Lafleur's crank criteria

[Thing]

Does anyone know by heart or have quick access to Lafleur's seven questions to distinguish cranks from scientists? I'm away from my office and can't find them on the web. Full article reference is

Lafleur, L. J. ‘Cranks and Scientists.’ The Scientific Monthly 73 (1951): 284-90.

I'm just after a list of the seven questions.
Thanks

 

[Darat]

Suprisingly hard to find aren't they?

Found some from this link: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ank+questions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=opera

Is the proposer of the hypothesis aware of the theory he proposes to
supersede?
Is the new hypothesis in accord with currently held theories in the
field of the hypothesis, or, If not, is there adequate reason for making
the changes, reasons of weight at least equal to the weight of the
evidence for the existing theories?

Does the proposer show a disposition to accept minority opinions, ta
quote individual opinions opposed to current views, and to overemphasize
the admitted fallibility of science?

 

[Darat]

In this article:http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_15/velikovsky_affair_01.htm

Test 6. Velikovsky's theory is in no single instance capable of mathematical accuracy. Its predictions, if capable of any, would certainly be so vague as to be scientifically unverifiable.

Test 7. Velikovsky does show a disposition to accept minority opinions, to quote the opinions of individuals opposed to current views, and even to quote such opinions when they have been discredited to the point that they are no longer held even as minority views. For example, we may cite the notion that the earth's axis has changed considerably.

 

[drfrank]

I'd also recommend taking a look at The Crackpot Index, if you haven't already, which is also pretty amusing to read

 

[Thing]

Thanks Darat. Anyone got the other three?

 

[Luke T.]

1. Is the proposer of the hypothesis aware of the theory he proposes to supersede?

2. Is the new hypothesis in accord with currently held theories in the field of the hypothesis, or, if not, is there adequate reason for making changes, reasons of weight at least equal to the weight of evidence for the existing theories?

3. Is the new hypothesis in accord with the currently held theories in other fields? If not is the proposer aware that he is challenging an established body of knowledge, and does he have sufficient evidence to make such a challenge reasonable?

4. In every case where the new hypothesis is in contradiction with an established theory, does the hypothesis include or imply a suitable substitute?

5. Does the new hypothesis fit in with existing theories in all fields, or with substitutes proposed for them, to form a world view of an adequacy equivalent to that of the currently accepted one?

6. If the new hypothesis is at variance with theories capable of prediction or of mathematical accuracy, is the new theory itself capable of such prediction or mathematical accuracy?

7. Does the proposer show a predisposition to accept minority opinions, to quote individual opinions opposed to current views, and to overemphasise the admitted fallibility of science?

http://www.alternativescience.com/alternative-science-chapter11.htm

 

[Thing]

Outstanding, thank you.

 

[LeCynthia]

No, thank-you, Thing. (I'm a big Addams Family fan)