Martin Gardner’s Signs of a Crank

[tmiller51]

I found this list compiled by Brian Dunning to be spot-on at describing "cranks" you occasionally encounter:

When recreational mathematician Martin Gardner died earlier this year, he left us a huge number of books. One of these is called Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science. In his first chapter, Gardner went into some depth on characterizing cranks. Cranks are folks whom I encounter quite frequently in my work on Skeptoid; not only from the side promoting pseudoscience, but also from the side of skeptics. I find that a few skeptics are little different methodologically from the pseudoscientists they so fervently argue against, and so I believe it’s of great value to everyone to familiarize himself with Gardner’s list.

• * Cranks tend to work in isolation from their colleagues.
  * Cranks tend to be paranoid.
  * Cranks tend to consider themselves geniuses.
  * Cranks tend to regard their colleagues and critics as stupid.
  * Cranks tend to believe there is a conspiracy against them.
  * Cranks tend to criticize the work of big names in science.
  * Cranks tend to invent their own terminology, sometimes their own sciences, and tend to write in their own overcomplicated jargon.

The full list can be found on Brian's Skepticblog post here.

Tim

[kwlyon]

I fit into a couple of these.... quite nicely:) I take some comfort, however, that most of them definitely do not apply to me...

1) I do tend to be paranoid....remember, just because your not paranoid, doesn't mean that Sarah Palin may not be elected to yet another, more powerful, public office in 2012.

2) I am very much aware that I am NOT a genius. However, mediocre as I perceive myself to be, I am convinced that I am far more intelligent than most of the people I meet outside of work. I mean, as a species, we are pretty stupid. That's why I like the freethinker meetings. There are PLENTY of NORMAL people there, just average people by most any measure. Most of them are non-scientist...but the average intelligence is much SOOOO MUCH higher than within the population at large. Perhaps I am an arrogant asshole...I meet people every day I would consider to be idiots. I have yet to meet a single individual I would label as "idiot" while attending a FayFreethinker meeting. It's like a little Oasis of sanity.

3) My colleages are, on the average, WAY more intelligent than me. As for my critics, well, it is human nature to demean one's critics...however the only critics I really have are internet quacks. I don't believe that Grey is stupid. I think he has some rather quacky ideas but I wouldn't call him stupid by a long shot. In fact I found him to be a rather pleasant conversationalist. Unfortunately intelligence does not always equal right. But then there are the youtube creationist...and yes....I consider most of them stupid. If you voted for Sarah Palin...well, the jury may be out depending upon the outcome of the "do you live under a rock" inquiry...however It looks like the verdict is pretty easy to predict.

4) When I was in high school there was a conspiracy against me getting laid...My church and parents have since admitted to being in on it.

In all seriousness I would say, be careful using any criteria to label someone a crank. It is all too easy to twist such criteria around so that if applies to your opposition--objectivity be damned. We don't need guidelines for determining if someone is a quack...Just listen to what they assert, collect their supporting evidence, and check to see if the facts support their ranting opinions...or not.

[tmiller51]

We don't need guidelines for determining if someone is a quack...Just listen to what they assert, collect their supporting evidence, and check to see if the facts support their ranting opinions...or not.

The list is probably best used for self-evaluation as you've just demonstrated. As for your item #4, I'm reminded of an article I read earlier today about self-delusions as a strategy for preservation of self-esteem.

Tim

[kwlyon]

The list is probably best used for self-evaluation as you've just demonstrated.

I agree. Excellent observation:)

[Savonarola]

Cranks tend to work in isolation from their colleagues.

None of my colleagues share my precise job, so we don't work together.

Cranks tend to be paranoid.

Well, I'm checking this list to see if I'm a crank...

Cranks tend to consider themselves geniuses.

Well, I am. Even my colleagues who don't work with me say so.

Cranks tend to regard their colleagues and critics as stupid.

Many -- though not all -- of my colleagues are stupid... at least relative to me, because I'm a genius. Of course my critics are stupid: if they disagree with me, they're wrong, which is an indicator of stupidity.

Cranks tend to believe there is a conspiracy against them.

Though I am tempted, I don't share the fact that I'm not a Bible-thumping fundy because I am confident that there would be backlash.

Cranks tend to criticize the work of big names in science.

But renowned scientists do this all the time. Einstein said that Newton was wrong; does that mean that Einstein was a crank?

Cranks tend to invent their own terminology, sometimes their own sciences, and tend to write in their own overcomplicated jargon.

People often don't understand what I'm talking about, but that's because I'm a genius and they're all stupid, remember?

Jeez, this list is worthless. The author must be a total crank.

--Sav, truthful but tongue-in-cheek

[Dardedar]

I think the list is quite useful. Notice he said "tend to" and I think the implication is that a crank will tend to have several if not most of these. If you look at confirmed cranks, i.e. free energy nuts, perpetual machine fiddlers, those who work on the "water as a net source of energy" problem, the Hovind, Dembski, creationist wack jobs, those who pretend to work on quantum problems when you haven't mastered Newton (you know who you are) you will consistently find they "tend to" be heavily invested in nearly all of these.

D.

[Savonarola]

I think the list is quite useful. Notice he said "tend to" and I think the implication is that a crank will tend to have several if not most of these. If you look at confirmed cranks, i.e. free energy nuts, perpetual machine fiddlers, those who work on the "water as a net source of energy" problem, the Hovind, Dembski, creationist wack jobs, those who pretend to work on quantum problems when you haven't mastered Newton (you know who you are) you will consistently find they "tend to" be heavily invested in nearly all of these.

What good is a list that produces beaucoup false positives? You reference "confirmed cranks," but by what criteria did you label them so?

[Dardedar]

You reference "confirmed cranks," but by what criteria did you label them so?

DAR
I refer to "free energy nuts, perpetual machine fiddlers, those who work on the "water as a net source of energy" problem, the Hovind, Dembski, creationist wack jobs, those who pretend to work on quantum problems when [they] haven't mastered Newton" and you need further criteria?

Perhaps Dembski doesn't belong there but several other creationists could rightfully take his place.

If you examine any of the more famous cranks, perhaps referred to in a book like this:



You will consistently find that these people exhibit the characteristics Gardner points to. I don't see how it could be inappropriate to point this out.

A few examples (I am familiar with most of these):

# Neal Adams - Expanding earth

# Todd Bentley - Christian faith healing through kicking and punching.

# John A. Davison - Proscribed evolution

# Peter Duesberg, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos - AIDS denialism

# Duane Gish - creationist writer and professional debate-mangler

# Richard C. Hoagland - "Face" on Mars, aliens, NASA conspiracy theories.

# L. Ron Hubbard - Alternate history, alien races; founder of Scientology

# David Icke - Alternate history, alien races, conspiracy theories

# Sean Manchester - Vampire hunter and self proclaimed "Catholic Bishop"

# Zecharia Sitchin - Reinterpreter of Sumerian mythology and perpetuator of the "Zeta Reticuli" alien conspiracy theory

# Immanuel Velikovsky - Planetary catastrophism, a revised chronology, and more

# Ernst Zündel, David Irving - Holocaust denial

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank

I would add Dennis Lee, Alex Jones, David Koresh, Peter Joseph (ala Zeitgeist) and dozens more that could be gleaned here.

D.

[Savonarola]

I refer to "free energy nuts, perpetual machine fiddlers, those who work on the "water as a net source of energy" problem, the Hovind, Dembski, creationist wack jobs, those who pretend to work on quantum problems when [they] haven't mastered Newton" and you need further criteria?

No, I want the list of criteria that you used to make the determination. If the list is:

* Promotes one or more of:

• free energy/perpetual motion machines
• creationism/creation science/ID
• atomic energy from quantum vacuum vortices

... then that's the correct list, not Gardner's.

You will consistently find that these people exhibit the characteristics Gardner points to. I don't see how it could be inappropriate to point this out.

Heck, watch this:

"Cranks tend to be human, alive, older than 1 month of age, literate, and vaccinated."

You will consistently find that cranks "tend" to exhibit these characteristics. You don't see how it could be inappropriate to point this out?

[Dardedar]

I want the list of criteria that you used to make the determination. If the list is:

* Promotes one or more of:

• free energy/perpetual motion machines
• creationism/creation science/ID
• atomic energy from quantum vacuum vortices

... then that's the correct list, not Gardner's.

DAR
At the link (Skepticblog) in the original comment in this thread it is pointed out that in his book (Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science):

"Gardner went into some depth on characterizing cranks."

So the context may be (and probably is) that in this book your above abbreviated list is what is understood and explained as being good criteria to be defined as a crank, oh and by they way, there are some additional common characteristics that cranks also tend to exhibit.

Also, the author of the blog post in question (Brian Dunning, who asked me to take a photo of him and a friend last week at TAM 8) says:

"Gardner didn’t really put his points into the form of a list, so I’m taking some liberties here and rearranging them into bullet points."

So this isn't really "Gardner's list" but rather something Brian Dunning has gleaned and interpreted from Gardner's book minus the context. From my knowledge of cranks (see list given earlier), I completely agree.

An example: While we may expect to see more individuals with multiple pens in their shirt pockets at a physics conference than on average(and the occasional pocket protector brimming with pens), seeing someone walking down the street with multiple pens in their shirt pocket doesn't suggest they are a physicist (they probably are a piano tuner however).

D.

[kwlyon]

What do be mean by crank? One who has ridiculous ideas and defends them in the face of evidence--either lacking the intelligent to understand the explanation/evidence being presented or simply having some emotional connection to his quackery and thus choosing stupidity. Or perhaps those who prophet from nonsense and yet may or may not believe in the quackery they promote? Or all of the above?

And DAR....are you accusing us physicists of being...nerds?

[Doug]

I would add Dennis Lee, Alex Jones, David Koresh, Peter Joseph (ala Zeitgeist) and dozens more that could be gleaned here.

DOUG
How about Orly Taitz (the "birther queen"), and Josh McDowell (the Bible is inerrant and has confirmed prophecies)? Along with McDowell, whose claims are demonstrably false and fly in the face of contemporary Bible scholarship, we'd have to add hundreds like him--such as Hal "The Bible Says The World is Going to End Soon" Lindsay.