Physics Forums Crackpot Index and Bingo
Discussing science online can often be a frustrating experience if no quality controls are in place, which is often the case. As part useful reference and part entertainment PF has put together an adequate list of common attributes associated with dubious scientific discussion. Next time you’re in a discussion, check this list to see if your participants are debating in good faith or not.
Thanks to the dozen or so PF staff and advisors who helped compile this list. Enjoy our Physics Forums Crackpot Index!
Table of Contents
Style and Formatting
5 points: Obvious copy and paste
5 points: Wall of Text
5 points: Over-the-top special formatting
20 points: No math shown
20 points: Excessive math without consistency or explanations
Telling Quotes
5 points: “you don’t allow open-minded people to post about the subject”
5 points: “I am thinking out of the box”
5 points: “Science is all about asking questions”
5 points: “you are censoring discussion”
10 points: “Einstein was just a clerk”
10 points: “Einstein was bad at math”
15 points: “I’ve been working on this for 20 years”
15 points: “people didn’t believe Galileo initially”
20 points: “Units here ≠ units here”
20 points: “Scientists/others try to ban/suppress my theory”
30 points: “Because I haven’t had formal training I can see things others might have missed”
30 points: “I’m not a physicist, but…”
30 points: “I don’t know the math”
50 points: “I just discovered the laws of physics are wrong”
Refuting the establishment
5 points: You can’t conclude something you don’t have direct evidence for
15 points: Science is wrong because it doesn’t do logic correctly
20 points: Skeptical of the standard model
25 points: Claiming Einstein was a radical in his day
25 points: Claiming that Relativity is only accepted due to Einstein’s reputation
25 points: Claiming that Einstein plagiarized his work
30 points: Claiming Einstein is wrong
30 points: Claiming Newton is wrong
Desperate Measures
5 points: Putting mentors/science advisors on ignore.
5 points: Post offers a complicated analogy rather than a descriptive model
10 points: Ignoring critiques.
10 points: Profane, insulting, threatening PMs to complain about their Notice/Infraction…
50 points: Creating a sockpuppet to agree with you.
Questionable References
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar reference
5 points: Link URL contains multiple hyphens
5 points: Link URL domain is something other than .com .edu .org or .gov
10 points: Posting under the pretense of asking a question
10 points: References to simplified models designed for TV shows etc
15 points: Digging up 100-year-old papers looking for a secret
15 points: Links to article written by a content writing company
20 points: Links to paper published on personal website
20 points: Personal blog link
30 points: Citing or quoting sources in support of their position which in reality refute their position
Day Dreamers
15 points: Science is wrong because of my philosophical beliefs
15 points: Using words without a proper definition
40 points: Mentions science fiction, UFOs, or pseudoscience
40 points: Includes the words like “truths”, “God”, “secret”, “breakthrough”, “revolutionary”, “mystery”
50 points: Includes topics from our banned topic list
Bonus! Turn it into a Crackpot Bingo game!
Source: member micromass
Resources:
A Layman’s Guide to: Lies, Damned Lies and Pseudoscience
John Baez’s Original Crackpot Index
I have a BS in Information Sciences from UW-Milwaukee. I’ve helped manage Physics Forums for over 22 years. I enjoy learning and discussing new scientific developments. STEM communication and policy are big interests as well. Currently a Sr. SEO Specialist at Shopify and writer at importsem.com
Good compilation!
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar referenceI had the misfortune of stumbling upon that website recently. Let's just say I made a hasty exit, because I didn't know whether to laugh, to pity those posting there, or if I would end up throwing my laptop across the room in frustration.
I sent a link from there to my best friend, and she laughed her rear-end off.
I'm pretty sure they can read and comprehend ok. They just don't really agree with the rules. It's a bit like various criminal behaviours. E.g., a guy knows it's a crime to have sex with an underage child, but goes ahead and does it anyway because society's "rules" don't align with his own need for gratification…I covered that in #3.
Zz.
Some rebels intrigue me and provoke my thoughts but since they are not on the mainstream they must be disregarded. They write well, I might grade their articles A for clarity, coherence, and cadence but then the contents are questionable.
Btw, I like conciseness especially when it's correct. Somebody put in a nutshell the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics and quoted "Boson clump, Fermion repel", I'm impressed that I wrote a haiku.. the quantum of poetry :D
"Bedlam in hadron
Boson clump, Fermion repel
Profound existence."
In this day and age it can be very difficult to sort the cracked pots from the ones that are merely dirtied from use. As such, I have come up with the following rule that should make it much easier for the layman to find the cracks.
Did whatever you read or heard present its arguments in a clear, concise manner and make near-perfect sense even though you've never studied science before? Yes? It's a crackpot.
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!).I'm pretty sure they can read and comprehend ok. They just don't really agree with the rules. It's a bit like various criminal behaviours. E.g., a guy knows it's a crime to have sex with an underage child, but goes ahead and does it anyway because society's "rules" don't align with his own need for gratification…
Now that it has quiet down a bit, I'll go all out and blast out the crackpots that come into this forum for a set of characteristics that aren't covered in the list, and something that hasn't been talked about.
1. They are liars and have no integrity. Why? They come here and explicitly agreed to abide by the PF Rules. But then, they turn around a break those rules. So they lied. Their agreement means nothing. This then makes everything they claim questionable. Why would you believe anything from them if their words can't be trusted?
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!). So if they can't understand something as simple as our rules, what are the odds they can understand the physics that they were tackling? Again, it raises questions of what they are able to comprehend. Why would anyone listen or pay attention to someone like that?
3. They have no intention to respect anything, and don't care. This is easy. You show no respect, you get no respect. If you do not care about how we do business here, why should we care about what you have to say? Tit for tat.
Zz.Thank you ZZ. That reminded me of a CPP from a while back.
I did experiments this morning, confirming that my invention is 99.95 efficient.
—————————-
+/- 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. :tongue2:
Are there any female crackpots? I've never encountered one.I've met many. The ones that stand out in my memory had a prior emotional allegiance to some new age, paranormal, or religious belief that stood in the way of them putting much effort into appreciating science.
I've come across one pseudo-physicist who claimed to be female. A fair few "alternative medicine" practitioners are female – I think they count.
Are there any female crackpots? I've never encountered one.
It's hard to argue against that, ZapperZ.
And I've found out that it can be dangerous to follow the Crackpot road.
Now that it has quiet down a bit, I'll go all out and blast out the crackpots that come into this forum for a set of characteristics that aren't covered in the list, and something that hasn't been talked about.
1. They are liars and have no integrity. Why? They come here and explicitly agreed to abide by the PF Rules. But then, they turn around a break those rules. So they lied. Their agreement means nothing. This then makes everything they claim questionable. Why would you believe anything from them if their words can't be trusted?
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!). So if they can't understand something as simple as our rules, what are the odds they can understand the physics that they were tackling? Again, it raises questions of what they are able to comprehend. Why would anyone listen or pay attention to someone like that?
3. They have no intention to respect anything, and don't care. This is easy. You show no respect, you get no respect. If you do not care about how we do business here, why should we care about what you have to say? Tit for tat.
Zz.