- #1
- 558
- 0
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of the "Crackpot Index," a humorous metric for evaluating unconventional scientific theories and claims. Participants explore the criteria that might categorize ideas as "crackpot" and share personal anecdotes and opinions regarding the seriousness of such classifications.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants highlight specific criteria from the Crackpot Index, such as points awarded for mailing theories to unknown individuals or claiming conceptual correctness without mathematical backing.
- One participant humorously suggests that String Theory could score a 75 on the index, implying it has characteristics of a "crackpot" theory.
- There is a discussion about the subjective nature of labeling ideas as crackpot, with some arguing that it depends on personal views and that some may appreciate unconventional possibilities.
- Another participant reflects on the methods used by those labeled as crackpots, suggesting that the investigation methods are more telling than the ideas themselves.
- Links to additional resources related to the topic are shared, including pages by John Baez and Warren Siegel, which may provide further context on unconventional scientific claims.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on what constitutes a crackpot theory, with no consensus on a definitive threshold or criteria. Some find humor in the concept, while others take a more serious stance on the implications of labeling ideas as crackpot.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the subjective nature of the Crackpot Index and the varying interpretations of what constitutes a crackpot idea, which may depend on individual perspectives and the context of scientific discourse.
- #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,112
- 20
ahahahaha
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 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".
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
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 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".
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
- #3
MalleusScientiarum
A friend and I went through the list and concluded that String Theory scored a 75.
- #4
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,252
- 2,664
Pengwuino said:
I love the physics without math claims. Isn' t that a bit like cooking without food?
Have you seen that UPS uses this gag with the guy who is going to transport packages through a wormhole...if he can just work out the whole space-time continuum thing...
- #5
yu_wing_sin
- 73
- 0
EL said:
Whether it is crackpot, only depends on personal views. Maybe there is people appreciate to it the possibility. But I admit it is not a constructive thing for doing.
Last edited:
- #6
Bladibla
- 362
- 1
ZapperZ had that thread on a pretty long time ago when he was..er.. grinding down some pots.
Pretty hilarious.
Pretty hilarious.
- #7
- 558
- 0
Have to admit I wrote "Feynmann" or something similar once. Hope that doesn't make me a crackpot? 
In fact where do you think the limit for being a "crackpot" goes? At 0?
In fact where do you think the limit for being a "crackpot" goes? At 0?
- #8
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,876
- 11,345
No, what defines a crackpot more than anything else is the method by which they investigate science. Tied in with that is the investigation of subject matter that is generally accepted by scientists to be bogus. The things in "The Crackpot Index" are a refletion of that method.yu_wing_sin said:
- #9
- 7,435
- 2,966
A good complement to John Baez's page is Warren Siegel's page
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html (you also might enjoy the linked pages, at the bottom).
There's also Edwin Taylor's article
http://web.archive.org/web/19990202...library.upenn.edu/yr1996/mar/let4_960318.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html (you also might enjoy the linked pages, at the bottom).
There's also Edwin Taylor's article
http://web.archive.org/web/19990202...library.upenn.edu/yr1996/mar/let4_960318.html