On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:59:29 -0500, Ned Batchelder wrote: [...] > And the cycle continues: [...]
> Maybe we could just not? A reasonable request, but just because it's reasonable doesn't mean it is a no-brainer that we shouldn't engage with Mark. While I'm very confident at this point that he is a crank, in the same category as circle-squarers, cold fusion proponents, pi-is-a-rational- number theorists, perpetual motion machine inventors, evolution or AGW Denialists[1], and other such obsessive examples of Dunning-Kruger, I'm not *totally* confident that he is a crank. Maybe he'll prove me wrong and actually learn something. Who knows, maybe *I'll* learn something! Even if Mark is a crank and beyond the reach of logic, reason or facts, and I'm 90% convinced his is, consider that he's not the only one reading this thread. If just one person learns something useful or new from a reply to Mark, I believe that it is worthwhile. I daresay that at some point I'll make the same decision as you, that the pain of answering Mark is not worth the benefit to readers, or perhaps that there aren't any readers who will learn something new. But I'm not there yet. (Perhaps I'm just slow.) Speaking of cranks, anyone unaware of the Crack-pot index should check it out: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html It's probably more entertaining for those who have actually spent time engaging with cranks in the sciences (e.g. Relativity Denialists) or mathematics. [1] A lot of people dislike the term Denialist. I justify it this way -- there is a difference between those who merely have doubts about the existence of something (say, evolution, global warming, the Holocaust, Operation Gladio, Shakespeare, etc.) and a Denialist. Those doubts don't even need to be *reasonable* doubts. If the person happens to be unknowledgeable (i.e. ignorant) about the subject in question, their doubts may be unreasonable relative to the state of knowledge. What matters is whether the person doing the doubting is reasonable. Denialists are cranks. Not all people who deny, dispute or question accepted knowledge are cranks. Normally the difference between a crank and a non-crank is relatively obvious. One very strong sign is to ask the question "what evidence would change your mind?". If the answer is either "no evidence at all will change my mind", or something which is impossible to satisfy (e.g. "I won't accept evolution until I see a chicken give birth to a human being"), then the person is a crank and hence the term Denialist is likely to be apt. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
