|Classic examples of mislabeling of geniuses as cranks, such as American historian John Diggins incorrectly 1995 labeling of American physical science historian Henry Adams (IQ=195), noted for his 1885 social chemistry of human molecules in relationships theory, for his 1895 first and second laws of thermodynamics applied to the rise and fall of civilizations, and for his 1909 phase rule applied to history—whose two cultures genius is near to on par with that of Goethe (IQ=230)—as “more of a crank than a prophet”, which is but the result of the growing dividedness and fragmentation of the body of modern knowledge, the totality of which few are able to presently hold in one mindset. |
“There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.”— Aristotle (c.310BC), Greek physicist-philosopher
“There is no great genius without a touch of madness.”— Seneca the Younger (c.50AD) (Ѻ)
“Genius is more often found in a cracked pot than in a whole one.”— E.B. White (c.1950) (Ѻ)
“Frederick Soddy’s experience in the 1920s and 1930s offers a clear example of Kuhn’s dicta on the reception afforded those who are untutored in the prevailing paradigm; a Nobel laureate in chemistry, he was dismissed as a crank for his economic writings, because he presumed to take thermodynamics seriously and to argue that the practice of charging compound interest was an attempt to violate the second law.”— Eric Zencey (1983), “Entropy as Root Metaphor” 
“Few economists gave Soddy’s ideas serious attention and found merit in them. The discipline as a whole closed ranks against him, ignoring his ideas and dismissing him as a crank, a scientist who had overstepped his expertise—much as the physicists in Berlin had responded to Ostwald.”Are we to presume, in other words, that Henry Adams, Wilhelm Ostwald, and Frederick Soddy are both "cranks" for believing that thermodynamics under-girds the movements in society? Not so. Correctly, we have a two cultures conflict issue.— Eric Zencey (2013), “Energy as Master Resource” 
“The essential submission is the assertion that development is due, not to human effort, but to the automatic effect of certain external circumstances or events. It comes about in the manner in which a flame is produced when a match is struck against the side of the box. Surely, there are few who would accept this theory of culture-growth as realistic. But then the whole idea of ‘social heat’ is no more than a downright absurdity.”
“In the inorganic world, every act of combination is an act of motion. So it is in the social one. If it is true that there is but one system of laws for the government of all matter, then those which govern the movements of the various inorganic bodies should be the same with those by which is regulated the motion of society; and that such is the case can readily be shown.”as being someone in "back in his strait-jacket", as Stark sees things, which is but the exact same philosophical approach followed by Goethe, before Carey, and Adams and Thims, after. The following popular 1965 quote by Max Gluckman well summarizes this point of view issue: 
“A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation.”In short, the difference between a "fool" and a "genius", in some cases, is very subtle.
|Czechoslovakian-born English sociologist Werner Stark (1962) believes that anyone, e.g. Henry Carey (1858), who argues that the combinations and motions in the inorganic world (chemical) and organic world (social) are governed by one and the same laws is but the view of someone “back in his strait-jacket”. |
“The incubator human molecule article is a horror show. It’s not fringe, it's beyond that: this is a piece of original research kookery at its very worst. It's not even pseudoscience: it does not even try to be anything close to science. A textbook case of absurd absurdity cranked up to absurd.”
See main: Insanity and geniusAs physician Bernard Hollander comments in the 1921 preface to John Nisbet’s The Insanity of Genius: 
“For over two thousand years some subtle relationship has been thought to exist between genius and insanity.”
|Fred Gruenberger' 1962 crackpot scale. |
“The sign of a half-baked speculator in the social sciences is his search for something in the social system that corresponds to the physicist's notion of entropy.”
"Human chemistry is the study of reactions between individuals who are viewed as chemical species and with the energy, entropy, and work that quantify these processes. In modern human chemistry, people are viewed as chemical species, or specifically "human molecules" (a term coined by Charles Galton Darwin), A or B, and processes such as marriage or divorce are viewed as reactions between individuals."
|American-born Canadian biochemical and physical chemist Stephen Lower's 2007 online classification of both human chemistry and human thermodynamics as crackpot (correction: Jean Sales coined the term "human molecules" in 1798; see: human molecular hypothesis).|
|American mathematical physicist John Baez, maker of the 1992 Beaz crackpot index. |
- A -5 point starting credit.
- 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
- 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
- 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
- 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
- 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
- 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
- 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
- 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
- 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
- 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
- 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
- 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
- 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
- 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
- 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
- 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
- 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
- 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
- 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
- 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
- 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
- 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
- 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
- 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
- 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
- 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
- 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
- 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
- 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
- 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
- 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
- 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
- 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
- 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
- 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
- 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Sep 13 2009, 3:45 PM EDT
"To Petrologist, what you and your two scientific associates consider “not a valid scientific theory”, others consider a Nobel Prize. To cite one example, in 2007 Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev, author other 1998 book Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings (something he has spent 30-years working on), flew out from Moscow to Chicago, with his wife, to take me out to dinner to tell me that he had sent my work into the Nobel Prize organization for nomination. To quote from social anthropologist Max Gluckman: 'A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation'.”
