Diskussion:Zehn Indizien für Quacksalberei - Versionsgeschichte

Abrax: /* Crack Pot Index nach Baez */

2012-07-18T16:20:43Z

Crack Pot Index nach Baez

Deceptor: /* Renckens Scoring System */

2009-12-21T11:46:31Z

Renckens Scoring System

Deceptor am 21. Dezember 2009 um 11:42 Uhr

2009-12-21T11:42:38Z

Deceptor am 27. Juli 2008 um 20:01 Uhr

2008-07-27T20:01:55Z

Cohen am 27. Juli 2008 um 19:51 Uhr

2008-07-27T19:51:38Z

Deceptor am 26. Juli 2008 um 12:30 Uhr

2008-07-26T12:30:58Z

Cohen am 26. Juli 2008 um 12:13 Uhr

2008-07-26T12:13:09Z

Cohen: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: ''ist an einzelne Personen beziehungsweise Institutionen gebunden, die die Therapie entwickelt haben und daran verdienen (extrem hohe Preise), '' ''Oft wurden die verd...

2008-07-26T12:12:54Z

Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: ''ist an einzelne Personen beziehungsweise Institutionen gebunden, die die Therapie entwickelt haben und daran verdienen (extrem hohe Preise), '' ''Oft wurden die verd...

Neue Seite

''ist an einzelne Personen beziehungsweise Institutionen gebunden, die die Therapie entwickelt haben und daran verdienen (extrem hohe Preise),
''
''Oft wurden die verdächtigen Methoden im Alleingang durch einen bestimmten Erfinder, Guru oder Experten als "Einzelforscher" entwickelt.

''

Das ist doppelt gemoppelt.
[[Benutzer:Cohen|Cohen]] 14:12, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 18. Juli 2012, 16:20 Uhr
Zeile 137:		Zeile 137:
	#40 points for claiming that when your 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 your theories will be forced to recant.)		#40 points for claiming that when your 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 your theories will be forced to recant.)
	#50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.		#50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
		+
		+	==Checkliste der Verbraucherzentrale Hessen==
		+	http://www.schloss-apotheke-ddf.de/shm/check.htm

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 21. Dezember 2009, 11:46 Uhr
Zeile 92:		Zeile 92:

