Daniel Barnes Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) Apropos of a recent OL commenter mistaking typical science jargon for pseudoscience, I was reminded of this good Wiki entry on the characteristics of pseudoscience cranks, and post a chunk of it for future reference.The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1998 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[1]According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:• Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.• Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.• Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.• Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously. Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief. In addition, many cranks seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting, stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility, claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known, appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology, ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation. In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky belief. Others can (charitably) be characterized as underachievers in all walks of life. Edited January 15, 2008 by Daniel Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Oh how pathetic. You can't win an argument so you post an insult instead. And to the wrong thread too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Barnes Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) Oh how pathetic. You can't win an argument so you post an insult instead. And to the wrong thread too.No. Your comments did remind me of this, but I thought it was a useful stand-alone post because the ARI attitude to modern science occasionally comes up as a topic on this forum. The comparison between the ARI attitude and the description of "crank" science here is instructive.Additionally, you do seem to have mistaken typical scientific jargon for pseudoscience on that thread, so it's not an insult. It's simply a fact. Edited January 15, 2008 by Daniel Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Oh how pathetic. You can't win an argument so you post an insult instead. And to the wrong thread too.No. Your comments did remind me of this, but I thought it was a useful stand-alone post because the ARI attitude to modern science occasionally comes up as a topic on this forum. The comparison between the ARI attitude and the description of "crank" science here is instructive.Additionally, you do seem to have mistaken typical scientific jargon for pseudoscience on that thread, so it's not an insult. It's simply a fact.Crank is typically just an epithet that frightened people in the mainstream who have no counter-argument fling at someone outside the mainstream. It might apply to crazy people, it might apply to people ahead of their time. I'm sure Ayn Rand was called a crank plenty of times. I don't have any respect for that term or for those who fling it around in the place of good arguments.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Barnes Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Crank is typically just an epithet that frightened people in the mainstream who have no counter-argument fling at someone outside the mainstream.Well, I'd certainly agree that what we want are good arguments and good evidence. But these are not, unfortunately, the typical characteristics of cranks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) the typical characteristics of cranks!They exclaim and generalize! B) Edited January 16, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I have a soft spot for cranks...(er... I better stay out of this one...) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Barnes Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 the typical characteristics of cranks!They exclaim and generalize!To use a bit of Objectivist jargon, sounds like "definition by non-essentials" to me. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 A useful guide for detecting crackpots is the Crackpot Index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Dragon; Thanks! That was a very good laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Crank is typically just an epithet that frightened people in the mainstream who have no counter-argument fling at someone outside the mainstream. It might apply to crazy people, it might apply to people ahead of their time. I'm sure Ayn Rand was called a crank plenty of times. I don't have any respect for that term or for those who fling it around in the place of good arguments.ShayneI wasn't going to post much, if at all anymore. I'm a bit tired of the skewed signal to noise ratio, but this is good stuff. Very funny! Just gotta say that's comedy gold right there...BobPS: and look at his sig line - this is a beautiful thing (I'm gettin' all choked up over here....) Edited January 17, 2008 by Bob_Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I wasn't going to post much, if at all anymore. I'm a bit tired of the skewed signal to noise ratio, but this is good stuff. Very funny! Just gotta say that's comedy gold right there...http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry14747It's good having someone like you on the OTHER side of the issue.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry14747It's good having someone like you on the OTHER side of the issue.ShayneOh no, I think I've been exposed as not entirely pro-Rand!Edit: And I think a better definition of 'know-it-all' is the guy that attempts to incompetently attack another on a subject that he clearly has vastly inferior knowledge but doesn't have the sense to understand that reality. That would be -you- criticising -Dragonfly- wrt science/physics in case you're having trouble following.... Edited January 17, 2008 by Bob_Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Edit: And I think a better definition of 'know-it-all' is the guy that attempts to incompetently attack another on a subject that he clearly has vastly inferior knowledge but doesn't have the sense to understand that reality. That would be -you- criticising -Dragonfly- wrt science/physics in case you're having trouble following....The best way to make me look the fool is to answer my simple question in the other thread. But you can't because I'm right and the know-nothings know it, which is why a special thread was created to drop the context there and just attack me. You're pathetic.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmacwilliam Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Have you stopped beating your wife yet?Why haven't you answered that question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Apropos of a recent OL commenter \mistaking typical science jargon for pseudoscience, I was reminded of this good Wiki entry on the characteristics of pseudoscience cranks, and post a chunk of it for future reference.Jargon is (or has become) a loaded word. "Terminology" would be a better choice.Every field has a specialized terminology. It is not there to obfuscate discussion but to make discussion precise. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Yes, jargon is a pejorative term most of the time, and implies the terminology is unnecessary, pretentious, or obfuscating. If one is defending a particular usage, it is better to simply call it terminology. It's kind of like the distinction between childish and childlike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 For the record, Shayne is anything but a crank. Daniel is only baiting. (This seems to be some kind of sport.) Shayne is abrasive, but highly intelligent. And he knows Objectivism cold.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now