Questions about cranks

Question

How should we handle questions like this (Is the Universe real or complex?)?

The question seems very blatantly to be about the work of a crank. Here is an article on Estakhr's website where he claims a conspiracy by American scientists, here is an article where he tries to explain that his made up constant gives a unified force that explains everything physics wants to know, here is an abstract with horrible linguistic issues that tries to explain that the Higgs boson doesn't do exactly what it does do, and so on. While on it's surface the question itself has nothing at all to do with the work of this crank, the blocks of paragraphs that make up the majority of the body of the question are just giving explanations of Estakhr's ideas.

The same question was asked on Physics.Stackexchange and it was closed under their "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed," criterion. I understand the appeal to mainstream physics being something important for the functionality of that site, but of course I can see a lot of reasons why it wouldn't be that great of a/easily decidable criterion for ours. It creates an insular community, it alienates people who aren't familiar with the subject matter intimately, and it is probably not as well of a defined category in philosophy in the first place (Penrose's Gödelian arguments are rejected by the mainstream but Penrose is obviously part of the mainstream himself).

Still, I feel like it is very blatant that this question is not a genuine question in the sense that it was only asked so that the user could promote Estakhr's work (there are a lot of similar questions on Quora). In my mind, this question should absolutely be closed. It is not asked in good faith, it is about the work of a crank, and it serves only to spread those ideas. But, again, I see the issues of trying to impose some sort of 'mainstream' criterion for questions. How should this be handled? Should we adopt a similar close criterion? In this specific case, would it be better to edit out all of the mention of the crank's work that tries to motivate the question and just leave the question itself? I feel like that is a fairer compromise, since of course I cannot be 100% sure that the person asking the question is asking in bad faith, but I think that it's clearly a reasonable assumption.

Answer 1

It is not asked in good faith

Stop. Assuming bad faith is a very bad idea (Even if you turn out to be correct!). There is nothing in that question that eliminates the possibility that the OP stumbled upon the crank's work and simply thinks that this is the best thing since sliced bread. I can write a long essay here on why this is a bad idea, but I don't need to, as other people have already done this.

That said, more important here is the fact that you want to edit/delete a question based on some property of the person who made the question. This isn't a good idea for many reasons (there is probably some discussion about this on meta), one being that we simply want good questions and answers. So if you feel that the 'introduction' to this 'complex universe' theory is inappropriate, but the question (in itself, ignoring who asked it) is appropriate, then you could decide to either summarize the 'introduction' or simply remove it.

While I do understand your worry that this user might contribute nothing or may even engage in harmful behavior, please give the user a chance and simply flag for moderation if you see misconduct.

---

That's enough for this specific question. Now, for your more general proposal, which I think can be summarized as follows:

Should we take action to prevent this site from being used to promote cranky topics?

I think that we shouldn't, unless this site gets flooded by such questions. A custom close reason is only made if it has to be used quite often. Unless you can show that there are many such questions (or have been), I think the usual quality control tools (editing, voting and normal close reasons) would be sufficient.

Answer 2

Calling someone a “crank” assumes one has sufficient social mood on one’s side to bully someone. It is not a rational argument. One relies on an emotional appeal to a crowd to back one up.

This can easily backfire especially with onlookers who will not be saying anything. If you want to see this backfiring dynamic in action watch any teen movie where a high school bully is involved. Generally the audience loves to see those bullies humiliated at the end.

In some contexts calling someone a name can also lead to an harassment charge, so it is good defensive practice not to do it even when there is little risk.

Questions are opportunities and challenges. I thought philosophers would be eager for these opportunities and challenges to clarify questions and provide top-quality answers. Apparently not. The only effective way to deal with a question one does not like is to clarify it and answer it. If it is not answered here it will come up elsewhere.