Newcomb's problem: They make a big deal about this. Essentially, they set up a strawman stating that if condition A (where A is a strongly believed assumption, in this case causality) is disproved, then you should make your decisions ignoring A. Expect to see this too many times, and it shows up as a major topic with subheadings on the website mentioned. This isn't the only strawman, look up zombies (not the undead type) as well. Zombies aren't quite the major topic that Newcomb is.

Many worlds Our heroes come out and claim that the official position of physics is flat out wrong (presumably the Copenhagen system, but I don't know enough to tell if they are lying here). The kicker is claiming that their Many Worlds postulate somehow doesn't violate relativity/causality. I guess I'll have to join up to ask (note they limit starting topics to vetted members, and others say Husi is cliquish), but it seems that the Many Worlds divide either splits faster than C, or happens instantly (... in all frames of reference???). Since they aren't claiming specific laws being broken, there is still room left on the kook meter, but it is registering high.

Frequentist I can't begin to understand the argument. This might have something to do with studying EE: frequency has some very specific meanings, and I doubt I have room for more.

Note: this puts the number of seriously hard disciplines that they claim to have leapfrogged to at (at least) two (and note the arguments against each aren't at all related). This puts them in a fairly limited selection of kooks and I somehow missed it before writing this note.

Bayne's Theorem (without frequency nonsense): imagine the following dialog.

Bayesian Master: "Behold: I have flipped a coin heads for 50 times. What will the next be?"
Simplicio: Heads?
BM: And why is that?
S: Because the odds of you having a two headed coin are noticeably higher than a trillion to one. BM: You've discovered the secret of the universe on your own! I bow to you.

Note that getting the exact probability (assuming you know both probabilities going in) is rather useful. The catch here is that you would assume that if this is in fact the secret of the universe, most of the rest of the websites claiming such would be spent on determining P(X) and P(X|Y). They do not. In fact, I'm not even sure it is on there (you don't want to know how much of their recommended reading I've plowed through: the local library hasn't been kind lately), unless it involves determining "priors" and comparing them with the dreaded frequencists. I am reminded of a leftist evangelical critique of the Left Behind series. The hero spends two sentences reading the Gospels, agrees wholeheartedly (without specifics) and has his entire life changed without ever referencing them again. The similarity isn't quite there, but it is too close for comfort.

In the end I will have to find somewhere to try to get an answer about how many worlds doesn't violate relativity (although I don't really have enough physics to avoid being snowed). The cognitive bias parts look important, but a successful kook works by making the stuff you don't know look accurate and the stuff you do know look less critical. Time to look elsewhere to check cognitive biases.

On the other hand, their deconstruction of Harry Potter (and reconstruction with a much more consistent world) is not to be missed.

Wumpus

I suspect some people are more moderate, but this is the only viewpoint expressed.

Since they are rational, educated academics, I doubt any of them are "moderate," much less "deformed, hate-filled troglodytes who eat mud."