Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on December 01, 2006, 04:48:26 am
-
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
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 new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 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".
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 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".
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
29. 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.)
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
34. 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.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
36. 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.)
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
-
:lol:
Has anyone totalled that up for timecube (http://www.timecube.com/)?
-
Have you actually read that entire thing, Kara?
-
should be ten points for any use of the term "paradigm shift" in any context under any circumstances
-
Have you actually read that entire thing, Kara?
I read the first page or so then my head hurt.
I especially love the bit when he blames Santa :D
-
Have you actually read that entire thing, Kara?
I read the first page or so then my head hurt.
I especially love the bit when he blames Santa :D
It's either the insane rantings of a lunatic or the musings of a transcendantly intelligent genius... dollars to donuts on the former, though.
-
Paradigm shift is an important scientific reality. Read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" :)
It's the marketing lunatics who have co-opted it and made it silly sounding :)
-
He should have put in "referring to yourself in the third person" somewhere in there. I see a lot of papers (even otherwise good ones) where this is the case and it looks quite ridiculous. :D
That guy has some nice stuff on his website. I particularly like the Lego topological surfaces.
-
Well, strictly speaking, 3rd Person reference is the correct way to present any sort of scientific report, however, it's considered far more acceptable to say 'The item was placed in a vacuum' than 'Dr. Whatever placed the item in a vacuum'.
-
speaking of Dr. Ray, some guys made a documentary about him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvmVqq5m7dA
at least watch the last minute or so when he talks about something and... well... see for yourself.
-
"The investigators followed standard laboratory procedure when processing the samples."
"We didn't drop them"
-
"The investigators followed standard laboratory procedure when processing the samples."
"We didn't drop them"
I had a whole list of those once. I even added a few for the specific field of research I was involved in.
-
Well, strictly speaking, 3rd Person reference is the correct way to present any sort of scientific report, however, it's considered far more acceptable to say 'The item was placed in a vacuum' than 'Dr. Whatever placed the item in a vacuum'.
That depends on the subject and the number of authors. Most of the math papers I see avoid making any reference to the author(s) and use the generic "we" instead, which makes the remaining ones look all the funnier. :D
-
Yeah, those "translations" have been around for a really long time. Science-types (and us former science-types) get a kick out of the prose we're supposed to write.
It makes us sound schizo :)
-
It's been a few years, but I remember having to systematically go through all the papers my advisor and I were publishing and remove any 1st person references, direct or otherwise. It was best practice to avoid mentioning the authors directly at all, but when it just would have made the wording hopelessly awkward, I was allowed refer to myself or our research group as "the investigators" in the 3rd person. I've seen in that cop-out used in several other papers as well. These were engineering, chemistry, and physics journals for the most part. Expectations vary from journal to journal, and I expect the differences widen across disciplines.
Frankly, I think most scientists and engineers out there have woefully inadequate writing skills to begin with. Most of the scientific papers I've read seem like they were written by people hell-bent on coming off as intellectually superior as they possibly could rather than actually communicating the intent and content of their research. I'm all for making full use of the enormous vocabulary language has to offer, but there comes a point where some of these authors are dropping in so many gratuitous 5+ syllable words that I have to wonder, who exactly are they trying to fool/impress? I don't care how complicated or esoteric your topic, you ought to be writing with an eye to making it possible for a lay person to at least understand the gist of what's going on. If you don't, in the end you are shooting yourself in the foot. No one with a choice will bother to read it.
My general rule of thumb is that if you sound like an ass saying it out loud, you need to find a better way to write it.
-
But if we don't make our language incomprehensible who knows what damage the layman knowledge of The Material Correlate Diffusion Patterns of Transhumance Egalitarian Subsistence Strategies in a Local Context will do to humanity?!?!
I mean, if a common person can read an article and comprehend it they might... *gasp* I just... can't comprehend the pure and unadulterated evil of the act!...
-
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
:lol:
It's the "without good evidence" part of that which makes me laugh. :D
-
Paradigm shift is an important scientific reality. Read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" :)
It's the marketing lunatics who have co-opted it and made it silly sounding :)
no problem, if someone actually uses it and accomplishes something then they have an acceptable level of crackpot that can be written off at intellecual eccentricity