The Crackpot Index
by John Baez
A little background: people like Why_do have been contaminating the internet waves since the days of news net. I say contaminate because they are disrepectful and insulting to those that don't agree with them and merely throw ideas out without thought, research, or followup. Hence in the late 80's I think, Baez, the admin for the physics usenet, came up with this index. It is a convenient way to gauge a persons theory... so here we go!
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
-2 for LHC and Evolution
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
-4 because there are so many, I'm just going to restrict myself to 2
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
0 I think there have been but as this has been science and not logic, not going to dig for this one.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
-10 LHC and science in general
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
0 Why_do is not big on thought.... experiments.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
LOL I get nailed on this one EVERY TIME.
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
-5 I think Einstein was brought up?
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
0
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
0
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
0
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.
0
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
0
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
0
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".
0
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
-10 This is Why_do's main arguement if I remember
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".
-10 LOL It's like re-reading this thread.
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
0
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
0
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
0 However, you know that why_do's stance will be of the "suppress" kind so I may have to regrade.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
0
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
0 I don't think why_do ever said it was flawed but merely relied on the above ("it's only a theory") for his arguements
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
0
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
0
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
0
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
0
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
0
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
10 partial credit here for why_do never said exaclty the above, but certainly has alluded to it.
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.)
0
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
0
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
0
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
0
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 LOL again, it's eerie how accurate this is.
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.
20 partial credit for while why_do does not claim this to be "his" works, he is a conspiracty nu.... errrmmm... person.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
0 It's very close to the point above, so I dont' want to double grade.
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.)
20 AGain another partial credit for the allusionns why_do makes to this effect.
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
20 And finally, partial credit for again, why_do doesn't claim it's "his" but he doesn't offer any TESTABLE predictions for his statements.
At 156 if my math is correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this s not the worst score I've seen. Why_do's saving grace (and shame) is that none of what he says is his: he is merely a "monkey say; monkey do" and repeating what others are saying without doing the work him/her self. But still I think the index does a good job at showing how UNORIGINAL why_do's brand of ignorance is.
