Re: Measuring post impact
- From: "Jim Lanson" <rolf184@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:00:43 -0500
Crackpot most generally means a capriciously eccentric person. In various
other uses, the term can mean:
Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively
also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about
a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even
ludicrous beliefs.
Someone addicted to crack (i.e. a drug addict) also known as a
"crackhead."
The CRACKPOT Index
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 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).
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or claim
that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good
evidence).
10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were
evidence of sanity.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that
classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without 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 one's past theories.
30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that
the Inquisition is hard at work on one's case, etc..
30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a
"conspiracy" to prevent one's work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or
suchlike.
40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete
testable predictions.
John Baez
.
- References:
- JSH: Measuring post impact
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Measuring post impact
- Prev by Date: Re: Is there a generalized formula for 2^x=3^y?
- Next by Date: Re: " How do you solve f(3x + 2f(x) + 1) = f^[2](x -1) "
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
