Talk:Stephen J. Crothers

footnote syntax
Need help with the syntax for the footnote references. One of the references (footnote number 3), has half a dozen multiple blank lines. Can anyone one help me with this problem? Many thanks! Slings and Arrows (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see the blank lines in the RW article, or the linked external page? I didn't see anything in need of fixing there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The blank lines are in the footnote section; near the bottom of the page. Specifically, footnote number 3. Thanks for your help. Slings and Arrows (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see em. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Well, maybe it is just browser related, and only shows up on my version of Internet Explorer. I will post a screen shot, as soon as I figure out how it's done. Thank you for your assistance. Slings and Arrows (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sprocket J Cogswell, This is my first attempt at writing a RationalWiki article; I'm still learning the syntax and style guidelines. So any assistance, advice, or revisions you offer is greatly appreciated! Oh, and the above problem I was experiencing with the blank lines has magically vanished. Slings and Arrows (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was my post, pointing out that Crothers is actually a private detective, deleted? Why is there no Myron Evans page? Are you afraid of that notoriously litigious crank? 15:05, 25 January 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I wasn't even aware of your post, or that it had been deleted. Can you please provide additional details; and links if there are any? Also, Myron Evans should have his own page. If you start one, I would be willing to contribute to the effort. Oh, and please terminate your comments with 4 tildes; that will automatically display your username and time stamp. Slings and Arrows (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Follow crackpotwatch.wordpress.com to learn all that there is to know about Myron Evans.
 * Crackpot Watch does a great job of keeping track of the day-to-day idiocy of Myron Evans and his loony-tune pals. I don’t know who actually runs the website; I think it’s someone who lives in the UK. Whoever is behind it would be an ideal candidate to write up a RationalWiki article on Myron Evans. Slings and Arrows (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Whining
This is an absolutely childish description without any relevance at all about the work of this person. I bet none of you has read and understood a yota of it! If your only goal is to yell and to insult, why don't you play some games instead of pretending to setting up a useful Wiki? Respectfulness (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that Crothers monitors this site as well.
 * Oh yeah, no doubt about it. That has to be either Stephen Crothers or Myron Evans. I am delighted to know that the article has gotten under their skin. Slings and Arrows (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or the mysterious Gareth Evans, who may only be an excrescence on the behind of Myron.137.205.183.31 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is some "respectfulness" quite typical of our subject: "I must first apologise, as you for a gentleman I mistook. In all the email you sent me you included rude, arrogant, condescending, stupid, and insulting remarks. You have rightly earnt yourself a bloody nose, and if not for the distance between us I might well have visited you to deliver the causative blow, not because of your incompetent technical argument, but because your behaviour has been that of an arsehole. It seems that you are doomed to live and die a conceited shithead, and, moreover, a conceited shithead who cannot do even elementary geometry. Signed Stephen J. Crothers."137.205.101.185 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

complaint from IP posted in article
[It is unfortunate that the criticisms and language used here are so typical of elitist, snobbish and conservative reactions to challenges of the "accepted wisdom". While criticism may or may not be deserved this unprofessional emotive attack only succeeds in making its authors appear childish and undisciplined. History is full of examples of this form of low level criticism by the "establishment". One only need look at some of the great steps in science that received condemnation only to be fully accepted in later generations. The critic's god, Einstein himself, met this initially. The recent and growing trend to now dismiss the accepted scientific method in favour of questionable mathematical gymnastics based purely on belief further questions those of the "establishment" as being themselves fraudulent crack pots. This trend is taking science full circle back to religious and creationism style belief systems. Will Cox, Green or Hawkins be the new Pope of science? Their ready belief in multiple Universes, large numbers of dimensions etc are all based on mathematical gymnastics with no evidence, only the mantra "believe me". They present these concepts as given fact in documentaries, thus abandoning all credibility. So fellow readers, be wary of critics such as these. People who are amateurs in a field often contribute significant advances in science and can not be easily dismissed by such snobbery. Just consider the number of contributions to astronomy as a lighter example. So beware the scoffing of elitists so comfortable in their ivory towers of foolish arrogance.]


 * "The critic's god, Einstein himself, met this initially." Do a Google search for einstein + senile . The Establishment lives off the central period of Einstein's life, first dismissing the early E, and then dismissing the late E as senile.

