“Unwarranted”? 99% of what we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state. How we model them should be a foundational question in science. One claim being made (by “cranks”) is that the disciplines of cosmology and astrophysics hinge almost entirely upon how these cosmic plasmas are modeled. It’s an excellent example to explore the topic of crankism. By actually digging into an example, we can stop speaking in generalities.
We’ve seen the claim made by an astronomer that those who question these models should be ignored. We’ve also seen a competing claim by Peter Woit that the very reason we lack a unified model in physics is because of the refusal to explore more than a small subset of the large variety of ideas which are out there.
I’ve presented reasons to suspect that it is the way in which we teach physics which undermines peoples’ abilities to critically think about the scientific theories they’ve learned (“meaningful learning” is very different from rote memorization). I then used an example from Tom Bridgman’s site to make the case that people who see cranks everywhere they look are mindlessly forwarding links, without exploring the arguments of those links.
People will turn on the television and spend an hour watching garbage about aliens and conspiracy theories on the “History” Channel. But, at the point where they are invited to think critically about what it is that they claim to already “know”, we see tldr complaints.
Nobody can convince those whose goal is to avoid reading and thinking of anything. And those who nevertheless try will simply be labeled as “cranks”. Some of these “cranks” will turn out to be right, if history of science is any guide. I’ve already shown that entire books have been written about it. You already use numerous technologies – like the laser – that were invented by “cranks”.
Is it the “crank” that is actually the problem here? Is the solution to ostracize them for the sin of trying to make us read stuff?
