View Single Post
  #1  
Old 04-14-2016, 08:13 AM
Frylock Frylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,264
Scientists and other Scholars who publish work considered "crank" by most peers

This is probably a big ask but I am hoping to find out who exists--or has recently existed--who fits the following criteria:

1. Is an academic who could be considered well-published in their field
2. Has a view that is considered not just wrong, but "crank" levels of wrong, by a large number--preferably most or even all--others in their field
3. At least occasionally speaks about and publishes about this "crank" idea in peer-reviewed or otherwise "gated" well-established venues* in their field--venues universally or near-universally considered reliable academic venues by people in the relevant field

*so like, journals, conferences, curated academic web/blog sites, etc.

The best example I can think of is any proponent of String Theory, which isn't really a good example at all. But it's my understanding that many physicists do despair that String Theory is at crank-ish "not even wrong" levels of "wrong."

What better examples exist? Are there really biologists out there, for example, who could be considered realistically to be "respected scientists," in the sense outlined above, who openly espouse and even get stuff published on creationism or Intelligent Design? Climate scientists who do the same arguing against global warming? Etc.