Cranks: A Brief Field Guide (Part 2)

Last post I listed some favourite cranks. What do they have in common? Is there some kind of essense de crankdom? There are great lists and whole blogs, I think things can be distilled into 2 areas covering virtually all cranks:

1. Non falsifiability: This is related to Popper’s characterisation of science as something falsifiable (it can be proved wrong under certain circumstances). A theory that cannot be proved wrong in principle is vacuous. The crank theory has features that kill off any attempts to falsify (or even correct) it. Common techniques are conspiracy theories, or the crank’s theory undermining the whole notion of logic. Cranks prevent their theories from losing in fair debate by refusing to debate.
2. Plain old lies: This is is often missed or understated. Some crank theories will state they’ll change their minds “if evidence comes up” or would love to “see the evidence” (eg. many creationists). Then their defence shifts to simply lying about basic facs. It’s surprisingly common; enough for even experienced people to be taken in. We are so used to simple facts being verifiable that our brains get used to the idea that an atomic statement of fact uttered in normal debate is probably true. Few people have the chutzpah to utter a falsehood that could easily be proved wrong, few resort to very crude lies. Cranks take advantage of this using it as a cornerstone. Examples here and here (warning: may cause brain to explode).

These 2 can even be condensed into one: cranks are cranks by virtue of refusing to participate in real discussion.

Is there a difference between list 1 and 2 from Part 1? For me, the only difference is list 1 presents outliers of ideas I find false/unpleasant intrinsically and list 2 doesn’t. There can be non-crank versions of unpleasant views (eg. a falsifiable racism). The fact that people turn to crankery in all types of views suggests it’s a defence mechanism. If you hold a cherished view (for good or bad reasons) it’s tempting to modify it so as to prevent it from being overturned. It’s more comfortable this way! Eventually you start to get the whole thing backwards: all things in the outside world are simply there to be used for your ideology.

Perhaps you’ve wondered some time in your life: “am I a crank?”. I know I have. It’s kind of like asking “am I insane?”. In some novels the solution is that people who are crazy never doubt themselves; in our case asking the question means you’re not a crank. This is unlikely: if you’ve created your crankery as a defence mechanism, it’s likely to include a superficial questioning of yourself to pass this test. So what then? There’s no easy answer, the above 2 points are only a guide, certainly there might be counterexamples, as well as disagreements about the most basic facts. All part of the uncertain world we’re stuck with; I wouldn’t exchange it for the certainty of revelation. [Note: not going into some refutation of hard-ass social constructionism here, maybe later].

Last note: consider religious people of the “the devil’s better at arguing than you are, he’s had hundreds of years of experience” type. Are they cranks? If so, is this true of some, many, most or all faithful? I leave this as an exercise for the reader……