Content deleted Content added
m Fixed broken link to Gruenberger's crackpot index |
Surv1v4l1st (talk | contribs) m →Baez's crackpot index: Punctuation |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Method of rating scientific claims}}
While the index was created for its humorous value, the 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 ==
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.▼
The method was initially proposed semi-seriously by mathematical physicist John C. Baez in 1992, and then revised in 1998. The index used responses to a list of 37 questions, each positive response contributing a point value ranging from 1 to 50; the computation is initialized with a value of −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/>
*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
| 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.
== Gruenberger's measure for crackpots ==
An earlier crackpot index is Fred J. Gruenberger's "A Measure for Crackpots"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P2678.pdf
==See also==
* [[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience]]
==References==
Line 21 ⟶ 72:
==External links==
*
* [http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html The CRACKPOT Index]: A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics
<!-- *
Dead Link - no archive found - update or remove -->
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crackpot Index}}
[[Category:
[[Category:Usenet]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
| |||