Jim Mash's grandiose claims have certainly suffered the death of thousand cuts in this thread!

Now that he has run off to lick his wounds, it seems appropriate to ponder some general lessons while we mop up the bloody mess.

Mash is only one of (literally) thousands who claim, at various websites, in various languages, that they have invented some grand new "theory" or "philosophy" which turns modern physics/cosmology on its head. More specifically, he is only one of dozens who write in what I call the genre of "simple physics". My intent in helping to expose his megalomanic claims as empty boasts was to employ him as an exemplar, to demolish the whole school by proxy, as it were.

There are perhaps half of dozen math/physics knowledgeable debunkers active at BAUT, but there are thousands of amateur anti-science dissidents out there; clearly we cannot spend the time to correct each misstatement or to debunk each misleading or incorrect claim made by each and every self-deluded individual wandering around the Internet. Efficiency demands that we focus attention on those who, like Mash, are clearly representative of a type.

Let's take a moment to make some general observations concerning individuals who make counterfactual claims concerning subjects they nothing about (without any implication that I neccessarily think any of following might apply to any particular individual):

• Many such individuals are rather obviously not in their right minds.
• In some cases, persons who terribly misunderstand what is required to inititiate a true scientific revolution are simply too young to know better.
• In quite a few cases, one might suspect that a physical problem, such as a severe head trauma or senility, may play a role in the odd speech of some of these individuals, but no-one with any sense (even if, perhaps especially if, he/she has some medical training!) would attempt a diagnosis over the internet, and obviously, you can hardly ask someone you don't know, "have you suffered a debilitating brain injury?!"

In most cases, the precise character of a massive self-delusion must remain murky. It is often not possible to form a clear picture of the age, background, and overall mental state of would-be contenders for the title of "The New Copernicus", especially over the Internet. But one thing is clear: the victims may deserve our sympathy as much as our scorn and contempt.

I decided to help make an example of Mash because he has offered biographical details which imply that he is not a troubled teenager; indeed, he has gone out of his way, both here at BAUT and at his website, to claim long experience working in some "government laboratory". Assuming that Daffyduck was not a sockpuppet for Mash, he has at least one supporter to help him recover from the mauling he received here. And he is not one of those who, from oddities of written style, I secretly suspect may literally suffer from a neurological problem. Thus, it seemed to me that, to the extent that anyone suffering from a certain lack of contact with reality can be said to be fair game, Mash was a good candidate for a more detailed debunking than most of his ilk are likely to receive, even in this subforum.

So, addressing in particular those among the younger generation who dream of becoming "the next Einstein", here is my advice on how to achieve scientific success, rather than becoming known as a crackpot:

• Want to overthrow some theory? Make sure you first understand what a theory is, and that you are familiar with the interplay of theoretical modeling, prediction, and evidence in the "development cycle" of several historically important (and not too old!) theories. Make sure you understand how incredibly difficult it really is to initiate a true revolution in science, and why.
  
• Impatient with the State of Science? That's not neccessarily a bad attitude, but you should keep it to yourself, at least until you really know enough to credibly speak out. There are usually many very good reasons why the dominant theories have achieved and maintained their dominance. Don't fall for the shibboleth that every "standard theory" represents nothing more than a conspiracy of senior scientists. That's almost never remotely close to being true!
  
• Want to overthrow theory T? Make sure you have mastered theory T, including its motivation, notation, terminology, any mathematical techniques commonly employed, any standard examples of mathematical models formulated in theory T, plus of course all the relevant evidence (not just the evidence you think is relevant, but the evidence which textbook authors think is relevant).
  
• Study standard textbooks on theory T, not popular science books. But that's only the beginning; mostly likely, to have any chance of success you will need to master the contemporary research literature concerning theory T as well.
  
• Think hard about why you want to overthrow theory T. If your motivation is impure, your judgement will be clouded, which will probably vitiate all your efforts.
  
• Never forget the most likely place where "the next revolution" will occur in science, is not in overthrowing some well-established cornerstone of physics (at least not directly), but in noticing and making a theory for something completely different from anything previously considered.
  
