[Retric]

> it’s probably best not to dismiss it as crank science

Why? There’s a lot of Nobel laureates over time who collectively made many such claims, so you can easily pick examples in both directions.

My point is more such ideas aren’t accurate enough for anything beyond preliminary testing by actual scientific investigation which sometimes does validate them but also commonly disproves them. There’s zero reason for the average person to consider their validity.

Your example is a perfect demonstration of why most people ignoring such things is a good idea, these things don’t simply disappear without investigation.

[sarchertech]

I mean sure you shouldn’t go out and by vitamin C supplements because a Nobel Prize winning chemists tell you to.

But you also shouldn’t go around immediately dismissing any theories they have as crank science.

[Retric]

Ok if you believe that way what exactly do you gain by doing so?

Paying attention has a cost so what’s the payoff?

[sarchertech]

Who says you have to believe it or pay attention to it? What does an average person gain by paying attention to unproven theories in any discipline. If it interests you, pay attention, if it doesn’t, don’t.

I just said you shouldn’t dismiss it as crank science.

[Retric]

Ahh, I was agreeing with ignoring it / dismissal not the label.

[jibal]

No one did that. Penrose's theories have been dismissed as crank science for good reasons given.

[sarchertech]

He has good relationships and is respected by experts in many fields. If he was dismissed as a crank he couldn’t have found 3 incredibly respected scientists to debate his theories in one of his books.

Plenty of people think his theories are wrong or unlikely. The only people “dismissing them as crank science” are people in that have unwavering faith in the idea that consciousness arises from computable processes.