Crackpot index: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:08, 10 August 2023

Latest revision as of 21:18, 20 October 2024

(17 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/>

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

*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

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

Line 18 ⟶ 46:

| 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 afielda 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

Line 29 ⟶ 57:

}} [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}}

Presumably any positive value of the index indicates crankiness.

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.

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 40 ⟶ 66:

==See also==

* [[Crank (person)]]

* [[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience]]

* [[Pseudophysics]]

==References==