| Revision as of 19:26, 7 July 2022 view sourceJulietdeltalima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers71,867 edits →Studies: punctuation correction (removed stray comma)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:50, 10 November 2024 view source MusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators103,488 editsm Adding missing protection template (more info)Tag: Manual revert | ||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Short description|Person who holds unshakable eccentric views}} | |||
| {{Short description|Term}} | |||
| {{about|the pejorative term for a person with strongly-held beliefs|the term for an ill-tempered person|Irritability}} | |||
| {{for|the term for an ill-tempered person|Irritability}} | |||
| {{wiktionary redirect|crank}} | |||
| '''''Crank''''' is a ] term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.<ref> at Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</ref> Common synonyms for ''crank'' include '''''crackpot''''' and '''''kook'''''. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.{{citation needed|date=June 2019}} | |||
| {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item| Q1138434}} | |||
| {{Short pages monitor}}<!-- This long comment was added to the page to prevent it from being listed on Special:Shortpages. It and the accompanying monitoring template were generated via Template:Long comment. Please do not remove the monitor template without removing the comment as well.--> | |||
| A crank differs from a ] in that the subject of the fanatic's ] is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word '']'' is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. | |||
| Although experts in the field find a crank's beliefs ridiculous, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the ], by which a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry. | |||
| ==Etymology== | |||
| English ''crank'' in its modern sense is first recorded 1833, and ''cranky'' in a sense of "irritable" dates from 1821. The term was popularised in 1872 for being applied to ] who was ridiculed during his campaign for the U.S. presidency.{{fact|date=July 2018}} In 1882, the term was used to describe ], who shot U.S. president ]. Following news reports of Guiteau's trial, ''crank'' spread to describe obsessed baseball fans.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Dickson Baseball Dictionary|last=Dickson|first=Paul|publisher=]|year=2009|isbn=9780393066814|pages=223–224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mqVXyfqj88oC&pg=PA223}}</ref> | |||
| In 1906, '']'' offered essentially the same definition which is used here: | |||
| {{quotation|A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.|''Nature'', 8 Nov 1906, 25/2}} | |||
| The word ''crackpot'' apparently first appeared in 1883: | |||
| {{quotation|My aunty knew lots, and called them crack-pots.|''Broadside Ballad'', 1883}} | |||
| In ''Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary'', the terms ''crackpot'', ''crackbrain'', and ''cracked'' are synonymous, and suggest a metaphorically "broken" head. The words ''crazy'' and ''crazed'' also originally meant "broken" and derive from the same root word as ''cracked''. The dictionary gives no indication that ''pate'' and ''pot'' have the same root, despite their apparent similarity, and implied colloquial use of ''pot'' to mean "head" in the word ''crackpot''. However, the term ''craze'' is also used to refer to minute cracks in pottery glaze, again suggesting the metaphorical connection of cracked pots with questionable mental health. | |||
| The term ''kook'' appears to be much more recent. The ] ''kooky'' was apparently coined as part of American teenager (or ]) ], which derives from the pejorative meaning of the noun ''cuckoo''.<ref> ]</ref> Starting in late 1958, ] first played a hair-combing parking lot attendant called "Kookie" on '']''.{{relevance-inline|date=July 2018}} The ] ''kook'' was defined in 1960 in Britain's '']'' newspaper as "a screwball who is 'gone' farther than most".<ref>''Daily Mail'', 22 Aug 1960, 4/5</ref> | |||
| {{Anchor|Common characteristics of cranks}} | |||
| ==Common characteristics== | |||
| The second book of the mathematician and popular author ] was a study of crank beliefs, '']''. More recently, the mathematician ] has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including ''The Trisectors'', '']'', and ''Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought''. And in a 1992 ] post, the mathematician ] humorously proposed a checklist, the ], intended to diagnose cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.<ref>], an update to the 1992 list, 26 August 1998, ] ( on ]).</ref> | |||
| 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, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions. | |||
| Some cranks lack 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 achievement (real or alleged) 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. | |||
| In addition, the overwhelming majority of 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 shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, | |||
| #compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often ], ], ], ], ] or ]),{{citation needed|date=March 2017}} implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed, | |||
| #claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by ] invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their 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, (e.g. ], ], ]) may: | |||
| #exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, | |||
| #misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology, | |||
| #ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand 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.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Hodges, Wilfrid | title=An Editor Recalls Some Hopeless Papers | journal=The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic | year=1998 | volume=4 | issue=1 | pages=1–16 | url=https://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/0401/0401-001.ps | doi=10.2307/421003 | jstor=421003| citeseerx=10.1.1.27.6154 }} A paper describing several attempts at disproving ], looking at the flaws in their arguments and reasoning.</ref> | |||
