# Chris Langan, the Smartest Man in America = Crackpot? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168 "2011-12-14T14:59:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/41 "2011-12-16T12:04:50Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well, aside the human reaction, do _colours_ exist? > > No. Light exists, and can have different wavelengths. But “colour” exists in your mind. I thought in physics, colour _is_ defined by “light between the wavelenghts of xxx nm and yyy nm”, to avoid the problems of “red, no pink, no violet…” ? ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/42 "2011-12-16T12:14:28Z")
Does Chris Langen ever propose a way to _test_ his CTMU? Are there any conceivable observations that would show it to be false? If not, it’s not scientific, it’s just a bunch of meaningless bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/43 "2011-12-16T12:20:51Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I thought in physics, colour _is_ defined by “light between the wavelenghts of xxx nm and yyy nm”, to avoid the problems of “red, no pink, no violet…” ? Well, exactly. In common usage, and the usage you were implying I think, colour is a visual sensation, and things like pink are definitely colours. The fact that not all of these subjective colours can be mapped to single wavelengths of light shows that at the least, colours made from combinations of wavelengths are “generated” by the mind. What I’m saying, is that the ringing sound that someone with synesthesia hears when they see an orange object is “in that person’s head”. But then _so is the sensation of “orange”_ that they are seeing. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/44 "2011-12-16T12:23:45Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I know a goodly number of people (myself included) who are intellectually quite capable of solving analytical problems but poor at human relationships. I also know a fair number of people who I would describe as not being analytically very smart, but highly accomplished in their ability to relate to other people. The two skill sets are only tangentially if at all coincident. “Intuition” doesn’t get you very far in physics, but it’ll get you bringing home someone to share your bed most nights of the week. > Stranger The scientific method requires enough capacity for self-analysis to recognize if you manage to make people around you angry. There’s a wide middle-field between “getting along swimmingly with people because you have charm/ are a nice person” and “being antisocial enough to make people want to punch you”, where you amble along without making friends, but also without upsetting people enough. And that a reasonably intelligent person should be able to do. Otherwise they lack not only basic human understanding (which can be learned from psychology books or advice books, if not a seminar or therapist), but also the skill of self-discipline and enough intelligence to get the necessary information on how to deal with people. And somebody who claims to be intelligent, and is adult enough, should recognize that anger management requires therapy. Not getting therapy and still whining about how fucked up his life is … doesn’t show a lot of insight to me. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/45 "2011-12-16T13:34:18Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Actually, the Christian god is quite easily shown to be physically and logically impossible. Philosophically, the general question of “god” is open, and “prove” here doesn’t mean mathematically. But by scientific standards, the Christian god cannot exist. Ain’t irony grand? “Scientific standards” are silent on the issue of God. Stone cold silent. Your comment is the comment who has _faith_ on his side, not science, ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/46 "2011-12-16T13:41:58Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > The scientific method requires enough capacity for self-analysis to recognize if you manage to make people around you angry. There’s a wide middle-field between “getting along swimmingly with people because you have charm/ are a nice person” and “being antisocial enough to make people want to punch you”, where you amble along without making friends, but also without upsetting people enough. It’s kind of like saying “If he’s so smart he should be at least a _passable_ musician”. I don’t agree: there are a wide range of mental abilities and someone could conceivably be extraordinary in many of them but very weak in particular areas. There’s no inconsistency there. Secondly, someone might not _want_ to become a musician, and similarly someone may not care what people think about them. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/47 "2011-12-16T14:17:57Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > . > > , and similarly someone may not care what people think about them. Thats fine if you can “get away with it” so to speak. Doesn’t sound like he’s getting away with it. It is kind of sad somebody that smart is working as a bouncer. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ve known some pretty smart folks that COULD have achieved much more than they did but were perfectly happy to take the low stress career/life path. And if that makes you happy and content, have at it! But he doesnt sound that happy as a Bouncer. Then again, he might be the kind that would never be happy anywhere. Or maybe he is a natural born jerk that would be that way no matter what. But it is sad because it appears that he didn’t get a little bit of guidance and help that could have sent him on a much better life path. ---
**Author:** ![raskolnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e47c2d/32.png) [@raskolnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raskolnik)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/48 "2011-12-16T14:23:11Z")
Just cause you’re hung like a moose doesn’t mean you have to shoot porno! ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/49 "2011-12-16T15:29:02Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > It’s kind of like saying “If he’s so smart he should be at least a _passable_ musician”. > > I don’t agree: there are a wide range of mental abilities and someone could conceivably be extraordinary in many of them but very weak in particular areas. There’s no inconsistency there. > > Secondly, someone might not _want_ to become a musician, and similarly someone may not care what people think about them. No, because you can go through life without being a musician, but not without interacting with people. Even from an egoistic standpoint, being angry the whole time while believing the self-delusion that you were “denied” or “held back” is a waste of energy that could be applied to whatever makes you happy instead. And saying “I’m so smart, but the establishment won’t accept me” will turn people off as crank. Yes, there are examples in history of science of people with solid evidence being ignored until the old guys passed away. That doesn’t make everbody who’s dismissed right: Poodles are dogs, but not every dog is a poodle. If he really is smart, and really did develop something interesting, and desperatly craves approval, he must follow the rules and write down proof, and leave out all rantings. Only cites and facts. And then submit. And re-submit elsewhere. And ask politly for factual refutation. