The Crackpot Index

- 1 August 1993

On open access computer bulletin boards, any entity with a theory can expound on it at length. Many do — usually to a very unappreciative audience. A seemingly-large proportion of such expositions are surprisingly similar in style. The following scale (tentatively attributed to John Baez of Usenet sci.physics) will help readers establish just how crackpotted something is…

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 logically inconsistent.

4. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction [by other readers].

5. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

6. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

7. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

8. 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

9. 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

11. 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence).

12. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

13. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to one’s past theories.

14. 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on one’s case, etc..

15. 30 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent one’s work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

16. 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.