Real Science vs Crank Science

I've now returned from NAM (the national astronomy meeting), refreshed and reinvigorated with scientific zeal. I'm planning to post about a topic or two that was discussed at NAM later, for now I'll try to keep this post brief. (Note: It didn't really work out that way, sorry)

After a few drinks this evening at the excellent Market Tavern with my fellow travellers in the world of astronomy, JEG and CMB, the conversation turned (as it is often does), to the topic of cranks. In between the complaints about how little cranks really know about the difficulties of real science and the gall they have to complain that they have it tough I think something profound was hit upon about the difference between real scientists and cranks.

I think it boils down to this: real scientists (a bracket we presumptuously include ourselves in) are never really sure about our conclusions, speaking for myself I always have the nagging fear that I have made some error somewhere. Perhaps I have missed some correction factor, or that I have applied it incorrectly, that I'm extrapolating some models beyond their applicable range, or that I am concluding something at odds with other data. Despite having excellent guidance and the safety net of peer review, perhaps somewhere I just screwed up. After speaking with others in the field it appears that this feeling is not unique, it appears that many if not most scientists are constantly worried about the accuracy of their work. This of course is a hallmark of a good scientist, ensuring that people don't just go about making baseless claims, to make a big mistake can affect your career very negatively.

It seems from my investigations of crank science that this never really afflicts the people that promote crank science, they are always right, they are always sure that they are correct. I'm not sure if this is some form of narcissism or simply because they are bald faced liars that know they are wrong but still want to make a fast buck or two, perhaps it can be either. For those that genuinely believe their theory to be correct it must be nice, to be certain that you are correct, to never fear that your mistakes will be electronically stored, printed, and forever available in the pages of a journal for everyone to see what a fool you were. Cranks can make their claims, safe in the knowledge that no amount of facts will get in the way of their stories.

Real scientists accept that they may be wrong, even accept that when they are acknowledged to be right it is but momentary glory, one day a new better theory will supplant theirs, cranks, in general never see this grand scheme, only that they are right and everyone else is wrong. So which really is the more difficult, to live in the viciously Darwinian world of real science, or the fantasy land of crank science, where to be utterly wrong is no big deal?