- #1
- 557
- 0
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The discussion centers on "The Crackpot Index," a humorous scoring system created by John Baez to evaluate the credibility of unconventional scientific theories. Key criteria include mailing theories to strangers, claiming a lack of mathematical skill while asserting conceptual correctness, and comparing oneself to historical figures like Galileo. Participants humorously assessed String Theory, scoring it 75 points based on these criteria. The conversation also touches on the subjective nature of labeling ideas as "crackpot" and references additional resources by Warren Siegel and Edwin Taylor for further exploration.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of scientific methodology
- Familiarity with John Baez's "Crackpot Index"
- Knowledge of String Theory concepts
- Awareness of historical scientific figures like Galileo
- Explore the full "Crackpot Index" on John Baez's website
- Read Warren Siegel's critique of pseudoscience
- Investigate Edwin Taylor's article on scientific discourse
- Analyze the implications of labeling theories as "crackpot" in scientific communities
Researchers, science communicators, and educators interested in the intersection of unconventional theories and scientific credibility will benefit from this discussion.
- #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,109
- 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
- 8,213
- 2,657
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
- 357
- 1
ZapperZ had that thread on a pretty long time ago when he was..er.. grinding down some pots.
Pretty hilarious.
Pretty hilarious.
- #7
- 557
- 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
- 23,803
- 11,245
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
- 7,329
- 2,855
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