Re: Wikipedia crackpottey

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:51:43 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:26:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>

I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.

>
Why is that interesting? It is the definition of a crackpot.
Great pot, if only...

>
Touché!

>
Thanks! But you are right too.
Nobel has great cracking powers, even posthumously,
>
Jan
>
PS, you forgot Niko Tinbergen, who even demonstrated it
even in his acceptance speech.

I'm not sure that you can call Tinbergen a crackpot for being an
adherent of the Alexander Technique. This was/is an alternative
therapy that held that a variety of health conditions could be
corrected with improved posture and specific exercises. There
were/are quite a number of people who have provided anecdotal
testimony of the effectiveness of AT, but peer-reviewed published
studies have been relatively lacking. The few such studies that exist
support the notion that AT may improve lower back pain and improve
performance anxiety in musicians. But the claims that AT may help
ameliorate a much broader range of medical conditions like asthma,
osteoarthritis, etc. are completely unsupported by recent research.
At the time of Tinbergen's Nobel, these studies demolishing the
broader claims of AT adherents had not yet been conducted. Calling
Tinbergen a crackpot on the basis of current knowledge would be
"presentism", I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysis)
I have friends who undergo regular treatments with acupuncture, and
a very dear friend of mine was a Reiki master. I consider none of
them to be crackpots.