	Quelle: [http://www.ncahf.org/nl/2000/11-12.html NCAHF 2000]		Quelle: [http://www.ncahf.org/nl/2000/11-12.html NCAHF 2000]
		+
		+	==Crack Pot Index nach Baez==
		+
		+	The Crackpot Index
		+	John Baez
		+
		+	A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
		+
		+	#A -5 point starting credit.
		+	#1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
		+	#2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
		+	#3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
		+	#5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
		+	#5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
		+	#5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
		+	#5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
		+	#10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
		+	#10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
		+	#10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
		+	#10 points for mailing 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.
		+	#10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
		+	#10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
		+	#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 a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
		+	#10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
		+	#10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
		+	#10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
		+	#20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
		+	#20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
		+	#20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
		+	#20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
		+	#20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
		+	#20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
		+	#20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
		+	#20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
		+	#20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
		+	#30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
		+	#30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
		+	#30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
		+	#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.
		+	#40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
		+	#40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
		+	#40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
		+	#40 points for claiming that when your 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 your theories will be forced to recant.)
		+	#50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 21. Dezember 2009, 11:42 Uhr
Zeile 13:		Zeile 13:
	Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
	::eine Verbesserung oder Ergänzung ist kein Pfusch, sondern konstruktive Mitarbeit. Ich stecke regelmässig meine Pfoten auch in Artikel die ich nicht angefangen habe. So long ! [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 22:01, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		::eine Verbesserung oder Ergänzung ist kein Pfusch, sondern konstruktive Mitarbeit. Ich stecke regelmässig meine Pfoten auch in Artikel die ich nicht angefangen habe. So long ! [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 22:01, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
		+
		+	==Renckens Scoring System==
		+	Criteria and Scoring Used by Dr. Renckens (Slightly Modified)
		+
		+	A. Level of education
		+	* uneducated: 1 point
		+	* low or intermediate level of education: 2 points
		+	* medically trained (= doctor or pharmacist): 3 points
		+
		+	B. Character of the therapy
		+	* pseudo-medical (e.g. phytotherapy): 1 point
		+	* paranormal: 2 points
		+	* supernatural/absurd: 3 points
		+
		+	C. Inflicted damage
		+	* only financial: 1 point
		+	* physical harm: 2 points
		+	* mortal victims: 3 points
		+
		+	D. Aggression against regular medicine
		+	* absent: 1 point
		+	* moderate: 2 points
		+	* strong: 3 points
		+
		+	E. Duration of career
		+	* less than 5 years: 1 point
		+	* 5-10 years: 2 points
		+	* 10-20 years: 3 points
		+	* more than 20 years: 4 points
		+
		+	F. Material gains
		+	* could live from the practice: 1 point
		+	* earned well: 2 points
		+	* became rich: 3 points
		+
		+	G. Condemnations
		+	* Doctors:
		+	**no disciplinary measures: 1 point
		+	**disciplinary measures taken: 2 points
		+	**suspensions and/or punished
		+	**by criminal law-authorities: 3 points
		+	* Non-doctors
		+	**some: 1 point
		+	**frequent: 2 points
		+	**imprisonment: 3 points
		+
		+	H. Indications for swindling
		+	* none: 1 point
		+	* perhaps: 2 points
		+	* certainly: 3 points
		+
		+	I. Publications
		+	* none: 1 point
		+	* few: 2 points
		+	* many: 3 points
		+
		+	J. Followers
		+	* none: 1 point
		+	* few (e.g. only relatives): 2 points
		+	* many: 3 points
		+
		+	K. Support from politicians
		+	* no: 1 point
		+	* maybe: 2 points
		+	* certainly: 3 points
		+
		+	L. Degree of impudence of the claims
		+	* cure of innocent problems (e.g. baldness): 1 point
		+	* cure of serious disease (e.g. atherosclerosis): 2 points
		+	* cure of fatal diseases (e.g. cancer): 3 points
		+
		+	Comments by Dr. Renckens
		+
		+	Some of the second thoughts others and I had were as follows.
		+	*Regarding criterion E: this is advantageous for retired quacks, who completed their career. Still-active quacks having started only recently can never score the 4 points. It is also advantageous for quacks that have become old and continued for a long time.
		+	* Regarding criterion G: It is not always publicly known when a doctor has had a disciplinary punishment by the GMC, which until recently acted behind closed doors. The nondoctors, condemned by the judge of the criminal law, have always been more in the spotlight and here have an 'advantage' over the doctors.
		+	* Regarding criterion H: we have actually always tried to keep the intention of practitioners out of our definition of quackery as it is hardly possible to make sure if they have been honest in their propaganda. It might be better to delete this criterion.
		+
		+	Quelle: [http://www.ncahf.org/nl/2000/11-12.html NCAHF 2000]

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 27. Juli 2008, 20:01 Uhr
Zeile 12:		Zeile 12:

	Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
		+	::eine Verbesserung oder Ergänzung ist kein Pfusch, sondern konstruktive Mitarbeit. Ich stecke regelmässig meine Pfoten auch in Artikel die ich nicht angefangen habe. So long ! [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 22:01, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 27. Juli 2008, 19:51 Uhr
Zeile 9:		Zeile 9:
	[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 14:12, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 14:12, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
	:hast völlig Recht ! Habe es geändert. Da wir ja zusammenarbeiten: wenn Du sowas in Zukunft nochmal siehst, dann änderst Du es einfach selbst... Gruss [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 14:30, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		:hast völlig Recht ! Habe es geändert. Da wir ja zusammenarbeiten: wenn Du sowas in Zukunft nochmal siehst, dann änderst Du es einfach selbst... Gruss [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 14:30, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
		+
		+
		+	Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

← Nächstältere Version		Version vom 26. Juli 2008, 12:30 Uhr
Zeile 8:		Zeile 8:
	Das ist doppelt gemoppelt.		Das ist doppelt gemoppelt.
	[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 14:12, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)		[[Benutzer:Cohen\|Cohen]] 14:12, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
		+	:hast völlig Recht ! Habe es geändert. Da wir ja zusammenarbeiten: wenn Du sowas in Zukunft nochmal siehst, dann änderst Du es einfach selbst... Gruss [[Benutzer:Deceptor\|Deceptor]] 14:30, 26. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
 ''ist an einzelne Personen beziehungsweise Institutionen gebunden, die die Therapie entwickelt haben und daran verdienen (extrem hohe Preise),
 ''
 ''Oft wurden die verdächtigen Methoden im Alleingang durch einen bestimmten Erfinder, Guru oder Experten als "Einzelforscher" entwickelt.