Jimmy Pelletier

i think you make very valid pionts.although i dont think you need a degree to have a brilliant idea,i do think it helps in backing it up.or more so that educating yourself helps show how they might be wrong.i think the one good thing about these "crackpots" is that they can get peopl thinking which can lead to them educating themselves,which is whats happening in my case.i am waiting[2 kids,looking for a house,etc.] to start my scolastic journy at the age of 37.as i read all these ideas,it fuels my desire to learn more.in finding out if they are right or wrong[or did to much acid] i learn alot along the way.i def agree that scientific progress isnt just trying to point out what is wrong,but instead trying to prove what is right.and just like science as a whole,my ideas are in a consant state of evolution,as i feel all should be.i welcome those that can show my or anybodies ideas are wrong because i believe we learn more from our mistakes[at least i do].

"If it cannot be expressed in numbers, it is not science, merely educated opinion."~ Robert Heinlein. You are very right, any aversion to mathematical proofs is a giant red flag indicating pseudoscience. Good post.

Originally Posted by roncj5

i think you make very valid pionts.although i dont think you need a degree to have a brilliant idea,i do think it helps in backing it up.or more so that educating yourself helps show how they might be wrong.i think the one good thing about these "crackpots" is that they can get peopl thinking which can lead to them educating themselves,which is whats happening in my case.i am waiting[2 kids,looking for a house,etc.] to start my scolastic journy at the age of 37.as i read all these ideas,it fuels my desire to learn more.in finding out if they are right or wrong[or did to much acid] i learn alot along the way.i def agree that scientific progress isnt just trying to point out what is wrong,but instead trying to prove what is right.and just like science as a whole,my ideas are in a consant state of evolution,as i feel all should be.i welcome those that can show my or anybodies ideas are wrong because i believe we learn more from our mistakes[at least i do].

I'm with you on this one. Scientist or aspiring scientist, it all comes down to wanting to understand and know the universe and our place in it. You don't need a degree to have an imagination. I'm not a scientist, but a philosopher. I enjoy playing with complicated abstractions and theories, and speculating about them in philosophical terms. I must rely on the real physicists who do grasp the more complicated details, and turn to them for a better understanding of what the theories imply.

Thanks for the comments, guys. I agree, you don't need a degree to make important discoveries; for example, Clyde Tombaugh didn't have a degree when he discovered Pluto. But my reasoning is this: most important positions in physics need a PhD, or at least a master's degree. A degree isn't essential to being able to create a theory; it helps when you're trying to convince others! Additionally, you learn a lot of mathematics getting a degree. That would help when you're trying to make a formula (where a lot of crackpot scientists don't fall through, as stated earlier).

enough formulas strung together give you a story. I like the story...my physicist/engineer friend likes the formulas and between the two of us we can put a way many a pots of coffee when we chat. I see no difference between science and religion. If a religion is true, it's underlying assumptions will be empirically (albeit not necessarily reductionistically) evident.