Re: psychoceramics: Re: psychoceramics-digest V1 #62

[moroney @ world.std.com (Michael Moroney)]

In article <1D4E7A--@v--.idbsu.edu>, you wrote:
> >
> >THE CRACKPOT INDEX
> >
> >A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions
> >to physics.
> >
> 
> So, has anyone attempted to estimate what Plutonium's (obviously
> astronomical) score is?

It's hard to tell whether the index is supposed to score a single post or the
author over several posts.  Some questions such as the early ones seem to rate
a post, others the poster.  I'll offer my comments.

|* A -5 point starting credit.

|* 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Numerous times.

|* 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

He doesn't rate as high as many for vacuousness.  He's usually just wrong.

|* 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

Frequently.

|* 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
|correction.

My efforts to correct several fundamental flaws have been rewarded by him
telling me to go to hell (Styx that is).  Twice.

|* 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results 
|of a widely accepted real experiment.

All the time.

|* 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
|with defective keyboards). 

He doesn't do this.

|* 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
|misguided (without good evidence).

He (literally) worships quantum mechanics, big fat zero here.  Although many
of his ideas conflict with QM.

|* 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
|claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
|(without good evidence).

He sees a "struggle" of relativity versus quantum mechanics, GR being totally
wrong and to be crushed by QM.

|* 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
|were evidence of sanity.

Hard to call.  As far as I know AP has no formal education nor does he claim
it, but he does rant how Dartmouth (where he works) will be the central college
when his Plutonium Totality becomes the basis of all science.  Also all his
posts have "Plutonium College" on the Organization: line.

|* 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

He has belittled the Nobel prize often.  His "Plutonium Atom Foundation" will
eventually absorb or displace Nobel awards.

|* 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or
|claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
|evidence).

Don't think he has done this.

|* 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if 
|they were fact.

He has often repeated Greek myths in his "Prayers".

|* 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
|ridicule accorded to ones past theories. 

Often.

|* 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
|claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..

Not that I know of.

|* 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is  engaged in a
|"conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its  well-deserved fame, or
|suchlike.

All the time.

|* 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
|giving no concrete testable predictions.

All the time.


I'll offer a couple possible additions to the list, all of which AP is an
example but I believe are good generic tests.

* Receives all his/her revolutionary information from some supernatural or
alien entity that only the poster can communicate with, and/or claims to be
"chosen" by such an entity.

* Repeatedly follows up to one's own posts.  (I swear this was in the version
of this list I saw about 6 months ago)  Sort of the net equivalent to talking
to yourself (and having good discussions!)  Count X points for each direct
followup.  Does not count occasional "answered my own question" posts or
correcting a blatant mistake.

* Deliberately posts to off-topic groups, even from poster's viewpoint (such as
AP's stock tips posted to sci.physics)  Doesn't count "spams".  Insists on
posting to certain groups despite people trimming irrelevant groups on
followups.

* Belittles or ridicules mere ordinary people who dare try to correct poster.
Poster is obviously far superior, more intelligent, etc. than the rabble.

-Mike