Re: scientist ratings

Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:27:49 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Mark Grant: "Re: Hiring Laws"
Previous message: Damien Broderick: "Re: Open wide...."
In reply to: Mark Grant: "Celia Green (was Re: Are Beliefs Like Clothes?)"
Next in thread: Robin Hanson: "Re: Are Beliefs Like Clothes?"

> Anton Sherwood wrote:
> >Someone has proposed a scale of scientific credibility:
> >> 10.0 Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr: The standards.
> >> 9.0 Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking: No experiments, no 10.
> >> 8.0 ?
> >> 7.0 Carl Sagan: [...]
> >> 6.0 ?
> >> 5.0 Andrew Weil: [...]
> >> 4.0 Hal Puthoff, Fleischman & Pons: [...]
> >> 3.0 ?
> >> 2.0 John Gray (Mars/Venus): Interesting ideas, thin on facts.
> >> 1.0 ?
> >> 0.0 L. Ron Hubbard, Creationists, Astrologers.
> >
> >The cosmetic ".0" suggests a crackpot who confuses precision with
> accuracy.

It was I, and I had already given ratings of 0.5 and 0.3 to Velikofsky
and Hoagland, respectively, so I kept this chart at the same precision
I had already used.

Next message: Mark Grant: "Re: Hiring Laws"
Previous message: Damien Broderick: "Re: Open wide...."
In reply to: Mark Grant: "Celia Green (was Re: Are Beliefs Like Clothes?)"
Next in thread: Robin Hanson: "Re: Are Beliefs Like Clothes?"