J.Baez's Crackpot Index
Jack Sarfatti
Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
> So is it good or bad to be a crackpot?
Bad mostly. Many crackpots are so, but others are tarred and feathered
with that label who are not.
>
>
> The variance on quality of work by crackpots is definitely higher
> than the variance on quality of work by non-crackpots -- but the 99th
> percentile crackpot beats the 99th percentile non-crackpot by a huge
> amount.
>
> The key is not just to be a crackpot, but to be a 99th percentile one.
>
> The former is easy. It's the latter that's difficult.
>
> K.
Agreed.
--
CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE
http://stardrive.org
Ross A. Finlayson
Baez posted a list of actions or states and point values to apply the name
of crank.
This might be compared to my sci.math competition rules, except I make all
the rules for that. Also, on my system, points are awarded for actual math,
and removed for nothing.
You can read more about sci.math competition by searching for "sci.math
competition" on sci.math.
Here is Baez's index, quoted from a USENET post:
"THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
physics.
1.A -5 point starting credit.
2.1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3.2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4.3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5.5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6.5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of
a widely accepted real experiment.
7.5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).
8.5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9.10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
10.10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
11.10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it.
12.10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally
and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas
will be stolen.
13.10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
any flaws in your theory.
14.10 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".
15.10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
16.10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails
to provide a
"mechanism".
17.10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
18.10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
"paradigm shift".
19.20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20.20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim
that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
21.20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
were fact.
22.20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to your past theories.
23.20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
24.20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
orthodoxy".
25.30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a
theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet
opponent of
special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his
freshman physics textbooks.)
26.30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping
his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
27.30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
28.40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
29.40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame,
or suchlike.
30.40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
31.40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points
for fantasizing
about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be
forced to recant.)
32.50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
concrete testable predictions.
ba...@math.ucr.edu
© 1998 John Baez"
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
--
Ross Andrew Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting
Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/
"The best mathematician in the world is Maplev in Ontario." - Pertti L.
franz heymann
sci.physics?
I can never discern any threads to which you seem to be replying.
Franz Heymann
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@well.com> wrote in message
news:3A6CFC0A...@well.com...
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Jack, if you are not a crackpot, why do so you conduct so many monologues in
: sci.physics?
Actually, I'd ask, if he's not a crackpot, why did he patent a device to
transmit coded information faster than the speed of light?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
Richard Herring
> Jack, if you are not a crackpot, why do so you conduct so many monologues in
> sci.physics?
Vanity publishing.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Bob Myers
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:94k781$897$4...@lure.pipex.net...
> Jack, if you are not a crackpot, why do so you conduct so many monologues
in
> sci.physics?
I've always wondered what they were doing in sci.skeptic, too...
Bob M.
Jack Sarfatti
There is a solid core of good sense in much of what Baez says in
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
but you are correct it is unbalanced too much in the direction of knee-jerk
debunking of what's ever fresh and new no matter how competently done
consistent with professional standards.
A good book about this is
Mara Beller's "Quantum Dialogue"
The Bohm case is key in this regard.
Bill Beaty wrote:
> Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@well.com> 01/22 7:35 PM wrote:
> > Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
> > >
> > > So is it good or bad to be a crackpot?
> >
> > Bad mostly. Many crackpots are so, but others are tarred and
> > feathered with that label who are not.
>
> Rather than "crackpot" research, there's also "maverick" or
> "unorthodox" research.
Important distinction. Good.
> New ideas can be disparaged by lableing
> them Fringe Science. However, ad hominem attacks such as this
> can be cancelled out by applying competing lables: Frontier
> Science or Revolutionary Science.
>
> Me, I take a hint from the gay population: expose bigotry by
> co-opting the disparaging labels (such as "queer.") Cutting edge
> scientists who humorously label themselves as "crackpots" can
> expose the ad hominem attack strategy of their close-minded
> colleagues. Disparaging labels aren't so useful if the victims
> shine a spotlight upon the people who apply disparaging labels.
>
> Heh. According to the Baez Crackpot index, wouldn't anyone who
> makes a fundamental discovery in physics have a high rating for
> crackpotism? How does Einstein rate? Or Galileo? I smell a
> bit of Horganism here: the idea that science is "at its end,"
> that no major breakthroughs are possible, and that only Kuhn's
> Normal Science is possible from now on. Therefore anyone who
> thinks they've achieved a major discovery and honestly says so,
> must be a crackpot by definition.
