aryagonnakill#2 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 As suggested in the title I simply want to define the often used term crackpot. The other day I cast my vote in a thread "most likely crackpot", my vote was cast for cleganebowl, but it got me thinking that cleganebowl should not even be referred to as crackpot, after all there is both possible textual foreshadowing (symeon star eyes seeing 2 hell hounds fight) and it also seems that most people here believe it will happen. The more I thought about it tho the more I realized how subjective a thing "evidence" is and that evidence can't really have anything to do with a theory being crackpot or not because people can twist things as much as they want to make it fit their theory, it often seems people come up with a theory and then look for anything to support it, rather than seeing supporting evidence and coming up with a theory based on it. The example that comes to mind is people twisting the logic on the rusted dragon sign to say Aegon is real. So with that in mind I am simply proposing that a theory is crackpot or not depending on what percentage of people believe it, not your own opinion on it. I would suggest that if 80% of people believe a theory is crackpot, then it is, but other people might not feel it requires such a high % so I'd like to know what other people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GtrGbln Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 For me its if its contingent on three or more assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forlong the Fat Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 I think there's actually another dimension on which crackpot can be defined: the degree to which the theory relates to any important plot point. Let's compare R+L=J with theories like Darrio= ____ or Qhorin=_____. Part of the reason the first one is fairly reasonable and the other two are crackpot is that there is circumstantial evidence supporting the first and almost none supporting even that Daario or Qhorin are anyone other than who they claim to be, much less than that they are another particular person. But more importantly, in my opinion, the question of Jon's parentage is an unanswered question that has been developed as mystery throughout the plot, with conflicting evidence, and may prove mighty important by the end. On the other hand, there has never been any indication that it would make a groat's difference if Qhorin, a character who died long ago, was actually someone else. Same with Daario. As far as we know, it would make a difference only to the internet commentariot. To me, a true crackpot theory raises a question that does not arise from the text, and it answers it based on scant, conflicting, or no evidence. Both factors are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slant Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 any assumptions i like the crackpot ones backed by textual evidence is crackpot and tinfoil the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickon will return Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 any assumptions i like the crackpot ones backed by textual evidence is crackpot and tinfoil the same thing? A crackpot is a crazy theory based on textual evidence. A tinfoil theory is a crazy theory that has little or no textual evidence, and relies mainly on assumptions and other tinfoils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrell_like_Squirrel Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 For me, a crackpot is a theory that is dogmatic in definition. Not really any evidence to prove it, but not really any evidence to disprove it either. As long as people admit that its a little nutty, I think crackpots can be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 A crackpot is a crazy theory based on textual evidence. A tinfoil theory is a crazy theory that has little or no textual evidence, and relies mainly on assumptions and other tinfoils. I disagree with that categorization. A theory with little or no textual evidence that actually makes sense is an Ultra Crackpot (my personal specialty). A theory with little or no textual evidence that doesn't make sense, or only makes sense if you seeeeriousllyyyyyyy stretch the text, and relies mainly on assumptions and other tinfoils, is Tinfoil. I also consider crackpot as unlikely, but not necessarily crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walda Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Here in Westeros, Crackpot and tinfoil are defined differently to how I am used to. For instance, IRL, I would use 'tinfoil' to refer to conspiracy theories that depend on the secret co-operation of so many people, or require such an intensive effort to make an event look just like it did, for very unclear gains, as to be implausible. So truthers, and the Roswell Aliens, and the illuminati are all 'tinfoil' theories to me IRL. Crackpot, means theories that don't hold water, sciency claims made without evidence, or with fallacious proofs, so things like NLP, Water-powered cars, cancer cured by acupuncture, gojiberries giving longevity, getting rich on the Amway business model, that sort of thing. Things I could rate on John Baez's Crackpot index. Obviously, in a speculative fiction world where the rules of physics as we know them are regularly violated, and magic does exist, these rules will get you nowhere. Just for my own reference (and only as a first draft), I've tried modifying the Crackpot Index to Westeros conditions: A -5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using as proof a version of events that clearly contradicts with the version given from all POV's in the book. 5 points for each use of the word 'warg', and for every piece of evidence from the show, not the books. (I'm still undecided about adding 'secret targ' and 'blackfyre' to this rule, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them belongs here) 10 points for each claim that a wildly accepted fan theory that correctly predicted points from aFfC and aDwD before they were published, is fundamentally misguided (without evidence from aSoIaF). 10 points for each claim that a POV is fundamentally misguided (without evidence from aSoIaF). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 20 points for mentioning you have a high IQ. 20 points for each claim that GRRM is fundamentally misguided (without evidence from aSoIaF). 20 points for every use of real life science, history or myths as if they were applicable to this world (except where you can show evidence from the canon that they do apply in GRRth). 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to one's past theories. 30 points for each claim that you have put a lot of work into your theory (hard work is not proof of sanity, either), or that you are being persecuted for it (being persecuted ≠ being right). 30 points for claiming that the Moderators are locking your threads to prevent your theory from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no specific testable predictions to how it will affect Winds of Winter or Dream of Spring (or how it has influenced the Song as a whole, if we are talking about something that has already happened, and will have no effect on the plot or character arcs of future books). It has been of limited use. and I think there ought to be some guidelines for critiquing a crackpot, as a lot of the criticism of crackpot seems less than reasonable to me (I don't know who Jacob Preston is, but I think it takes more than the mention of his name to shoot down a theory). Also, very few posters can be bothered offering supporting evidence (both when proposing a theory and when shooting it down), even when there is plenty to back it up (even when their 'theory' is an only slightly paraphrased quote from the books). And virtually no-one attempts to predict how their theory will affect the story. This index has helped me to see merits in posts I might otherwise have overlooked, and my rule of 'over fifty, there is no need to reply, or to continue reading' has saved my tired eyes and hurting head. Formulating it has helped me become familiar with some of the popular fan theories, and trying to keep to my own guidelines (especially point 17) has drawn my attention to a number of little things in the books, that might or might not prove my points, but were a real delight because they focussed my attention on some of the best parts of GRRM's writing - good stylistic choices, excellent plotting, dramatic props, really tight writing, no stitch dropped, and stuff like that. What it hasn't done, is cover the Westeros usage of the word 'Crackpot'. Just about every theory can be defined as Crackpot - ones with plenty of supporting evidence and ones utterly without evidence, ones that would have a transformative effect on the plot, and ones that have no effect. People use it as much in apologia as in critique. They are more likely to start threads with titles like 'my new crackpot theory' for very detailed and carefully analysed theories that are based on textual evidence, like 'the apple code', and to less carefully thought through but still text based theories like 'Marillion is the Blue Bard', while the creators of patently frivolous notions like 'Benjen=Daario' present their theories without such circumspection. Likewise, 'tinfoil' has nothing to do with conspiracies, everything to do with the quality of evidence, and possibly something to do with theories based on other theories - I'm still learning, by reading threads like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bent branch Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I think crackpot is in the eye of the beholder. The number of people believing or not believing in any particular theory proves nothing. One confirmed theory, that someone claiming to be Aegon would appear, was considered very crackpot before it actually happened. If you read the ADWD threads before the book was released you can see how hated that theory was. I think the whole Aegon is a Blackfyre theory comes out of how unpopular the Aegon theory was before ADWD came out. Aegon Blackfyre is actually very poorly supported, but if a person is inclined to believe it they will. No matter how much they have to twist the text to get it to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Turtle Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Not really any evidence to prove it, but not really any evidence to disprove it either. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin's Roost Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Lol. I like the point system. I think that should get implemented for now on so you don't have to waste your time reading massive theories to find out at the end the guy was saying Hodor is Azor Ahai. the biggest point that I hate about theories is just when people say if it cant be disproven that it is a legitimist theory. I mean I literally have heard people say Victarion is the Valonqar. I am not close to being an expert on things involving story telling. but its clear to me that the Valonqar is not going to be someone that has no relationship to cersei what so ever. I mean come on. I personally think it will be Jaime but people saying Tyrion or Sandor or even Stannis I can hear but not any character who happens to be a younger brother. please people. also worst theory ever is Rhaegar=Mance. I used to read some guys theories and have stopped since because he said he believes this one. I think it is the definition of crackpot. there is zero reason to think it. people are like "they both love music! and play an instrument!" o I guess Marillion might be Rhaegar also.......omg I have a new theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashless Society Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 How many holes does the theory have? The more holes it has, the closer it verges to crackpotery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I disagree with that categorization. A theory with little or no textual evidence that actually makes sense is an Ultra Crackpot (my personal specialty). dont you dare put down your theories, i love reading them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 A crackpot theory is the sort of theory made by "crackpots". A screwy theory is the sort of theory made by people with screws loose. An idiotic theory is the sort of theory an idiot would make. A troll theory is the sort of theory made by trolls. A deranged asshole theory is the sort of theory a deranged asshole would make. Calling someone's theory "crackpot" is slightly more polite than calling their theory "idiotic", "deranged" or "assholish". Slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 A crackpot theory is the sort of theory made by "crackpots". A screwy theory is the sort of theory made by people with screws loose. An idiotic theory is the sort of theory an idiot would make. A troll theory is the sort of theory made by trolls. A deranged asshole theory is the sort of theory a deranged asshole would make. Calling someone's theory "crackpot" is slightly more polite than calling their theory "idiotic", "deranged" or "assholish". Slightly. lmao i.e. the links in my signature ;) crackpotism promotes healthy mental exercise, if its well thought out, and plausible. id say the main difference is that crackpot is "plausible," while tinfoil is ten times less so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizabethB. Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Calling something crackpot is a huge compliment! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazfemur Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Calling something crackpot is a huge compliment! :) Thats how i see it hun :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryagonnakill#2 Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 I guess a lot of people viewed the term significantly different than I did, I viewed it as unlikely but not disprovable, which you guys seem to say is tinfoil instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I guess a lot of people viewed the term significantly different than I did, I viewed it as unlikely but not disprovable, which you guys seem to say is tinfoil instead. In RL, calling something "crackpot" is very negative. If it has acquired a kinder associations here, it is probably a subtle form of backlash against those who insult theories they don't like, with those being insulted attempt to make the term their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 dont you dare put down your theories, i love reading them! Aw! :cheers: Thanks for the support, Blaz! I'm not putting them down. I consider them fun and possible, just not with much in the way of text to back them up. And I like having them distinguished from mere standard, run of the mill crackpots. :cool4: I guess a lot of people viewed the term significantly different than I did, I viewed it as unlikely but not disprovable, which you guys seem to say is tinfoil instead. But people have different ideas of what is or is not unlikely. Tinfoil is usually way, way further away from likely than the standard crackpot. Generally a good number of people can see the potential in a crackpot, but almost no one thinks the tinfoil theory has potential--except for the person proposing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.