Steven Parmenius

  In my last piece I alluded to a kind of crankiness that perhaps deserves more comment. This is the crankiness exhibited by scientists who comment on matters outside the domain of the sciences whether these be philosophical, religious or historical. The interventions of scientists in these domains are, almost without exception, cranky and it is useful to investigate why. What makes a scientist comment on these subjects in spite of a manifest unfitness to do so? Why do we need physicists commenting on the historicity of Jesus or chemists lecturing on epistemology or archeology? Why do we need the thoughts of ethologists on ‘poetry’ or of nuclear engineers on the ontological argument? Of course, we do not need such things at all yet specialists in THESE areas are deeply, existentially convinced we do. The first thing we must note is that ALL of these people deeply and correctly resent the intrusion of amateurs in THEIR domains. Yet at the same time they are incapable of exercising the s

               The crank has some connection to the myth of anti-intellectualism. He is an intellectual for anti-intellectuals. The myth of anti-intellectualism takes different forms in different places. In the U.K. it seems bound up with class identity and suspicion of posh people. This is the form of anti-intellectualism one would expect to find in a place where education is traditionally a privilege of the few. American anti-intellectualism, on the contrary, is positive not negative. Intellectuals are an active encumbrance in an egalitarian society for the simple common-sense perceptions of the man on the street are adequate, more than adequate for any important question. Knowledge is not an attainment but a simple possession, a birthright of the people to which education adds only unnecessary complexity and a patina of false sophistication. Want to know what the Quran says about ‘terrorism’? Ask the local grocery clerk for he has read it ‘cover to cover’ and knows beyond any profes

               What is a crank exactly? This is an important question for bad science and atrocious history can look quite persuasive to the outsider who does not understand the standards by which the scientific and historical communities validate claims. This is true especially when the crank presents himself as a persecuted visionary. The possibility that the crank MIGHT be a genius ahead of his time turns easily into the certainty that he is. This is a basic trope of our culture which perceives the crank in terms of the myth of the underdog. It is a difficult question, too, for the exact line between cranks and non-cranks can be challenging to draw. The mere fact that the crank is wrong will not do for the non-crank can equally be wrong. Plus, a crank is still a crank even if, per accidens , he turns out to be right. Crankiness is a way of being in the world and delineating this way of being requires a morphology of crankiness. Crankiness has the following elements. The crank is o