That's because the two aren't necessarily in opposition. Being a charlatan (or a demagogue)is what some cranks do to get money, though some charlatans aren't cranks at all, but crass opportunists.
Pierce's full explanation of cranks is too long to excerpt, but he posits that the American crank is a by-product of the American experiment - since the country was founded on radical, untested ideas the crank was a pioneer exploring the lands past conventional thinking. They returned with their wild untested thoughts and society would either refute what the crank is saying or assimilate the worthwhile parts of it into the mainstream. If the idea was accepted the crank would then either fit into the new mainstream or would go out and find some other wacky idea to propagate. If it wasn't the crank would't force their idea on others - the rest of the world was just mad, that's all. Pierce referred to them as American's living imagination.
He ascribes a source of the current problems in national conversation to the power of TV and the internet to instead grant cranks instant authority and their ideas instant validity. Their ideas aren't effectively refuted or mined for nuggets of value but are immediately accepted as having a validity equal to well tested, scientifically proven ideas simply because some people loudly and passionately believe them. Worse, some crank ideas dovetail with existing cultural markers so that their validity becomes a point of pride within a tribe.
Hence B-List celebrity Jenny McCarthy's opinion on the vaccine to autism link holds as much weight in the media as an epidemiologist's because she passionately believes it. Blogger Alec Rawls firm conviction that the design selected by the families of the victims for the Flight 93 memorial was actually a subliminal tribute to Al Queda is also worthy of plenty of deep, earnest debate for as long as he keeps insisting its true. These people are cranks, but rather than being refuted and left to their own passionate, if ignored, beliefs they're instead given publishing gigs and made 'experts' and allowed to steer the national debate on their points of passion.
Now, there are charlatans who don't believe what the cranks are yelling but know that they can make money selling it. The fact that there are charlatans who believe that their radium laced snake oil heals in addition those that leave town when the Geiger counters come out does complicate things, but I'm using Pierce's terminology.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-01-22 12:55 am (UTC)Pierce's full explanation of cranks is too long to excerpt, but he posits that the American crank is a by-product of the American experiment - since the country was founded on radical, untested ideas the crank was a pioneer exploring the lands past conventional thinking. They returned with their wild untested thoughts and society would either refute what the crank is saying or assimilate the worthwhile parts of it into the mainstream. If the idea was accepted the crank would then either fit into the new mainstream or would go out and find some other wacky idea to propagate. If it wasn't the crank would't force their idea on others - the rest of the world was just mad, that's all. Pierce referred to them as American's living imagination.
He ascribes a source of the current problems in national conversation to the power of TV and the internet to instead grant cranks instant authority and their ideas instant validity. Their ideas aren't effectively refuted or mined for nuggets of value but are immediately accepted as having a validity equal to well tested, scientifically proven ideas simply because some people loudly and passionately believe them. Worse, some crank ideas dovetail with existing cultural markers so that their validity becomes a point of pride within a tribe.
Hence B-List celebrity Jenny McCarthy's opinion on the vaccine to autism link holds as much weight in the media as an epidemiologist's because she passionately believes it. Blogger Alec Rawls firm conviction that the design selected by the families of the victims for the Flight 93 memorial was actually a subliminal tribute to Al Queda is also worthy of plenty of deep, earnest debate for as long as he keeps insisting its true. These people are cranks, but rather than being refuted and left to their own passionate, if ignored, beliefs they're instead given publishing gigs and made 'experts' and allowed to steer the national debate on their points of passion.
Now, there are charlatans who don't believe what the cranks are yelling but know that they can make money selling it. The fact that there are charlatans who believe that their radium laced snake oil heals in addition those that leave town when the Geiger counters come out does complicate things, but I'm using Pierce's terminology.