User:HeeHawMama/sandbox

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user’s work in progress page, and may be incomplete and or unreliable

GATHERING NOTES TO EDIT THE CRACKPOT INDEX

---

HOW IT'S CALCULATED The Crackpot Index assigns points based on 37 criteria. The more points, the bigger the Crackpot. Criteria include making statements not in line with the scientific method - statements that go against consensus, logically inconsistent, upheld despite correction, thought experiments that contradict real experiments, untestable, conspiracy against scientific estabishment making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence Ambiguity criteria - inventing words without proper definitions There are also Red Flags - working alone, making excuses for lack of mathematical rigor, signs of insanity or paranoia There is also Stylistic Criteria - writing words in all caps, comparing oneself to Einstein, comparing one's critics to Nazis Egomaniac criteria - suggesting deserve nobel prize, comparing oneself to Einstein

- Motivation

John Baez said during a This American Life interview, "I'm sure that I've seen at least 100 different crackpot theories. I will get emails from people asking me to help them work out the details of their theory. And so it's sort of like saying I'm good at music, but I just don't know what the notes are supposed to be in this piece. If you could just write down the notes, I could come up with a great piece of music...I think they do it because they really want to understand the universe. And they have very noble, albeit grandiose, motivations, trying to do what us regular physicists also are trying to do for our own noble and grandiose motivations. And I think what distinguishes them from physicists who can make a useful contribution is that they don't want to be somebody whose epitaph says that they tightened the screws on a particle accelerator that made a great experiment. They want to be Einstein. And most of us can't be Einstein. And that's the trouble."

---

'''10 Signs a Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304



ADAPTATIONS

EVOLUTION CRACKPOT INDEX "A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to biology. " " 5 points for each mention of "Heackel", "Dawkin", "Steven Gould" or "Eldridge". " "10 points for each claim that genetics or evolution is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). " "An extra 5 points for citing your engineering, dentistry, medical or computing degree as authoritative in biology. An extra 5 points for a pseudomedical qualification (such as homeopathy or holistic massage). " "30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by a pre-industrial culture" "20 points for every use of religious or science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. "

MATHEMATICS CRACKPOT INDEX "Not knowing (or not using) standard mathematical notation" "10 points for stating that your ideas are of great financial, theoretical, or spiritual value;" "10 points for citing an impressive-sounding, but irrelevant, result;" "30 points for confusing examples or heuristics with mathematical proof;" "40 points for claiming to have a “proof” of an important result but not knowing what established mathematicians have done on the problem." https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE CRACKPOT INDEX https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-a-moment-in-reason-a-short-30998564/episode/crackpot-index-alternative-medicine-version-41616969/

---

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS OF ANTIQUITY "The four impossible “problems of antiquity”—trisecting an angle, doubling the cube, constructing every regular polygon, and squaring the circle—are catnip for mathematical cranks. Every mathematician who has email has received letters from crackpots claiming to have solved these problems. They are so elementary to state that nonmathematicians are unable to resist. Unfortunately, some think they have succeeded—and refuse to listen to arguments that they are wrong."

"Peruse the writings of mathematical cranks and we find many different, creatively incorrect methods of trisecting angles and squaring circles. The flaws in some proofs are immediately obvious to any mathematically trained reader—like Callahan’s angle tripling. Other proofs are trickier to unravel—often because the writer presents a complicated mess of symbols, diagrams, and terminology. Also, sometimes the incorrect technique produces a good approximation. It is easy to be fooled by a convincing diagram."

"Others mistake an example for a proof. It is possible to trisect some angles—45º, 90º, 180º, and so on. Thus, some cranks put forward these constructions as evidence that they can solve the general problem."

"Unfortunately, many of these cranks do not have a good grasp of logical reasoning or of techniques for mathematical proof—they fail to understand syllogisms, they beg the question, they cannot give a proper reductio ad absurdum argument, and so on. Their solutions are often long and convoluted, using nonstandard terminology and notation, and riddled with mathematical errors."

"In fact, members of the academy were so tired of being inundated with quackery that in 1775 they passed a resolution not to accept solutions to the problems of circle squaring, angle trisection, or cube doubling. (They also resolved not to accept proposals of perpetual-motion machines.)"

'''"After his many years studying mathematical cranks, Dudley realized that they fit a pattern. In his book The Trisectors, he presented the following characteristics of the typical angle trisector (and presumably the circle squarers fit a similar mold):

They are male. They are old, often retired. They don’t understand what it means for something to be mathematically impossible. Their mathematical background is minimal; it most likely ended with high-school geometry. They believe that the trisection of an angle is an important problem needing to be solved and that they will be richly rewarded with money or prestige for their work. Their proofs are always accompanied by dense, complicated figures. It is often impossible to convince them of their errors. They are prolific and persistent correspondents who will take up as much time as you give them. "''' https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks