Talk:Crank
|
This language related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Castaigne[edit]
“”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.[1]
I'd rather be totally, completely, absolutely wrong rather than be wishy-washy and end up doing the "right" thing.[2] Remember, it is better to be confidently wrong than to be diffidently right.[3] |
| — |
It feels wrong to include a RW user. Moved here unless ppl disagree. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. It's an excellent example of what's wrong with cranks.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
On physics crankery[edit]
An interesting read. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Definitions[edit]
Should a link be made to this crank? Anna Livia (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Levels of crankery[edit]
What term could be used for the very mildest forms of crankery - 'my pet topic/interpretation of X' (your local sports club, hobby, preferred Doctor Who, other line of interest etc is the best) - you are willing to accept that other people's pet views are as significant to them. Anna Livia (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination[edit]
Mark McCutcheon - for "The Final Theory", which claims to have a better "expansion theory" explanation for everything than traditional physics, but offers no proof of any claims and has its own glaring problems. 15.124.24.77 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)