How do we fix the schizo problem in science? It's said that they're degrading the science community.
How do we fix the schizo problem in science? It's said that they're degrading the science community.
How do we fix the schizo problem in science? It's said that they're degrading the science community.
By you killing yourself.
Hahahahaha
Also put in “cited paper written by self” kek
>The triggered schizo uses the "no u" defence
These are rules which won't dismiss any sane researcher's claims, true or false. The rules will, however filter out 99% of schizos.
- Blacklist the obviously impossible topics (e.g. perpetual motion, FTL travel, reverse time travel, consciousness as a result of quantum physics, time not being a biological construct)
- No "deep" philosophical shit presented as science (whooa dude the universe is a simulation check this out 1+1=5 etc.)
- At least 2 authors on any paper. I've never seen 2 schizophrenics collaborating but it might still be possible.
- Misuse of academic jargon
- Straight up incoherent rambling
Aside from the last two they aren't necessarily the signs of a schizo, and you shouldnt really ban certain topics from scientific discussion. And I say this as someone who has no interest in any of the above topics and is kind if a science and maths normie
Philosophy presented as science is still philosophy. I'm sure philosophers would be glad to listen to your wisdom on the existence of god.
What I'm trying to say here is if collaboration with ANYONE is a clear prerequisite to getting a claim submitted, it'll (possibly) make it much more difficult for someone who is in the midst of writing a schizo paper, while allowing everyone else to freely publish.
There's nothing stopping a normal person from asking someone else to edit or give feedback on their work. On the other hand, schizophrenic people tend to have trust issues from delusions of persecution and/or grandeur. If anyone is asked to proofread a schizophrenic's work, they likely won't know where to begin.
If I'm wrong and one can collaborate with a schizophrenic person going through a manic episode, I'll take back my point.
>There's nothing stopping a normal person from asking someone else to edit or give feedback on their work. On the other hand, schizophrenic people tend to have trust issues from delusions
* And if anyone is asked to proofread a schizophrenic's work...
>while allowing everyone else to freely publish
Schizos aren't the only people who have trust issues, or other problems that interfere with collaboration, some of which aren't even necessarily related to mental health.
>There's nothing stopping a normal person from asking someone else to edit or give feedback on their work. On the other hand, schizophrenic people tend to have trust issues from delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.
And on the gripping hand, there are people who fall into neither the "normal people" nor "schizophrenic" categories, not the least of which are the abnormally bright.
Practically speaking, my objection would be defeated by implementing an IQ test bypass for the collaboration criteria. Set some threshold such that, if you have an IQ higher than that, it's understandable that you'd have a difficult time finding a collaborator.
>Schizos aren't the only people who have trust issues, or other problems that interfere with collaboration, some of which aren't even necessarily related to mental health.
Schizos and cranks almost universally are afraid that people will steal their brilliant world changing work, and so squirrel it away from anyone else. They have a different temperament from the other type of person that hides their work, which is the really anxious person who is afraid that their work is badly flawed and so they just sit on it for ages. The crank and the schizo rationalizes their mistrust with whatever tales of academic plagiarism they can cobble together whilst the neurotic anxios type is just afraid that people will think lesser of them for being wrong and may take them less seriously next time.
>Practically speaking, my objection would be defeated by implementing an IQ test bypass for the collaboration criteria.
Your IQ shit is bullshit as plenty of deranged people love practicing IQ tests until they get really good at them and plenty of people that are brilliant in a particular field can get fucked from them.
>Schizos and cranks almost universally are afraid that people will steal their brilliant world changing work, and so squirrel it away from anyone else.
I'm not disputing the sensitivity of your criterion, I'm disputing its specificity.
>plenty of deranged people love practicing IQ tests until they get really good at them
Cope which I strongly suspect to be of the mathlet flavor.
and plenty of people that are brilliant in a particular field can get fucked from them.
Definitely supports the mathlet hypothesis.
>afraid that people will steal
Isn't OP about how to avoid schizos spamming their work everywhere? Isn't that literally the opposite of "schizos afraid of spamming their work everything"?
*everywhere
philosophy presented as science is still philosophy, but philosophy is the highest form of science
>No same researcher has ever/will ever author a paper without a coauthor
I mean they can if it's presented as a rule.
I don't know what the hell this is supposed to mean, but
is a perfect example of why science-proponents should all be lined up amd one-at-a-time fed feet-first into a woodchipper until all the survivors solemnly swear they will never utter or publish a thought again without first consulting a mathematician or logician.
