cranks

Ben Goldacre at Bad Science is leading the way on opposing this new absurdity of "electric smog", and one of it's leading proponents in Britain, Julia Stephenson. It's really too easy. Remember the crank HOWTO? Well, she's just about a perfect example. It all started when she got wifi in her apartment... Within a couple of weeks she felt tired and fatigued, so she removed it, and then she felt better! Two years ago I got Wi-Fi. It was convenient, as I could work anywhere in my flat. But within a few weeks began to suffer from a lack of energy and insomnia, and had difficulty…
I see that Tim Blair has decided to quote mine me. As part of my analysis of Cockburn's crankery I made the following statement. Below the fold I'll summarize Cockburn's arguments and how they use the denialist tactics, George Monbiot's responses (including his amazing crank-fu!) and discuss why in the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right. ... It's important to remember both the left and the right have anti-scientific tendencies, the left's just tend to be less religious, less world-threatening and more woo-based. My brother recently told me…
The latest gem from Egnor: Clearly the brain, as a material substance, causes movement of the body, which is also a material substance. The links are nerves and muscles. But there is no material link between our ideas and our brains, because ideas aren't material. I'm not a neuroscientist, but that's strikes me as the dumbest thing I've heard yet. No material link between our ideas and our brains? So I guess when we take a hallucinogen like LSD it works by magic? How could it be that thinking is separate from "material" as he puts it, when we can ingest material substances that alter our…
Readers of the Nation are probably by now familiar with the lunatic ravings of Alexander Cockburn on global warming. What is bizarre, is that, before he traveled down this road, he seemed able to identify other crank ideas - like 9/11 conspiracy theories, and criticized them. Further, it's unusual to see a left-winger become a crank on global warming. The history of this mess is interesting. It started with this first post from Cockburn, in which he declares global warming a scam. What evolves is a fascinating picture into the formation of a crank, and the change in global warming…
Who wants to know how to be an effective crank? Well, I've outlined what I think are the critical components of successful crankiness. Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary. Here's how you do it: Step one: Develop a wacky idea. It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don't defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You've got to think big! You've got to do something like…
It's in the nature of cranks and denialists not to really object to other forms of crankery, as long as the other crank or denialist is also sowing doubt about the same scientific theory. This fits in with proof 295,232 that intelligent design isn't a science. Witness an IDer who really loves the Creation Museum. O'Leary even likes their idea that chameleons change color to "talk" to each other in the Garden of Eden: And, if you are not a frothing Darwinist, it is not always clear who is right: Nature here is not "red in tooth and claw," as Tennyson asserted. In fact at first it seems…
"Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine". I've just got to say, wow. I read it at first thinking, "hey, this is hysterical satire", then I read the comments and thought, "wow, these guys are dedicated - this is pure performance art!" Finally, I started going through the archives with a sinking feeling, "holy crap, these guys are for real." I really think they've fallen for these cranks line about a fixed earth, and all I've got to say now is please, please, please tell everybody about this. If there ever was a better example of the universality of crank thinking, this is it, and of course…
I'd like to hear from some other sciencebloggers and science readers what they think reform of peer-review should look like. I'm not of the opinion that it has any critical flaws, but most people would like to see more accountability for sand-bagging and other bad reviewer habits. Something like a grading system that allows submitters to rate the performance of their reviewers, then editors of magazines would tend to only consult with reviewers that authors felt were doing a fair job of evaluating their paper. The drawback of course would be that reviewers might start going easier on papers…
Well, I won't watch CNN anymore, after Glenn Beck decided to call climate scientists who actually believe climate science Nazis. You read his profile at Media Matters and it's clear pretty much anyone he disagrees with is a Nazi. Disagree with him on healthcare? You're a Nazi. Disagree with him on global warming? You're a Nazi. Oh, and some people aren't just Nazi's, like Hillary Clinton, she's also the Anti-Christ, and those Katrina victims? They're scumbags. Muslims (even in congress)? They're traitors. This guy has never met a hyperbole he didn't like (like my hyperbole?). It is…
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned. - Nature, 8 Nov 1906 Here at denialism blog, we're very interested in what makes people cranks. Not only how one defines crankish behavior, but literally how people develop unreasonable attitudes about the world in the face of evidence to the contrary. Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea". That is some idea they've incorporated into their…