I'm not sure that this is a useful distinction. It starts to sound an awful lot like philosophy 101 "what is a p-zombie" horseshit... if both people are asking the same questions or using the same rhetoric, why would their internal, unknowable-without-telepathy intent make any difference whatsoever? If you do think there is an actual distinction, somehow, even then should you care? Because people who want to censor the speech will just label the skeptics as cranks anyway, and shut it down.
"Crank vs sincere skeptic" is fallacious, as it attacks the person and not the argument.
If they're both saying the same things, then it truly does not matter. The crank might accidentally arrive at the positive outcome, the sincere skeptic might mislead unintentionally.
You responded, you obviously think you're making a point. I hope you're one of the cranks though, because that would explain how poor your argument is.
> You responded, you obviously think you're making a point. I hope you're one of the cranks though, because that would explain how poor your argument is.
So you're one of the magical thinkers. That somehow the outcomes change due to internal states that no one can even determine, internal states which do not affect the physical world at all.
That the crank can actually change things just by thinking about it, like some kind of half-assed troll telekinesis. Wow. You've apparently got a few fans for your idiocy, they're downvoting away.
"Crank vs sincere skeptic" is fallacious, as it attacks the person and not the argument.