(Another) reply to Comment #137:
I note from the "Human Thermodynamics (Objections to)" page at this Wiki that Stephen Lower has previously (and quite correctly) described Libb Thims' "theories" as crackpot. I came across a wonderful webpage by John Baez called the "Crackpot Index" - see . Congratulations, Libb, you've just scored 20 points on the Baez scale for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Sep 13 2009, 3:55 PM EDT"To quote from social anthropoligist Max Gluckman: A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation."
Libb, you're *really* racking up the points on Baez's crackpot index. You get "40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is." (Point 36 on Baez's list). I'll leave you to tick off the other points on Baez's list...
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Polish analytical chemist Marcin Borkowski, a leading administrator of the site, commented the following: 
“Human chemistry sounds like crackpottery to me and abuse of the word ‘chemistry’? If you are interested in learning about human interactions they are covered by sociology and psychology; humans are not molecules, they are complex objects composed of many molecules.”
"With each paragraph you get more Baez crackpot index points."
“Honestly, the idea of human chemistry seems pure crackpottery to me. Crackpots always seem to think they are victims of the ‘mainstream’. They always seem to think no one is intelligent enough to understand their points. Oddly, they all also tend to write a lot in their internet postings. And unfortunately no matter how much we argue with the crackpots they never give an inch in return.”
|-5||A -5 point starting credit.||1|
|20||10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)||11||ChemicalForums.com; Thread: Should human chemistry be thought in school? (above); quote:“there are volumes of material published on this subject, by various authors. The modern chemistry student, however, is taught none of this. In my case, for example, I had to suck down a chemical engineering degree and then research this topic for over ten years, of independent study, to find out who originated this subject and what theories have been proposed and established.”||2010|
|10||10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein.||18||Canadian mathematical physicist and computer scientist Steven Pierce: “I stumbled onto your website by accident but I have to confess this might be one of the most stunning undiscovered intellectual achievements of the 21st century. I have browsed through your wiki and I cannot express how tragic it must be to a man in your position—to be a pioneering thinker yet to be rejected by an uptight academic community with neither the depth nor will to understand your unique work, defending their own turf like dogs. I can only compare you to the many other pioneering heroes of science, Newton (IQ=193-200), Einstein (IQ=160-225), Tesla (IQ=140-310), men who like you blazed own paths but were too victims of their own genius, only to be validated years after their death. Perhaps one day historians will look back and have a chuckle - that the pioneer of enthropology published by a vanity press in a book resembling a third rate romance.”||2009|
|10||10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".||19||See: Goethean revolution, section: Thimsian revolution, in which American civil engineer and ecological thermodynamicist Jeff Tuhtan comments in 2011: “whether you ultimately agree with this work or not, it represents a paradigm shift in viewing our place in the world.”||2012|
|20||20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.||21||In 2005, in his HumanThermodynamics.com biog, listed himself (as discussed on the "early parental death and genius" page) among the characteristic similarities (early parental death and educational path) of the four individuals to have won two Nobel Prizes; in 2007, Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev flew out to Chicago from Moscow to inform Thims that he had sent his work into the Nobel prize committee; Thims' brought up this latter fact in the 2009 Moriarty-Thims debate (as discussed above), to which he was ridiculed for.||2005|
|20||20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton.||22||Pierce comparison (above) + Thims listing on the "early parental death and genius" page (Thims mother ended when she was 12, Newton's father ended when he was 0);||2007|
|20||20 points for naming something after yourself. (e.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)||25||The subsection on the Goethean revolution page about the continued work of Thims in carrying forward the human chemistry revolution started by Goethe (1796) is section titled "Thimsian revolution" (the only thing he has ever tentatively associated with his name), with much reservation, but an apt term, one no doubt the future will see much usage of, in Thims' view.||2012|
|40||40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.||35||During the 2005-2010 Wikipedia fiasco, involving the prolonged effort by Thims to get three articles established: human chemistry, human thermodynamics, and human molecule (see: human molecule (banned)); as he commented in his 2010 effort: "It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events".||2010|
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
“A women friend of mine said to Goethe at that time: ‘I cannot approve of Elective Affinities, Herr von Goethe; it really is an immoral book!’ According to her report Goethe was silent for a while and had then said with great earnestness: ‘I’m sorry you feel that way. It is my best book, and don’t think that this is the mere whim of an aging man. I grant you that one loves most deeply the child of one’s last marriage, the product of one’s late power of generation. But you wrong me and the book. The principle illustrated in the book is true and not immoral. But you must regard it from a broader point of view and understand that the conventional moral norms can turn into sheer immorality when applied to situations of this character.”
“Say little about what you know and nothing at all about what you don’t know. When a discussion degenerates into a dispute, keep silent. Do not do anything which the whole world cannot know about.”