Marvin Gardner (1957) on pseudo science and its masters

[ChairmanAgnostic]

From his brilliant book, Fads and Fallacies.

Gardner developed five rules of thumb which help determine whether someone is a crank or a genius. Of course, gardner made one major mistake. He assumed that by 1957, biology and scientific approaches had won their nasty, dirty and raging war with the religious bigots: "The battle of science to free itself from religious control has almost been completely won. Church groups still oppose certain doctrines in biology and psychology, but even this opposition no longer dominates scientific bodies or journals."

He spaketh too soon.

Anyway, here are his five observations which will unmask the sincere, pseudo-scientist:

1) He considers himself a genius.

2) He regards all colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.

3) He believes himself persecuted or unjustly measured or discriminated against.

4) He has strong compulsions to go after the most famous or accepted leaders of that field and the most-accepted theories.

5) He has a tendency to talk and write in complex jargon, in some cases using figures of speech or descriptions that he himself has coined.


The field you can apply this analysis to can range from political science to high energy physicks. For example, two people, famous and currently in power come to mind:

Don Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney

In each case, they fit the profile, even #3. gardner even suggests that when an insane crank reaches a position of power, any questioning of his decisions are perceived as persecution or discrimination and are met with anger, and a refusal to accept even the slightest premise from the "attacker".

Rummie clearly feels that he is a genius. He has told his generals that repeatedly, in other words, of course. He regards the military brains, the press and anyone who dares disagree with him as ignorant blockheads. He has taken years of experience in nation building, the art of invasion and war, and in support, pre-war analysis, and shredded them to bits. He talks and writes in Rummie-esque, using jargon, turns of phrases and using his own figures of speech.

The same analysis can easily be applied to Dick Cheney and others in the administration. I suppose, the entire Neocon movement can be analyzed in this way.

[wtmusic]

1. You mean Martin?

The guy from Scientific American? :shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. yep, sorry, the flingers aernt' always wurking ryght.

martin.

Loved his SciAm stuff.

[MikeDuffy]

2. You mean Martin Gardner, who wrote the Mathematical Games

for "Scientific American" magazine for many years, and now writes for "Skeptical Inquirer".

[C_U_L8R]

3. A good guide to flush out pseudo scientists

but also other poseurs, frauds and fakes.

O'reilly seems to match these characteristics perfectly
and many other talentless reichwingers. Funny.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. I stopped my application with Rummie, but you are so right. it works

especially with BillO.