| In addition, cranky scientific theories often do not in fact qualify as ] as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank theories in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them ] and hence unscientific. Or, cranks may present their ideas in such a confused, ] manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming. | |||
| 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 beliefs. | |||
| ==Internet cranks== | |||
| {{See also|Usenet personality}} | |||
| The rise of the Internet has given another outlet to people well outside the mainstream who may get labeled cranks due to internet ]s or ]s promoting particular beliefs. There are a number of websites devoted to listing people as cranks. Community-edited websites like Misplaced Pages have been described as vulnerable to cranks.<ref>"", '']'', March 12, 2007, Retrieved 23 April 2010</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26188052_ITM | work=Booklist | title=Misplaced Pages.(Brief Article) | date=September 15, 2002}}</ref> | |||
| Science fiction author and critic ] noted in his essay in CATSCAN 13: | |||
| <blockquote>Online communication can wonderfully liberate the tender soul of some well-meaning personage who, for whatever reason, is physically uncharismatic. Unfortunately, online communication also fertilizes the eccentricities of hopeless cranks, who at last find themselves in firm possession of a wondrous ] that the ] and the ] had previously denied them.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406161505/http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/Catscan_columns/catscan.13 |date=2012-04-06 }} (Bruce Sterling, ''SF Eye'') Retrieved 8 August 2012</ref></blockquote> | |||
| There are also newsgroups which are nominally devoted to discussing (''alt.usenet.kooks'') or poking fun at (''], ]'') supposed cranks. | |||
| ==Crank magnetism== | |||
| The term '''''crank magnetism''''' was coined by ] and blogger Mark Hoofnagle on the ''Denialism Blog'' in 2007 to refer to the tendency for cranks to be attracted to claims made by other cranks.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hoofnagle|first=Mark|title=Crank Magnetism|url=http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/28/crank-magnetism-1/|access-date=25 November 2015}}</ref> Crank magnetism may be considered to operate wherever a single person propounds a number of unrelated ] conjectures, poorly supported ], or ] claims. Thus, some of the common crank characteristics—such as the lack of technical ability, ignorance of scientific terminology, and claims that alternative ideas are being suppressed by the mainstream—may be operating on and manifested in multiple ] assertions. | |||
| Hoofnagle's fellow blogger ] has discussed crank magnetism in relation to the writings of British columnist ], who he alleges denies anthropogenic ] while promoting ] and the ].<ref>{{cite web|last=Gorski|first=David|title=Melanie Phillips: Crank magnetism in action on evolution and vaccines|date=6 May 2009|url=http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/06/melanie-phillips-crank-magnetism-in-acti/|work=Respectful Insolence|access-date=25 November 2015}}</ref> Blogger Luke Scientiæ has commented on the relationship between the number of unrelated claims that magnetic cranks make and the extent of their open hostility to science.<ref>{{cite web|last=Luke Scientiæ|title=A Few Comments on Crank Magnetism|url=http://www.lukesci.com/2011/07/27/a-few-comments-on-crank-magnetism/|access-date=15 August 2011}}{{dead link|date=August 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> He has also coined the phrase "magnetic hoax" in relation to hoax claims that attract multiple crank interpretations.<ref>{{cite web|last=Luke Scientiae|title=The Magnetic Hoax: The Giant Hoax as an Example|url=http://www.lukesci.com/2011/08/15/the-magnetic-hoax-the-giant-hoax-as-an-example/|access-date=15 August 2011}}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> | |||
| ===Studies=== | |||
| One study, ''NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science'', gave evidence that ] correlated with ] and ], staunch beliefs in '']'' ], denial of the ], ] and ]:<ref name="MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE">Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, ]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190731023146/http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf|date=31 July 2019}} ''Psychological Science'' (in press)</ref> | |||
| <blockquote>Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a ''laissez-faire'' conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of ''laissez-faire'' free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.<ref name="MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE" /></blockquote> | |||
| Another study titled ''Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories'' managed to show that not only will cranks be attracted to and believe in numerous conspiracy theories all at once, but will continue to do so even if the theories in question are completely and utterly incompatible with one another.<ref name="Michael J. Wood">Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas, Robbie M. Sutton. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180105060813/http://www.academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Beliefs_in_contradictory_conspiracy_theories |date=2018-01-05 }} ''Social Psychological and Personality Science'' (in press)</ref> For instance, the study showed that: "... the more participants believed that ] faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered ... the more participants believed that ] was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive," and that "Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up".<ref name="Michael J. Wood" /> | |||
