Are you a quack?

 

psychosis /sīˈkōsəs/
noun (pl. psychoses |-ˌsēz| )

a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

 There is a fine line between sanity & insanity: A large portion of the public is in denial about evolution, global warming, vaccination, etc. Most of this can be attributed to distorted views of reality, as defined by personality type. But only a few are driven to egregiously contradict well-established science when doing so cannot have any direct effect on their everyday life.

This page is dedicated to the many people who have occasionally drifted into my office, or sent me e-mail, or even mailed me their books, eager to tell me about their new theory, which they know will turn all known physics on its head, even though they have only studied an infinitesimal fraction of the latter. Some of them are just ignorant or naive, but are willing to learn; this page is not about them.

There is a distinction between "artistic" scientists & true quacks. The former have some bold new hypotheses (i.e., educated guesses) that have not completely confronted reality. (A former advisor of mine had a bumper-sticker-like sign in his office that went something like, "Your new theory is beautiful and elegant. Too bad it's wrong.") The latter have old ideas that have been fudged to try to reproduce some of the results of new ideas. (For example, anyone sticking to Ptolemaic epicycles after the advent of Copernicus & Kepler would fall into this category. Fairy tales are also old ideas.) Real quacks would not even make good science fiction authors.

On the other hand, there are also "pessimistic" scientists. They do not reject proven science, but refuse to consider new conjectures until they have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, playing it safe seldom leads to new discoveries. ("Nothing ventured, nothing gained.") These also differ from quacks, who tend to reject proven science of much (if not all) of the 20th century.

Quacks (also known as "crackpots" or "cranks") have several well-known mental conditions in common with other conspiracy theorists:

• Paranoia: No one will listen to their self-contradictory claims; therefore there must be a world-wide web of conspiracy, lasting generations (apparently even between opposing sides through the World Wars & Cold War) to promote fantastic theories which, for some unexplained reason, seem sufficient for the design & operation of modern technology.
• Delusion/denial: For some unclear reason (religion? artistic taste? lack of ability or motivation?) they reject well-established science, & replace it with something of their own invention that they find more satisfying.
• Grandiosity: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be. They want only to talk and not to listen. Their pride blinds them to their incompetence: They are not good con men; their arguments are unoriginal & transparently wrong to any expert.
• Projection: They accuse scientists of all of these obvious failings of their own, before their victims get a chance to respond. After all, it's only 1 person's word against another. (In common terms, this is known as, "He who smelt it, dealt it.") Thus, all established scientists are scientifically incompetent, ignorant, derisive, religious fanatics, mentally ill, etc.. It's a wonder that society has managed to advance @ all.

Quacks are dogmatists: Their point of view is a belief. A belief is something one assumes to be true because one wants it to be true. They only come up with "proofs" or "evidence" to sway non-believers to their belief. So you can waste your time disproving all their fallacies, but it won't matter to them, because they were invented only for you, & are totally irrelevant to their conviction.

It is easy to distinguish the quacks; although they may seem reasonable at first, they degenerate into absurdity progressively with any conversation. This is because quacks are organic forms of artificial intelligence: They would not pass the Turing test applied to a physics conversation. (This might be a good problem for a computer science student: Write a quack program, designed to sound as much like a true physicist as possible, then allow it to engage in a conversation with a real quack.) They simply copy and paste text & equations they have found in 19th century literature, introductory physics textbooks, or the web, none of which they understand well enough to pass a test in school. (A musical description of them can be found in the song "Swinging on a Star", especially the mule & fish parts.) Whenever questioned on any of their errors, they reply with repetition, non sequiturs, or insults. 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 and fear

1. "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."

   Quacks seem to dislike modern physics literally because of the word "relativity": In their attacks, they focus on what is relative, not on what is absolute. They know special relativity says time is relative, but don't understand (or care) that proper time is absolute. In rejecting relativity, they replace it with the ether, rejecting even Galilean relativity, because they refuse to accept that even velocity can be relative. They know general relativity says reference frames are arbitrary, but don't know that it's curvature that displays the physics. They've heard that the uncertainty principle says there are things you can't measure, but don't know what you can measure. Apparently they view modern physics as an attempt to limit their personal freedom. Their egotism does not allow them to accept any frame of reference as equal to their own.

