Francais | English | Espanõl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Crank" is a pejorative term for a person who

1. holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false,
2. clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him.

The term implies that

1. a "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with some commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous,
2. arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief.

Common synonyms for "crank" include kook and crackpot. The word quack is usually reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice which he knows to be ineffective. The crank differs from the fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is not necessarily widely regarded as wrong, or a "fringe" belief.

Contents 1 Relativity of crank beliefs 2 Common characteristics of cranks 3 The psychology of cranks 4 Internet cranks 5 Etymology 6 See also 7 References

[edit] Relativity of crank beliefs

The term crank is often applied, for example by Underwood Dudley, to persons who contradict rigorously proven mathematical theorems, such as the impossibility of squaring the circle by ruler and compass, or who deny extremely well established physical theories, such as the special theory of relativity.

In the latter case, when scientific paradigms are overthrown, a belief previously considered cranky could in principle later be considered mainstream. Examples are rare, but they do exist; for example, the notion of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener was widely considered by contemporary geologists to be cranky, but was eventually dramatically vindicated (Williams 2000).

It appears to be even more unlikely that the opinion of the mathematical community might change concerning whether some proven theorem is true, despite nineteenth and twentieth century discoveries in mathematical logic which are often popularly misunderstood as having overthrown theorems previously regarded as true. It would be more correct to say that mathematicians have gradually become aware of subtle issues which had previously been overlooked. That is, previous mathematical knowledge has been enriched, not overthrown, by such discoveries as non-euclidean geometry or Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Nonetheless, since the nature of mainstream opinion can change over time, it is useful to define crankery in terms of characteristics which are independent of the allegedly cranky belief. Indeed, it is widely accepted that the true hallmark of the crank is not so much asserting that the Earth is flat as making this assertion in the face of all counterarguments and contrary evidence. Certain authors (see the references) who have studied the phenomenon of crankery agree that this is the essential defining characteristic of a crank: No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief.

[edit] Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, which has become classic. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors (MAA 1996, ISBN 0-88385-514-3), Mathematical Cranks (MAA 1992, ISBN 0-88385-507-0), and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought (MAA 1997, ISBN 0-88385-524-0). And in a 1998 UseNet post which has become classic, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Some cranks exhibit a lack of 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 alleged achievement 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; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

In addition, many cranks

1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always

1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding 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.

In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence useless.

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 belief. Others can (charitably) be characterized as underachievers in all walks of life.

[edit] The psychology of cranks

A widely quoted study by two Cornell University psychologists, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, bears directly upon a striking and virtually universal characteristic of cranks: they simultaneously overestimate their own knowledge and ability and underestimate that of other persons, including that of acknowledged experts in the field.

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, playing chess or tennis, or operating a motor vehicle, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it). Specifically, they hypothesized that with regard to a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

1. grossly incompetent individuals tend to greatly overestimate their own level of skill,
2. grossly incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
3. grossly incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
4. if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

They set out to test these hypotheses on human subjects, sixty-five Cornell undergraduates registered in various psychology courses.

In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning examined self-assessment of logical reasoning skills, grammatical skills, and humor. In one of their most striking results, they found that

1. students whose test skills put them well below average (bottom 10th percentile) guessed that they ranked in the top third of the class,
2. students whose test skills put them well above average (top 10th percentile) slightly underestimated their class rank.

After being shown their test score, the subjects were again asked to estimate their own rank, whereupon the competent group accurately estimated their rank, while the incompetent group still vastly overestimated their own rank. Only after extensive tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked did a followup study suggest that these formerly grossly incompetent students had improved both their actual skill level and their ability to estimate their class rank.

These results may explain why cranks so often seem to represent, not individuals with an exceptional degree of knowledge, but rather individuals with an exceptional degree of ignorance concerning the subject of their cranky belief.

As noted above, in addition to a general lack of ability to accurately assess their own skills and knowledge, many cranks also exhibit easily recognizable deficiencies in reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and other cognitive abnormalities, which obviously contribute both to how they arrive at some bizarre counterfactual belief in the first place, and to how they are able to cling to such a belief in the face of all objections.

It is also striking that many cranks seem to exhibit certain symptoms of grandiosity or megalomania. This may perhaps also be understood, in terms of the phenomenon studied by Kruger and Dunning, as resulting from a simultaneous overinflation of their own social value and underestimation of the social value of others.

[edit] Internet cranks

The rise of the Internet has given another outlet to people well outside the mainstream who may get labeled cranks through internet postings or websites promoting particular beliefs.^{[citation needed]}

There are also newsgroups which are nominally devoted to discussing (alt.usenet.kooks) or poking fun at (alt.slack, alt.religion.kibology) supposed cranks.

[edit] Etymology

The term "crank" in general refers to something bent or twisted, as with mechanical devices that are called cranks. ^{[citation needed]}

In 1906, Nature offered essentially the same definition which is used here:

A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.

—Nature, 8 Nov 1906, 25/2

The term "crank" (or "krank") was once the favored term for spectators at sporting events, a term latter supplanted by "fans".^{[citation needed]} By implication, the "kranks in the bleaching boards" think they know more about the sport than do its participants.^{[citation needed]}

The word Crackpot apparently also first appeared in 1883:

My aunty knew lots, and called them crack-pots.

—Broadside Ballad, 1883

The term kook appears to be much more recent. The adjectival-form, kooky, was apparently coined in 1959 as part of American teen-ager (or beatnik) slang, which derives from the pejorative meaning of the noun cuckoo. The noun-form kook, may have first appeared in 1960 in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper:

A kook, Daddy-O, is a screwball who is 'gone' farther than most

—Daily Mail, 22 Aug 1960, 4/5

The use of "cuckoo" in this way was well established by the 1940s, and is hinted at in Mel Blanc's frequent joke about "train leaving on track five for Anaheim, Azusa and Cuc...amonga."

[edit] See also

• Eccentricity (behavior)

Discussions of particular types of crank beliefs:

• Pseudohistory
• Pseudoscience
• Pseudomathematics
• Pseudophysics and Crackpot index
• Conspiracy theory
• Coast to Coast AM

Lists of specific cranky beliefs:

• List of conspiracy theories
• List of pseudoscientific theories

Spoofs:

• Psychoceramics
• Kibo

[edit] References

• Dudley, Underwood (1992). Mathematical Cranks. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America. ISBN 0-88385-507-0.
• Dudley, Underwood (1987). A Budget of Trisections. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-96568-8.
• Eves, Howard (1972). Mathematical Circles Squared; A Third Collection of Mathematical Stories and Anecdotes. Boston: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt. ISBN 0-87150-154-6.
• Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-20394-8 LCCN 57-3844.
• Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning (1989). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. 71: 1121-1134. A classic paper on a common phenomenon in social psychiatry which in extreme cases is strongly associated with crackpottery.
• William F. Williams, editor (2000) Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy Facts on File ISBN 0-8160-3351-Xda:Net kook

zh:民间科学家 (贬)