| Studies such as ''Belief in Conspiracy Theories'' state that conspiracy theories relating to the ], the ] and ] are united by a common thread: distrust of the government-endorsed story. This leads the believer to attach other conspiracies as well. Someone with a distrust of the government will likely reject any and all stories or reports directly issued by state agencies or other authorities that are seen as part of the establishment. Thus, any conspiracy will seem more plausible to the conspiracy theorist because this fits with their worldview.<ref>Ted Goertzel. ''International Society of Political Psychology'', vol. 15, no. 4, 1994. DOI 10.2307/3791630</ref> | |||
| ===Cultic milieu=== | |||
| In academic ], a similar notion to crank magnetism exists, namely Colin Campbell's concept of the ''cultic ]'', which he used: | |||
| <blockquote>...to refer to a society's deviant belief systems and practices and their associated collectivities, institutions, individuals, and media of communication. He described it as including "the worlds of the occult and the magical, of spiritualism and psychic phenomena, of mysticism and new thought, of alien intelligences and lost civilizations, of faith healing and nature cure" (Campbell 1972:122), and it can be seen, more generally, to be the point at which deviant science meets deviant religion. What unifies these diverse elements, apart from a consciousness of their deviant status and an ensuing sense of common cause, is an overlapping communication structure of magazines, pamphlets, lectures, and informal meetings, together with the common ideology of ''seekership''.<ref>" {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304114745/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cult.htm |date=2016-03-04 }}" William H. Swatos, Jr. Editor. '']'', ].</ref></blockquote> | |||
| ]'s book '']'' traces the history of certain UFO and "New World Order" conspiracy theories. He finds that these theories and communities were originally distinct, but that certain bookshops and magazines would sell/advertise books of both genres. He traces, over the years, the gradual synthesis as ideas from one milieu start to invade another until both communities routinely refer to both ] and ] as part of the same conspiracy canon, for example. He describes the process as ], where people select from existing conspiracy theories to invent their own synthesis. But largely posits that the synthesis is driven by the theories sharing the same transmission channels.<ref name="Culture of Conspiracy">Barkun, Michael. (]) 2003 (]; 1st edition). {{ISBN|0-520-23805-2}}. OCLC .</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{div col|colwidth=30em}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{div col end}} | |||
| ;Spoofs | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|30em}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Dudley, Underwood | title=A Budget of Trisections | location=New York | publisher= ] | year=1987 | isbn=0-387-96568-8 }} | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Dudley, Underwood | title=Mathematical Cranks | title-link = Mathematical Cranks | location=Washington, D.C. | publisher= ] | year=1992 | isbn=0-88385-507-0}} | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Dudley, Underwood | title=The Trisectors | location=Washington, D.C. | publisher= ] | year = 1996 | isbn=0-88385-514-3 }} | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Dudley, Underwood | title=Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought | location=Washington, D.C. | publisher=] | year=1997 | isbn=0-88385-524-0 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/numerologyorwhat0000dudl }} | |||
| *{{cite book |author=Dudley, Underwood |title=On Jargon: How to Call a Crank a Crank (and Win If You Get Sued) |year=2008 |publisher=The UMAP Journal, 29.1 |url=http://ns.comap.com/wwwdev.comap.com/pdf/999/On-Jargon-How-Call-Crank-Crank.pdf }}{{Dead link|date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Eves, Howard | title=Mathematical Circles Squared; A Third Collection of Mathematical Stories and Anecdotes | location=Boston | publisher=Prindle, Weber & Schmidt | year=1972 | isbn=0-87150-154-6 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/mathematicalcirc0000eves_x3z6 }} | |||
| *{{cite book | author=Gardner, Martin | title=Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science | location=New York | publisher=] | year=1957 | isbn=0-486-20394-8 | lccn=57003844 | url=https://archive.org/details/fadsfallaciesint00gard | author-link=Martin Gardner }} | |||
| *Williams, William F. (Editor) (2000). '']: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy'' Facts on File {{ISBN|0-8160-3351-X}} | |||
| * ]. '']'', Los Angeles: ], 2001 (2nd ed. exp. from 1994). ({{ISBN|978-0-922915-67-5}}) | |||
| *{{cite journal | last=Kruger|first= Justin|author2=David Dunning | title=Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments | journal=J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. | year=1989 | volume=71 |issue= 6| pages=1121–1134 |doi= 10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121| url=http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf|pmid= 10626367}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * Cranks and their theories listed and categorised. | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{pseudoscience}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Crank (Person)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 11:50, 10 November 2024
Term For the term for an ill-tempered person, see Irritability. Soft redirect to Wiktionary
| Misplaced Pages does not have an article on "crank (person)", but its sister project Wiktionary does:
Read the Wiktionary entry "crank" You can also:
|  |
 | From a cross-project redirect: This is a soft redirect that is used as a connection to other Wikimedia projects. A Wikidata element is linked to this page:
|