>
> History shows that many people are threatened by revolutions in
> science. I suspect that the majority prefers the small and
> PREDICTABLE everyday advances of the "normal" science. At least
> in the early grades, the history of science is presented in
> school as continuous advancement by inhumanly perfect researchers,
> not as acts by revolutionaries who periodically must fight academic
> politics and jealousy, and topple powerful entrenched opinions before
> having their discoveries accepted. Baez' Index perhaps is biased
> in this way, and automatically accepts "normal" science while
> labeling "revolutionary" science as inherently pathological. To
> be of value, his Crackpot Index must be able to sort the true
> revolutionaries who are either ignored or are suffering under active
> attacks by threatened or jealous colleagues, from the genuine lunatics
> suffering from simple delusions of grandeur and paranoia.
>
> ((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
> William Beaty bbe...@microscan.com
> HW/SW Eng. http://www.microscan.com
> Microscan Systems Inc. 425-226-5700 x1135
> Industrial Laser Scanners Renton, WA 98055
math...@my-deja.com
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@well.com> wrote:
> Excellent Bill. Note I fixed a spelling error to "label".
>
> There is a solid core of good sense in much of what Baez sa
> >
> > "unorthodox" research.
>
> Important distinction. Good.
>
Will someone please define what is meant by
"maverick research" or "unorthodox research".
Who has defined a politically correct way to
do research????????
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Timothy E. Vaughan
> > Heh. According to the Baez Crackpot index, wouldn't anyone who
> > makes a fundamental discovery in physics have a high rating for
> > crackpotism? How does Einstein rate? Or Galileo? I smell a
> > bit of Horganism here: the idea that science is "at its end,"
> > that no major breakthroughs are possible, and that only Kuhn's
> > Normal Science is possible from now on. Therefore anyone who
> > thinks they've achieved a major discovery and honestly says so,
> > must be a crackpot by definition.
I am pretty familiar with Einstein's most famous papers. I calculate a
crackpot index of -4 for him. [That's negative 4.]
Gerry Quinn
Yes, but you don't know what his posts would have been like ;-)
- Gerry Quinn
David C. Ullrich
>In article <3A6DE313...@well.com>,
> Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@well.com> wrote:
>> Excellent Bill. Note I fixed a spelling error to "label".
>>
>> There is a solid core of good sense in much of what Baez sa
>> >
>> > Rather than "crackpot" research, there's also "maverick" or
>> > "unorthodox" research.
>>
>> Important distinction. Good.
>>
>***************************
> Will someone please define what is meant by
>"maverick research" or "unorthodox research".
A precise definition might not be easy. But there's a
clue what sort of thing is intended in another post
in this thread where someone wrote
"Actually, I'd ask, if he's not a crackpot, why did he patent a
device to transmit coded information faster than the speed of light?"
> Who has defined a politically correct way to
Jeff Olson
>
> >I am pretty familiar with Einstein's most famous papers. I
> >
>
> Yes, but you don't know what his posts would have been like ;-)
Albert Einstein (bit...@hackerz.de) wrote:
> GutEn TaG, d00dz!!!!!!! ThIs sIGhT rOckZZZ!!!
albert einstein (cosmic...@webtv.com) wrote:
> THE UNIVERSE -GRAVITY-AND THE PHOTON A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
> OF MASS ENERGY SPACE TIME MECHANICS
>
> THE GRAVITY MECHANICS EQUATION simply says that the total
> energy of the universe is a constant.
aldoesntlivehere (CuteLi...@aol.com) wrote:
> Dose anyone know where I can find sunsign information for
> a Taurus with Luna rising in Gemini?
Jeff Olson
Mike Combs
> >
> > >I am pretty familiar with Einstein's most famous papers. I
> > >calculate acrackpot index of -4 for him. [That's negative 4.]
Yeah, but it seems like he'd get unfair advantage for not comparing
himself with himself, and for not saying relativity is wrong.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur: You know, it's at times like this... that I really wish I'd
listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur: I don't know, I didn't listen!
ghammo...@my-deja.com
>
> There is a solid core of good sense in much of what Baez says in
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
SNIP
[Hammond]
My footnote to Baez is: "it takes one to know one".
