– FROM THE ARCHIVE – A minus 5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 5 points for each mention of “Einstein”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”. 10 points for…
The Science Creative Quarterly
By johnbaez
John Baez is a mathematical physicist at the University of California. After spending a lot of time moderating the newsgroup sci.physics.research, he became very good at spotting the tell-tale signs of a physics crackpot. After spending even more time moderating this newsgroup, he quit. Now he doesn't have to deal with as many crackpots. This piece can also be found here.
A SIMPLE METHOD FOR RATING POTENTIALLY REVOLUTIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO PHYSICS
A minus 5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics…