Crank

The term "crank" pejoratively labels someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions. Synonyms include kook, contrarian, nut and crackpot — the "crackpot" variant has led to the coining of the term "psychoceramics" as the name for the study of such people.[2] Cranks who believe a number of different nutty things all at once are said to suffer from crank magnetism.

We control what
you think with
Language
Said and done
Jargon, buzzwords, slogans
v - t - e
For the drug, see Methamphetamine. For the exceptionally silly awesome movie, you need to be elsewhere.
“”Question: Why do debunkers sound so moronic? Is it just because they have their heads stuck up the matrix? or is it their family genetics giving them a predisposition to slavery?
—busa, "Senior Member", David Icke forums[1]

Cranks will usually maintain their viewpoint despite — or perhaps because of — evidence to the contrary. The typical crank is an amateur in the field they are arguing against, but occasionally, individuals with genuine expertise in the field in question will turn into cranks (which generally leads to pathological science).[note 1] Sometimes, this transformation occurs for reasons of personal gain — which is ironic, as cranks will often accuse non-cranks of being driven by personal gain.[note 2]

Cranks routinely emerge in all fields of study, holding a wide variety of inaccurate or unorthodox views. These range from being able to square the circle with a straightedge and a compass, through Reptoid-watchers, to Biblical literalists in the creationism movement and beyond.

Debating a crank

If you value your time and/or sanity, then under no circumstances should you willingly enter into debate with a crank. A crank's cognitive processes are impregnable to all forms of logic, reason, evidence, and in extreme cases, basic facts.

Crank debaters tend to be much, much more motivated than you are. This enthusiasm is a big part of what makes them cranks. This means that the crank will have heard all of the common objections to their crankiness. The crank has memorized canned responses to each of them.

A common tactic of cranks is to hide behind elaborate rhetoric; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. An extravagantly ornate lexicon filled with polysyllabic verbiage will be utilized unnecessarily, inappropriately, and often erroneously with a greater frequency of occurrence than Greenpeace produces outright falsehoods, because if their opposition's comprehension is obfuscated, it's because their opponent is cogitatively inadequate and not because the crank malcommunicates. Never expect a fancy word such as "terse" to grace their tongues. Superfluous rhetoric itself is not proof of crankery, but is a good warning sign.

All of this has the practical upshot of rendering the debate a fantastic waste of calories.

The worst of the cranks

Well known cranks (in alphabetical order) and some of their "ideas" include:

gollark: It... does? At least it won't randomly exit arbitrarily.
gollark: What editation program?
gollark: Well, maybe go through it. Something something open source spirit.
gollark: ALL are to upload obsolete projects to git.osmarks.net, like my random-stuff repo.
gollark: The entire directory.

See also

Notes
  1. The worst example of this being the Nobel disease.
  2. Big Pharma-profit mongering being a typical example.

References
  1. David Icke's Official Forums - View Single Post - Cattle mutilations : aliens?
  2. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=psychoceramics

ru:Научные фрики

This article is issued from Rationalwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.