The Crackpot Index

[sjastro]

Given that the forum has now been renamed Astronomy and Amateur Science, here is the infamous crackpot index that Professional scientists (physicists) use to assess ideas expressed in amateur science forums.

THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.
A minus-5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
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.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
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".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
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 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
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.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
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.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
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.) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Steven

[circumpolar (Matt)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

THE CRACKPOT INDEX

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

Steven

I think at least 20 Points for incorectly writting 'Hawkings' instead of 'Hawking' .

Nice one Steven.

[xelasnave]

So how many points for a pass?
alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by circumpolar

I think at least 20 Points for incorectly writting 'Hawkings' instead of 'Hawking' .

Nice one Steven.

At least 5 points for me. I can never correctly spell Feynmen err I mean Feynman.

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

So how many points for a pass?

Originally Posted by xelasnave

alex

Alex,

Don't know about a pass mark but you would be definitely be at the top of the class.

Some of the descriptions are spot on regarding your statements on GR, mathematics, and push gravity.

Examples:
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".
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 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

Are you sure the mathematical physicist John Baez ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baez) who came up with this index didn't use you as reference?

Steven
PS Don't take this seriously..

[xelasnave]

Fortunately or not I take little very seriously and certainly could never be upset if someone saw me as ...er different.

I first saw the list many years ago now it seems.. when I started first posting about "gravity rain" on astronomy daily...

I worked out that as a crackpot the opportunity probably to make millions where a legitimate scientist could starve and that some how appealled and the list for me has always given me some credible reality which is very good.

But when I look around the net there are folk who have the crackpot business sown up it seems... I would rather be sailing etc these days no time to develop the theory of everything but it will come to me I am expecting to receive an update transmission from you know who next new moon

alex

[xelasnave]

And I certainly am proud that you recognised the very qualities I hold above all ...I like to delegate particularly anything that is hard work..maths is hard work so of course I need someone to do that stuff.

AND I must know the mechanical side and always open to the possibilties that someone got something wrong.

You will have to look up david wilcox and his 2012 nonsence unbelievable and folk swallow it and hang on his every word...

best wishes

alex

[avandonk]

The basic problem here is that intelligent people have spent years studying the intricacies of the theory and underlying mathematics of science. Some ignorant upstart comes up with something new. This can be tested!

We do not have time to test all the ignorant wackos to be treated as anything but misguided fools.

It is only when the evidence is overwhelming that we have what is called a paradigm shift.

If I see one more journo reiterating something he knows nothing about I will write a letter of complaint!

Yes it is a waste of time!

Bert

[marki]

Originally Posted by sjastro

here is the infamous crackpot index that Professional scientists (physicists) use to assess ideas expressed in amateur science forums.

Well thats one for the books, will you have one or two fractals with your dark matter.......oh and the tardis will be late in getting us to Mordoor. Gee I must be bored .

Mark

[TrevorW]

The word Crackpot is derived from two words commonly used for mind altering drugs ie: crack and pot and therefore is truly a apt naming word.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Are there any points allocated for;
1. Creative thought (or has that been abolished in favor of shell hunting along the shores of the ocean of truth?)
2. Knowing the difference between a Suggestion, Hypothesis & Theory (since most celebrity scientists these days don't)
3. Correctly using the terms Suggestion, Hypothesis & Theory (since most scientists these days don't)
4. Knowing when NOT to use this list (as hand-cuffs tend to prevent people from doing anything of worth)

BTW, if you replace the points system with years, that's pretty much how long it takes the average scientist to break with doctrine.
Two cases in question:
Frank J. Tipler and,
Stephen Hawking (or Susskind-Hawking battle)


Cheers
'Barra'