This index was originally meant for science articles some would toss at me in the hope that I'd help them get their ideas published. Most such submissions were a waste of my time, but occasional students showed potential. Ignorance is curable. Ego might be too, but I'm not interested.
This index isn't original material. It qualifies as derivate material, but I've lost track of where I got the first idea. It was many, many years ago during the early days of the internet, so anyone who help me reference this properly would be greatly appreciated.
Nowadays I'm tempted to write a political version of this for some of the stuff I read. No doubt many others have written them, but there might be some value is cataloging them all. It might reveal how we gist each other's ideas. 8)
Simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to science.
Basic Points: (Start with -5 points as a starting credit.)
- 1 point for every claim that is widely agreed to be false.
- 1 point for a work that relies upon anecdotal evidence.
- 1 point for capitalization of concept words not at the start of a sentence or 5 points if concept words are all caps.
- 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous or logically inconsistent.
- 3 points for an author working in isolation.
- 3 points for scientific effect that are always at the very limit of detection.
- 4 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
- 4 point for the first publication being pitched directly to the media. 1 more point if they use a personal blog.
- 5 points for work that relies on a multi-century belief claimed as credible because it has endured.
- 10 points for each claim that a well established theory is “fundamentally misguided” or “only a theory.”
- 10 points for pointing out that the author has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity or authority.
- 10 points for a theory description explaining how long the author has been working on it.
- 10 points for sending work to unknown people requesting they not reveal details for fear the ideas will be stolen.
- 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in the theory.
- 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".
- 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur.
- 10 points for each favorable comparison between the author and a famous scientist... written by the author.
- 10 points for claiming that the work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
- 20 points for suggesting that the work is deserving of a Nobel prize.
- 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
- 20 points for defensive language describing real/imagined ridicule aimed at author's past work.
- 25 points for each use of the phrases "hidebound reactionary" or "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
- 30 points for suggesting that a famous scientist secretly disbelieved a theory they otherwise publicly supported.
- 30 points for suggesting a famous scientist, in their later years, was groping their way towards the ideas the author now advocates.
- 30 points for claiming that a theory was developed by an extraterrestrial civilization.
- 35 points for allusions to a delay in the work while the author spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to dissuade the author.
- 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent the work from gaining its well-deserved fame or respect.
- 40 points for comparing those who oppose the work to a modern-day Inquisition or to Nazis.
- 50 points for claiming that when the 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 the theory will be forced to recant.)