"Crank" and ATM/CT proponents

[Van Rijn]

I happened onto a Wikipedia page on "cranks" and found it to be an excellent summation of common ATM proponent habits. The page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

Of course, it doesn't fit every ATM/CT proponent, but read the following, compare to ATM/CT claims - how many exceptions to these have you seen?

Typically a crank is impervious to contrary evidence. Those who have studied the phenomenon of crankery agree that this is the essential defining characteristic of the crank: being impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

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.

In addition, many 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 entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,

• compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus (or in a religious context, Noah), implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,

• claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret 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, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:

• exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,

• misunderstand or fail to 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.

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 unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused, "not even wrong" manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.

Scary isn't it?

It isn't always decades, but I can think of many cases where someone says "I've been working on [fill in here] for years" . . . but within a few statements I see a fundamental error that breaks the entire argument. And, of course, not only will they ignore any explanation for why they are wrong, but very often it turns out they've gone been making the same argument and getting the same feedback for years. I'm sure it is hard to hear that your grand idea is fundamentally flawed, but many carry on after no matter how often their error is explained. I can think of some cases here where the proponent lies low for months or years, then comes back to make the same arguments, apparently hoping that everyone who saw their previous thread has either left or forgotten them. And if you search the web, you can see they've been going through the same process on a dozen other sites.

[Tensor]

I happened onto a Wikipedia page on "cranks" and found it to be an excellent summation of common ATM proponent habits. The page:

snip...

Of course, it doesn't fit every ATM/CT proponent, but read the following, compare to ATM/CT claims - how many exceptions to these have you seen?



Scary isn't it?

What's scary is that many of us here have written a very similar post here, without referencing that particular page. Just from observing behaviors in ATM/CT and to a lesser extent Q & A, Astronomy, and S & T.

[Ara Pacis]

I forget if you're an American other not, but in the US that understanding is widely known. Indeed, we had a thread about it, among other things, a few months ago.

[TJMac]

I have to admit, my favorite (not sure favorite is the correct term, but maybe you get the idea) part of that definition of "crank", is the persecution from secret agencies or entities.
This probably stems from tagging along with my father to Agriculture Shows, State Fairs, Inventor Shows, and at least once I remember, an Antique Tractor show. Birds of a feather,
and all that, because it seemed my Dad, or my Uncle, could always find that guy who had a story.

Although my memory is likely not perfect, I remember these: Guy buys new car with big V-8 engine, and it gets mpg in the 80-100 range. Days later a company rep shows up and
offers to buy back just the carburetor for what he bought the car for. Guy won't sell. Few days later, comes home to find his garage has been broken into, and the carburetor stolen.
CLEARLY big oil protecting their interests!!!! (I still don't get why the car companies want the oil companies to make money.)

There was a fellow at the State Fair, who insisted he had a solar panel that made insane amounts of power, so much that it almost scared him to use it on his electric lawn mower.
As soon as he tried to patent it, he immediately began being harassed by gov't agents. His life was threatened, but he was going to fight the good fight and take it to those....
(apparently he lost)

Fellow at the Antique Tractor show was willing to swear on a bible. He was at a gas station, and had seen an official gov't car pull up, not to the pumps, but by the water hose.
The driver dropped some sort of pellets into the tank, and then used the water hose to top it off. When he realized he had been seen, he approached our story teller and informed
him that he had best not tell a soul about what he just saw. He then made a note of our good mans license plate and drove away. I heard this in the 70s sometime, and the guy
said he had kept mum about it for well over a decade, so I guess this tech was around in the 50s or 60s.

Heh! I'm having flashbacks. We went to a very nice hot rod show yesterday and saw some great cars. I thought about stealing an orange Ford Anglia, 40s vintage, with a supercharged
big block wedged into it.... Anyhow, I digress.

TJ

[orionjim]

Before coming to BAUT I ran across John Baez’s Crackpot Index that can be found here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Actually I see the site listed first on the “See Also” portion of the Wikipedia page

Having an ATM idea myself I found his index irritating to say the least; but they did work as a set of Cliff’s Notes as what not to do or say when presenting an idea.

[slang]

Although my memory is likely not perfect, I remember these: Guy buys new car with big V-8 engine, and it gets mpg in the 80-100 range. Days later a company rep shows up and offers to buy back just the carburetor for what he bought the car for. Guy won't sell. Few days later, comes home to find his garage has been broken into, and the carburetor stolen. CLEARLY big oil protecting their interests!!!! (I still don't get why the car companies want the oil companies to make money.)

