From Wikipedia : Crank (person)
“Crank” is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous to many. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task; this is the essential defining characteristic of the crank: being impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. (Ver resto do artigo)
10 hours ago
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Labeling everybody who disagrees with conventional wisdom as a “crank” represents a simplistic information filter. The problem of our era — the Information Age — is information overload. To excel in science, we must avoid the temptation to adopt simplistic information filters. In theory, the value of science is that all of our beliefs can be supported by arguments, observations and experimental data. Appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks are, in theory, irrelevant to this process. Those who look to these approaches to science — as opposed to attempting to create their own ideational fluency — will distract themselves into weak information filters. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Simultaneously, those who are more concerned with fitting into a social fabric than tracking down truth in science will not care that they have done so.
This is how we can stall science. The social structure will then determine the results
Consensus x Divergence – À Matrix/DNA convem consensus ou divergence? A cosmovisão oficial força um consenso ou o insconsciente coletivo conduz ao consenso?
Postado em : http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-gear-picture-black-hole.html
11 hours ago
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Research into creative problem-solving increasingly points to creative genius being a function of the breadth of ideational fluency. Genetics merely affects the chances of genius accidentally occurring. The bigger factor pertains to a person’s willingness to hear out competing views. Consensus-driven science undermines ideational fluency, insofar as it invites agreement, to the detriment of a fluency in divergent arguments and worldviews.
What we need instead of consensus is convergence. Convergence is not forced; it self-assembles. It also easily accommodates divergence from conventional wisdom, permitting a much wider breadth of conversation than we see with this existing attempt at a coherent cosmology.
Conventional theorists still imagine that their consensus is not the product of social forces. And yet, theories are the products of people. So long as they persist with such blatant denial, our attempts to explain nature will continue to be pathetic.