Shattering the 'CRACKPOT INDEX' & 'Skeptic Society'.

[RascalPuff]

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

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks again Rascal,brilliant thread starter,lots of meat there to chew on,If I could choose
my "perfect" uncle,than Albert would be my first choice!





regards michael.

[ScottAnfield]

Funny post RP
Well, it was until I realised I had 150 points! (only kidding)
Have to hold my hands up to number 14 though. I think 10 and 21 are the funniest.

[bottomlander]

That crackpot index was posted as a fun stuff since 1998 and was cited by messages in internet discussion forums ever since.

I highly recommend the web pages of John Baez as the best available free online resource on hot physics topics with nice reviews/tutorials
make a lot of academic contents readable by science learned persons. http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfcontents.html

similarly, I recommend also http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_fallacy_pages to get rid of Fallacy,
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Science for Science, and
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Scientific_method for Scientific Methods.

Wish enjoy. Bottomlander

[ScottAnfield]

I saw this fallacy on the site you gave:
A is based on B fallacy - all penguins are birds, all eagles are birds, therefore all eagles are penguins

Would that be true of this statement:

All atoms have an electric charge, all atoms have a magnetic field, therefore all atoms have an electromagnetic field?

[RascalPuff]

I saw this fallacy on the site you gave:
A is based on B fallacy - all penguins are birds, all eagles are birds, therefore all eagles are penguins

Would that be true of this statement:

All atoms have an electric charge, all atoms have a magnetic field, therefore all atoms have an electromagnetic field?

_____________________

Dear ScottAnfield:
There are contentions for and against electromagnetic fields accompanying atomic systems (the electric and magnetic fields seem to consistently accompany one another); whereas, until further notice, the electromagnetic field (per se) invariably accompanies sub-atomic constituents of atoms; namely, the exemplary electron.

Incidentally, the Skeptic Society and John Baez-provided URLs/sites are excellent sources of cogent information, even when you may not agree with it.

Best regards,
- RP

[Tina]

How about an anagram of Albert Einstein as code word so as not to incur points [TEN ELITE BRAINS]

or more contemporary [ELITE BRAINS.NET]

[bottomlander]

How about an anagram of Albert Einstein as code word so as not to incur points [TEN ELITE BRAINS]

or more contemporary [ELITE BRAINS.NET]

Dear Tina,

Good humor and good idea for this word game!

How about to put "A Einstein" just as AEinstein, whereas ether and aether are both used in physics.
Actually, many German/Greek words start with "e" are written as "ae" after the corresponding English translation.
(My follow-up work is really not so good as what you indicated as an anagram.)

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Tina]

Dear Tina,

How about to put "A Einstein" just as AEinstein, whereas ether and aether are both used in physics.
Best Regards. Bottomlander

No - the smart ones would spot the ruse - need to be more covert than that.

[Tina]

(My follow-up work is really not so good as what you indicated as an anagram.)

Best Regards. Bottomlander

There is a member with a name Notstein (I think that what it is) maybe he'll let you use It.