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way to gain credibility over all the other kooks. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/50 "2011-12-16T15:44:10Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > “Scientific standards” are silent on the issue of God. Stone cold silent. Your comment is the comment who has _faith_ on his side, not science, Scientific standards say “put up or shut up”. If God exists and you know God exists, that fact should enable you to make accurate predictions. If it can’t, your argument is devoid of meaning. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/51 "2011-12-16T19:02:50Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Scientific standards say “put up or shut up”. If God exists and you know God exists, that fact should enable you to make accurate predictions. If it can’t, your argument is devoid of meaning. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/52 "2011-12-16T19:34:08Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > The scientific method requires enough capacity for self-analysis to recognize if you manage to make people around you angry. And yet it is indisputably the truth that there HAVE been great, great scientists who made huge contributions to human knowledge who were antisocial pricks, often to a much greater degree than Chris Langan. So it’s simply not the case that being really smart, academically speaking, necessarily means you’re skilled at getting along with people. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/53 "2011-12-16T19:48:38Z")
I think Langan is only good at making himself sound smart. I don’t see a single bit of evidence that he’s an expert in logic or mathematics or physics. Is anyone able to find anything where he talks about advanced math or physics anywhere? He supposedly lays claim to his IQ from the Mega Test, but what isn’t revealed so openly is that it’s a take-home, untimed test, and he took it twice under two separate names. I think that 190-210 IQ claim is horribly inflated. 140-160 is probably more accurate. It seems like he’s only good at taking IQ tests and then pretending like that gives him expertise elsewhere. Can anyone actually understand what his CTMU is saying and comment on it? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/54 "2011-12-16T23:26:02Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Huh? Huh? back atcha… What **Grumman** said was perfectly clear. What part didn’t you comprehend? When theology itself cannot be defended any better than by saying “Huh?” then the future of religion is in the direst peril. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/55 "2011-12-16T23:45:08Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Huh? An untestable hypothesis is not any more worthwhile than no hypothesis at all. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/56 "2011-12-16T23:52:48Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > An untestable hypothesis is not any more worthwhile than no hypothesis at all. Ok…so what untestable hypothesis might you be referring to…? The untestable theist hypothesis that asserts there is a God, or the untestable atheist hypothesis that says there isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/57 "2011-12-17T00:05:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Huh? back atcha… What **Grumman** said was perfectly clear. What part didn’t you comprehend? > > When theology itself cannot be defended any better than by saying “Huh?” then the future of religion is in the direst peril. Clear huh? Heres what he said: > [@](#): > > Scientific standards say “put up or shut up”. If God exists and you know God exists, that fact should enable you to make accurate predictions. If it can’t, your argument is devoid of meaning. Of course this is a gross misrepresentation of science, and to the extent might have ever had anything to say along these lines of “put up, or shut up” it would have said it to theists and atheists _ **alike.** _ But science doesn’t, and hasn’t, because it itself cannot _“put up”_; and so ironically has opted to _“shut up.”_ It is only the religionist who endeavors to press science into service for a task it isn’t capable to render. When you enlist the objective qualities of science to advocate for your subjective beliefs you do a disservice to both. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/58 "2011-12-17T00:09:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Huh? back atcha… What **Grumman** said was perfectly clear. What part didn’t you comprehend? > > When theology itself cannot be defended any better than by saying “Huh?” then the future of religion is in the direst peril. One day science may put religion in it’s “direst peril”, but until that day atheism and theism will remain opposite sides of the same coin, and the practitioners of both will remain oblivious of that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/59 "2011-12-17T00:12:15Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > One day science may put religion in it’s “direst peril”, but until that day atheism and theism will remain opposite sides of the same coin, and the practitioners of both will remain oblivious of that fact. It’s not the same coin - by its many many objective accomplishments, science is a fifty-dollar gold piece. By its many many systematic lies and lack of objective accomplishments, religion is a counterfeit penny. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168/60 "2011-12-17T00:25:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s not the same coin - by its many many objective accomplishments, science is a fifty-dollar gold piece. By its many many systematic lies and lack of objective accomplishments, religion is a counterfeit penny. That is _witnessing_ of the highest order, and I commend you on your faith. If science is the only arbiter of the question----and we are to take Grumman’s misguided advice------it is only the dead center agnostic who may speak; because science is silent on the matter. IOW, it has wisely chosen to _shut up._ But among those who are convicted in their beliefs, a lack of objective proof is insufficiently compelling to silence them. (a text in the NT says essentially, that even the stones would cry out in their convictions) I applaud you for witnessing for what you _believe._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chris-langan-the-smartest-man-in-america-crackpot/606168.md?page=4)