Crank

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 18:38, 3 April 2017 by Peyre (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
We control what
you think with

Language

Icon language.svg
Said and done
Jargon, buzzwords, slogans
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]

Crank is a pejorative term applied to someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions. Synonyms include kook, contrarian, and crackpot — the latter of which has led to the creation 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.

A crank will usually maintain his viewpoint despite — or perhaps because ofevidence to the contrary. The typical crank is an amateur in the field he is arguing against, but occasionally, individuals with genuine expertise in the field in question will turn into cranks (which generally leads to pathological science).[3] 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.[4]

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, to Reptoid-watchers, to Biblical literalists in the creationism movement and beyond.

Contents

[edit] Debating a crank

It is not my nature to compromise and I resent it heavily when I have to. I would rather lose completely and suffer any penalty, up to and including death, than compromise.[5]

I'd rather be totally, completely, absolutely wrong rather than be wishy-washy and end up doing the "right" thing.[6]

Remember, it is better to be confidently wrong than to be diffidently right.[7]
Adolf Hitler Castaigne

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 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 vocabulary will be utilized unnecessarily, inappropriately, and often erroneously, 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.

[edit] The worst of the cranks

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

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools
In other languages