   Consequently they are basically 19th century physicists, except for the fact that they don't understand even that. They focus on attacking the physics of the 1st quarter of the 20th century & its results, oblivious to the fact that it is backed up by all the dependent theories & results since then. They want to return to the "good old days", & constantly refer to archaic papers, as if history had anything to say about recent experimental results.

   Thus quacks are in perfect agreement with the alleged statement of the Commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." So it's not surprising they reject ideas developed by someone while working @ the Swiss Patent Office a good several years later.

   For those of you quacks who want to know what it's like trying to explain 20th century physics to someone like you, I suggest you go to this web site and try to explain 19th century physics to the people there.

1. "But it's obvious nonsense!"
   Then why does it work so well?

2. "You're wrong!"
   That's just contradiction, not an argument.

3. "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.)

   Update: I have already been yelled @ with a much bigger font --- another prediction confirmed.

The rest of the article:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Mental illness is common, but most of the afflicted can still function in today's society (although often this is because they are retired). Most people continue to use computers, even if some deny the science they are based upon. (Quacks are hypocrites as well as ingrates.) The situation is less serious in physics than biology: Some people pass laws to prohibit or restrict the teaching of evolution, but there have been no serious attempts to outlaw special relativity or quantum mechanics since the days of Hitler & Stalin (which failed because nuclear science required them). Fortunately, the world depends on the technology derived from modern physics for its economy, communication, leisure, etc.

A Failed Campaign of Reason and Civility Against Irrational GOP Fear, Rage and Hate

Republican online comment: “I bet if I put a gun to his face he’d cry like a baby.”

The Washington Post published a long, heartbreaking article on the failed 31-day campaign of self-described nice guy Kevin Van Ausdal against radical far right crackpot conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican candidate in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District. Greene now runs unopposed. The stress of trying to respond in anger against Greene cost Van Ausdal his marriage and his home. He describes himself as broken. This is what the new GOP is going to be like. 

The story described in detail Van Ausdal’s slow mental breakdown as he tried to shift his rhetoric and tone from civil and focused on issues, to harsh and focused on fighting back against a rage and hate-promoting GOP extremist. His marriage deteriorated as the pressure on him to be what he isn’t caused his wife to file for divorce and have him kicked out of their home. Van Ausdal had to withdraw from the race and move back to Indiana with his parents because he had no other place to stay in Georgia.

These portions of the article gives a sense of what slowly tore Van Ausdal apart. Ruth is Van Ausdal’s campaign adviser Ruth Demeter. ‘Upswing’ refers to Van Ausdal’s natural voice tendency to soften the tone of his speech to reduce emotion and conflict.

“So,” Ruth continued. “Talk to me about the things about Marjorie that are dangerous and embarrassing and appear to disregard the 14th District.”

“Okay, well, it’s really just the fearmongering?” Kevin said. There was the upswing, but Ruth let him go on. “It’s defining us. I don’t think I ever told you this, but I said to a preacher early on, you know, Jesus wants us to come together and love each other regardless of our beliefs. So when we’re fanning the flames of fear and violence — ”

“Okay,” Ruth interjected. “I love ‘fanning the flames of fear.’ But Kevin, I’m going to tell you something right now that’s really hard. This statement is about reaching people in the middle, and a lot of them are Republicans. For them, the language about love and peace is bad, or just not in their wheelhouse. … It’s got to be, ‘This has got to stop. I’m calling this out.’ ”

“Okay,” Kevin said.

“Try that ‘Enough is enough’ line,” Ruth said.

“Enough is enough — wait,” Kevin said, then tried again. “Enough is enough.”

“Oh, I love that,” Ruth said.

“I’m not going to act like this is a normal election,” he continued.

“Oh, that’s really good,” Ruth said.

“Enough is enough” Kevin repeated over and over, practicing the statement his team wanted to post as soon as possible to his 1,500 Facebook followers, and meanwhile, Greene had posted a new Facebook video for her 100,000 followers.  

“Do me a favor. Take a deep breath. Put your shoulders back,” Ruth said. “Read it angry. It’s this crazy situation. Read it mad.”

“Hi. I’m Kevin Van Aus-dal. ... Marjorie Taylor Greene does not represent us …”

“Again. Mad,” Ruth said.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is not one of us …” Kevin said.

“Not one of us,” Ruth said.

“Not one of us …” Kevin said. “What’s the psychology behind this?”

