Excellent discussion: 7 warning signs of a science crank.

[BlooInBloo]

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html

"1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media."

and so on, with discussion.

I would add an 8th:

8. No one else has independently repro'd the phenomenon.


EDIT: This deserves to be in GD, imo, because of its direct relevance to "Intelligent Design", and US educational policy.

[slackmaster]

1. QuackWatch is one of the best critical thinking sources on the Web

Lots of well-written documents, no bullshit.

[BlooInBloo]

2. It just found me - thank god for digg!

[Poll_Blind]

3. Parenthetically, it should include (See STOERN). n/t

PB

[BlooInBloo]

5. I was gonna say James Harris, but figured it'd be way too niche.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Dunno who that is, can you give me a link so I can read up on them? n/t

PB

[BlooInBloo]

7. Here's a general link... Can scan sci.math for the glorious details....

http://www.crank.net/harris.html

[badgerpup]

4. K & R...Please follow suite!

This really should be seen...:thumbsup::thumbsup:

http://www.answers.com/topic/double-blind
A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is concealed from both administrators and subjects until after the study is completed.

doubleblind dou'ble-blind' (dŭb'əl-blīnd') adj.

This is the gold standard of scientific testing.

It eliminates the tester skewing or influencing the subject or the data gathered from the subject, since neither knows exactly what is being 'tested'.



:kick: