Paradoxers

Our chief consultant writes: an occupational hazard of working in a Physics or Astronomy Department, or at an Observatory, is the occasional receipt of an unsolicited paper from someone outside these sciences. One of these typically presents a new theory, more or less sweeping in its results, that corrects (perceived) errors now being made by scientists.

Physicists and astronomers generally spend little time on them. It is highly unlikely that someone with a minimal or mistaken grasp of the sciences (as these invariably display) will stumble upon something useful that many very capable scientists have missed. It also requires a lot of time and concentration to get through an often torturous piece of writing. (It is a good exercise for teachers, however, in distinguishing poor presentation from genuine error. Sometimes they’re passed on to graduate students to hone their thinking.) In the nineteenth century the authors of this kind of thing were squaring the circle and disproving Newton. Augustus de Morgan made a study of them, calling them “paradoxers” (using the word “paradox” in a different sense than we do today), and Five Colors S&T has adopted this term. (It’s worthwhile dipping into de Morgan’s A Budget of Paradoxes if you can find a copy. The writing is dense, but often entertaining.)

We will also mention a class of author much resembling paradoxers, in that they have some incomplete or mistaken understanding of science and believe they’ve found something all the experts have missed. But these, if given a clear explanation, will understand and acknowledge whatever mistake they’ve made, and so are not true paradoxers. They are only to be encouraged, because this is how people learn. We’ll call them semi-paradoxers.

And there is the outside possibility that an apparent paradoxer may actually come up with something, through untutored genius (which is exceedingly rare) or sheer good luck (which, in this kind of thing, is even rarer). However it comes, you really wouldn’t want to miss it.

Supporting all paradoxers on the off chance that you have one who actually isn’t one can be expensive, though, and not only in your time. We know of a paradoxer who has international collaborations and an expensive laboratory, all based on a theory that—we won’t be kind—is utter nonsense.

But, if you’re not a trained scientist, with the mathematical skill and scientific tools to test a theory laid before you, how can you tell the paradoxer from the real thing? That’s one problem we offer the Evaluation service to solve. We bring our varied background, scientific skill and (very important) patience to bear on whatever questionable material you have. It may not actually discourage paradoxers; in general, they can’t be discouraged; but we can at least give you an expert evaluation.

The paradoxer phenomenon is almost certainly not confined to physics and astronomy, however. Those of you in other fields must see something similar. What paradoxers do you deal with?

Dueling experts

Dealing with paradoxers is not, however, something most of us do a lot. We are much more often called upon to choose between experts, or apparent experts, who disagree. That is a harder task and gives clear answers less often. We’ll discuss it soon, in the second part of How do you tell, if you’re not an expert?