[ifyoubuildit]

Innovation comes in two flavors: incremental, which is what you'll mostly get from your establishment, and paradigm shifts, which you're more likely to get from your cranks.

That's not to say all (or even many) cranks are secretly geniuses. But they're able to explore parts of the search space that the establishment can't for all sorts of reasons.

In other words, your establishment has all the resources and can incrementally make its way to local maxima better than any crank could. But any members that start making bold claims that might threaten that establishment will be punished, out of a simple survival instinct.

[sausagefeet]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[ifyoubuildit]

How's this? (Gpt answer)

Here are five of the best historical examples of individuals who were considered cranks or fringe by their peers but ultimately brought about a paradigm shift in their respective fields. Each faced intense skepticism and mockery, yet their ideas transformed our understanding of the world:

### 1. *Ignaz Semmelweis (Medicine)* - *Contribution*: In the 1840s, Semmelweis discovered that hand-washing drastically reduced maternal deaths in maternity wards. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: His idea that "invisible particles" (what we now know as germs) could cause infection was ridiculed. At the time, the concept of doctors themselves transmitting disease was unthinkable, and many in the medical community were deeply offended. - *Impact*: Although he was dismissed and ultimately died in an asylum, his insights laid the groundwork for antiseptic practices. Today, Semmelweis is honored as a pioneer of infection control, and hand-washing is a cornerstone of medical hygiene.

### 2. *Alfred Wegener (Geology)* - *Contribution*: In 1912, Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift, suggesting that continents moved across the Earth’s surface. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: Geologists at the time thought his theory was absurd because Wegener couldn't explain how continents could move. He faced widespread ridicule, with critics dismissing his ideas as pseudoscientific. - *Impact*: Decades later, with the discovery of plate tectonics, his theory became foundational to modern geology. Wegener is now recognized as a visionary, and his ideas radically changed our understanding of Earth's structure and history.

### 3. *Louis Pasteur (Microbiology)* - *Contribution*: Pasteur’s germ theory of disease in the 1860s revolutionized medicine, suggesting that microorganisms were responsible for causing many diseases. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: The prevailing "miasma" theory held that diseases were caused by "bad air," not germs. Many in the scientific and medical communities mocked Pasteur’s ideas, calling them "preposterous" and even "dangerous." - *Impact*: Pasteur’s work ultimately led to sterilization techniques, vaccines, and pasteurization, transforming medicine and public health. Germ theory is now a foundational concept in microbiology, and Pasteur is one of the most celebrated figures in medical history.

### 4. *Nikola Tesla (Electrical Engineering and Physics)* - *Contribution*: Tesla developed and promoted the use of alternating current (AC) electricity, which ultimately became the standard for power transmission worldwide. - *Why He Was Considered a Crank*: Tesla’s ideas about AC were met with hostility from proponents of direct current (DC), most notably Thomas Edison. Tesla’s later ideas, including wireless energy transmission, were seen as wildly impractical and even "insane" by many of his contemporaries. - *Impact*: Despite the ridicule, Tesla’s AC power systems are now the global standard, and his ideas on wireless communication foreshadowed modern radio and telecommunications. Today, he’s recognized as a visionary inventor who changed the course of technology.

### 5. *Barbara McClintock (Genetics)* - *Contribution*: In the 1940s, McClintock discovered "jumping genes" (transposons), showing that genes could move within and between chromosomes. - *Why She Was Considered a Crank*: Her findings were so radical that her peers couldn’t accept them, with many scientists dismissing her ideas as highly unlikely or even bizarre. - *Impact*: Her work was eventually recognized as groundbreaking, earning her a Nobel Prize in 1983. McClintock’s discovery of transposable elements opened new avenues in genetics, shaping our understanding of genetic variation and evolution.

---

These five individuals were openly mocked, ignored, or dismissed by the scientific communities of their time. However, they each persevered and eventually brought about paradigm shifts that redefined their fields. Their stories highlight the importance of challenging conventional wisdom and illustrate how transformative ideas often come from those who are willing to go against the mainstream.

[sausagefeet]

Great, thank you.

I think what your initial comment was missing is it implied just being a quack was somehow a path to new ideas.

What his is missing, in the context of Seyfreid, is that what Seyfreid is promoting:

1. Has been studied quite extensively. 2. The results of said studies do not match his claims. 3. He can't even get the details right on the data he's trying to present.

The examples you gave are different in that while the action was not understood, they explained existing data.

In particular, I think the challenge with your initial comment is that spouting bullshit is an entirely free enterprise. Testing bullshit is an expensive enterprise. So your system provides no meaningful actionable way to get to a new, coherent, understanding of the world.

And, let's be honest, Tesla is a mixed bag. He was a total crank in a lot of ways. But also a genius in other ways. Linus Pauling is similar. Complete crank around vitamin C.

[7bit]

Establishment? Bro, you should listen to yourself...

[Purplehermann]

A less quackish way to say the same thing is that a scientific paradigm tells people along which lines to look for answers. Looking at areas the paradigm doesn't recommend are generally not worthwhile, but occasionally you get something important, which doesn't fit in the current paradigm but will eventually help form the new paradigm.

A good heuristic could be "seems like a solid scientist in general, but this niche where he was a top level researcher led him to a split with the main stream" vs "consistently takes anti-mainstream views and has no contributions within the paradigm "

[ifyoubuildit]

You could skip to a better heuristic: they (provably) did a thing that the mainstream people said was impossible. That other stuff is part of the blind spot.

[ifyoubuildit]

Do you have some issue with the word?

[TZubiri]

We are getting super close to a legitimate usage of the word antidisestablishmentarianism