Matthew Collins adapted something from the realm of math for application to biblical studies and religion. He shared it on Facebook, and I asked for permission to circulate it. I adapted it slightly more to fit its new application better, but the vast majority of it is his and\/or his source\u2019s.<\/p>\n
Are they a crank? Use this scoring system to find out:<\/p>\n
(NB: This is stolen from mathematics and slightly edited, but I think it works for bible\/religion too.)<\/p>\n
\n
- 1 point for each word in all capital letters;<\/li>\n
- 5 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous, logically inconsistent, or widely known to be false;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for expressing fear that your ideas will be stolen;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for each new term you invent or use without properly defining it;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for stating that your ideas are of great academic, historical, financial, theoretical, or spiritual value;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for beginning the description of your work by saying how long you have been working on it;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to established experts;<\/li>\n
- 10 points for citing an impressive-sounding, but irrelevant, result;<\/li>\n
- 20 points for naming something after yourself;<\/li>\n
- 30 points for not knowing how or where to submit their major discovery for publication;<\/li>\n
- 40 points for claiming to have \u201cproof\u201d of a particular conclusion but not knowing what established scholars have done on the problem.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
What else would you add? What would make it more applicable to other fields? What changes would make it still more applicable to biblical studies and ancient history?<\/p>\n
This \u201ctaxonomy of quackery\u201d appeared just as I was working on this blog post. Coincidence, or evidence that\u00a0they<\/em> are watching me?<\/p>\n