Or perhaps the fella just ran into trouble trying to calculate the mpg properly...

Before coming to BAUT I ran across John Baez’s Crackpot Index that can be found here:
http://<u>http://math.ucr.edu/home/b...ckpot.html</u>

Hah, I clicked the thread to add a pointer to that, while noting how often several items on this list can be ticked within the first page of an ATM thread.

[LotusExcelle]

The carb in reference is what was known as the Fish Carburetor. It was real but it did not get anywhere near the "myth" rated mpg. If I recall correctly Motor Trend or other such publication did an extensive article on the myth. The carb did exist but it only got a realistic boost in efficiency over carbs of the day - say 10% under certain conditions. I'll search for that article as I have time today and link it when I can.

[Torsten]

Having an ATM idea myself I found his index irritating to say the least; but they did work as a set of Cliff’s Notes as what not to do or say when presenting an idea.

And having an ATM idea does not automatically equate to being a crank. If you are referring to your random walk thread, I'd just like to say that I thought the discussion was really good.

[orionjim]

And having an ATM idea does not automatically equate to being a crank. If you are referring to your random walk thread, I'd just like to say that I thought the discussion was really good.

No, it was a different one.

The one you’re talking about and the dialog was made by Kwalish Kid rightfully pushing for a statistical test. I learned a lot in that post. Kwalish Kid reminded me of some of my best friends; the ones that push and question everything you say.

[Van Rijn]

No, it was a different one.

The one you’re talking about and the dialog was made by Kwalish Kid rightfully pushing for a statistical test. I learned a lot in that post.

Which is great . . . it's the ATM proponents that never listen or learn anything that fit the "crank" list.

[orionjim]

Which is great . . . it's the ATM proponents that never listen or learn anything that fit the "crank" list.

I think posting an idea to ATM requires an attitude of (best case) “Where am I going wrong” and (worst case) the Charles Barkley approach “I Might Be Wrong, But I Doubt It”. In either case you’ve got a door to exit gracefully.

Going through the list on the Wikipedia site that you posted and John Baez’s Crackpot Index most of the items are related to the person’s certainty of their idea. Certainty and listening for whatever reason just don’t go together. And that works both ways.

The mods should provide a link to the Wikipedia article.

[publiusr]

And having an ATM idea does not automatically equate to being a crank.

That's probably true of most folks who have no curiosity--or rather--the time--to think about science. "Look's flat to me." and off they go back to the fields. They go to churches to see their friends and you hear words like "I don't think we're supposed to understand it" or "how do they know that?" Take a little time to explain things and they will get it, or just shake their head or shrug their shoulders--like my Dad used to be.

Cranks aren't that flippant.

[NEOWatcher]

Or perhaps the fella just ran into trouble trying to calculate the mpg properly...

I wouldn't doubt that.
I knew a few people that thought that you could compute MPG only from how much they put into the tank (not even filling it up) and knowing the current odometer reading.

[DoggerDan]

The thing I find most interesting about this is how many innovators over the years, even in recent decades, were called "cranks" before they proved their accusers wrong.

[Hornblower]

Qualified physicists can and do come up with ATM theories when they think the evidence is compelling enough. As I think I understand it, Brans and Dicke did just that, modifying GR in response to what they thought was reliable evidence of oblateness of the Sun. Perhaps their measurements were thrown off by uneven limb darkening.

[ToSeek]

My impression is that most people who find they're in disagreement with the mainstream assume that they're wrong. A crank concludes that he's right and everyone else is wrong - look at the guy here recently who thought NASA (and ESA and everyone else) was lying about planetary gravity assist simply because he didn't understand it himself.

Now, every now and then a crank will be right (Galileo, Wegener, etc.). But it doesn't happen very often.

[NEOWatcher]

Now, every now and then a crank will be right (Galileo, Wegener, etc.). But it doesn't happen very often.

Yes, but so many people think in black and white. Thus putting all cranks in the same bucket.

[HenrikOlsen]

I wouldn't doubt that.
I knew a few people that thought that you could compute MPG only from how much they put into the tank (not even filling it up) and knowing the current odometer reading.

You can, but you'll have to do it for quite a while to get the error bars down to something reasonable.

Or else just go by difference in odometer readings between times of filling up, while recording how much was added in between. That'll have smaller error bars, though it'll still have some, since driving isn't the same always and "filled up" isn't perfectly equal each time.

[NEOWatcher]

You can, but you'll have to do it for quite a while to get the error bars down to something reasonable.

That was my point. They wanted to know "This time", they couldn't understand the concept of tracking from one tank to the next.