Nico Benschop
>
> In article <3A6DE313...@well.com>,
> Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@well.com> wrote:
> > Excellent Bill. Note I fixed a spelling error to "label".
> >
> >
> > > Rather than "crackpot" research,
> > > there's also "maverick" or "unorthodox" research.
> >
> > Important distinction. Good.
> >
> ***************************
> Will someone please define what is meant by "maverick research"
The problem is the difference between "a priori" and "a posteriori";-)
(re: another thread on the meaning of 'a priori').
-- NB -- http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop
Jim Spriggs
<ghammo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94oqs9$vgm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> [Hammond]
> My footnote to Baez is: "it takes one to know one".
I'll just have to take your word for it, George. After all, you're an
EXPERT, aren't you?
--
jim spriggs
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Takes one to know one. Baez must be one.
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
usele...@my-deja.com
"Timothy E. Vaughan" <tvaughan@_NO_SPAM_bwh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Yes, Albert was discouragingly sane.
If you are looking for prominent researchers with a high crackpot
index, Isaac Newton, Oliver Heaviside, and Evariste Galois all accused
others of stealing their ideas and of plotting against them. None was
particularly social or easy to get along with, with Mr. Galois coming
quite close to being executed by the government for sedition.
Oliver used the CAPITALIZATION and might get the highest score. He was
a very prominent and creative contributor to late 19th century
mathematics, particularly as applied to electricity such as vector
calculus. He never achieved the success he wanted, possibly due to his
weirdness. He had furniture hewn from blocks of granite.
Hamilton could also score high after he went nuts later in life and
spent years writing treatises on the mystical properties of quaternions.
Pertti Lounesto
> Hamilton could also score high after he went nuts later in life and
> spent years writing treatises on the mystical properties of quaternions.
Your source is Bell. Hamilton saw 150 years to the future, while
Bell did not even see the past. It is evident that you have not
read the original texts of Hamilton. See my web-page for sites
on applications of quaternios: http://www.teli.stadia.fi/~lounesto.
Mikal 606
"Pertti Lounesto" <Pertti....@pp.htv.fi> wrote in message
news:3A71C550...@pp.htv.fi...
> usele...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Hamilton could also score high after he went nuts later in life and
> > spent years writing treatises on the mystical properties of quaternions.
>
> Your source is Bell.
BAM!
Its that easy!
Joe Quellen
Pretty Looniest wrote:
"Went nuts" is an absurd characterization. More like a young prodigy who
peaked early, made a name for himself, and did what he wanted from then on.
He focused his studies in areas that in hindsight some people see as a waste
of time. From that point of view, who doesn't? He paved the way for QM by
unifying Newton's ray optics and Huygens wavelet optics, by inventing what
became the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. He paved the way for SR and
electrodynamics with quaternion algebra, inventing important ideas your
average engineer couldn't do without, like the vector cross product.
If you want crazy, you could pick Pascal, if you assume religiosity is
craziness. He became completely fruitless after he converted. And what about
Maupertius? He was pretty off balance from the outset, looking for the divine
plan in everything. But he is the ultimate originator of the Principle of
Least Action. Although he had it wrong, he set Lagrange to the task of doing
it the right way. That's an important contribution to physics.
- Joe Q
usele...@my-deja.com
Yes, you are 100% correct, my source is ET Bell. I have not consulted
the original texts.
Pertti Lounesto
> If you want crazy, you could pick Pascal, if you assume religiosity
> is craziness. He became completely fruitless after he converted.
If you want an example of a crazy scientist, pick Andre Bloch,
a French mathematician on complex analysis, who became a
murderer and spent the rest of his life in a mental institute, tied
to a bed. And continued to produce mathematics.
Edward Green
Fred Galvin
Eric Temple Bell was an important mathematician (Bell numbers, Bell
polynomials), and he was a pretty good science fiction writer (writing
as John Taine). Not least, he wrote a number of exciting and
inspirational popular books about mathematics, wonderful books, I read
all of them as a kid, but apparently he made up a lot of stuff.
--
It takes steel balls to play pinball.
ran.dll
usele...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A71C550...@pp.htv.fi>,
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@pp.htv.fi> wrote:
> > usele...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Hamilton could also score high after he went nuts later in
> > > life and spent years writing treatises on the mystical
> > > properties of quaternions.
