Toward a Universal Scale of Bullflop

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think it would be useful if claims and the people who make them could be compared on a somewhat objective scale, perhaps measured in sylvias. Here's a partial candidate system, no special order.

Sylvias|Quality
10|Bald-faced lie
5|Half lie/weasel
5|Recently discredited
15|Long discredited
10|Just plain stupid
10|Just plain nuts
10|Proselytizes
5|Per self-contradiction
5|Per logical fallacy
5|Lacks basic language skills
10|Claims expertise, has none
-5|Creative
-5|Logically valid
-5|Per correct fact
-5|Hey, it made me laugh

I expect a linear scale would suffice. There could be a per claim, per event, and global rating. Maybe named ranges would be appropriate.

1-10 sylvias = stinker
10-25 = goober
25-50 = cretin
50-100 = louse
100-150 = maroon
150-200 = loony
200-250 = uri
250-500 = trudeau
500-1000 = phelps
1000+ = even my pockets hurt

Needs work, I know, but soon we may be directly comparing the drivel of a blessedly defunct MAS thread with a nutty Ann Coulter speech. Progress, I say!

[bob_kark]

I suggest that a 1k plus equals a Geggy or an Interesting Ian.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

You could probably “borrow” some decent ideas from the crackpot index. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html))

I have a friend who will believe any crazy thing he reads. Every couple of weeks he will point me to a woo-woo website and ask me what I think of it. I eventually just started sending him a crackpot score for each one.

LLH

[Ryan O'Dine]

You could probably “borrow” some decent ideas from the crackpot index. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html))

I have a friend who will believe any crazy thing he reads. Every couple of weeks he will point me to a woo-woo website and ask me what I think of it. I eventually just started sending him a crackpot score for each one.

LLH


Excellent site. It would dovetail nicely with my scale.

[Meffy]

I have a problem with the unit's name. Sylvia herself surely warrants a rating of many Sylvias, which seems... odd.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I have a problem with the unit's name. Sylvia herself surely warrants a rating of many Sylvias, which seems... odd.
My intent was to honor her for all the wonderful work she’s done in the field. (I was originally thinking of calling them randis, but... not sure about that.)

I’m open to suggestions for an alternative unit. I also think ending the scale at 1000+ is premature, and would welcome suggestions for range names beyond that.

ETA: I suggest that a 1k plus equals a Geggy or an Interesting Ian.
(Short of currently active forum members. ;))

[blutoski]

I suggest that a 1k plus equals a Geggy or an Interesting Ian.

I do like the idea of orders of magnitude, though.

1,000 Barnums (Bar) in a Geller (Gel)
1,000 Gellers in a Sylvia (Syl)
1,000 Sylvias in a Praagh (Pra)
1,000 Praaghs in a Baba (Bab)

(In other words: a Baba is a GigaGeller)

These are units of scammery.



There could be units of quackery.

1,000 Weils (Wei) in a Hanneman (Han)
1,000 Hannemans in a Palmer (Pal)
1,000 Palmers in a Trudeau (Tru)
1,000 Trudeaus in a Hulda (Hul)

(A Hulda is a PetaWeil)

[Beleth]

I have a problem with the unit's name. Sylvia herself surely warrants a rating of many Sylvias, which seems... odd. It has precedents, though, like in the standard unit of beauty, the millihelen.

[Meffy]

I was thinking of millihelens too. =^_^= They can be useful. You know how Grace Hopper used to give out nanoseconds to people? I was once given a millihelen. Didn't help much though.

Now if I could just find a thousandth of a ship!

[Roboramma]

I recommend that Sylvia herself should have a rating of 1 sylvia.

Thus, the more commonly used unit might be a centisylvia or even a microsylvia.

[Beleth]

Now if I could just find a thousandth of a ship!
That would be a microhelen!

[Euromutt]

You could probably “borrow” some decent ideas from the crackpot index. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)
I suspect that index served as the inspiration for the Quackery Index (http://psorsite.com/docs/quackery.html).

[Anacoluthon64]

I think a "Randi" would be simply too huge a unit of measure for ordinary everyday use. After all, where's the woo-artist worth one Randi? The best so far have been in the order of femtorandis...

The biggest problem will be finding an objective and consistent means by which to quantify woo. To start with, a neural network could be trained with a wide range of existing woo and its score, as determined by a committee of Randi clones. When the problem becomes better circumscribed, a more natural means of measurement may emerge naturally.

I also propose that a logarithmic scale may provide greater clarity - a sort of Richter magnitude of inscrutability. The resolution is better at lower levels, while really enormous woo is clustered together, just as it should be. Also, non-woo, being negative, would have no meaningful measure on this scale, and woo in very tiny amounts would have a conveniently negative value. This, one expects, should also go down well with homeopaths who are already accustomed to logarithmic notations like 30C, 24X, 100D, etc.

Meffy, with regard to that millihelen, it allows you to launch one whole ship. Just be sure it's not a hardship.

'Luthon64

[Phillybee]

Add in "Indicted" and "Convicted" and you could have a nice little tool for measuring politicians...

[alfaniner]

I submit that a score of 1 million would qualify someone as The Biggest Dou*** In The Universe, aka an "Edward".

[DrMatt]

Well, gee, we could call them picosylvias in honor of the fact that she scores a billion.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I suspect that index served as the inspiration for the Quackery Index (http://psorsite.com/docs/quackery.html).
All these beautiful indexes should be merged into a comprehensive metric.

I also propose that a logarithmic scale may provide greater clarity - a sort of Richter magnitude of inscrutability. The resolution is better at lower levels, while really enormous woo is clustered together, just as it should be.
I’m convinced (didn’t take much). It should probably be logarithmic. How else do you keep a Timecube and a dowsing rod on the same scale?

[Meffy]

That would be a microhelen!
Confound these high-falutin' "numbers" as you call them! Work of the devil, they are. But (*sigh*) just so.