| From: Babacoote | 17/01/2001
11:09:58 |
| Subject: The Pseudo-Skeptic Index | post id:
208825 |
| The Pseudo-Skeptic
Index A simple method for rating potential reactionary obstruction to the advancement of science. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for believing every statement widely agreed to be true. Just because it is. 3. 2 points for every objection that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every objection that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such objection that is adhered to despite careful correction. 6. 5 points for each personal attack made, unless attacked first. 7. 5 bonus points for each personal attack made in a humorous or ironic tone. For example, citing the Crackpot Index. 8. 5 points for each mention of "Adamanksi", "Creationism" or "Von Danekin". 9. 10 points for each claim that a new idea is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of experience with new ideas. 11. 10 points for defending a conventional theory by saying how long it has been widely accepted. 12. 10 points for never in your life having created a theory of your own, and then having tried to prove it, regardless of it's eventual success or failure. 13. 10 points for entering a debate merely in order to point out that you too, agree with the majority, and this is somehow further evidence in favour of the majority's view. 14. 10 points for each criticism based on the idea that a theory not expressed in your language of choice and training, (be it Swedish, Latin or maths), must be invalid. (Con'td) | |
| From: Babacoote | 17/01/2001
11:10:34 |
| Subject: re: The Pseudo-Skeptic Index | post id:
208826 |
| 15. 10 points for arguing that a
newly-proposed theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point
against it. 16. 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", and this is ok. 17. 10 points for each reflex appeal to authority. 18. 10 points for claiming that the work in question involves fruitcake, nutcases or any other vegetable material. 19. 20 points for being unaware of primate psychodynamics. Specifically, group-think. (Unless you're not a primate). 20. 20 points for each repeated claim to unbiased objectivity, without good evidence. 21. 20 points for failing to acknowledge that many science fiction works or myths have indeed become fact. 22. 20 points for defending yourself by denying you ever ridiculed new theories or their proponents, when the evidence to the contrary is still on public record. 23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "backyard scientist". 24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "cranks ". 25. 30 points for suggesting that science always moves forward by a process of logical steps based on the rational behaviour of objective people. 26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein didn't really value creative imagination above all other scientifically useful attributes. 27. 30 points for claiming that the proposed new theory can't be right because you've never seen it in a textbook. 28. 40 points if your textbooks are older than you are. 29. 40 points for claiming that there is no "scientific establishment" , or that history isn't replete with examples of the establishment acting to prevent new ideas from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 30. 40 points for forgetting that scientists like Galileo were indeed beset by Inquisiton-like opposition. 31. 40 points for claiming to support a conventional theory that had itself in the past been thought crackpot nonsense. 32. 50 points for thinking that the "crackpot index" is anything more than a very small joke. (I'm betting there's no chance of this going in the FAQ?) | |
| From: Dave | 17/01/2001
11:16:38 |
| Subject: re: The Pseudo-Skeptic Index | post id:
208831 |
| This point 40 points for forgetting that scientists like Galileo were indeed beset by Inquisiton-like opposition Can I get a clarification - I thought he was fairly well supported and it was only his own stubborness and a falling out with a friend who later became head of the church that caused the supposed angst. | |
| From: James R (Avatar) | 17/01/2001
11:17:31 |
| Subject: re: The Pseudo-Skeptic Index | post id:
208832 |
| (I'm
betting there's no chance of this going in the FAQ?) I'll take that bet. This is a great balancer for the "Crackpot Index". Thanks Babacoote! | |