I’ve recently come across this group that refers to themselves as advocating “rational science.” There’s a Facebook group for it. They are followers of a first class looney tune named Bill Gaede, who is a 9/11 truther and apparently believes that all science after Faraday is wrong. You can find more information here.
If you want to have a good laugh, take a look at their explanation of how science should operate. It’s got all the hallmarks of crankhood, including some absolutely bizarre use of language. For example, in forming a hypothesis, they say, you have to have three things: exhibits, definitions and “a statement of the facts/assumptions.” And here’s what they mean by that last part:
c) Statement of the Facts/Assumptions
- Describes an object or tells us what happened in an event.
- Addresses all necessary how questions, and does not address why questions.In order to understand conceptually how this is done, the following digression regarding fact hood must be made:
- Fact/Truth = The Universal MovieVisualise a movie consisting of movie-frames/photographs of the entire universe:
- Every frame contains every single object in existence.
- Each object is distinct from one another, with definite location.
- There is no real movement in such a movie, and it would be perceived only due to memory of past frames when the movie is played.
- Therefore, each fame contains only shapes. The universal movie is an endless collection of frames with shapes arranged inside.Such a movie would be fact hood. An uninterrupted sequence of locations of every atom in the universe.
- Statement of the facts consists of the selection of the clips from the Universal Movie/Fact necessary to keep in mind for the theory in question to be understood.
And yes, the proper response should be A) scratching your had and B) muttering “what the fuck?” They go on to claim that observation and experimentation have nothing to do with science (seriously). All of this fits quite well into John Baez’ crackpot index. Arguing with one of these people is even more frustrating than arguing with a creationist, mostly because they use words in really weird ways. Watch this video and see how much you can take of it: