I was just having some fun with the concept of a “crackpot” which to me is really just name calling. I was making the simple point that taking sentences out of context, criticizing books that you don’t read, and wholesale name calling is not very nice and deserves a little ridicule itself.

However, your review of Mr. Witt’s book is thoughtful and well presented, and actually gave me a lot of insight into the concept of “crackpot”, and why such a designation is at all usefull.

Your review, and also your comments posted in another section of this blog, entitled “reality check”, are a breath of fresh air, as they are too the point, thoughtful, yet highly critical. In fact I learned something from reading both your review (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html)

Here is my response to you, and to everyone trying to make sense of this debate:

1. I am an educated physician, read Scientific American, American Scientist, Discovery and Astonomy on a regular basis, and I received an A in quantum physics in college in 1976!

I read popular books on quantum physics and their mystical implications, and have published articles with theoretical physicists, and I know many of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists on a casual basis.

Yet I can’t read Terence Witt’s book and pick out the obvious scientific errors or math issues. I am mostly reading his concept, his philosophy, his approact to the problem. This illustrates the greater problem of cross fertilization of ideas between different disciplines. My wife Pauline particularly is intrigued by his ideas, his underlying concepts.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that I do know that much of Witt’s criticisms of physics are held by other thinkers, who are well regarded. I recently read Reinventing Gravity by John Moffat, which was reviewed in Astronomy, and he makes many of the same statements that Witt makes.

So, someone like myself, a highly educated and interested scientist reads Witt’s book, and we know that much of what he is saying is true, and much of the criticisms he has of modern physics are held by other thinkers as well.

So how can be evaluate his book!

We are NOT served, nor is it helpful to read the legion of criticisms of Witt which basically call him a crackpot. Frankly, Monreal’s review of Witt’s book is not thoughtful or well done, for the non physicist it reads like he really never critically read Witt’s book and just tried to find a lot of picky errors. That is why I was so hard on him, as I felt he had some ridicule coming as his criticism of Witt’s book simply is not all that thoughtful for how dismissive it is.

So, Mr. or Dr. Fiski:
You have impressed me with your criticisms of Witt’s work:
So, I have the following questions for you:

1. What do you think is the benefit of dismissing someone who is obviously thoughtful and a true inventor and scientist (in a different field) as a crackpot? I am asking this seriously, as you will see, from my second question.

2. My own personal theory of why someone might dismiss Witt’s book as “crackpot” as a serious criticism is as follows:

a) Witt is a thoughtful genuine thinker, but he might be outside his field.
b) It is very difficult and even intellectually dangerous to stray outside one’s field.
c) For example, I greatly admire the theoretical physicist Amit Goswami, and love his books. I am a “quantum activist” and he has so inspired me.
BUT, his book “Quantum Doctor” is riddled with errors, poor thinking, and worse, he really doesn’t understand his subject matter, medicine.

If I was writing a review of Quantum Doctor, it would be hard for me to define exactly what is wrong with it, it is well referenced, it is all “true”, it is well reasoned, yet it shows no real understanding of medicine, and he again and again misses fundamental unspoken truths and principals which are the cornerstone of medical care.

As a result, I might be tempted to simply dismiss the book as “crackpot” medicine, as a signal to my fellow physicians that the book is not worth their time reading.

Yet, ultimately, I am doing myself, the scientific community, and Goswami a deservice if that was my reaction. I stand by my review of Witt’s book in the forum section of this website, in which I state that we benefit intellectually when we take the trouble to truly dissect ideas, and specifically document what is troubling about them to us. I have in fact taken the time to do that with Quantum Doctor, and learned a lot, although perhaps not what Dr. Goswami intended me to learn.

My second question is what do you think of this approach and can you at least credit Witt’s work with stimulating us to rethink our own facts and theories and force people to specifically say what they don’t agree with in his arguements.
In addition, why do you think you are unique in your thoughtful yet highly critical review of his work?

Melvin L Morse