Pengwuino said: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 yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
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: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.
The Crackpot Index is a set of criteria developed by John Baez to measure the level of "craziness" in scientific theories or ideas. It is used to determine the likelihood that a certain idea or theory is not based on sound scientific principles.
Some examples of criteria in "The Crackpot Index" include the use of overly complex or obscure terminology, lack of peer-reviewed evidence, and claims of being persecuted by the scientific community.
No, the Crackpot Index is not meant to dismiss all unconventional or controversial ideas. It is simply a tool to help scientists evaluate the validity of ideas and theories based on scientific principles.
No, "The Crackpot Index" is not meant to be used as a measure of a person's intelligence or credibility. It is simply a guide to help scientists identify potential red flags in scientific ideas and theories.
No, "The Crackpot Index" should not be used as the sole measure of a scientific theory's validity. It is important for scientists to thoroughly evaluate evidence and data before drawing conclusions about the validity of a theory.