Special Effects, Austin P Torney
Illustration copyright 1970 - 2007 by K. B. Robertson
* * * * *
POINT: Marvin Minsky just sent me this absolutely brilliant and hilarious list--the "crackpot index" -- from mathematical physicist John Baez, formerly from MIT now a professor at UC Riverside. His Web page is http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/and the crackpot index is at http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html I hereby nominate Baez to be a presenter at the Ignobel Awards. He should give one out every year to the best theory of everything. We receive these manuscripts (what I call "theories of everything") about once a month. Caveat: yes, I know that outsiders to a field can make important contributions. But the chances of that happening are rather slim, especially when they meet many of the following criteria. -- Michael Shermer
THE CRACKPOT INDEX A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted view. 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawking" or "Feynman". 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) 26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. 29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Copyright 2000 by Michael Shermer and the Skeptics Society. Copies of this internet posting may be made and distributed in whole without further permission. For further information about the magazine and society, contact P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001; 626/794-3119 (phone); 626/794-1301 (fax); skepticmag@aol.com and www.skeptic.com or send your message telepathically and we will respond in kind.
* * * * * *
COUNTERPOINT: The formal study of Contemporary Literature teaches that there are four principle contributors to whatever information may be contained in any communication, beginning with 1900... Since then, whatever a person may read in a book, see and hear in a movie or conversation is influenced by a singular or combined source-influence of one or more of the following men: Charles Darwin Karl Marx Friedrich Nietzche or Sigmund Freud
__________________________
Time magazine's 1/1/2000 issue features Albert Einstein as 'Man of the Century'. Note, that he is not among the Contemporary Literature designated influences on thought in the 20th Century (1900 - 2000)... Apparently Time Magazine has studied formal Contemporary Literature (as it is taught at the college level); read John Baez' "Crackpot Index", and taken it to heart... Mention of Einstein gains five points of incredibility for anyone 'outside science' who says, writes, or otherwise employs his name... Here we have a principle example of a non-sequitur (Aka, 'oxymoron'). Einstein is declared the 'Man of the Century' by Time-Life Inc., spanning the years from 1900 to 2000, but he is excluded as a world class influence by formal contemporary literature guides, only to be included - in John Baez' CRACKPOT INDEX - as a five point subtraction of credibility, for anyone outside the tight fisted innercircle of (desperately confused and perspiring) scientists. Draw Your Own Conclusions. (May I have a singular - minus five points of credibility - word with you, Professor John Baez, and Skeptic Society memberships.... besides, the outercircle name of *Copernicus or *Galileo, for *example...) *Einstein. ('One beer mug') Best regards, K. B. Robertson (World's #1 EinsteinGroupie) Aegis to Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie