Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Hanslune

May I suggest a project for the board?

287 posts in this topic

On 8/14/2016 at 0:42 PM, Oniomancer said:

Example of dubious website: s8int.com, youtube.

Example of misinterpreted/exaggerated timeline, etc.: Claiming the AE went straight out of the caves to building pyramids virtually overnight with no intermediate development.

(That should read "timeline or other aspects" BTW)

I was thinking of examples as short explanations (1 or 2 lines) of the type of error and linking to where this shown in a book. Websites generally don't always last. Books or publications do but of course in some cases all we do have are links to things.

I think when completed this list will have an impressive footnotes section as the example will be there and not the list itself.

New version: Could someone look at # 17 and comment on who of these fellows may have never commented on matters of Egyptian Civilization?

The Harte Ultimate Dumb' chart or THUD index for AE cranks .005

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to Egyptology:

  1. Start at 0

  2. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed false.

  3. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up.

  4. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.

  5. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

  6. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning is used to support something not logical or reasonable.

  7. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

  8. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that…”.

  9. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Such as saying the C-14 dates done in 1995 are faked.

  10. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

  11. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie", "Smith" or "Hawass" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology.

  12. 5 points for bringing up long shown to wrong ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they were carved from existing hills (not excluding the real hills included in them) they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.

  13. 5 points for demonstrating the power of Pareidolia and not understanding this.

  14. 5 points for claiming you have done ‘years of research’.

  15. 5 points for the claiming involving some date important to Christianity or other religion, 10 additional points if the Apocalypse is mentioned.

  16. 5 points for mentioning that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now just accept what I said.

  17. 5 points for using as a source; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Taylor, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Collins, Coppens, Wyatt, Russell, Rutherford,

  18. 5 points for using as a source those who are still alive and might well come up with something in future but are presently bad sources, Bauval, Hancock.

  19. 10 points for using speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.

  20. 10 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.

  21. 10 points for not understanding consilience.

  22. 10 points for mentioning Mu or Atlantis and 50 for Lemuria.

  23. 10 points for each claim that Egyptology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence).

  24. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

  25. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and not limited to its culture, religion, geographical location.

  26. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

  27. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or pointing out their contributions or credentials.

  28. 10 points for mailing/email your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

  29. 10 points for advising all that your idea is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you).

  30. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while you are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.

  31. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

  32. 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" that support my idea.

  33. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

  34. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism" or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by the theorist.

  35. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

  36. 10 points for refusal to go to conference to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.

  37. 10 points for stating you have degrees which supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information.

  38. 10 points for trying to impose a modern cultural model on the Ancient Egyptians (we wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t, or we would do this so they would)

  39. 10 points for ‘borrowing’ an earlier idea and representing as your own or as new material.

  40. 10 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology.

  41. 10 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists.

  42. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims and that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.

  43. 10 points for implying that Atlantis or a ‘lost civilization’ is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence) and you ignore the plentiful evidence of the pre-dynastic cultures and mentioned a date with 5 figures or more.

  44. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of ‘Indiana Jones’.  

  45. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence).

  46. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is possible.

  47. 15 points for saying that your theory or idea is more efficient for doing ‘x’ without. showing it actually is and for believing the ancient Egyptians only did things efficiently.

  48. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.

  49. 15 points for bringing up Troy.

  50. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea, that the Egyptian civilian or pyramid came from the Jews, Aryans, Illuminati or other groups.

  51. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.

  52. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize when it has been explained to you that (accursed) Nobel left no money for Archaeology or Egyptological prize.

  53. 20 points for every use of science fiction works, forgeries or myths as if they were fact.

  54. 20 points for constantly forgetting your idea is a theory or idea and not proven or accepted by consensus.

  55. 20 points for pretending that consensus support for your idea is not important.

  56. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

  57. 20 points for naming something after yourself.

  58. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

  59. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" used the wrong way.

  60. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

  61. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it.

  62. 20 points for suggesting the Egyptology hates you for your idea and that anyone who disagrees is a paid shill of said Egyptology or Government.

  63. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention.

  64. 20 points for suggesting that a general property is a unique feature and therefore evidence for your idea (such as noting that water, sand or limestone rock is present in Egypt).

  65. 20 points for bringing up a Biblical myth and treating it as real (without providing evidence that it is).

  66. 20 points for making a claim in a press release.

  67. 20 points for using the term ‘decode’ this increases exponentially each time it is used.

68.  25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence or using of buzz phrases like "Egyptology or science can't explain that!" or "How could primitive man have done this?"  Or a mis-applied appeal to "common sense."

  1. 25 points for making a claim in a You-tube video with no written support.

  2. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used ‘advanced technology’ (new age) to include levitation, telekinesis, magic, pyramid power, (without providing great supporting evidence).

  3. 25 points for using strawmen that no Egyptologist has ever said or implied.

  4. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped as still being valid.

  5. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted.

  6. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the object or construction in question can be deem associated with said place.

  7. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who have never mentioned it.

  8. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the ideas you now advocate but they refuse to acknowledge your great wisdom.

  9. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).

  10. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

  11. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website or non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then know about it.

  12. 30 points for pretending that if Egyptologists (or other scientists or professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it.

  13. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images and applying conclusion to their work that they never made.

  14. 35 points for insisting that your theory operates in a special world and that while you have not degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it.

  15. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.

  16. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptology and nothing else in their culture actually matters.

  17. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such a position.

  18. 35 points for bringing up the television show ‘Ancient Aliens’ and considering it a source additionally citing dubious online sites as sources that themselves don't source their claims, usually recycled from pseudo-participants higher up on the food chain.

  19. 35 points for suggesting that the ancient Egyptian technology to build the pyramids appeared out of nowhere (without evidence that this occurred).

  20. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis.

  21. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.

  22. 40 points for claiming that the Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame.

  23. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case.

  24. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are plotting against you.

  25. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors.

  26. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day Egyptology will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

  27. 40 points for suggesting that events tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago somehow directly affect the Egyptians (without excellent evidence).

  28. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphic associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.

  29. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language.

  30. 45 points creating ‘evidence’ by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist.

  31. 50 pints for suggesting you are an ancient Egyptian.

100. 50 points for claiming supernatural or paranormal support or collaborators.

101. 50 points for claiming extra-terrestrial support or collaborators. 

102. 50 points for making un-evidence statements that either don't grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline of other aspects of a given cultural group so as to distort their known contribution to world civilization.

103. 50 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptian words while understanding the language but doing so with no support from others who can read the language.

104. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

105. 75 points for suggesting or pretending that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence to disappear from the physical world.

106. 75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas or theory should be accepted anyway.

107. 100 points your theory consists of trash talk against science and Egyptology while concentrating on what you perceived as their grievous errors and bias. In your mind they are so evil and inept that your own weak and un-evidenced idea must be accepted based solely on the presumed weaknesses of the orthodox position.

Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index by baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

01-25         You need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.

26-50         Some concern over your devotion to science.

51-75         Pre-crank syndrome.

76-100       Taking a stroll near the dark woods of Crank.

101-125     A ticket to visit the Village of Crank.

126-150     A resident visa for the Kingdom of Crank has been issued.

151-200     Inhabitant of Crankville.

201-350     Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.

350-500     Crank.

501+          Super Crank.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I was thinking of examples as short explanations (1 or 2 lines) of the type of error and linking to where this shown in a book. Websites generally don't always last. Books or publications do but of course in some cases all we do have are links to things.

I think when completed this list will have an impressive footnotes section as the example will be there and not the list itself.

 

That's going to be difficult to do given how many of the behaviors listed are being perpetrated primarily in an on-line or other debate-related context, usually in defense against criticisms.

Since you mentioned Fell, have the errors of diffusionism been addressed directly yet? I've lost track.

 

45 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest a chairman for the board ..... also he can personally deliver any prizes  

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version .010

Reduced down to 100 items:

 

The Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or THUD index for AE cranks .010

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to Egyptology:

  1. Start at 0

  2. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed not false.

  3. 5 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology.

  4. 5 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists.

  5. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up and for which no evidence exists.

  6. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.

  7. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

  8. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning are used to support something not logical or reasonable.

  9. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction without evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong.

  10. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that…”.

  11. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Such as saying the C-14 dates done in 1995 are faked.

  12. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

  13. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie", "Smith" or "Hawass" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology.

  14. 5 points for bringing up “legacy” claims shown long ago to wrong ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they were carved from existing hills (not excluding the real hills included in them) they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural/superhuman precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.

  15. 5 points for demonstrating the power of pareidolia and not understanding this.

  16. 5 points for claiming you have done “years of research”.

  17. 5 points for a claim involving some date important to Christianity or other religion, 10 additional points if the Apocalypse is mentioned.

  18. 5 points for declaring that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now “just accept what I said”.

  19. 5 points for using as a source; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Taylor, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Collins, Coppens, Wyatt, Russell, Rutherford,

  20. 5 points for using as a source those who are still alive and might well come up with something in future but are presently bad sources, Bauval, Hancock.

  21. 5 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.

  22. 10 points for using un-evidenced speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.

  23. 10 points for not understanding consilience.

  24. 10 points for each claim that Egyptology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence).

  25. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

  26. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and not limited to its culture, religion, language, history or geographical location.

  27. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own, 40 if you claim others are trying to steal if from you, 50 if you claim to have survived one or more assassination attempts.)

  28. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or pointing out their contributions or credentials.

  29. 10 points for mailing/email your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

  30. 10 points for advising all that your idea is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you).

  31. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while also stating that YOU are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.

  32. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it or explaining why and with what authority you changed it if it is an existing term.

  33. 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" that will support my idea this includes numerology and engineering drawings and calculations.

  34. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. Based on your idea that everything is a theory in science and this is understood by everyone (except you) with a scientific background.

  35. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn’t explain "why" they occur, it isn’t “efficient”, fails some metaphysical reason you’ve made up, doesn’t create “information” or fails to provide a “mechanism” in support of “x” religion or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by you the theorist.

  36. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a coming "paradigm shift".

  37. 10 points for stating you have degrees which supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information.

  38. 10 points for trying to impose a modern cultural model on the Ancient Egyptians (we wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t, or we would do this so they would.)

  39. 10 points for “borrowing” an earlier idea and representing as your own or as new material.

  40. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims and that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.

  41. 10 points for implying that a “lost civilization” is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence for such a lost civilization) and you ignore the plentiful evidence of the pre-dynastic cultures and mentioned a date with 5 figures or more.

  42. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of “Indiana Jones”.  

  43. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence to support this.)

  44. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is plausible, probable and possible.

  45. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.

  46. 15 points for bringing up Troy or the Great (Biblical deluge killing everyone but Noah’s family) flood.

  47. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea, that the Egyptian civilian or pyramid came from the Jews, Aryans, Illuminati, Freemasons or other groups.

  48. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.

  49. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize when it has been explained to you that (accursed) Nobel left no money for Archaeology or Egyptological prizes.

  50. 20 points for every use of science fiction works, well-known forgeries or myths as if they were fact.

  51. 20 points for constantly “forgetting” your idea is a theory or idea and not proven or accepted by consensus and pretending it is.

  52. 20 points for defending yourself and your present idea by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past ideas, actions and record of credibility.

  53. 20 points for naming something after yourself.

  54. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it or supporting it with evidence

  55. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" or “proven” used the wrong way and especially if you use the phrase, “undeniable evidence”.

  56. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy", “shill”, or “paid troll” for anyone who disagrees with you or state that Egyptology (or Government) employs people to counter your ideas on line and or in the media. This also applies if you claim that the Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame. X2 if you compare yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case and trying to suppress your idea.

  57. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it. This is doubled if you refuse to answer questions about your theory and demand that others buy your book to learn the answers. This also applies to refusals to go to conference to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.

  58. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention.

  59. 20 points for suggesting that a general property is a unique feature and therefore evidence for your idea (such as noting that water, sand or limestone rock is present in Egypt).

  60. 20 points for making a claim in a press release and providing no evidence to support it.

  61. 20 points for using the term “decode” these points increases exponentially each time it is used.

62.  25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence or the use of buzz phrases like "Egyptology or science can’t explain that!" or "How could primitive man have done this?"  Or a mis-applied appeal to "common sense."

  1. 25 points for making a claim in a You-tube video with no written support.

  2. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used “advanced technology” (new age) to include levitation, telekinesis, magic, pyramid power, or advance technology equal to or more advanced than our own present day level of expertise (without providing supporting evidence).

  3. 25 points for using strawmen that no (sane) Egyptologist has ever said or implied.

  4. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped (a great deal of these from the 19th century) as still being valid and in use by present day scientists.

  5. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted.

  6. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the creation of an object or construction in question can be deem as being associated with said place.

  7. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who have never mentioned it.

  8. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the ideas you now advocate but refuses to acknowledge your great wisdom in pronouncing it now.

  9. 30 points for claiming that your ideas were developed with help from an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).

  10. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

  11. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website or even a non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then knows about it.

  12. 30 points for pretending that if Egyptologists (or other scientists and professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it.

  13. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images, and applying conclusion to their work that they never made this is doubled if you contacted them they told you were wrong and you continue to misuse their data.

  14. 35 points for insisting that your idea operates in a special world and that while you have no degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it.

  15. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.

  16. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptology and nothing else in their culture actually matters.

  17. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology (which strongly suggests your idea is wrong) has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such error being proven.

  18. 35 points for bringing up the television show “Ancient Aliens” and considering it a valid source. Additionally minus 10 points for each citing of dubious online sites as sources that themselves don’t source their claims. Claims that are usually recycled from pseudo writers higher up on the fringe belief chain.

  19. 35 points for suggesting that the ancient Egyptian technology to build the pyramids appeared out of nowhere (without evidence that this occurred).

  20. 40 points for mentioning Atlantis, 75 for Mu and 100 for Lemuria.

  21. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis.

  22. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.

  23. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors note this doesn’t mean they are conducting a conspiracy against you but are simply inept, biased and generally stupid

  24. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day Egyptology will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your ideas will be forced to recant.)

  25. 40 points for suggesting that events tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago somehow directly affect the Egyptians (without excellent evidence).

  26. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphic associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.

  27. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language.

  28. 45 points creating “evidence” by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist and not mentioning this to those looking at the material.

91.  50 points for claiming supernatural or paranormal support or collaborators or support.

92.     50 points for claiming extra-terrestrial support or collaborators. 

93.     50 points for making un-evidenced statements that either don’t grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline or other aspects of a given cultural group so as to distort their known contribution to world civilization.  

94.     50 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptian words while understanding the language but doing so with no support from others who can read the language.

95.     50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions or findable evidence it’s all based on your perception of reality or claiming to have predictions and not linking or showing that you have made such predictions or with a 100 point deduction if you are claiming a prediction and linking to same which clearly shows you got the prediction wrong.

96.     75 points for suggesting or pretending that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence to disappear from the physical world.

97.     75 points for suggesting you ARE an ancient Egyptian.

98.     75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas or theory should be accepted anyway.

99.     100 points if your theory consists of trash talk against science and Egyptology while concentrating on what you perceived as their grievous errors and bias. In your mind they are so evil and inept that your own weak and un-evidenced idea must be accepted based solely on the presumed weaknesses of the orthodox position.

100. 100 points if you hold the belief that this index was created to stop the acceptance of your idea.

Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index by baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

01-25         You need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.

26-50         Some concern over your devotion to science.

51-75         Pre-crank syndrome.

76-100       Taking a stroll near the dark woods of Crank.

101-125     A ticket to visit the Village of Crank.

126-150     A resident visa for the Kingdom of Crank has been issued.

151-200     Inhabitant of Crankville.

201-300     Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.

301-500     Crank.

501+          Super Crank.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanslune, this is simply brilliant. Not to mention damn entertaining. I laughed at quite a few of them.

With you permission, and as time permits me, I'd like to put this on my blog as a new entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Hanslune, this is simply brilliant. Not to mention damn entertaining. I laughed at quite a few of them.

With you permission, and as time permits me, I'd like to put this on my blog as a new entry.

Thanks! Can you wait a bit this is just the second draft and I will be putting it before a few more sciency people on Hall of Ma'at and elsewhere first. Be about a week to get feed back from them and internalize it.

 

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and feedback.

 

Also here is a proposed list of negative items that would counter crank elements - with the idea that proposer doesn't get everything wrong.

 

Negative points for use of good procedure and techniques:

 

-1 points for each use of a peer reviewed or otherwise acceptable source.

-5 points for producing a detailed pdf, blog or website that outlines the evidence for your idea.

-5 points for gaining the support of professionals outside the field of Egyptology whose experts is germane to your idea

-5 points  for publishing your idea as a book or popular article

-10 points for publisher your idea in a peer reviewed publication

-10 points for have a full appendix with all details and detailed answers to common and uncommon objections to your ideas, an indexed FAQ

-5 points for full bibliography

-5 points for detailed images, diagrams and charts all with full and complete captions.

-5 points for detailing your expertise by experience, study, research or degrees.

-10 points explain step by step how you arrived at this idea and place a list of its weaknesses in relationship to its strengths, pros and cons.

Edited by Hanslune
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it's finished, do you think it would be OK to make a French translation on my blog? (with all due credit, of course!)

Edited by Irna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to make more indexes on other pseudoscience topics. Maybe cryptozoology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Irna said:

When it's finished, do you think it would be OK to make a French translation on my blog? (with all due credit, of course!)

Absolutely and I would appreciate you doing so!

I'll be working on this this week and half of the next then I'm off on vacation until mid September so will finish up around then.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

It would be interesting to make more indexes on other pseudoscience topics. Maybe cryptozoology?

Once this is finished I think the next one I would do (I know virtually nothing about Cryptozoology) would be the Inca/Peruvian or perhaps a generic 'lost civilization' index.We'll see Crypto is certainly a subject that could use 'indexing'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Thanks! Can you wait a bit this is just the second draft and I will be putting it before a few more sciency people on Hall of Ma'at and elsewhere first. Be about a week to get feed back from them and internalize it.

...

Aw, man, I'm not good with waiting. I'm impatient! I have a couple of days off coming up at the end of the week and was hoping to do it then. My blog has been neglected for too long.

Well, okay, I'll wait. But hurry. Hurry, hurry, hurry!

You have nothing better to do, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Aw, man, I'm not good with waiting. I'm impatient! I have a couple of days off coming up at the end of the week and was hoping to do it then. My blog has been neglected for too long.

Well, okay, I'll wait. But hurry. Hurry, hurry, hurry!

You have nothing better to do, right?

Right, actually getting ready to go on vacation. Taking the European wife to see the wonders of America; Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, American Indians, Mesa Verde, Telluride, Ouray and Aspen.Several people are mad at me and one erstwhile professional is making hand motions across his neck while glaring at me AND several nieces and nephews are making demands for money, time, assistance and moral support.

Nah not busy at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Right, actually getting ready to go on vacation. Taking the European wife to see the wonders of America; Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, American Indians, Mesa Verde, Telluride, Ouray and Aspen.Several people are mad at me and one erstwhile professional is making hand motions across his neck while glaring at me AND several nieces and nephews are making demands for money, time, assistance and moral support.

Nah not busy at all.

Between the Grand canyon and the Luxor,  sounds like a busman's holiday. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

80.  30 points for pretending that if Egyptologists (or other scientists or professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it.

Hanslune, I don't know how you'd word that but here are two items I can think of off the top of my head. Another point, which could be added to the above is that if a specialist/professional/etc. says that a theory/hypothesis is wrong, and specifically includes "other such theories", when he or she says it then that simply MUST mean that a generalized mention of those "other theories" are somehow validating a claimants delusion of the day.

And yet another would be that if a claimant states that (insert fantasy claim here) something simply couldn't have happened without outside help because an item, or items, or technologies didn't exist there but came from somewhere thousands of miles away and yet totally ignoring that such can be found much, MUCH closer than thousands of miles away. A good example as shown from the article "The Stoned Age" at the Hall of Ma'at is the claim that nicotine has been found on many Egyptian mummies (possibly but not exclusively having originated at mummy unwrapping parties in Europe, nicotine having "never" existed outside of the Americas when in fact there was a species of tobacco that existed in Africa that was close enough for Egypt to have acquired through trade.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Once this is finished I think the next one I would do (I know virtually nothing about Cryptozoology) would be the Inca/Peruvian or perhaps a generic 'lost civilization' index.We'll see Crypto is certainly a subject that could use 'indexing'.

 

One on Mesoamerican cultures (Maya, Aztec, Toltec, Olmec, etc.) would be interesting. I know more about cryptozoology, so I might tackle that one myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Hanslune, I don't know how you'd word that but here are two items I can think of off the top of my head. Another point, which could be added to the above is that if a specialist/professional/etc. says that a theory/hypothesis is wrong, and specifically includes "other such theories", when he or she says it then that simply MUST mean that a generalized mention of those "other theories" are somehow validating a claimants delusion of the day.

And yet another would be that if a claimant states that (insert fantasy claim here) something simply couldn't have happened without outside help because an item, or items, or technologies didn't exist there but came from somewhere thousands of miles away and yet totally ignoring that such can be found much, MUCH closer than thousands of miles away. A good example as shown from the article "The Stoned Age" at the Hall of Ma'at is the claim that nicotine has been found on many Egyptian mummies (possibly but not exclusively having originated at mummy unwrapping parties in Europe, nicotine having "never" existed outside of the Americas when in fact there was a species of tobacco that existed in Africa that was close enough for Egypt to have acquired through trade.

cormac

Two excellent points and the first one was easy to place and the second I needed to compress down a bit. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this ''project'' is incredibly childish and just made to bash on the opinions of other people; ergo a ''project'' that will only bring negativity to this forum. 

Edited by TheBIHLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, TheBIHLover said:

Well, this ''project'' is incredibly childish and just made to bash on the opinions of other people; ergo a ''project'' that will only bring negativity to this forum. 

Thanks for verifying it usefulness!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Hanslune-Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or TH2UD index for AE cranks .020

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to Egyptology:

  1. Start at 0

  2. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed not false. In example saying nicotine in mummies must come from the Americas and not from local plants which also produce nicotine.

  3. 5 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology.

  4. 5 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists.

  5. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up and for which no evidence exists.

  6. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.

  7. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

  8. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning are used to support something not logical or reasonable.

  9. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction without evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong.

  10. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that…”.

  11. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Such as saying the C-14 dates done in 1995 are faked.

  12. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

  13. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie" or "Smith" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology.

  14. 5 points for bringing up “legacy” claims shown long ago to be wrong,  ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they were carved from existing hills (not excluding the real hills included in them) they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural/superhuman precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.

  15. 5 points for demonstrating the power of pareidolia and not understanding this.

  16. 5 points for claiming you have done “years of research”.

  17. 5 points for a claim involving some date important to Christianity or other religion, 10 additional points if the Apocalypse is mentioned.

  18. 5 points for declaring that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now “just accept what I said”.

  19. 5 points for using as a source; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Taylor, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Collins, Coppens, Wyatt, Russell, Rutherford,

  20. 5 points for using as a source those who are still alive and might well come up with something in future but are presently bad sources, Bauval, Hancock. Additional 5 points if you use an original claim that has been changed or redacted by the author. Example Schock’s original date for the Sphinx and not the change to his claim.

  21. 5 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.

  22. 10 points for using un-evidenced speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.

  23. 10 points for not understanding consilience.

  24. 10 points for each claim that Egyptology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence).

  25. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

  26. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and not limited to its culture, religion, language, history or geographical location.

  27. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own, 40 if you claim others are trying to steal if from you, 50 if you claim to have survived one or more assassination attempts.)

  28. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or pointing out their contributions or credentials.

  29. 10 points for mailing/email your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

  30. 10 points for advising all that your idea is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you).

  31. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while also stating that YOU are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.

  32. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it or explaining why and with what authority you changed it if it is an existing term.

  33. 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" that will support my idea this includes numerology and engineering drawings and calculations.

  34. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. Based on your idea that everything is a theory in science and this is understood by everyone (except you) with a scientific background.

  35. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn’t explain "why" they occur, it isn’t “efficient”, fails some metaphysical reason you’ve made up, doesn’t create “information” or fails to provide a “mechanism” in support of “x” religion or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by you the theorist.

  36. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a coming "paradigm shift".

  37. 10 points for stating you have degrees which supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information.

  38. 10 points for trying to impose a modern cultural model on the Ancient Egyptians (we wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t, or we would do this so they would.)

  39. 10 points for “borrowing” an earlier idea and representing as your own or as new material.

  40. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims and that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.

  41. 10 points for implying that a “lost civilization” is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence for such a lost civilization) and you ignore the plentiful evidence of the pre-dynastic cultures and mentioned a date with 5 figures or more.

  42. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of “Indiana Jones”.  

  43. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence to support this.)

  44. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is plausible, probable and possible.

  45. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.

  46. 15 points for bringing up Troy or the Great (Biblical deluge killing everyone but Noah’s family) flood.

  47. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea, that the Egyptian civilian or pyramid came from the Jews, Aryans, Illuminati, Freemasons or other groups.

  48. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.

  49. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize when it has been explained to you that (accursed) Nobel left no money for Archaeology or Egyptological prizes.

  50. 20 points for every use of science fiction works, well-known forgeries or myths as if they were fact.

  51. 20 points for constantly “forgetting” your idea is just an idea and not proven or accepted by consensus and make believing it is.

  52. 20 points for defending yourself and your present idea by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past ideas, actions and record of credibility.

  53. 20 points for naming something after yourself.

  54. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it or supporting it with evidence.

  55. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" or “proven” used the wrong way and especially if you use the phrase, “undeniable evidence”.

  56. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy", “shill”, or “paid troll” for anyone who disagrees with you or state that Egyptology (or Government) employs people to counter your ideas on line and or in the media. This also applies if you claim that the Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame. X2 if you compare yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case and trying to suppress your idea.

  57. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it. This is doubled if you refuse to answer questions about your theory and demand that others buy your book to learn the answers. This also applies to refusals to go to conference to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.

  58. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention.

  59. 20 points for suggesting that a general property is a unique feature and therefore evidence for your idea (such as noting that water, sand or limestone rock is present in Egypt).

  60. 20 points for making a claim in a press release and providing no evidence to support it.

  61. 20 points for using the term “decode” these points increases exponentially each time it is used. 
  62. 25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence or the use of buzz phrases like "Egyptology or science can’t explain that!" or "How could primitive man have done this?"  Or a mis-applied appeal to "common sense."

  63. 25 points for making a claim in a You-tube video with no written support.

  64. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used “advanced technology” (new age) to include levitation, telekinesis, magic, pyramid power, or advance technology equal to or more advanced than our own present day level of expertise (without providing supporting evidence).

  65. 25 points for using strawmen that no (sane) Egyptologist has ever said or implied.

  66. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped (a great deal of these from the 19th century) as still being valid and in use by present day scientists.

  67. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted.

  68. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the creation of an object or construction in question can be deem as being associated with said place.

  69. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who have never mentioned it.

  70. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the ideas you now advocate but refuses to acknowledge your great wisdom in pronouncing it now.

  71. 30 points for claiming that your ideas were developed with help from an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).

  72. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

  73. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website or even a non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then knows about it.

  74. 30 points for fantasizing that if Egyptologists (or other scientists and professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it this also applies above is that if a specialist or professional says that an idea is wrong, and specifically includes "other such theories", when he or she says it then that simply MUST mean that a generalized mention of those "other theories" are somehow validating a claimants delusion of the day because ‘they’ only deny things that are really true.

  75. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images, and applying conclusion to their work that they never made this is doubled if you contacted them they told you were wrong and you continue to misuse their data.

  76. 35 points for insisting that your idea operates in a special world and that while you have no degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it.

  77. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.

  78. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptology and nothing else in their culture actually matters.

  79. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology (which strongly suggests your idea is wrong) has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such error being proven.

  80. 35 points for bringing up the television show “Ancient Aliens” and considering it a valid source. Additionally minus 10 points for each citing of dubious online sites as sources that themselves don’t source their claims. Claims that are usually recycled from pseudo writers higher up on the fringe belief chain.

  81. 35 points for suggesting that the ancient Egyptian technology to build the pyramids appeared out of nowhere (without evidence that this occurred).

  82. 40 points for mentioning Atlantis, 75 for Mu and 100 for Lemuria.

  83. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis.

  84. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.

  85. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors note this doesn’t mean they are conducting a conspiracy against you but are simply inept, biased and generally stupid

  86. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day Egyptology will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your ideas will be forced to recant.)

  87. 40 points for suggesting that events tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago somehow directly affect the Egyptians (without excellent evidence).

  88. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphic associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.

  89. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language.

  90. 45 points creating “evidence” by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist and not mentioning this to those looking at the material.

91.  50 points for claiming supernatural or paranormal support or collaborators or support.

92.  50 points for claiming extra-terrestrial support or collaborators. 

            93.  50 points for making un-evidenced statements that either don’t grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline or other aspects of a given cultural group so as to distort their known contribution to world

                   civilization.  

94.  50 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptian words while understanding the language but doing so with no support from others who can read the language.

95.  50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions or findable evidence it’s all based on your perception of reality or claiming to have predictions and not linking or showing that you have made such predictions or with a 100 point deduction if you are claiming a prediction and linking to same which clearly shows you got the prediction wrong.

96.  75 points for suggesting or imagining that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence to disappear from the physical world.

97.  75 points if you hold the belief that this index was created to stop the acceptance of your idea.

98.  75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas should be accepted anyway.

99.  75 points if your theory consists of trash talk against science and Egyptology while concentrating on what you perceived as their grievous errors and bias. In your mind they are so evil and inept that your own weak and un-evidenced idea must be accepted based solely on the presumed weaknesses of the orthodox position. Harte’s corollary that a weakness (imagined or otherwise) with theory ‘A’ doesn’t mean support for idea ‘B’.

100. 100 points for suggesting you ARE an ancient Egyptian, either an immortal, channeling one or a reincarnation.

 

Negative points for use of good procedure and techniques:

1.      -1 points for each use of a peer reviewed or otherwise acceptable source.

2.      -5 points for producing a detailed PDF, blog or website that outlines the evidence for your idea.

3.      -5 points for gaining the support of professionals outside the field of Egyptology whose experts is germane to your idea

4.      -5 points for publishing your idea as a book or popular article

5.      -5 points for full bibliography

6.      -5 points for providing images, diagrams and charts all with full and complete captions.

7.      -5 points for detailing your expertise by experience, research or degrees.

8.      -10 points explain step by step how you arrived at this idea and place a list of its weaknesses in relationship to its strengths, pros and cons.

9.      -10 points for publisher your idea in a peer reviewed publication

10.  -10 points for have a full appendix with all details and detailed answers to common and uncommon objections to your ideas, an indexed FAQ

11.  -10 if you use the crank index on your own work and make corrections to remove cranky influences.

                   

0 or less  You are well-established in orthodoxy unless you have a few gaping holes of woo within an otherwise solid frame work of science

1-25           Borderlands, you need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.

26-50         Some concern over your devotion to science and you may be viewing brochures about a trip to crankland

51-75         Pre-crank syndrome and you are in the province of Crank

76-100       Taking a stroll near the dark woods of Crank.

101-125      A ticket to visit the Village of Crank.

126-150      A resident visa for the Kingdom of Crank has been issued.

151-200      Inhabitant of Crankville.

201-300      Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.

301-500      Crank.

501+           Super Crank.

 

Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index by baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've covered one of my main bugbears with #66 (this applies to all sciences too).

I think somewhere there ought be something along the lines "use a plural to imply widespread support of an idea within a specific discipline, when it's only the belief of one such person (as in "geologists say the sphinx is 10,000 years old" instead of "a geologist says the sphinx is 10,000 years old"))

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Essan said:

You've covered one of my main bugbears with #66 (this applies to all sciences too).

I think somewhere there ought be something along the lines "use a plural to imply widespread support of an idea within a specific discipline, when it's only the belief of one such person (as in "geologists say the sphinx is 10,000 years old" instead of "a geologist says the sphinx is 10,000 years old"))

Good point, I call that the 'Schoch induction'....added

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8

The Hanslune-Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or TH2UD index for evaluating ideas about the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Version .035 1st draft

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to Egyptology:

  1. Start at 0

  2. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed not false. In example; saying nicotine in mummies must have come from the Americas and not from local plants which also produce the chemical nicotine.

  3. 5 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology.

  4. 5 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists, there are Egyptologists from many countries in the world.

  5. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up and for which no evidence exists. In example, “The ancient Egyptian couldn’t have built the pyramids as they lacked the skills to do so.”

  6. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.

  7. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent or uses the ‘Schoch Induction’ which states there is wide-spread support for an idea when in reality it is the opinion of one person by a miss-use of the plural. In example, "Geologists say the sphinx is 5,000 years old" instead of "A geologist says the sphinx is 5,000 years old."

  8. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning are used to support something not logical or reasonable. In example, a claim is made that the ancient Egyptian’s ‘adopted’ the pyramids after they were built and abandoned by another civilization.

  9. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction without evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong.

  10. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that….”

  11. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Such as saying the C-14 dates done in 1995 are faked or use bad science.

  12. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards.)

  13. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie" or "Smith" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology such as Lehner, Carter, Romer, Hilliard, O’Connor, Herbert, Weeks, Parcak, Wintock, Assman, Lauer, Dreyer or Wilbour, etc.

  14. 5 points for bringing up “legacy” claims shown long ago to be wrong, ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they were carved from existing hills (not excluding the real hills included in them) they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural/superhuman precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.

  15. 5 points for demonstrating the power of pure imagination and not understanding this.

  16. 5 points for complaining that you’ve sent mail or emails to scientists who have not responded to your claims.

  17. 5 points for a claim involving some date important to Christianity or other religion, 10 additional points if the Apocalypse is mentioned.

  18. 5 points for declaring that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now “just accept what I said.”

