The other side of the coin is the danger of gatekeeping, that those who benefit from them confuse social structures with the broader value of the ideas they com

The other side of the coin is the danger of gatekeeping, that those who benefit from them confuse social structures with the broader value of the ideas they communicate. Smith questions whether these ideas have value outside of the social networks of "professional thinkers" but there are many examples of just that happening. Because some ideas seems valued or novel in one community doesn't mean it is seen as such in another, and at some level you could say that Smith's argument is akin to arguing logic has no meaning outside of it's popularity in a particular social group. There's always this tension, between outsiders being narcissistically naive about things that are trivial to "professionals", and "professionals" being naive to their own blind spots and failings, convinced otherwise by their own narcissism. I personally find these complaints about "cranks" kind of dubious. Either they have nothing to offer, in which case ignore them, or they do, in which case you should be able to articulate a compelling response. I'm a card carrying expert in certain domains, and in my field, "cranks" sometimes make arguments that are exasperating but get at core assumptions of the field — and are often similar to arguments made by colleagues in adjoining fields. Being exasperated by cranks often reflects an underlying anxiety they might be right. Theres also the fish gallop phenomenon, but unless you're dealing with something having real-world political or socioeconomic consequences, what does it matter? In that case it's not the cranks that are the problem but politics in general, and the people who listen to the cranks. Problems caused by ideas are never the fault of the author, but rather, the listener. Where does that leave the status of social structures Smith advocates for?