Title text:
If nothing else, that reasoning definitely overturns syllogisms.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3155/
Title text:
If nothing else, that reasoning definitely overturns syllogisms.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3155/
And this is how you get a positive crackpot index.
Though I’ve known legit physicists and engineers take pride in [their] >0 CI.
[For the uninitiated]
I feel like it’s all gotta be from #8 right? It makes it pretty easy to get >0 legitimately, seems like it would be hard for anyone working on black holes to not have a double digit score from that alone.
Though I could see some cheeky positive values from #13, assuming the theory is a well established one, Randi style. (Or #20 for the typo)
If any paper contains these misspellings of Feynman, Einstein or Hawking I would consider them at best sloppy writers.
To be fair they’re physicists, not English majors
Sure, but misspelling historically significant names is a pretty bad sign for any flavor of science really.
I’m pretty sure Brits would want to stone me if I called that apple guy Newdon.
It’s just the only one that I can imagine a physicist or engineer would be proud of.