Denialism and crankery

Recently I've seen several web site using the term 'denialism'. They,
for the most part, provide a good insight into the phenomenon.
However, a fallacy I have seen in that all of these appear to
indiscriminately label right-wing politics 'denialism', weakening the
force of their arguments. I'll try to start from scratch.

First let's name a few examples of denialism, ones that everyone
should agree to be so. One of them is the one people usually associate
with the term - Holocaust denial. It is often thought that Holocaust
deniers are just lying for anti-Semitic purposes; I don't buy it.
While most of them are anti-Semites, they honestly do believe it.
Another is AIDS denial; this may have started as a scientific theory
but quickly became a kind of denialism.

The third example is creationism, at least in the expositions that
most people are exposed to. What do these have in common? It is that,
from the perspective of someone acquainted with the facts, they appear
to be blatantly lying, yet they think they are being honest. They have
a pre-conceived idea that, for whatever reason, is held so strongly
that it distorts their thinking - all facts are interpreted in the
light of the idea, and either ignored or twisted to fit the theory.

Let me now turn to the second part of my title. Crank theories are
familiar to every scientist. Crank theories are those that start from
premisses wildly at variance with reality, but the crank can't see
this. He believes himself to be a genius and anyone that disagrees to
be simply ignorant.

What is the difference between crankery and denialism? It is, I
believe, the motive of the proponent. The crank has faith in his
_mind_ and espouses the idea fundamentally because it it his; the
denialist has faith in his _feelings_ and espouses the idea
fundamentally because he wants to believe it for non-rational reasons.
Cranks, therefore, tend to be more intelligent than denialists. Other
differences can be found, too. Cranks are almost always male,
denialists are about equally men and women (This is no doubt due to
the male superiority for abstract thinking; crankery being a bad
effect of that.) Cranks often have invested considerable time and
effort in working out their theories, while denialists do not invest
any such effort until challenged. They have in common that they both
tend to hypothesise conspiracy theories to explain their lack of
success in convincing others, and very seldom will abandon their
beliefs.

What about conspiracy theories, in the common meaning? The originator
of conspiracy theories normally have the motivations of a crank, while
the followers of one those of a denialist. This follows from the
definitions. While a denialist usually does not invent a theory as
complex as most conspiracies, and has no motivation to do so, he is
quite willing to follow an existing theory that appeals to him in some
way and thereafter looks at all other related facts through his
denialist glasses. The crank, on the other hand, is quite willing to
invent comprehensive theories once he gets an idea, but has less of a
motive to join another crank's theory, because it doesn't feed his
ego. They can overlap, as for example in those that dissent from
global warming. A few people with that idea have crank motivations,
more have denialist motivations, some have both, but the majority of
ordinary people have neither and simply don't investigate the topic in
any detail.

There are more denialists than cranks simply because denialism
requires no intellectual powers, while crankery does require some - or
at least enough to convince one that one is a genius.

One more example requires addressing. This is Langmuir's 'pathological
science'. This seems to have more the motivation of a crank, while
adopt the methods of denialism. The difference, though, is that most
scientists that have pathological ideas eventually do abandon them, if
much more slowly than they should. This is no doubt because of their
lack of the emotional involvement that denialists have. It should,
however, be considered as a type of crankery rather than denialism,
because we know many examples of scientists that crossed the line into
crankery on some issue, while I know of no real scientists that became
honest denialists.

Andrew Usher

On Jul 6, 5:20*am, Andrew Usher wrote:
Recently I've seen several web site using the term 'denialism'. They,
for the most part, provide a good insight into the phenomenon.
However, a fallacy I have seen in that all of these appear to
indiscriminately label right-wing politics 'denialism', weakening the
force of their arguments. I'll try to start from scratch.

First let's name a few examples of denialism, ones that everyone
should agree to be so. One of them is the one people usually associate
with the term - Holocaust denial. It is often thought that Holocaust
deniers are just lying for anti-Semitic purposes; I don't buy it.
While most of them are anti-Semites, they honestly do believe it.
Another is AIDS denial; this may have started as a scientific theory
but quickly became a kind of denialism.

The third example is creationism, at least in the expositions that
most people are exposed to. What do these have in common? It is that,
from the perspective of someone acquainted with the facts, they appear
to be blatantly lying, yet they think they are being honest. They have
a pre-conceived idea that, for whatever reason, is held so strongly
that it distorts their thinking - all facts are interpreted in the
light of the idea, and either ignored or twisted to fit the theory.

