3 ms·

From a purely logical viewpoint, it is a bit hilarious that you consider the objectively most outlandish of these beliefs to be the only non-cranky one. Althoug

From a purely logical viewpoint, it is a bit hilarious that you consider the objectively most outlandish of these beliefs to be the only non-cranky one. Although it is, admittedly, the most viable one socially.

woodruffw 5y ago
I don't think truth/outlandishness is all that closely related to whether a particular belief is a crank-y one. For example: horoscopes are fake, but I don't think that people who believe in horoscopes are cranks, per se. Or unfalsifiable claims: plenty of people have crank and non-crank views about things that just don't adhere to proof/disproof. To put it another way: a lot of religious (particularly Christian) views amount to metaphysical claims that we can't really falsify. That's maybe sufficient to make them "irrational" in a narrow analytical sense, but insufficient to label them as crank-ish.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Claims about covid and the election can't be (realistically) falsified by an individual either. You're just disagreeing on whether you should trust a study author / politician more than a priest.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I don't understand this point. I'm saying that whether or not a particular subject is a "crank" one is not closely related to either its truth value or whether that truth value is even ascertainable. I haven't made an argument for why the ones I've listed are actually crank subjects; I consider those granted and I'm not particularly interested in justifying them.
    - admissionsguy 5y ago
      The things you listed form a cluster of beliefs that gullible, uneducated, and often toxic people flock to, and that makes those positions quite unattractive even ignoring their respective merits, which are not great. What I take issue with is the lack of symmetry. For every COVID denialist, you have a zero-COVID enthusiast. For every election denialist, you have an impending climate catastrophe doommonger. For every great reset conspiracy theorist, you have someone who believes we live in a meritocracy. Each of the latter positions is as merituous as their counterpart, but the former are treated with a disproportionate contempt.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > What I take issue with is the lack of symmetry. I think symmetry in this case would amount to false balance. Why even bother to frame things this way? It's self evident to most people that crank views run the gamut of social and political backgrounds; like all things in life, we prioritize our discussion of them by their perceived impact(s) on our lives. COVID denialism has more of an impact on my life than an anti-nuclear crank does.

woodruffw 5y ago

I don't think truth/outlandishness is all that closely related to whether a particular belief is a crank-y one. For example: horoscopes are fake, but I don't think that people who believe in horoscopes are cranks, per se. Or unfalsifiable claims: plenty of people have crank and non-crank views about things that just don't adhere to proof/disproof. To put it another way: a lot of religious (particularly Christian) views amount to metaphysical claims that we can't really falsify. That's maybe sufficient to make them "irrational" in a narrow analytical sense, but insufficient to label them as crank-ish.

rajin444 5y ago
Claims about covid and the election can't be (realistically) falsified by an individual either. You're just disagreeing on whether you should trust a study author / politician more than a priest.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I don't understand this point. I'm saying that whether or not a particular subject is a "crank" one is not closely related to either its truth value or whether that truth value is even ascertainable. I haven't made an argument for why the ones I've listed are actually crank subjects; I consider those granted and I'm not particularly interested in justifying them.
  - admissionsguy 5y ago
    The things you listed form a cluster of beliefs that gullible, uneducated, and often toxic people flock to, and that makes those positions quite unattractive even ignoring their respective merits, which are not great. What I take issue with is the lack of symmetry. For every COVID denialist, you have a zero-COVID enthusiast. For every election denialist, you have an impending climate catastrophe doommonger. For every great reset conspiracy theorist, you have someone who believes we live in a meritocracy. Each of the latter positions is as merituous as their counterpart, but the former are treated with a disproportionate contempt.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > What I take issue with is the lack of symmetry. I think symmetry in this case would amount to false balance. Why even bother to frame things this way? It's self evident to most people that crank views run the gamut of social and political backgrounds; like all things in life, we prioritize our discussion of them by their perceived impact(s) on our lives. COVID denialism has more of an impact on my life than an anti-nuclear crank does.