>These are rules which won't dismiss any sane researcher's claims
>- At least 2 authors on any paper
You've literally, unequivocally stated that ANY paper author without a coauthor can be dismissed as schizophrenic, AND unequivocally stated that such a decision is incapable of wrongly categorizing any researcher as schizophrenic. Like every empiricist I have ever encountered, you don't even understand what your own words mean.
It's true. Schizos in science are too self-important to actually work with each other. The second they try, they'll argue with each other for months over a topic they are both wrong in.
Coauthored shit is all post "Erdos number"
It's also amusing that two of the most schizo magnets ever — FLT (in the bingo card) and (ternary) Goldbach — were both proven by single authors. If anything, I'd be more likely to filter a paper as schizo by how many people it claims to have living in.
lrn2logic
"no schizo writes with a coauthor" is true, but you can't reverse the rule and say that filtering out single author papers only dismisses schizos. It dismisses dozens of Fields-medal worthy papers.
>time not being a biological construct
did you get confused by the chain of nested negations or is this the bait part of your post?
Science is constantly being updated, it would be quite arrogant to think that it's right about everything right now.
Plainly? You don’t. You shouldn’t, at least. But LULZ is filled with the foolish so of course they would.
I was a crank at one point. I emailed a math professor and he kindly told me my results were not useful.
I gave up on math after that. But I had learned my lesson
example?
It's not wrong to be wrong
>you only understand 4% of the universe
see? Even the smartest of you is still pretty stupid
>incomp-
>rehensible
add "hyp- henates words wrong" to the list
Frank DiMeglio
unironically just engage with the ideas and demonstrate that they can't work or that you can't show they would or wouldn't work.
if the ideas are incomprehensible, ask questions until it is or until the answers add to the incomprehensibility (in which case dismissal is fine - at least of the provided formulation of the idea).
it's not very hard if you have an ability to think critically and aren't just coasting on memorized rules. PF is run by the kind of people who find it difficult, and has not actually been a "forum" for years. it's basically just "help me with my homework" userposting or "fellate me over my blog post i'm calling an 'insight' that just restates a textbook chapter from somewhere and offers nothing new or insightful" modposting nowadays. the staff also have a nasty tendency to harass new users (i'm not actually speaking from personal experience, they've been fine to me - you see it in threads made by accounts with low post counts all the time if you peruse enough) so there's very little activity generating content and most of the site traffic is from people googling homework answers and leaving immediately after finding a relevant post from 5+ years ago.
>unironically just engage with the ideas
Nah. You can tell if an idea is new or not. Waste of time to reëngage with an old idea.
redirecting to a previous engagement with the idea is part of engaging with it. if you can't comprehensibly relate the new idea with the response you redirected to, however, you have made yourself the problem - so that's never a risk-free thing to do unilaterally.
>relate the new idea
What new idea? I said old idea
1.They care too much about their opinion to accept that it's legitimately delusional.
2.Its hard to explain to a schizo why they're wrong because you need to explain 6 college courses to them.
Checked. But what schizo thing have you ever heard that you'd need to explain 6 courses about?
Easy, climate change at a serious level.
Man. the climate really sucks these days doesn't it. It's like I'm sweating to death half the year and freezing to death the other half. What's the welfare like in Africa? Maybe we should all move back?
re 2. which college courses needed to be explained to mandelbaur? he seemed to have all the prerequisites, he just ignored them.
>just engage with the ideas
Schizo cranks are often not interested in knowing about why they are wrong on a fundamental level, they just care about if there are any reasoning flaws in their argument. A classic example is people trying to do prove the parallel postulate or square the circle or do other famous greek problems. If you tell them that they can't square the circle because pi is not a constructible number they aren't interested, they want you to point out the exact flaws in the argument, which if you can convince them it is a flaw, they will promptly rewrite into a slightly different form. Because after all, if they can make an argument with no flaws then everybody else must be wrong. And it's not always possible to convince them of an error.
Because schizo cranks can have a very shallow understanding of high level concepts they can just throw jargon at you (which they don't fully understand) to justify themselves, even if on a very basic level their argument is flawed. This makes engaging with certain cranks very difficult as you may need a cutting edge knowledge to fully understand what he is saying and where he is coming from and how he "understands" the concepts he is talking about. And after all this they may just scream at you and claim that you are part of a worthless academic conspiracy hiding the truth and/or are the real one who doesn't understand what you are talking about.
you dont