Quite agree. We'll need another Einstein to sort the black hole mess out. I'm sure they will call him a lazy dog too, at first. I'm not sure all the hocus pocus with maths is religion, or is it more Harry Potter..:D I bet they could even get their event horizons to pain Mona Lisa replicas.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 2.96.239.149 / talk / contribs

This is known as the 'Joe Bloggs defence'. It goes like this: "they laughed at Joe Bloggs, and he turned out to be right. They are laughing at me, so I must be right". Cannot be bothered to look up the fancy Latin name for that error in logic, but it is on the list.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.168.199.245 / talk / contribs
 * You probably meant the Galileo gambit.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from the Galileo gambit page. This particular passage seems tailor-made for Stephen Crothers and fits him remarkably well: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong." --Slings and Arrows (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Death of Myron Evans
Evans died unexpectedly on the 2nd May 2019 due to a pulmonary embolism. In spite of the facts that this was clearly due to generally poor health, and that Evans declared himself to be unaffected by criticism, a Mr Barry Hunt is currently harassing the Crackpotwatch team, stridently blaming them for the death of Evans. Mr Hunt, formerly of the University of Cincinnati and of various airplane companies is of course on Climont's list of 'dissident scientists' (i.e. cranks). His 'bag' is that a rather trivial mathematical concept, originally intended for the solution of aerodynamic problems, disproves concepts such as the Big Bang and black holes.

Adduce
I (anonymous vixra guest) am to blame for Crothers's fondness of the word "adduce" --- once upon a time I remarked that he had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim etc... and ever since I have noted the term cropping up repeatedly in his replies. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:81E:E071:6C36:E4AB (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

childish writing
Article is written in such a way that leads people to discredit rationalwiki poking fun of people that you don't like or disagree with is not something that should be on a serious wiki. a reader who is seeking to be informed will have to discredit a whole article when encountering clear bias. removal of all name calling is required, or you guys might as well link to wikipedia at the beginning of the article, because that's likely where readers are going next.
 * The article looks fine to me and is an accurate profile of the subject matter. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Crothers has a wikipedia page??? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:10CC:BA0A:88B1:D3F1 / talk

Crothers dead as of July 2020?
He's been awfully quiet. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:485F:D581:7C4B:556F (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems
It seems that a book is in preparation which will 'do a real hatchet-job' on Evans and several other prominent crackpots, the chosen battleground being Newton's third law.

The article seems quite biased and prejudicial.
The impression given by describing Crothers as a mere "handyman" was that of an itinerant dabbler incapable of making any worthwhile contributions to cosmology. Granted he did describe himself this way, but such a self-assessment is, perhaps, overly demure. The failure to elaborate his bona fides more clearly is quite misleading, as he appears to have been an ABD candidate for his doctorate (although it's not clear whether he completed his field studies). At any rate, there are a host of reasons why someone might be halted at the ABD that are in no way indications of incompetence. He appears to have given insult to gatekeepers, though it's not clear that he originally intended to do so.

I can find no particularly good reason that someone interested and knowledgeable in the subject should eschew at least giving him a hearing. Moreover, even if he's wrong he does seem to have something valid to say, from which one might learn something. The notion, for instance, of a "dimension" is actually not as settled as it appears, and this ambiguity has probably been overly exploited by certain parties of interest. To begin to really comprehend such a topic one might need to have developed the kind of historical semiotic perspective of a C.S. Peirce, and there are precious few of those people around (especially since the death of John Deely). The history of scientific terms and notations (even Recorde's invention of the equals sign) bears recollection from time to time in order not to lose the thread. Although making great contributions to mathematics Recorde, by profession, was actually a physician. Moreover we all know that even Peirce, probably the greatest of all American philosophers, had no easy time of it in academe. It can be a brutal and unfair environment for an independent thinker, but we need to take more risks along those lines lest the ball lose its bounce.

There are also scurrilous charges of malpractice and grifting that are thrown out, that certainly need more fairhanded elaboration, if true. Anything else? No, that's it for now.

Fair winds, and following seas, &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:6C55:4800:7E1D:27:BCDF:4DAA:5B4F / talk
 * "Definition of dimension is not as settled as it appears to be." Do you have a citation for that? Vee (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)