• There is a very good reason why people go to school in order to become mathematicians or physicists: long experience has shown that formal coursework is the most efficient path to the frontiers of contemporary science. So if you can go to school to study physics/cosmology, do so. (Although that is no guarantee of success, as another current ATM thread demonstrates.)
  
• Don't forget that reading assignments and homework are only a starting point. Serious students read textbooks other than the assigned textbook and work computations which they have not been formally assigned. Most of all, they think about what the authors whose works they read are doing at every stage, and try to understand why they do A and not B. (Quite often, it turns out that B works just as well as A, but even if not, you'll learn something. Indeed, exploring alternative avenues is an essential part of internalizing "standard material", and this activity will give you plenty of scope for exhibiting creativity, ingenuity, and intuition while you pursue your studies.)
  
• Reading standard textbooks doesn't "deaden your creativity", as some ignoramuses desperately want to believe. To the contrary, the more you read, the more you will know, and the more you know and the more you think about what you know, the more wisdom will be reflected in your own work. If you read extensively, you will have more ideas, and you will be much more efficient in separating those worthy of further consideration from those which are unlikely to bear scientific fruit.
  
• Never forget that physical theories belong to the domain of applied mathematics. I like to define mathematics as the art of reliable reasoning about simple phenomena. Used wisely, mathematics never makes things more complicated, as idgits would have you believe. Rather, it helps you to extract the really essential stuff and to ignore any uneccessary distractions. In the end, using mathematics (possibly including sophisticated mathematics) can only makes things simpler. The precision of mathematical definitions, statements, and proofs constitutes the best "magic bullet" we know against confusion. Math is your greatest ally in the search for scientific truth; do not shun it's assistance.
  
• Proof is only a way station on the path to enlightenment. Never forget that the most interesting and rewarding part of mathematical modeling lies in the interpretation of your results. Most likely the math is trying to tell you something important; listen to what it says.
  
• Long experience shows that the very best way to learn about theory T is to try to explain topics in theory T to individuals who know just a bit less than you do. (Forums like BAUT and Physics Forums can be a fun way to get your feet wet, although you would do well to recall what I said above about other participants having to guess your age and background, so don't throw a fit if someone with more experience corrects something you wrote.)
  
• The old notion (often attributed, with some degree of fairness, to Thomas Kuhn) that there is some kind of sharp divide between "ordinary science" and "extraordinary science" has long since been debunked. There is in fact a continuum of "value" in scientific work, and judgements of value tend to be very much context-dependent and to change over time. The important thing to keep in mind is that there is endless room for creativity and individual style in any research career.
  
• Sometimes I suspect that some posters in forums like BAUT have taken some slogan from Star Wars or Wikipedia just a bit too seriously. "Trust in the force?" "Be bold?" "Ignore all rules?" That might work well in some enterprises, such as speculations on the commodities market (if you don't mind a spell in the pen), but in science, long experience shows that it is much smarter to be very knowlegeable and very well prepared. Take Darwin as your model: he knew the stuff he wrote about better than anyone, and everyone else knew it, which made his claims impossible to ignore, however revolutionary.
  
• Follow the customs of good scholarship. Take responsibility for your speech and actions by writing under your real name. Don't misrepresent your background. Cite your sources. Make every effort to write clearly. Above all, never misrepresent the evidence or the nature of the theory you are trying to criticize. And if you want to call yourself a "scientist", don't disparage the scholarship and ability of the leaders in the field, or the nature of the scientific enterprise itself.
  
• Don't be dismayed if you fail. (In the end, even Newton and Einstein considered that they had failed to acheive their dreams. In fact, if you lack unsatisfied ambitions, something is probably wrong.) There are things you can do which will improve your chances, but nothing is ever guaranteed.
  
• Nonetheless, someone has to succeed in initiating the next landmark revolution in science. If you follow the above advice, and if you are sufficiently determined, courageous, industrious, ingenious, lucky and wise, you probably have about as good a chance as anyone!
  

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!