> >
> > Your source is Bell. Hamilton saw 150 years to the future, while
> > Bell did not even see the past. It is evident that you have not
> > read the original texts of Hamilton. See my web-page for sites
> Yes, you are 100% correct, my source is ET Bell.
> I have not consulted the original texts.
Hot damn, a sci.physics poster with the ability to state without
reservation or accompanying snide remark that he may have been
in error.
BTW, I really like Bell's book and have it on my shelf not a meter
from me. Is there an internet list of errata? He is too interesting
to discard. I have other histories; Neumann's for instance, but Bell
is a good quick read. I can see a kid becoming really enthused about
pure math after reading this book. - ran.dll
Paul R. Chernoff
Fred Galvin <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:
(in part)
>
>Eric Temple Bell was an important mathematician (Bell numbers, Bell
>polynomials), and he was a pretty good science fiction writer (writing
>as John Taine). Not least, he wrote a number of exciting and
>inspirational popular books about mathematics, wonderful books, I read
>all of them as a kid, but apparently he made up a lot of stuff.
>
I read Bell's "Men of Mathematics" in high school and definitely found
it inspiring. But decades later my late Berkeley colleague Hans Lewy
pointed out a number of anti-semitic remarks in this book, and said that,
to him, it had a "bad smell". I did notice a couple of such remarks when
I read (and re-read) "M of M", but I was quite happy to ignore them.
Lewy, a refugee from Nazi Germany, obviously had a different perspective.
Of course, it is well known (to those who read serious history of math-
ematics) that Bell's book is loaded with nonsense.
As for his alter ego "John Taine", I wonder if anyone now alive has ever
read his science fiction...
at least anyone now alive who reads sci.math.
--
# Paul R. Chernoff cher...@math.berkeley.edu #
# Department of Mathematics 3840 #
# University of California "Against stupidity, the gods themselves #
# Berkeley, CA 94720-3840 struggle in vain." -- Schiller #
G. A. Edgar
<cher...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> As for his alter ego "John Taine", I wonder if anyone now alive has ever
> read his science fiction...
> at least anyone now alive who reads sci.math.
I read one of his novels once, just because he was a mathematician.
Similarly I read Norbert Wiener's science fiction novel. (It was
even worse than Bell's.)
I recommend _The Search for E. T. Bell_, by Constance Reid.
Part biography, part detective story. Because of the science fiction
connection, Arthur C. Clarke was interested in helping her track
down Bell's brother living in Sri Lanka.
--
Gerald A. Edgar ed...@math.ohio-state.edu
Fred Galvin
> I read Bell's "Men of Mathematics" in high school and definitely
> found it inspiring. But decades later my late Berkeley colleague
> Hans Lewy pointed out a number of anti-semitic remarks in this
> book, and said that, to him, it had a "bad smell". I did notice a
> couple of such remarks when I read (and re-read) "M of M", but I
> was quite happy to ignore them. Lewy, a refugee from Nazi Germany,
> obviously had a different perspective.
>
> Of course, it is well known (to those who read serious history of
> mathematics) that Bell's book is loaded with nonsense.
>
> As for his alter ego "John Taine", I wonder if anyone now alive
> has ever read his science fiction... at least anyone now alive who
> reads sci.math.
I read his short story "The Ultimate Catalyst" in the classic Groff
Conklin anthology _The Best of Science Fiction_.
denis-feldmann
Paul R. Chernoff <cher...@math.berkeley.edu> a écrit dans le message :
94ufpi$t06$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article
<Pine.LNX.4.21.010127...@titania.math.ukans.edu>,
> Fred Galvin <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:
> (in part)
>
> >
> >Eric Temple Bell was an important mathematician (Bell numbers, Bell
> >polynomials), and he was a pretty good science fiction writer (writing
> >as John Taine). Not least, he wrote a number of exciting and
> >inspirational popular books about mathematics, wonderful books, I read
> >all of them as a kid, but apparently he made up a lot of stuff.
> >
>
> I read Bell's "Men of Mathematics" in high school and definitely found
> it inspiring. But decades later my late Berkeley colleague Hans Lewy
> pointed out a number of anti-semitic remarks in this book, and said that,
> to him, it had a "bad smell". I did notice a couple of such remarks when
> I read (and re-read) "M of M", but I was quite happy to ignore them.
> Lewy, a refugee from Nazi Germany, obviously had a different perspective.
>
> Of course, it is well known (to those who read serious history of math-
> ematics) that Bell's book is loaded with nonsense.
>
> As for his alter ego "John Taine", I wonder if anyone now alive has ever
> read his science fiction...
> at least anyone now alive who reads sci.math.
Stop wondering :-) The French translation of his "The Time Stream" was the
*first* sci-fi book I ever read ! It did made a lasting impression, but I
must admit it was incredibly bad. As I was 9, though, I still find it was
one of the most fascinating read of my
life :-)
kfost...@my-deja.com
"G. A. Edgar" <ed...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> In article <94ufpi$t06$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Paul R. Chernoff
> <cher...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> As for his alter ego "John Taine", I wonder if anyone now alive has
>> ever read his science fiction...
>> at least anyone now alive who reads sci.math.
> I read one of his novels once, just because he was a mathematician.
> Similarly I read Norbert Wiener's science fiction novel. (It was
> even worse than Bell's.)
I've read short stories by both of them, because they were in a
collection of SF stories I was given as a child - "Great Science
Fiction by Scientists", edited by Groff Conklin. Bell's (originally
writing as Taine) "The Ultimate Catalyst" and Wiener's (originally
using the "pseudonym" `W. Norbert') "The Brain" are both in the
collection.
Robert Israel
>Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@pp.htv.fi> wrote:
>>If you want an example of a crazy scientist, pick Andre Bloch,
>>a French mathematician on complex analysis, who became a
>>murderer and spent the rest of his life in a mental institute, tied
>>to a bed. And continued to produce mathematics.
>Bloch of the Bloch wall?
I don't think so. Bloch of "Bloch's Theorem" and "Bloch's constant"
(see http://www.mathsoft.com/asolve/constant/bloch/bloch.html).
Robert Israel isr...@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
plo...@my-deja.com
plo...@my-deja.com
Charles Francis
Chernoff <cher...@math.berkeley.edu>
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.010127...@titania.math.ukans.edu>,
>Fred Galvin <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:
>(in part)
>
>>
>>Eric Temple Bell was an important mathematician (Bell numbers, Bell
>>polynomials), and he was a pretty good science fiction writer (writing
>>as John Taine). Not least, he wrote a number of exciting and
>>inspirational popular books about mathematics, wonderful books, I read
>>all of them as a kid, but apparently he made up a lot of stuff.
>>
>
>I read Bell's "Men of Mathematics" in high school and definitely found
>it inspiring. But decades later my late Berkeley colleague Hans Lewy
>pointed out a number of anti-semitic remarks in this book, and said that,
>to him, it had a "bad smell". I did notice a couple of such remarks when
>I read (and re-read) "M of M", but I was quite happy to ignore them.
>Lewy, a refugee from Nazi Germany, obviously had a different perspective.
>
>Of course, it is well known (to those who read serious history of math-
>ematics) that Bell's book is loaded with nonsense.
>
no one has ever given me an instance of a story that E. T. Bell has
certainly got wrong, or one where he claimed that an undocumented story
is history - he does tell unauthenticated stories but it seems to me he
makes it clear when he is doing so. I have also seen him used as a
reference by Encyclopedia Britannica, so I doubt he's that bad. I wonder
whether it is the knockers who haven't paid attention to history.
--
Regards
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Edward Green
>Can I be included to John Baez's crackpot index too ?
It's not a roster... it's an _index_. You can be evaluated against it
like any other schmoe.
plo...@my-deja.com
plo...@my-deja.com
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Jim Spriggs wrote:
> >
> > <ghammo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:94oqs9$vgm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > [snip]
> > > [Hammond]
> > > My footnote to Baez is: "it takes one to know one".
> >
> > I'll just have to take your word for it, George. After all, you're
an
> > EXPERT, aren't you?
> > --
HE is.
> > jim spriggs
>
> [Hammond]
> Takes one to know one. Baez must be one.
>
> --
Baez is one.
plo...@my-deja.com
I you want an example of religious crazy scientist, pick me !
Huaaah, huaaaah !
Jeffrey Shallit
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>E. T. Bell gets a lot of stick for not being 100% historical. But so far
>no one has ever given me an instance of a story that E. T. Bell has
>certainly got wrong, or one where he claimed that an undocumented story
>is history - he does tell unauthenticated stories but it seems to me he
>makes it clear when he is doing so. I have also seen him used as a
>reference by Encyclopedia Britannica, so I doubt he's that bad. I wonder
>whether it is the knockers who haven't paid attention to history.
>
>--
>Regards
>
>Charles Francis
>cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Here's one that Bell got wrong:
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html
Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
URL = http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/
tim_ro...@my-deja.com
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
fails to provide a "mechanism".
The absence of a "mechanism" is a legitimate criticism of a theory.
It doesn't *invalidate* the theory, but it does point out that the
theory could be more complete. The search for a mechanism is the
driving force behind most of science. (Is there any other reason for
believing in gluons?)
When Galileo showed experimentally that the period of a pendulum is
proportional to the squareroot of its length, he produced a valid
theory. But if someone else were to say that Galileo had failed to
provide any *reason* or *mechanism* for this effect, they'd have a
valid point.
I'm sure Einstein would agree ;-)
Ross A. Finlayson
"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> This thread wan't on sci.math, it was on sci.physics.
>
> Baez posted a list of actions or states and point values to apply the name
> of crank.
>
> This might be compared to my sci.math competition rules, except I make all
> the rules for that. Also, on my system, points are awarded for actual math,
> and removed for nothing.
>
> You can read more about sci.math competition by searching for "sci.math
> competition" on sci.math.
>
> Here is Baez's index, quoted from a USENET post:
>
> "THE CRACKPOT INDEX
>
> A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
> physics.
>
> 1.A -5 point starting credit.
> 2.1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
> 3.2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
> 4.3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
> 5.5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
> correction.
> 6.5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of
> a widely accepted real experiment.
> 7.5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
> defective keyboards).
> 8.5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
> 9.10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
> 10.10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
> were evidence of sanity.
> 11.10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
> long you have been working on it.
> 12.10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally
> and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas
> will be stolen.
> 13.10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
> any flaws in your theory.
> 14.10 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".
> 15.10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> 16.10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
> predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails
> to provide a
> "mechanism".
> 17.10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
> claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
> (without good evidence).
> 18.10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
> "paradigm shift".
> 19.20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
> 20.20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim
> that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 21.20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
> were fact.
> 22.20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
> ridicule accorded to your past theories.
> 23.20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
> 24.20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
> orthodoxy".
> 25.30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a
> theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet
> opponent of
> special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his
> freshman physics textbooks.)
> 26.30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping
> his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
> 27.30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
> extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
> 28.40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
> stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
> 29.40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
> in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame,
> or suchlike.
> 30.40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
> 31.40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
> present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points
> for fantasizing
> about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be
> forced to recant.)
> 32.50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
> concrete testable predictions.
>
> ba...@math.ucr.edu
> © 1998 John Baez"
>
> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> > Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
> >
> > > So is it good or bad to be a crackpot?
> >
> > Bad mostly. Many crackpots are so, but others are tarred and feathered
> > with that label who are not.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The variance on quality of work by crackpots is definitely higher
> > > than the variance on quality of work by non-crackpots -- but the 99th
> > > percentile crackpot beats the 99th percentile non-crackpot by a huge
> > > amount.
> > >
> > > The key is not just to be a crackpot, but to be a 99th percentile one.
> > >
> > > The former is easy. It's the latter that's difficult.
> > >
> > > K.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > --
> > CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE
> > http://stardrive.org
>
> --
> Ross Andrew Finlayson
> Finlayson Consulting
> Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/
> "The best mathematician in the world is Maplev in Ontario." - Pertti L.
--
Ross Andrew Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting, Est. 1994
Ross at tiki-lounge.com: http://neurosis.hungry.com/~raf/
"Have a nice day." FARS, DFARS, Berne, USA copyright rules may apply
David C. Ullrich
<rfinl...@hot.rr.com> wrote at least 8 or 10 messages
where he literally said nothing at all, just quoted previous
posts.
It's like you think you're proving something by proving
that you have made a lot of posts to sci.math recently.
When people say you have not posted anything but
nonsense, have posted no proofs, have not stated
what your axioms are, they are _not_ saying that
you have not posted anything. Only a troll, an idiot
or a lunatic would think he was proving something
by citing himself and saying _nothing_.