Re: Crackpot Index

J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Fri, 17 Nov 95 16:44:00 -0500

I don't really think of the AAT as pseudoscience, or crackpottery
(although much of its argument is done in a classic pseudoscience
style), but I'd have to say that, just off the top of my head, and
ignoring most of the high point-getting categories, it gets well
over the 20 points you suggest. Just look at these few points:

> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
> 1) A -5 point starting credit.
> 2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Seals sweat through eccrine glands.
Quadrupedalism is more efficient than bipedalism.
The only defense for savannah-dwelling hominids would be to run away.
Chimpanzees do not live in savannah environments.
Only marine birds and reptiles have salt glands.
While other mammals have a innate physiological reaction to salt
need, humans have no such innate physiological reaction to salt
need.
Humans do not undertake any compulsory search for salt when
deficient, and human intake of salt bears no relation to salt
deficit or surplus.
Other mammals respond just as urgently to a deficiency in salt
as they do to a deficiency in water.
Other mammals take in the precise amount of salt they need to
correct their deficiency and then "will take no more".
Non-human mammals go to great lengths to satisfy their salt
hunger, but humans do not.
The slightest disadvantage in the short term translates into
extinction in the long run.
Our subcutaneous fat is anchored to the skin and not to underlying
tissues.

(12 points there)

> 5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
> correction.

Quadrupedalism is more efficient than bipedalism.
The only defense for savannah-dwelling hominids would be to run away.
Chimpanzees do not live in savannahs.
Only marine birds and reptiles have salt glands.
The slightest disadvantage in the short term translates into
extinction in the long run.

(25 points there)

> 17) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
> engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its
> well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

(certainly 30 points there)

> So I give AAT a CRACKPOT INDEX of maybe 20.
> Tom Clarke

But just off the top of my head I could point out a rather higher
score for the AAT:

-5 (starting score)
12
25
_30_
62 (total)

That's a minimum, given that actually delving into the archives,
and Morgan's books, with this index in mind would doubtless give
many other false "facts" to raise the AAT score.

* Q-Blue 2.0 *