The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Tessa Yuri on August 04, 2017, 08:16:31 PM
-
I thought it might be a good idea to have a formalised scoring system for the credibility of FE theories. With that in mind, I created CASPER, which stands for Conspiracy, Alternative Scientific Principles, and Evidence Reinterpretation. It's a 15-question checklist where a theory is scored on these three criteria. The lower the score, the greater the overall credibility. Under this system, the lowest score a Round Earth theory can be given is 0, and the lowest score a Flat Earth theory can be given is 1.
I'd love it if you guys could provide feedback on CASPER, so I can work on and improve it into the future!
Here is CASPER so far:
(+1 means add one to the score if the answer is 'yes', -1 means take one from the score)
CONSPIRACY:
Does this theory:
- introduce/necessitate a conspiracy? +1
- use a conspiracy to explain established evidence? +1
- have apparent contradictions between conspiracy and established evidence? +1
- use a conspiracy requiring collaboration between separate entities/bodies? +1
- provide means of disproving conspiracy? -1
ALTERNATIVE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES:
Does this theory:
- introduce/necessitate alternative scientific principles? +1
- use alternative scientific principles in lieu of established scientific principles? +1
- have apparent contradictions between alternative scientific principles and established evidence? +1
- use alternative scientific principles with no basis in established scientific principles? +1
- provide means of disproving alternative scientific principles? -1
EVIDENCE REINTERPRETATION:
Does this theory:
- introduce/necessitate a reinterpretation of established evidence? +1
- use reinterpretation of established evidence in lieu of the original interpretation? +1
- have apparent contradictions between reinterpretation and the established evidence? +1
- use reinterpretation of evidence to support a conspiracy, and/or new scientific evidence? +1
- provide means of disproving reinterpretation? -1
Thoughts?
-
I have a theory that the Earths true shape is actually unknown to every living soul.
-
I have a theory that the Earths true shape is actually unknown to every living soul.
Well, without knowing anything else about it I can't really give a CASPER score.
But say, denspressure for example. That scores around 8-9.
-
- introduce/necessitate a conspiracy? +1
- use a conspiracy to explain established evidence? +1
- introduce/necessitate a reinterpretation of established evidence? +1
- use reinterpretation of established evidence in lieu of the original interpretation? +1
In general looks good, if unavoidably potentially subjective, but these questions seem a little redundant. It'd be odd for a model to introduce a conspiracy or reinterpretation and then never actually use it.
-
- introduce/necessitate a conspiracy? +1
- use a conspiracy to explain established evidence? +1
- introduce/necessitate a reinterpretation of established evidence? +1
- use reinterpretation of established evidence in lieu of the original interpretation? +1
In general looks good, if unavoidably potentially subjective, but these questions seem a little redundant. It'd be odd for a model to introduce a conspiracy or reinterpretation and then never actually use it.
Yeah, no way to avoid subjectivity, unfortunately. And thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen the redundancy!