Crackpot

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crackpot is a derogatory English slang expression for a person with eccentric views ("eccentric", "crazy", "crazy"). In its limited meaning as a person who represents theories that contradict the current state of research, the term has also penetrated the German-speaking network culture . Here Crackpot is often synonymous with Crank used (originally English for crank , in a figurative sense, however - next to "curmudgeon, grouch" - even "Spinner", "strange owl").

Use within the network culture

The term has different connotations in science and network culture . In net culture, it means a person who adopts unconventional ideas - often in an obsessive way - and can no longer be dissuaded from them even by valid counter-arguments. Errors in her assessments (even basic ones) that can easily be pointed out are not recognized as such by her. Crackpots rarely use scientific methodology , but argue with phrases such as "It is logical ..." or "It is obvious ...". They usually get their specialist knowledge from their own interpretations of outdated theories or simplified representations in the media. A characteristic feature of crackpots is the claim that their hypotheses can explain various observations in nature better than current scientific theories. To support their theories, they often use anecdotal excerpts from reputable scientific papers that, taken out of context, seem to support their reasoning. In the area of ​​net culture, terms such as crackpottery (in German for example: crackpotterei) and crackpotism (in German for example: crackpotism) are used.

Use within science

The term is used less restrictively within the scientific discourse . Brian Martin (1978) defines it as follows:

"Typical 'cranks' are non-scientists who claim serious consideration for ideas that are considered unsupportable or outrageous according to the currently accepted views of the scientific community."

"Typical cranks are non-scientists who demand serious attention to ideas that are considered untenable or outrageous in the currently accepted views of the scientific community."

- B. Martin

An early definition for crank is:

“Few men probably receive more communications from earth flatteners and circle squarers and arc trisectors than the present writer. When he receives one he does not feel pleased, and yet it ought to be pleasant to think that there are so many men in the world who refuse to accept dogma. A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned. These men are all cranks; at all events, we have never succeeded in convincing one of them that he was wrong. The usually accepted axioms, definitions, and technical terms are not for them. When they use a term, sometimes evidently in two different senses in the same syllogism, it is impossible to find exactly what they mean by it. "

“Few people probably receive more letters from flat-earth pendants , circle squares, and angle thirds than the author. If he receives one, he is not happy about it - although it should be pleasant to think that so many people in this world refuse to accept a dogma . A crank is defined as a person whose mind cannot be changed. All these letter writers are cranks; in no single case have we been able to convince anyone of the falsity of his theories. The commonly accepted axioms, definitions and terms are not for them. When you use a term - sometimes obviously with two different meanings in the same syllogism  - it is impossible to say what exactly you mean by it. "

- Nature, Nov 8, 1906

Example of use within geosciences

In a study published in 2002, RJ Huggett distinguished two basic types of cranks. On the one hand, cranks with “trained” (in the sense of “ indoctrinated ”) or autodidactic knowledge, he also calls them “ creationist cranks” who are particularly vocal and attempt to interpret the history of the earth using the “facts” taken from the Bible . As an example, he cites Donald Wesley Patten , the author of books such as The biblical flood and the ice epoch (1966) ( Eng .: The biblical flood and the ice age).

Second, he mentions “professional cranks” who have had adequate university training and are not influenced in their judgment by extreme religious convictions. They used a questionable methodology for their research, which borders on or can be assigned to pseudoscience . An influence from their cultural and social environment cannot be ruled out here either. As an example, he cites Immanuel Velikovsky , a controversial proponent of catastrophism .

He also differentiates between “conventionalists with a crank streak”, which he further subdivides into successful and unsuccessful conventionalists. As an example of the former he names Alfred Wegener , the founder of the theory of continental drift , for the latter he mentions C. Warren Hunt , a geologist who wanted to explain certain flood sediments with a 1500 m high tidal wave caused by a comet .

After Huggetts definition Crank not be seen in the scientific sense as mocking or critical designation. The term simply denotes an extremely eccentric view of scientific theories.

Differentiation between crackpot hypotheses and serious science according to Fred Gruenberger (1962)

Fred Gruenberger tried in 1962 to describe crackpot hypotheses. An important criterion for the subdivision scientific / non-scientific is that scientific theories should make predictions. However, if this attribute is applied to astronomy , it turns out that, although astronomy is commonly believed to be a science, certain areas of it do not provide any predictions, but merely describe concrete observations, such as measured star densities or registered novae. Gruenberger concluded from this that it is not possible to evaluate a hypothesis meaningfully using a single criterion. The distinction between crackpot science and real science is accordingly difficult, especially for the layman, but often also for the specialist.

As a decision-making aid, Gruenberger suggested a points system with which the reader should be able to evaluate scientific or supposedly scientific work. For this purpose, these should be divided into 13 different criteria, such as B. traceability, experimental verifiability or the agreement with Ockham's razor are assessed. In his opinion, modern physics achieved 97 and dowsing 28 out of 100 possible points.

See also

literature

  • Donna Kossy : Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief. Portland, OR: Feral House 1994. ISBN 0-922915-19-9
  • LJ Lafleur: Cranks and scientists . The Scientific Monthly 73 (1951) 284-290

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ entry under "crackpot" in merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster, Inc., accessed September 21, 2009 .
  2. ↑ Entry under "crank (adverb)" in merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster, Inc., accessed May 1, 2011 .
  3. ↑ Scientists, Eccentrics, Cranks and Crackpots on dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com. dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com, accessed September 21, 2009 .
  4. ↑ Nobody is too small to be an Einstein! Matthias Meier, accessed on September 21, 2009 .
  5. ^ B. Martin: The Determinants of Scientific Behavior. In: Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review. Volume 2, No. 4, 1978, pp. 112-118, p. 2.
  6. ↑ J. Phin: Science and Folly. Nature, No. 1932, Volume 75, 1906, p. 25. PDF
  7. ↑ a b c d R. J. Huggett: Cranks, conventionalists and geomorphology. Area, 2002, February 34. Pp. 182-189.
  8. ^ A b F. J. Gruenberger: A Measure for Crackpots - How does one distinguish between valid scientific work and counterfeit "science"? In: Science. Volume 45, 1964, pp. 1413-1415. PDF