I agree with most of this, but I think you’re skipping a really important issue:
“There’s a big difference between dismissing that whole Lost Continent
of Atlantis story, and prematurely dismissing it.”
Well, sure, but we need some way of deciding when our dismissal is
premature. I mentioned this in the comments on Talking Snakes as
well… there is certainly some room for the absurdity heuristic—my
time is valuable, I can’t evaluate the evidence for every crank claim
in the world (I know several academics who could easily spend their
entire lives checking “proofs” that P=NP if they did this). I have to
reject some of them out of hand—the issue is: which ones?
If someone tells me they’ve built a perpetual motion machine in the
back garden from tin cans and elastic bands, I’m not going to waste
even 10 minutes of my life trying to replicate it. If Steven Hawking tells me he’s built one, I’ll at least give the matter some consideration. The real issue is
where we draw the line between claims which are too absurd to bother
looking at the evidence for and those we should take the time out to
evaluate, you don’t seem to have said anything yet that will help us
to make that decision (perhaps you’re getting there).
I don’t have such a formula for drawing the line between “too absurd” and “go and evaluate” (I will be mentioning one technique in a while that might help a little, but it’s a complicated technique and there’s no reason to do it unless you’ve already decided something’s important).
My point is that we should increase the amount of potential value we expect from investigating seemingly stupid claims for two reasons. One, the seemingly stupid claims may be true (ie evolution). Two, the seemingly stupid claims may be false, but there may be some hidden reason for their existence that is still a worthwhile discovery (ie religion leads to evo psych, Atlantis leads to Santorini).
But that’s all I’m saying—increase the potential value you expect from investigating. In the case of the perpetual motion inventor, the case against perpetual motion isn’t the absurdity heuristic, it’s a physical law that’s been proven about as well as anything in science—so no need to increase the value of investigation on those grounds.
You should consider the possibility that you’ll discover something interesting about the human mind when trying to figure out why people keep inventing perpetual motion machines, but if you’re a physicist who’s very busy and doesn’t have much interest in wild goose chases after some psychological phenomenon, then it’s completely fair to leave that to the psychologists and tell the perpetual motion inventor to take a hike.
Likewise, you should assign nonzero probability to the possibility that the perpetual motion machine inventor has discovered something interesting that’s not a perpetual motion machine—I think some people used to call the solar sail a perpetual motion machine, and even though they were wrong the solar sail is still quite an interesting discovery. This is worth consideration if the inventor is someone smart enough that you don’t expect them to make elementary mistakes (ie Stephen Hawking).
If it was just some random guy, I would join you in not paying him any attention, unless I was feeling especially interested in cognitive biases relating to perpetual motion machine construction that day.
Summary: Correct for certain possibilities when deciding whether or not to reject something out of hand, but if you still want to reject something out of hand after making the corrections, do it. Highly informal, but I don’t know any technique for formalizing it better.
I have attempted to design perpetual motion machines, so perhaps I can tell you something about the motivations involved. First of all, it is fun and educational. Each time I designed a perpetual motion machine, I learned something new about physics that I wasn’t taught in school. This is probably not the motivation of someone who has actually tried to build one though.
Secondly, I have some doubts about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is almost assuredly not itself a law of physics, but rather of statistics; it is in a sense at best redundant. To my knowledge, there is not a single perpetual motion machine that cannot be shown not to work without invoking the laws of thermodynamics. I consider my existence to be proof or at least strong evidence that at some point the Second Law doesn’t hold—it seems incompatible with universe creation or recycling for eternity under increasing entropy.
Thirdly, I hate and despise the consequences of the laws of thermodynamics. The end of all life and civilization. The most certain threat to humanity’s existence. Sure, in the unimaginably distant future, but it still bugs me.
Fourth, the idea of doing something really big that will make you famous. Note that worthy problems are really hard to find. I do like to poke at famous or impossible problems, though personally only attempt perpetual motion for educational purposes.
PS: my current best design for a perpetual motion machine, of the first type, is hollowed out permanent magnets plus a magnetic monopole. Note that some physicists seem to think magnetic monopoles might exist. It would have to be a fundamental particle though, as it can’t be constructed from magnetic dipoles or electric monopoles. A similar design could be constructed from electrical monopoles and fundamental electric dipoles that can be held in a given orientation. Note that although “electric dipoles” are very common, they are not fundamental, they are made of electric monopoles, and the field inside them is incredibly strong and in the opposite direction. Active research is being done in an attempt to find a dipole moment for fundamental particles, so far with no luck. Unless my design has errors, it means that any attempt to find those is doomed to failure as a violation of conservation of energy.
Thinking about it some more, for me perpetual motion machine design is a special case of noticing I am confused. Specifically, that I hold the contradictory beliefs, “perpetual motion machines are to an incredibly high level of certainty impossible” and “my current understanding of [branch of physics] suggests I could build a perpetual motion machine”. Then the perpetual motion machine design functions as a formal, step-by-step analysis so I can identify exactly where I think I’m breaking one of the laws of physics. Similarly, if I can’t even formulate a design, not only am I confused but my understanding is too vague to apply to specific circumstances.
I agree with most of this, but I think you’re skipping a really important issue:
“There’s a big difference between dismissing that whole Lost Continent of Atlantis story, and prematurely dismissing it.”
Well, sure, but we need some way of deciding when our dismissal is premature. I mentioned this in the comments on Talking Snakes as well… there is certainly some room for the absurdity heuristic—my time is valuable, I can’t evaluate the evidence for every crank claim in the world (I know several academics who could easily spend their entire lives checking “proofs” that P=NP if they did this). I have to reject some of them out of hand—the issue is: which ones?
If someone tells me they’ve built a perpetual motion machine in the back garden from tin cans and elastic bands, I’m not going to waste even 10 minutes of my life trying to replicate it. If Steven Hawking tells me he’s built one, I’ll at least give the matter some consideration. The real issue is where we draw the line between claims which are too absurd to bother looking at the evidence for and those we should take the time out to evaluate, you don’t seem to have said anything yet that will help us to make that decision (perhaps you’re getting there).
Good points.
I don’t have such a formula for drawing the line between “too absurd” and “go and evaluate” (I will be mentioning one technique in a while that might help a little, but it’s a complicated technique and there’s no reason to do it unless you’ve already decided something’s important).
My point is that we should increase the amount of potential value we expect from investigating seemingly stupid claims for two reasons. One, the seemingly stupid claims may be true (ie evolution). Two, the seemingly stupid claims may be false, but there may be some hidden reason for their existence that is still a worthwhile discovery (ie religion leads to evo psych, Atlantis leads to Santorini).
But that’s all I’m saying—increase the potential value you expect from investigating. In the case of the perpetual motion inventor, the case against perpetual motion isn’t the absurdity heuristic, it’s a physical law that’s been proven about as well as anything in science—so no need to increase the value of investigation on those grounds.
You should consider the possibility that you’ll discover something interesting about the human mind when trying to figure out why people keep inventing perpetual motion machines, but if you’re a physicist who’s very busy and doesn’t have much interest in wild goose chases after some psychological phenomenon, then it’s completely fair to leave that to the psychologists and tell the perpetual motion inventor to take a hike.
Likewise, you should assign nonzero probability to the possibility that the perpetual motion machine inventor has discovered something interesting that’s not a perpetual motion machine—I think some people used to call the solar sail a perpetual motion machine, and even though they were wrong the solar sail is still quite an interesting discovery. This is worth consideration if the inventor is someone smart enough that you don’t expect them to make elementary mistakes (ie Stephen Hawking).
If it was just some random guy, I would join you in not paying him any attention, unless I was feeling especially interested in cognitive biases relating to perpetual motion machine construction that day.
Summary: Correct for certain possibilities when deciding whether or not to reject something out of hand, but if you still want to reject something out of hand after making the corrections, do it. Highly informal, but I don’t know any technique for formalizing it better.
I have attempted to design perpetual motion machines, so perhaps I can tell you something about the motivations involved. First of all, it is fun and educational. Each time I designed a perpetual motion machine, I learned something new about physics that I wasn’t taught in school. This is probably not the motivation of someone who has actually tried to build one though.
Secondly, I have some doubts about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is almost assuredly not itself a law of physics, but rather of statistics; it is in a sense at best redundant. To my knowledge, there is not a single perpetual motion machine that cannot be shown not to work without invoking the laws of thermodynamics. I consider my existence to be proof or at least strong evidence that at some point the Second Law doesn’t hold—it seems incompatible with universe creation or recycling for eternity under increasing entropy.
Thirdly, I hate and despise the consequences of the laws of thermodynamics. The end of all life and civilization. The most certain threat to humanity’s existence. Sure, in the unimaginably distant future, but it still bugs me.
Fourth, the idea of doing something really big that will make you famous. Note that worthy problems are really hard to find. I do like to poke at famous or impossible problems, though personally only attempt perpetual motion for educational purposes.
PS: my current best design for a perpetual motion machine, of the first type, is hollowed out permanent magnets plus a magnetic monopole. Note that some physicists seem to think magnetic monopoles might exist. It would have to be a fundamental particle though, as it can’t be constructed from magnetic dipoles or electric monopoles. A similar design could be constructed from electrical monopoles and fundamental electric dipoles that can be held in a given orientation. Note that although “electric dipoles” are very common, they are not fundamental, they are made of electric monopoles, and the field inside them is incredibly strong and in the opposite direction. Active research is being done in an attempt to find a dipole moment for fundamental particles, so far with no luck. Unless my design has errors, it means that any attempt to find those is doomed to failure as a violation of conservation of energy.
Thinking about it some more, for me perpetual motion machine design is a special case of noticing I am confused. Specifically, that I hold the contradictory beliefs, “perpetual motion machines are to an incredibly high level of certainty impossible” and “my current understanding of [branch of physics] suggests I could build a perpetual motion machine”. Then the perpetual motion machine design functions as a formal, step-by-step analysis so I can identify exactly where I think I’m breaking one of the laws of physics. Similarly, if I can’t even formulate a design, not only am I confused but my understanding is too vague to apply to specific circumstances.