Crackpot index: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:13, 30 January 2023

Latest revision as of 21:18, 20 October 2024

(18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Method of rating scientific claims}}

{{multiple issues|

'''The Crackpot Index''' is a number that rates scientific claims or the individuals that make them, in conjunction with a method for computing that number. It was proposed by [[John C. Baez]] in 1992, and updated in 1998.

{{More citations needed|date=August 2009}}

{{Notability|date=July 2012}}

}}

The '''crackpot index''' is a number that rates scientific claims or the individuals that make them, in conjunction with a method for computing that number. While the indicesindex have beenwas created for theirits humorous value, theirthe general concepts can be applied in other fields like risk management.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eXPCBwAAQBAJ&q=%22crackpot+index%22&pg=PA137|title=The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It|last=Hubbard|first=Douglas W.|date=2009-04-27|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=9780470387955|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2006/01/every_field_of_/|title=Every field of study deserves its own Crackpot Index|author=Wired Staff|magazine=WIRED|access-date=2018-07-17|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180717124851/https://www.wired.com/2006/01/every_field_of_/|archive-date=July 17, 2018}}</ref>

== Baez's crackpot index ==

The method, was initially proposed semi-seriously by mathematical physicist [[John C. Baez]] in 1992, computesand anthen revised in 1998. The index byused responses to a list of 3637 questions, each positive response contributing a point value ranging from 1 to 50.; Thethe computation is initialized with a value of &minus;5.<ref name=NSUniversal>{{cite magazine
| date = 28 April 2010
| title = Towards a universal crackpot standard
| url = https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627582-100-towards-a-universal-crackpot-standard/
| magazine = [[New Scientist]]
| access-date =2023-08-10
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html|title=Crackpot index|website=math.ucr.edu|access-date=2018-07-17}}</ref> An earlier version only had 17 questions with point values for each ranging from 1 to 40.<ref name=index1>{{Cite web|url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html|title=Crackpot index|date=1996-11-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19961110050053/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html|access-date=2018-07-17|archive-date=1996-11-10}}</ref>

Sample point assignments:<ref name=index1/>

Presumably any positive value of the index indicates crankiness.

*1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

*5 points for each mention of "Einstien"{{sic}}, "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

*10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

*20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

*40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

*50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

The ''[[New Scientist]]'' published a claim in 1992 that the creation of the index was "prompted by an especially striking

Though the index was not proposed as a serious method, it nevertheless has become popular in Internet discussions of whether a claim or an individual is [[crank (person)|crank]]y, particularly in [[physics]] (e.g., at the [[Usenet newsgroup]] sci.physics), or in mathematics.

outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that TIME has INERTIA".<ref name=NSFeedback>{{cite magazine

| date = 5 December 1992

| title = Feedback

| url = https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618508-100-feedback/

| magazine = [[New Scientist]]

| access-date = 2023-08-10

}}</ref><ref>{{cite news

| last = Kesterton

| first = Michael

| date = 11 Dec 1992

| title = Social Studies a Daily Miscellany of Information by Micheal Kesterton About the Body …

| page = A.28

| work = [[The Globe and Mail]]

| ___location = Toronto

}}</ref>

Baez later confirmed in a 1993 letter to ''New Scientist'' that he created the index.<ref name=BaezNS>{{cite magazine

| last = Baez

| first = John

| date = 23 January 1993

| title = Letters: Crackpot credit

| url = https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg13718576-200-letters-crackpot-credit/

| magazine = [[New Scientist]]

| issue = 1857

| access-date = 2023-08-10

}}</ref> The index was later published in ''[[Skeptic (American magazine)|Skeptic]]'' magazine, with an editor's note saying "we know that outsiders to a field can make important contributions and even lead revolutions. But the chances of that happening are rather slim, especially when they meet many of the [Crackpot index] criteria".<ref name=Skeptic>{{cite magazine

| last = Baez

| first = John

| date = 2001

| volume = 8

| issue = 4

| title = The crackpot index

| magazine = [[Skeptic (American magazine)|Skeptic]]

| ___location = [[Altadena, CA]]

}} [https://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/8.4/ Contents]</ref>

Though the index was not proposed as a serious method, it nevertheless has become popular in Internet discussions of whether a claim or an individual is [[crank (person)|crank]]y, particularly in [[physics]] (e.g., at the [[Usenet newsgroup]] sci.physics), or in mathematics.{{cn|date=August 2023}}

Chris Caldwell's [[Prime Pages]] has a version adapted to [[prime number]] research<ref>{{cite web |url=http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html |title= ''The PrimeNumbers' Crackpot index'' |accessdate= October 23, 2007 |author=Chris Caldwell}}</ref> which is a field with many famous unsolved problems that are easy to understand for amateur mathematicians.

Line 20 ⟶ 66:

==See also==

* [[Crank (person)]]

* [[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience]]

* [[Pseudophysics]]

==References==