  19. 5 points for using as a source any of the standard fringe authors; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Taylor, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Collins, Coppens, Wyatt, Russell and Rutherford, etc.,

  20. 5 points for using as a source those who are still alive and might well come up with something in future but are presently bad sources, Bauval, Hancock. Additional 5 points if you use an original claim that has been changed or redacted by the author. Example Sitchin’s claim of a forgery in the G1 or that the pyramid was a seed vault.

  21. 5 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.

  22. 10 points for using un-evidenced speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.

  23. 10 points for not understanding consilience.

  24. 10 points for each claim that Egyptology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence.) your opinion on the matter doesn’t cut it.

  25. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

  26. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and you dismiss part or the whole of its culture, religion, language, history or geographical locations.

  27. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own, 40 if you claim others are trying to steal if from you, 50 if you claim to have survived one or more assassination attempts.) There are an additional 5 points for claiming you have done “years of research” and having nothing to really show for it.

  28. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or outlining their contributions or credentials.

  29. 10 points for mailing/email your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

  30. 10 points for advising the world that your idea is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you.)

  31. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while also stating that YOU are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.

  32. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it or explaining why and with what authority you changed it if it is an existing term.

  33. 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 that will support my idea’, this includes numerology and engineering drawings and other calculations.

  34. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. These points are added based on the idea that everything is a theory in science and this is understood by everyone (except you) with a scientific background.

  35. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn’t explain "why" to your personal satisfaction, it isn’t “efficient”, fails some metaphysical reason you’ve made up, doesn’t create “information” or fails to provide a “mechanism” in support of “x” religion or concept you like or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by you the theorist.

  36. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a coming "paradigm shift", gain an additional 10 points if you say that our present understanding of science or Egyptology will soon be “overturned” or will “collapse really soon”.

  37. 10 points for stating you have degrees to supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information as to the existence of these degrees or that they didn’t come from a diploma mill.

  38. 10 points for trying to impose a modern cultural model on the Ancient Egyptians (we wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t, or we would do this so they would.)

  39. 10 points for using “word salad”, “gibberish”, “metaphysics” or “new age jibber jabber” to support an idea.

  40. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims or stating that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.

  41. 10 points for implying that a “lost civilization” is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence for such a lost civilization) and you ignore the plentiful evidence of the pre-dynastic cultures and mentioned a date with 5 figures over 4,000 BCE or more.

  42. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of “Indiana Jones” or “smarter than Hawass’ older brother.”  

  43. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence to support this.) and can affect the physical world around them.

  44. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is plausible, probable and possible not just possible.

  45. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.

  46. 15 points for bringing up Troy or the Great (Biblical deluge killing everyone but Noah’s family) Flood.

  47. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea, that the Egyptian civilian or pyramid came from the Jews, Aryans, Illuminati, Freemasons, albino Norwegians, cannibalistic Basque or other groups.

  48. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist or posting on website where no Egyptologist posts complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.

  49. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize when it has been explained to you that (accursed) Nobel left no money for Archaeology or Egyptological prizes.

  50. 20 points for every use of a science fiction works, well-known forgeries or myths as if they were facts or relevant.

  51. 20 points for constantly “forgetting” your idea is just an idea and not proven or accepted by consensus and make believing it is.

  52. 20 points for defending yourself and your present idea by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past ideas, actions and record of credibility.

  53. 20 points for naming something after yourself, a cartoon or comic book persona.

  54. 20 points for talking about how great your idea is, but never actually explaining it or supporting it with evidence.

  55. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" or “proven” used the wrong way and especially if you use the phrase, “undeniable evidence.”

  56. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy", “shill”, or “paid troll” for anyone who disagrees with you. Additionally if you state that Egyptology (or a Gub’mint) employs people to counter your ideas on line and or in the media. This also applies if you claim that Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame. X2 if you compare yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case or trying to suppress your idea.

  57. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it. Furthermore this is doubled if you refuse to answer questions about your idea and demand that others buy your book – which you have published - to learn the answers. This also applies to refusals to go to conferences to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.

  58. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention. 10 points for each additional link or paper after the first that you do this with.

  59. 20 points for suggesting that a general property is a unique feature and therefore evidence for your idea (such as noting that water, sand or limestone rock is present in Egypt.)

  60. 20 points for making a claim in a press release or on YouTube and providing no evidence to support it.

  61. 20 points for using the term “decode” these points’ increases exponentially each time it is used.
  62. 25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence or the use of buzz phrases like "Egyptology or science can’t explain that!" or "How could primitive man have done this?"  Or a mis-applied appeal to "common sense", “rational” thinking, or ‘pure logic.”
  63. 25 points for making a claim in a You-tube video with no written support this is especially egregious if you use really loud and bad music. This is doubled if your YouTube consists of you standing in front of a white board and using crayons or being dressed as an ancient Egyptian God.

  64. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used “advanced technology” (new age) to include levitation, telekinesis, magic, pyramid power, or advance technology equal to or more advanced than our own present day level of expertise (without providing supporting evidence.)

  65. 25 points for using strawmen that no (sane) Egyptologist has ever said or implied.

  66. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped (a great deal of these from the 19th century) as still valid and in use by present day scientists.

  67. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted. Gain an additional 25 points if you ever say or imply that YOUR assumptions are better than other people’s assumptions because your mother said you were special as a child.

  68. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the creation of an object or construction in question can be deem as being associated with said place. Nothing before or after may be used as evidence.

  69. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who never mentioned it.

  70. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the idea you now advocate but refuses to acknowledge your great wisdom by pronouncing it now.

  71. 30 points for claiming that your ideas were developed with help from an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).

  72. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your idea.

  73. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website or even a non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then knows about it.

  74. 30 points for fantasizing that if Egyptologists (or other scientists and professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it. This also applies if a specialist or professional says that an idea is wrong, and specifically includes the phrase "other such theories", when he or she says this it simply MUST mean that a generalized mention of those "other such theories" validates your delusion claim of the day because ‘they’ only deny things that are really true.

  75. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images, and applying conclusions to their work that they never made. This is doubled if you contacted them and they told you were wrong and you continue to misuse their data.

  76. 35 points for insisting that your idea operates in a special world and that while you have no degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it. Therefore if you are garbage collector, electrical engineer, ballerina or serial killer only a PhD in Egyptology may correctly point out the errors in your idea.

  77. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.

  78. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptology and nothing else in their culture actually matters.

  79. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology (which strongly suggests your idea is wrong) has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such error being proven.

  80. 35 points for bringing up the television show “Ancient Aliens” and considering it a valid source. Additionally minus 10 points for each citing of dubious online sites as sources that themselves don’t source their claims. This applies to claims or ‘evidence’ that is recycled from pseudo writers higher up on the fringe belief chain.

  81. 35 points for suggesting that the ancient Egyptian technology to build the pyramids appeared out of nowhere (without evidence that this occurred.)

  82. 40 points for mentioning Atlantis, 75 for Mu and 100 for Lemuria.

  83. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, Communists or Libertarians.

  84. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.

  85. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors. Note this doesn’t mean they are conducting a conspiracy against you but they are simply inept, biased and generally stupid and you state so without providing evidence to support it.

  86. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day Egyptology will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your ideas will be forced to recant.)

  87. 40 points for suggesting that events tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago somehow directly affect the Egyptians (without excellent evidence.)

  88. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphics associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.

  89. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language or for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptian words while understanding the language but doing so with no support from others who can read the language.

  90. 45 points creating “evidence” by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist and not mentioning this to those looking at the material.

  91. 50 points for claiming supernatural, paranormal or advanced human collaborators or supporters.

  92. 50 points for not understanding what “in context” means.
  93. 1.      50 points for making un-evidenced statements that either distort, heavily exaggerate or dismiss the timeline or other aspects of a given cultural group so as to distort their known contribution to the ancient Egyptians. 
  94. 50 points for placing all your “evidence” only on YouTube or suggesting that your idea is best considered when under the influence of alcohol or ‘medications’.

  95. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory solely based on your perception of reality and giving no concrete testable predictions or findable evidence. Additionally if you claim you made predictions but decline to show that you have made such predictions or with a 100 point deduction linking to said prediction which clearly shows you got the prediction wrong.

  96. 75 points for suggesting or imagining that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence you don’t like to disappear from the physical world.

  97. 75 points if you hold the belief that this index was created to stop the acceptance of your idea.

  98. 75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas should be accepted anyway.

  99. 75 points if your theory consists of trash talk against science and Egyptology while concentrating on what you perceived as their grievous errors and bias. In your mind they are so evil and inept that your own weak and un-evidenced idea must be accepted based solely on the presumed weaknesses of the orthodox position. Harte’s corollary that a weakness (imagined or otherwise) with theory ‘A’ doesn’t mean support for idea ‘B’.
  100. 100 points for suggesting you ARE an ancient Egyptian, either an immortal, channeling one, a reincarnation or just bloody bonkers.

Negative points for use of good procedure and techniques:

-1 points for each use of a peer reviewed or otherwise acceptable source.

-1 point for each Egyptologist who in writing has agreed with your idea.

-1 point for each cite of your published work.

-5 points for producing a detailed PDF, blog or website that outlines the evidence for your idea.

-5 points for gaining the support of professionals outside the field of Egyptology whose expertise is germane to your idea.

-5 points for publishing your idea as a book or popular article.

-5 points for full bibliography.

-5 points for providing images, diagrams and charts all with full and complete captions and no animations of spinning UFO’s.

-5 points for detailing your expertise by experience, research or degrees.

-10 points explain step by step how you arrived at this idea and place a list of its weaknesses in relationship to its strengths, pros and cons.

-10 points for publishing your idea in a peer reviewed publication.

-10 points for have a full appendix with all details and detailed answers to common and uncommon objections to your ideas, an indexed FAQ.

-10 if you use the crank index on your own work and make corrections to remove cranky influences.

                   

0 or less  You are well-established in orthodoxy unless you have a few gaping holes of woo within an otherwise solid frame work of science

1-25           Borderlands, you need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.

26-50         Some concern over your devotion to science and you may be viewing brochures about a trip to Crankland

51-75         Pre-crank syndrome and you are in the province of Crank

76-100       Taking a stroll near the dark woods of Crank.

101-125      A ticket to visit the Village of Crank.

126-150      A resident visa for the Kingdom of Crank has been issued.

151-200      Inhabitant of Crankville.

201-300      Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.

301-500      Crank.

501+           Super Crank.

 

Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you need to give more points if they have a degree in the field - and maybe something for having presented at an academic conference.

Edited by Kenemet
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I think that you need to give more points if they have a degree in the field - and maybe something for having presented at an academic conference.

Notes I'll increase the value for MA and PHd and presentation that correction will show up in .040 next week. Thanks for your imput

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone think of any other fringe writer who deals with Egypt? To be included they must have published a book and be 'reasonably' well known to those who are interested in the field of Egyptology.

 

Berlitz, Blavatsky, Cayce, Childress,  Childress, Churchward, Collins, Coppens, Cremo, Donnelly, Dunn,  Ellis, Fell, Gordon, Hapgood, Haze, Icke, Joseph,  Osmanagic, Plongeon, Posnansky, Pye, Russell, Rutherford, Schoch, Sitchin, Taylor, Tellinger, Velikovsky, Von Daniken, West, Wilson, and Wyatt,

Bauval, Creighton, Hancock, Malkowski, and Temple

 

Anybody else? Any need to note the names of the 17 & 18th century folks who were coming up with weird stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.