“There’s psychology but I don’t have time to explain,” Ruth said. “Okay, go for it.”

“We are watching her use her platform to cheer violence against Democrats,” he continued, then stopped. “Be angry,” he reminded himself.

“Be angry,” Ruth said. “And you have to give it a little beat,” said Ruth. “So-ul.”

“For the so-ul of our nation,” Kevin said. “Like that?”

“Perfect,” Ruth said. “Remember. You’re angry.”

Kevin took a deep breath and closed his eyes for a moment.

WaPo writes: Her campaign adviser stated that “Greene had expressed support for the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wis., calling the case the “first stage” of a new “Civil War.” And he said that while Greene was now distancing herself from QAnon, she had the support of QAnon social media groups as well as an array of local gun groups including one called the Georgia III % Martyrs.”

It is clear that people who support Greene are driven by irrational fear, rage and hate fomented by relentless radical conservative dark free speech, or epistemic terrorism if you will. Trying to reason with those people is pointless. They have been radicalized and whipped into a raging tribal frenzy that cannot be reasoned with or reasonable.

How should the opposition to this raging insanity respond? The GOP leadership is mostly silent. Clearly the reasoned and reasonable approach that Van Ausdal wanted to take would have been a failure, but he could not transition to an all-out war footing mindset. His attempt to harden himself broke him mentally.

Does the democratic party owe something to Van Ausdal for what he tried to do?

WaPo writes: “Onstage, a guest speaker was talking about “a time when you will be asked to shed another man’s blood because he is a threat to your very way of life.” Another talked about “the communist Democrats.” Another said that vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris “wants to come to your house and take your guns away.” Another began his speech by yelling into the microphone, “FREEDOM!!!!” and out in the audience, a man wearing a hat with a ‘Q Army’ patch was listening. ‘I think people are waking up’, said the man, Butch Lapp. ---- Greene supporters commenting online about Van Ausdal: ‘the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat’ and one that read ‘I bet if I put a gun to his face he’d cry like a baby.’”

Jurisdiction Stripping to Limit Court Power

US Constitution, Article 3, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The US Constitution includes a short clause that allows congress to exempt a law it passes from judicial review. Federal courts have jurisdiction to review laws that congress passes with “with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [1]

Unless I misunderstand because there is a legal authority that defines ‘Exceptions’ and/or ‘Regulations’ in a way I am not aware of, that clause seems to give the president and congress the power to write and pass a law with a provision that states that courts do not have the power to review the law. Thus, for example, congress could write a law that codifies the Roe v. Wade abortion decision and/or the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage decision as a federal law that is not subject to judicial review for its constitutionality. This tactic is called jurisdiction stripping.

If that is how this can work, one can instantly see the havoc this could wreak on American society and the operation of the federal government. A radical conservative president and congress congress could write and pass laws to restrict voting rights or to expand gun rights and that law could be shielded from judicial review. A liberal president and congress congress could write and pass laws they wanted.

In 1982, a young lawyer and now chief justice of the US supreme court, John Roberts wrote a detailed legal analysis as part of an evolving radical conservative legal strategy to try to undo Roe v. Wade, public school desegregation and other social trends that conservatives hated then and still hate today. Roberts wrote that the constitution contains “clear and unequivocal” language that gives congress the power to shield laws from Supreme Court review. One can now understand why George W. Bush nominated Roberts to be the chief justice on the Supreme Court.

Now that radical conservatives dominate the Supreme Court, liberals are considering using this constitutional clause to shield laws that liberals would like to see passed and protected from endless court battles. Liberal are also considering expanding the supreme court and packing it with liberal judges and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, both of which seem to be problematic and will likely further polarize American politics. 

What seems to be happening now

The decades-long radicalism of powerful conservatives and their rigid unwillingness to accept demographic and social change they hate and reject runs deep and powerful. Their desperate, slowly losing fight against modernity and social change has led them to the malicious and deeply immoral political space they now occupy. Many radical conservatives have come to realize that reliance on facts, truth, sound reasoning and reasonable compromise, an honest clean fight of ideas, will not stop the changes they what stopped. They will lose if they play politics fairly, respectfully and transparently. In the process of protecting their version of America, radical conservatism has become dishonest, immoral, authoritarian and opaque. Authoritarianism and opacity is discussed here. 

In reaction to how dirty and nasty the right has played to get us here, the left is now considering some of the same authoritarian tactics the right has considered or used. The difference between the two sides today is that the radical right is mostly an exclusive white minority trying to impose its will on an unwilling majority, while the left is generally trying to rule in the name of the majority. The years of RINO hunts in the GOP has drained that party of ideological diversity and at the same time, racial diversity. In one sense, the GOP is a spent force that is cornered, enraged and extremely dangerous. Its willingness to resort to authoritarianism, immorality, lies, deceit and so forth seem to be provoking at least some similar responses on the left.

In essence, modern mainstream radical conservatism is dragging American society and governance down into dark, immoral places. We may not be able to save civil society, democracy, civil lib or the rule of law.

Information source: Bloomberg Businessweek

Footnote: 

1. Caveat: The preceding phrase,  In all other Cases before mentioned, may somehow limit the kinds of laws that are subject to jurisdiction stripping. 

A Russian October Surprise Has Arrived!

Peek-a-boo!

We all knew it was coming. Well, here it is. Well, at least here is one. The Russians appear to have fabricated evidence about the illegal Biden activity in Ukraine. The Russians used the clueless, corrupt Rudy Giuliani as the conduit to help inject the Russian poison into American politics. The radical right propaganda and lies source, the New York Post ate it up and published the lies.[1] 

Now, the president, and his enablers and supporters can smear Biden with fabricated evidence. It was only a matter of time before the radical right could no longer contain itself and would resort to faked evidence to attack and smear political opposition, especially Joe Biden.  

The Washington Post writes: 

"The intelligence agencies warned the White House late last year that Russian intelligence officers were using President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential run, according to four current and former American officials.

The agencies imparted the warning months before disclosing publicly in August that Moscow was trying to interfere in the election by taking aim at Mr. Biden’s campaign, the officials said. Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have promoted unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Biden that have aligned with Russian disinformation efforts, and Mr. Giuliani has met with a Ukrainian lawmaker whom American officials believe is a Russian agent.

The warning, the second former official said, was prompted by a meeting on Dec. 5 between Mr. Giuliani and Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian member of Parliament who takes pro-Kremlin positions. The Treasury Department recently labeled him “an active Russian agent for over a decade,” disclosing that he maintained ties to Moscow’s intelligence services as it imposed sanctions on him in September.

Mr. Derkach has been releasing tapes of the former vice president’s conversations with Ukrainian officials. American officials said those tapes had been edited in misleading ways.

Mr. Giuliani has made multiple trips to Ukraine to gather material that is damaging to the Biden campaign, and his December visit came as he tried to shift the political conversation from impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump to unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Biden’s wrongdoing.

Mr. Giuliani’s work seized attention in the presidential race again this week when The New York Post published articles about Mr. Biden and his son based on material Mr. Giuliani provided. The Biden campaign rejected the reports, and Facebook and Twitter deemed them so dubious that they limited access to them.

The New York Times has not been able to verify the information that Mr. Giuliani furnished to The Post, which he said came from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop. The owner of the shop has given conflicting accounts to reporters, and Mr. Giuliani’s acquisition of the laptop has raised questions about the material on it.

In August, the Office of the Director of National intelligence said in a statement that Mr. Derkach was spreading disinformation about Mr. Biden. The C.I.A. later issued a more detailed classified warning in its Worldwide Intelligence Review, a secret document read by members of Congress and the administration."

Time will tell if this attack on Biden is based on real or fake evidence. Given the disregard for truth that Giuliani has shown in his loyalty to the president, it is reasonable to think that (i) this is a Russian disinformation ploy, and (ii) Giuliani is a stooge the Russians are using to undermine Biden's campaign.

Footnote: 

1. The NYP article includes this sleaze: 

"Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

The shop owner couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother and former Delaware attorney general."

Political profiling…

 

I know (at least I believe) it’s morally wrong to racially/ethnically/sexually profile, and I am especially aware to try not to do that.  But is it also morally wrong to politically profile?  Because I will admit, right or wrong, I do that. :(

REPUBLICANS

I see the designation “Republican” and I immediately think things like: Money-oriented, less empathetic, more self-centered/selfish, less science-oriented, short term benefits over long term benefits.

DEMOCRATS

I see the designation “Democrat” and I immediately think things like: Civically-oriented, more empathetic, more other-centered/selfless, more science-oriented, long term benefits over short term benefits.

Granted, there are always exceptions to judgment-type (non-data driven) rules, but I am speaking/defining in generalities here.

*          *          *

So let’s start building some working lists.  Then we can challenge each other’s claims:

-Please list as many Republicans as you see fitting under my Republican definition above.

-Please list as many Democrats as you see fitting under my Democrat definition above.

-Please list as many politicians that do not fit under my profiled definitions above.  (I.e., D’s that “behave” like R’s, R’s that “behave” like D’s.)  Prove me wrong and help me find exceptions to my admittedly biased rules.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Insider Trading Opportunities for Trump Supporters

Larry Kudlow (director of the National Economic Council) lied to the 

American people in February, falsely telling them the

 coronavirus was contained in the United States 

and that “it’s pretty close to airtight”

Back in February, when the Trump administration was lying to the American people about the pandemic being cully contained and under control, administration officials were privately telling board members of the radical conservative Hoover Institution that they were worried that the pandemic would spin out of control. This information  leaked to some Wall Street traders and they traded on the information. 

The New York Times described the response of one trader like this: “‘Short everything,’ was the reaction of the investor, using the Wall Street term for betting on the idea that the stock prices of companies would soon fall.”

The NYT writes about how traders were informed that the situation was potentially far worse than the American people were being told:

“On the afternoon of Feb. 24, President Trump declared on Twitter that the coronavirus was “very much under control” in the United States, one of numerous rosy statements that he and his advisers made at the time about the worsening epidemic. He even added an observation for investors: “Stock market starting to look very good to me!”

But hours earlier, senior members of the president’s economic team, privately addressing board members of the conservative Hoover Institution, were less confident. Tomas J. Philipson, a senior economic adviser to the president, told the group he could not yet estimate the effects of the virus on the American economy. To some in the group, the implication was that an outbreak could prove worse than Mr. Philipson and other Trump administration advisers were signaling in public at the time.

The next day, board members — many of them Republican donors — got another taste of government uncertainty from Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council. Hours after he had boasted on CNBC that the virus was contained in the United States and “it’s pretty close to airtight,” Mr. Kudlow delivered a more ambiguous private message. He asserted that the virus was “contained in the U.S., to date, but now we just don’t know,” according to a document describing the sessions obtained by The New York Times. 

The consultant’s assessment quickly spread through parts of the investment world. U.S. stocks were already spiraling because of a warning from a federal public health official that the virus was likely to spread, but traders spotted the immediate significance: The president’s aides appeared to be giving wealthy party donors an early warning of a potentially impactful contagion at a time when Mr. Trump was publicly insisting that the threat was nonexistent. (emphasis added)

Interviews with eight people who either received copies of the memo or were briefed on aspects of it as it spread among investors in New York and elsewhere provide a glimpse of how elite traders had access to information from the administration that helped them gain financial advantage during a chaotic three days when global markets were teetering.

But the memo’s overarching message — that a devastating virus outbreak in the United States was increasingly likely to occur, and that government officials were more aware of the threat than they were letting on publicly — proved accurate.”

A couple of points merit comment. First, the Trump Administration wants to protect wealthy republicans. Last February, it did that by giving those people inside information that they could trade on to protect themselves in advance of the stock market drop the pandemic caused. Second, some or most of those informed people did not hesitate to use that information to protect themselves and make money at the expense of people who did not have the same information. There was no moral qualm about illegal insider trading. In general, stock traders do not have any moral values other than profit.

Now, in October, there is almost no possibility that any person who traded on this non-public information will be prosecuted for insider trading. The Trump Administration will protect its own one way or another. Most likely, this little incident of corruption and moral sleaze will simply be dismissed as not insider trading, even though that is exactly what it was. If it was legal, that raises this question: Why limit this to elite radical conservatives? Why not tell all Americans that the government believed the pandemic could easily spin out of control and cause massive economic damage? 

When it comes to the corrupt, morally bankrupt Trump Administration, there is no reason to accord it the benefit of any doubt about sleaze like this. The track record of corruption, lies and deceit is clear and undeniable.

This is an example of how the rule of law now fails to work when applied to republican elites and probably wealthy people in general. The rest of us are still required to obey the rule of law, while the elites can do whatever they want, legal or not.