Let me now turn to the second part of my title. Crank theories are
familiar to every scientist. Crank theories are those that start from
premisses wildly at variance with reality, but the crank can't see
this. He believes himself to be a genius and anyone that disagrees to
be simply ignorant.

What is the difference between crankery and denialism? It is, I
believe, the motive of the proponent. The crank has faith in his
_mind_ and espouses the idea fundamentally because it it his; the
denialist has faith in his _feelings_ and espouses the idea
fundamentally because he wants to believe it for non-rational reasons.
Cranks, therefore, tend to be more intelligent than denialists. Other
differences can be found, too. Cranks are almost always male,
denialists are about equally men and women (This is no doubt due to
the male superiority for abstract thinking; crankery being a bad
effect of that.) Cranks often have invested considerable time and
effort in working out their theories, while denialists do not invest
any such effort until challenged. They have in common that they both
tend to hypothesise conspiracy theories to explain their lack of
success in convincing others, and very seldom will abandon their
beliefs.

What about conspiracy theories, in the common meaning? The originator
of conspiracy theories normally have the motivations of a crank, while
the followers of one those of a denialist. This follows from the
definitions. While a denialist usually does not invent a theory as
complex as most conspiracies, and has no motivation to do so, he is
quite willing to follow an existing theory that appeals to him in some
way and thereafter looks at all other related facts through his
denialist glasses. The crank, on the other hand, is quite willing to
invent comprehensive theories once he gets an idea, but has less of a
motive to join another crank's theory, because it doesn't feed his
ego. They can overlap, as for example in those that dissent from
global warming. A few people with that idea have crank motivations,
more have denialist motivations, some have both, but the majority of
ordinary people have neither and simply don't investigate the topic in
any detail.

There are more denialists than cranks simply because denialism
requires no intellectual powers, while crankery does require some - or
at least enough to convince one that one is a genius.

One more example requires addressing. This is Langmuir's 'pathological
science'. This seems to have more the motivation of a crank, while
adopt the methods of denialism. The difference, though, is that most
scientists that have pathological ideas eventually do abandon them, if
much more slowly than they should. This is no doubt because of their
lack of the emotional involvement that denialists have. It should,
however, be considered as a type of crankery rather than denialism,
because we know many examples of scientists that crossed the line into
crankery on some issue, while I know of no real scientists that became
honest denialists.

Andrew Usher

Thanks for introducing yourself : Are you a crank, a denialist, a
conspiracist, a creationist/evolutionist or evolutionist/creationist
(same folly), a sci000ntific fool standing for Ice Ages, Glaciation,
Continental rafting, Carbonate sedimentation from fossils reduction,
stabillity of Earth on Ecliptics, rotation & revolution from inertia,
etc etc etc..........;

..... in brief are you a BIG BOOMER alongside 1000s of other
Universities brainwashed imbeciles ?

If so, you are certainly as well as denialist of the Russian Holocaust
(100 millions victims & 1 100 death camps) denialist of the French
Holocaust ( 10 millions victims & genocide of 2 milions Vendéens)
denialist of the 9/11 Holocaust mass murder of American by Bush & co,
denialist of the Port Arthur mass murder by Howard & co !

Look Andrewr, you 've really spoiled my day by demonstrating to what
extent an otherwise agreeable & civil young gentleman of your kind (an
a excellent second at tennis to boost) can be conceited to the point
of presenting under the pretence of honesty one of the most worn out &
unpalatable defense of fraudulent & misleading system of thought : in
clear Righthousness !

You 're clearly remembering me of Jean Calvin sending Michel Servetus
to the stake in 1553 :
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out
alive if my authority has weight."

Now Servetus was obviously a denialist of the "holy trinity" a crank,
a conspiracionist etc all bundled up into what 's clearly an
"Heretic"

....and whom, you Andrew Usher, the absolute reference with regards
to what is true or false, would blithely send to the stakes, while
hiding (as Calvin did) when the flames would rise to engulf your
opposition !

With best but sorry regards

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~

Published by AMERICAN CHRONICLE
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947

On Jul 5, 11:08 pm, "Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True
Geology" wrote:

snip

You must really be smoking something, I see.

Anyway, I hoped (which is why I included soc.men) that someone would
see that denialist
tactics are used at least as much by those on the left, that examples
of left-wing denialism
include feminism and race-denialism and others that we call 'political
correctness'. You see,
while crank theories can never become really popular as such,
denialist theories can because
of the emotional appeal I referenced. So the latter are really much
more dangerous.

Andrew Usher

On Jul 6, 12:20Â*am, Andrew Usher wrote:
Recently I've seen several web site using the term 'denialism'. They,
for the most part, provide a good insight into the phenomenon.
However, a fallacy I have seen in that all of these appear to
indiscriminately label right-wing politics 'denialism', weakening the
force of their arguments. I'll try to start from scratch.

First let's name a few examples of denialism, ones that everyone
should agree to be so. One of them is the one people usually associate
with the term - Holocaust denial. It is often thought that Holocaust
deniers are just lying for anti-Semitic purposes; I don't buy it.
While most of them are anti-Semites, they honestly do believe it.
Another is AIDS denial; this may have started as a scientific theory
but quickly became a kind of denialism.

The third example is creationism, at least in the expositions that
most people are exposed to. What do these have in common? It is that,
from the perspective of someone acquainted with the facts, they appear
to be blatantly lying, yet they think they are being honest. They have
a pre-conceived idea that, for whatever reason, is held so strongly
that it distorts their thinking - all facts are interpreted in the
light of the idea, and either ignored or twisted to fit the theory.

Let me now turn to the second part of my title. Crank theories are
familiar to every scientist. Crank theories are those that start from
premisses wildly at variance with reality, but the crank can't see
this. He believes himself to be a genius and anyone that disagrees to
be simply ignorant.

What is the difference between crankery and denialism? It is, I
believe, the motive of the proponent. The crank has faith in his
_mind_ and espouses the idea fundamentally because it it his; the
denialist has faith in his _feelings_ and espouses the idea
fundamentally because he wants to believe it for non-rational reasons.
Cranks, therefore, tend to be more intelligent than denialists. Other
differences can be found, too. Cranks are almost always male,
denialists are about equally men and women (This is no doubt due to
the male superiority for abstract thinking; crankery being a bad
effect of that.) Cranks often have invested considerable time and
effort in working out their theories, while denialists do not invest
any such effort until challenged. They have in common that they both
tend to hypothesise conspiracy theories to explain their lack of
success in convincing others, and very seldom will abandon their
beliefs.

What about conspiracy theories, in the common meaning? The originator
of conspiracy theories normally have the motivations of a crank, while
the followers of one those of a denialist. This follows from the
definitions. While a denialist usually does not invent a theory as
complex as most conspiracies, and has no motivation to do so, he is
quite willing to follow an existing theory that appeals to him in some
way and thereafter looks at all other related facts through his
denialist glasses. The crank, on the other hand, is quite willing to
invent comprehensive theories once he gets an idea, but has less of a
motive to join another crank's theory, because it doesn't feed his
ego. They can overlap, as for example in those that dissent from
global warming. A few people with that idea have crank motivations,
more have denialist motivations, some have both, but the majority of
ordinary people have neither and simply don't investigate the topic in
any detail.

There are more denialists than cranks simply because denialism
requires no intellectual powers, while crankery does require some - or
at least enough to convince one that one is a genius.

One more example requires addressing. This is Langmuir's 'pathological
science'. This seems to have more the motivation of a crank, while
adopt the methods of denialism. The difference, though, is that most
scientists that have pathological ideas eventually do abandon them, if
much more slowly than they should. This is no doubt because of their
lack of the emotional involvement that denialists have. It should,
however, be considered as a type of crankery rather than denialism,
because we know many examples of scientists that crossed the line into
crankery on some issue, while I know of no real scientists that became
honest denialists.


And, wrapping this up into some sort of conclusion, we can roughly
assign each of these concepts into more meaningful, conventional
terms; thereby beginning a process of making them potentially useful:

Crankery Ideology
Denialism Pragmatism


Having two dialectic poles, we may now introduce a third concept to
our study, from the synthesis of the two, and likewise assign it a
more meaningful, conventional term:

Posturer Moderate


This gives Andrew's understanding of what he read at the website a
connection to a more common world view that many more people share.

Now, employing Andrew's shaky exposition, we may arrive at the
understanding of why the Ideologue is the one who possesses
intelligence, as well as being the one who formulates a plan to
follow. Likewise, why the Pragmatist is the one who is emotion
driven, in accordance with his short view nature, as well as being the
one who follows trusted old formulas created by past great
Ideologues.

Furthermore, we discover the role of the moronic Moderate in this new
scheme of things. He is the posturing fool who forever concerns
himself with political positioning and centrism. His cowardly goal is
to permanently perch his useless eater stupid ass on the fence, whilst
casting a critical eye - and many aspersions - at everyone else who
faces the challenges of life and thereby fights it out ....to his own
benefit at no expense to his own do-nothing worthless self.


