inter-communication is possible". Thus, we are left only with "views", or states of mind, and all we can do is commune together. See today's Quaker. He is well on his nihilistic way. - Ivor Catt