Eric Kriegs skeptic point system

[rlortie]

1a. skeptical list for crack pot rating
Posted by: "erickrieg@verizon.net" erickrieg@verizon.net philipkrieg
Mon Jan 4, 2010 8:49 am (PST)

This is a good rule of thumb:

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. (10 more for
emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

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.

[nicbordeaux]

Looks like an inverse square of IQ level.

[John Lindsay]

I saw Erics point system. How many points does he get for coming up with this list? What is less than zero?

[murilo]

Fact is that Eric's forum is getting smaller and wicker, more and more.
This means that, as a skeptical, he won... he should be happy...
He must be alone and wants to call attention, that's all.
Pure skeptical forum will never need discussion about free energy, etc, and will have no reason to exist.
Cheers! M.

[Michael]

Lol. I guess I get ten points for doing # 12 6-7 years ago. I sent Eric himself details of a water p.m. idea I had and asked if he would sign a non disclosure agreement in advance, which he happily did. He was pretty nice about all of it. Maybe I should get half instead of a full rating cause it wasn't really a theory on physics, more of a theory/ description of my invention.
My question is, you just know Eric and a few others like him are members on this board. He just has to be, how could he stay away? Come on Eric, are you going to stay hiding?

[murilo]

Yes!
He's a solitary guy and must be around here, at least to be in company. :)
( in the while, to checkout the crack-pot world! )

[james kelly]

Extraterrestials built my machine. I am Too dumb to have done it. DUHHHHHH!