Those who analyze such dichotomies (of the "ex-treeeeeemists"),
generally aren't too loud about their own roles within their own great
world views. There isn't much to say about them, after all. They
eat. They drink. They're merry. And ...thankfully... they finally
****ing â˜*DIEâ˜*.

OTHERS are the ones who fight great, "bloody" wars in the name of
"inane" beliefs and purposes of being (or, really, just purposes to
make *this* life work out according to some plan), for no apparent
reason that the lamely smiling moderate can fathom.

But THEY'RE the superstars of personal indulgence who "heroically"
coast through life, grabbing everything out of it that they can, while
doing the absolute minimum necessary to prove their worth to
themselves, to this life, or to any other. They go through the
motions of life. They do and think little more than to ape and parrot
off of each other. They posture. Their developed cognitive abilities
are limited to critiquing and pathologizing those who do try to become
more than the sum of their parts. This is because they, themselves,
are 1) Stupid, 2) Unproductive, 3) Inferior and 3) Jealous.

When one understands this, new vistas of possibility are opened up as
a discernable path suddenly begins to take shape through the senseless
chaos that lies around us. It is then that we see through these
circular dichotomies and small-minded paradigms and the convoluted
fools who hang onto them......



- - -

"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him":

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ âš•

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----

Andrew Usher

On Jul 7, 5:27Â*am, ♂ ☿ Turin ☤ â˜* wrote:

Are you speaking with or without your shroud ?

... and you know of course this was an obvious fraud, since that JC
character firstly never existed except as Zealot murdering leader
Ioshuah Bar Judah of Gamala aka Massada, ... secondly the printed
features are the ones of a Celt & not of a circumcised alien !
See the manipulation ?

.... and also that materialist Hell is just a fabrication as the
materialists Heaven, tied up indeed with a materialistic view of our
environment.

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining PIoneer

On Jul 15, 12:11 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
wrote:

I think you are mentally insane and there's no point talking to a
crazy person.

Andrew Usher

In article , Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:11 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
wrote:

I think you are mentally insane and there's no point talking to a
crazy person.

Andrew Usher

And you just now caught on? Or perhaps you're more patient than others.

On Jul 15, 2:30*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:11 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times

snip Usher 's personal & trying reply !
Resorting indeed to abuse is the common answer by little incoherent
minds, destabilized by sound opposition to their painfully learnt-by-
heart dogmas

I think you are finally a rude & most sterile blathering idiot, and I
certainly apologize on being civil to you. I hereby withdraw all kind
& polite expressions which were obviously an offence to such rude boor
as you are.
Further to a most sterile individual of your kind, I withdraw to you
any authorization which might have been granted to bring your nose
into Geological Matters ...obviously beyond your scope

....INDEED , I am sure that you beuulieve in Glaciationz, Mountain
building in zillions of yearzz, Continental Rafting, Accretion as
process of that Planet building + a 1000s other follies ...as a
typical Evolutionnits - Creationist sectarian revering as idols such
Retards as Lyell, Hutton, Darwin, Agassiz, Cuvier & Wegener


Quote
"Who lives as a fool, dies as a fool"
Jean Calvin
Unquote

No regards

jpturcaud

David Bostwick wrote:
In article , Andrew Usher wrote:

I think you are mentally insane and there's no point talking to a
crazy person.

And you just now caught on? Or perhaps you're more patient than others.

Yes, I thought he might start making some sense. And I was hoping
someone would reply to my original post, which would at least be
interesting.

Andrew Usher

"Greatest boofhead of all Times" wrote
in message
...
On Jul 15, 2:30 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
snip Usher 's personal & trying reply !
Resorting indeed to abuse is the common answer by little incoherent
minds,

A truthful statement of facts is not abuse Turcaud.
(Although, in your feeble "mind", it appears to be)

Jean-Paul Turcaud
Embarrassment to France
Insane Celtic Lunatic
Founder/sole member of the True Geology
UPL - Useless Pontificating Lunatic
DDD - Demented Delusional Drongo
Psychotic French Spamming Twit
Failed Prediction Nutcase
Failed Drought Maker/weather controller
Fraud water expert
Fraud Knight
Fraud Healer of all diseases

Usenet.Kooks achievements :
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, August 2000
Kook of the Month, August 2001
Looney Maroon Award, August 2001
George Pickett Memorial Trophy Award August 2007
Unabomber Surprise runner up August 2007

A classic in Turcaud gobblygook speak :
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/sci.../msg15748.html