Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 24 2012,10:43)|
|Thanks to Olegt for reminding me about the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).|
I decided to take a shot at Joe on this one. †I am NOT going to find a reference to every single piece that I say. †If you don't like my work, then feel free to ignore it.
+5 for even being considered to be on this list
+5 (+1 for every statement widely agreed to be false; examples "hail is not water", "mol is molecule", "mya is millenia ago", etc)
+6 (+3 for every statement that is logically inconsistent)
+50 (+5 points for every statement that is adhered to despite correction)
+20 (+5 points for every thought experiment that contradicts an actual experiment)
+30 (+10 points for each new term that is never defined)
+10 for saying a current theory is only a theory
+10 for saying that the current theory doesn't have a mechanism
+10 for claiming one's own work is on the cutting edge (ticks? really?)
+20 for saying how great your theory is without actually explaining it
+40 (+20 for every claim in which science fiction is used as a fact)
+70 (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.))
+50 for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
I've decided to add a few of my own:
+100 (+5 for every attempt to divert conversation from one's own notions by saying "you support your theory"
+500 (+5 for every attempt to divert conversation from one's own notions by cursing one's opponent)
So, Joe's (estimated) crackpot index is 926. †
I'm sure I'm missing a few things, so it's safe to say that Joe approaches 1,000 on the crackpot index. †Hmmm... I wonder how that compares to KF, Dembski, Wells, etc. †But I don't wonder enough to go check.
I was thinking of doing the same with batshit77, but that would mean goint through his gigantic steaming pile of tard, and I can't spare the neurons.
But we know batshit gave Joe a schooling on relativistic mass this weekend. So batshit's been right on more things than has Joe (by a score of 1-0). I think we can infer that CI(batshit77) < CI(Joe).
Even barmier than batshit77. Even in the empty, anally-obsessed, god-addled abyss which I'm going to refer to as Joe's mind until I come up with a better word, that's got to sting a bit.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... ¬†The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG