|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. |
The following are classic quotes on the subject:
“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)
A large part of this genius-labeled as "childish", "lunatic", "crank", or "deranged", examples of which shown adjacent, seems to have something to do with the catch up effect of works produced by geniuses that have significant foresight, whereas the immediate "intellectual world" suffers from a "peculiar myopia", as Morris Zucker (1945) described things, or "mental inertia", as Henry Adams (1907) described things; as is evidenced by the following quotes about how physical chemists Frederick Soddy, in respect to economic thermodynamics, and Wilhelm Ostwald, in respect to social energetics, were dismissed as cranks:
“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” 
Fool or genius? | Point-of-view
Often times the ability to recognize genius amid crackpottery is a difficult issue. As American chemistry historian Arthur Greenberg discusses, in his From Alchemy to Chemistry, citing the examples of: phlogiston theory, before Robert Harrington (1786), atomic theory, before Wilhelm Ostwald's recant (1909), and continental drift theory, before Alfred Wegner (1912), the boundary line between scientific ‘crouch’ and scientific ‘crank’ is sometimes not a very clear one. 
Italian thinker Galileo Galilei, now considered a top 8 genius of all time, e.g., was considered a ‘crackpot’ for his assertion that the ‘earth moved’, a belief that was contrary to that believed (i.e. geocentric cosmology) by the general authorizes of his time. (Ѻ) This situation, likewise, is prominent in the field of hmolscience, namely in the subjects (see: two cultures namesakes) of the application of the principles mechanics, chemistry, physics, and or thermodynamics to the humanities, wherein often times belief system conflicts, many of which tend to be earlier beliefs engrained as a child, may often tend to produce denigrating reaction commentary, particularly when either human chemical (Goethe) and or human molecule (Carey, Adams, and Thims) models of a human are employed as non-analogy descriptions of reality, wherein labelings such as "childlike nonsense" and "fooling around" (Wieland on Goethe's 1796 theory), "lunatic" or "back in his straight jacket" (Stark on Carey's 1858 theory), "more of a crank than a prophet" (Diggins on Adams' 1860s theory), "deranged imagination" (Moriarty on Thims' 2001 theory), all shown adjacent, or recent denigrate labelings such as "senile or crazy" (Lubos Motl 2010 comment on enthalpy of human molecules) or "wacko" (Terrence Deacon 2013 comment on Thims and human molecular theory), and so on. The following statement by Czechoslovakian-born English sociologist Werner Stark seems to capture the gist of why he considers American sociologist Henry Carey the "extreme form" of social mechanism: 
“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.”
Stark, moreover, classifies the following 1858 statement by Carey:
“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 subject of "human chemistry", as developed by the subject founder German polymath Johann Goethe, during the years 1796 to 1809, the finalized version of which being published in novella format (Elective Affinities, 1809), was defined, from the get-go, as being childish nonsense and fooling around by German poet and writer Christoph Wieland, a neighbor of Goethe, who sent a letter (which he suggested should be burned after it is read) in 1810 to his close friend German philologist and archeologist Karl Böttiger, in commentary on Goethe’s version of human chemistry, that: 
Wieland considered the theoretical implications contained in Goethe's novella to be a sort of anathema, calling it a "truly horrible work", supposedly objecting solely to the radicalness of its Christianity.  It was to Wieland, to note, that Goethe famously commented that, to be understood properly, it must be read three times. 
Those who are against the "molecule" definition of a human (human molecule + human molecular formula), which as of 2011 is becoming a standard textbook definition in chemistry, thermodynamics, and ecology, and the physical science theories implicative therein (chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, applied to this definition), will often, on first reaction, make recourse to the pejorative labeling the theorist and their theories as "nonsense" (Christoph Wieland on Goethe, 1810), "crank" (John Diggins on Henry Adams, 1995), "crackpot" (Stephen Lower on Libb Thims, 2007), "wacko" (Terrence Deacon on Libb Thims, 2013), among others, in what is but the result of divisional ignorance and not seeing the forest among the trees.
The following comment, to exemplify common usage of the term crank or crackpot, posted by an anonymous German user to a 2010 deletion review discussion on whether or not to have a revised Wikipedia "human molecule" article (which at one point, to note, was a featured Wikipedia Did You Know?main page article, prior to its deletion) article on the subject of the "human molecule" (Hmolpedia version) to have a Wikipedia-version article on the subject of the person defined as a human molecule: 
“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.”
This, of course, is one point of view; but, conversely, for those in the field of limnology or ecological stoichiometry, the definition of a person as a human molecule, with a measurable human molecular formula, is now a textbook subject (Ecological Stoichiometry, 2002)—hence, here we see how perspective (or rather belief system) can alter one’s perception of what constitutes crank—which in many cases has to do with education or lack thereof.
Insanity and genius
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.”
Crank or genius?
In some rare cases, as discussed by Fred Gruenberger in his 1962 article “A Measure for Crackpots”, some work deemed crackpottery in one generation may result to be the new branch of science or future science of the next generation (or one or two millennia, such as in the case of atomic theory). 
|Fred Gruenberger' 1962 crackpot scale. |
Human chemistry | Human thermodynamics
In the fields of human chemistry and human thermodynamics, which tend to overlap each other, such as in the form of human chemical thermodynamics, there has historically been much precedence to pejoratively label efforts to apply either chemical theory or thermodynamic theory to the humanities to be the sign of a loon. The case of thermodynamics being applied to humans, of the two, is the pinnacle example of hypocrisy: state of pretending to have virtues, moral or beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have; in this case the holding onto the belief that first law and second law govern the working behavior of "every" system or body in the universe, but that when this universal belief or "universal rule", as Lewis called it, is turned around and applied to human and systems of humans, the previewer of this newly distinguished perspective quickly cries "crackpottery", noted examples being: Stephen Lower (2007), Philip Moriarty (2009), Mitch Garcia (2010), Marcin Borkowski (2010), Ian Forrester (2010).
Likewise, in regards to human thermodynamics, in 1972 American economist Paul Samuelson gave the following definition of the criteria for being half-baked in regards to the use of thermodynamics in sociology: 
“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.”
In 2007, American-born Canadian biochemical and physical chemist Stephen Lower, likewise, classified the modern-interpretation of Goethe’s 1796 human elective affinities theory as a crackpot subject: 
"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).|
This ranking, however, conflicts greatly with Goethe being uniformly ranked at one of the last universal genius, with the highest assigned genius IQ, second rank behind Shakespeare in terms of world library book holdings, and that of all his publications his 1809 Elective Affinities, which contains his theory, was his self-defined “best book”. In this case who are we to believe, Lower or Goethe? When the matter is looked into in more detail, however, we find that one of Lower's hobbies is to collect "scary Bible quotes", which positions him on the 1-4 range of the Dawkins scale (believer in God), and hence his listing of human chemistry as "crackpot" is a religious objection; just as was Christopher Weiland's original objection to Goethe's human chemistry theory when he called it "childish nonsense and fooling around".
Beyond this, Lower labels English physicist C.G. Darwin as a "crackpot", which conflicts, firstly with Gruenberger's classification of physicists (adjacent) as being, generally speaking, non-crackpots; second with the fact that C.G. Darwin, his eugenics controversies aside, was a well-schooled thermodynamicist, having done founding work in statistical thermodynamics with Ralph Fowler the co-coiner of the term "zeroth law of thermodynamics"; and beyond this, C.G. Darwin, of course, was the grandson of the great Charles Darwin, a clan hardly known to scientists as crackpot lineage. 
|American mathematical physicist John Baez, maker of the 1992 Beaz crackpot index. |
Baez crackpot index
In 1992, American mathematical physicist John Baez posted an online "crackpot index", listing the following numerically-point ranked criteria for being a crack pot:
- 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.
To exemplify the usage of the so-called Baez crackpot index during debates on hmolscience-related topics, two scientists, independently, have used the Baez index to pejoratively label American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims as a crackpot during debate and discussion with him. The first was Irish physicist Philip Moriarty who during the 2009 Moriarty-Thims debate (comments #134-135), on the question of whether or not an arrangement of students in a field has a thermodynamic entropy, stated the following:
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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...
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Supposedly, then, according to Moriarty, Thims at least scores 60 points on the crack pot index, at a minimum.
Human chemistry in school?
In 2010, Thims posted the following query thread "Should Human Chemistry be Taught in School?" to ChemicalForums.com: 
Polish analytical chemist Marcin Borkowski, a leading administrator of the site, commented the following: 
Thims then comment the following elaboration response:
Borkowski then comment the following while at the same time locking the thread from further discussion: 
In sum, Borkowski's take on the subject is as follows:
“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.”
Thims then messaged ChemicalForums creator Mitch Garcia: 
To which Garcia responded: 
Borkowski further commented, during this inter-memo discussion, that he was completed against allowing any discussion at all about human chemistry in ChemicalFormums.com:
In sum, to review, according to Borkowski:
"With each paragraph you get more Baez crackpot index points."
Likewise, according to American nuclear chemist Mitch Garcia, the 2003 founder of ChemicalForums.com: 
“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.”
The following is a rough crackpot index scoring tabulation for American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, tallied up through his attack-years of public interjection (2005-present), being that both Irish physicist Philip Moriarty (2009) and Polish analytical chemist Marcin Borkowski (2010), independently, have jeered the Baez crackpot scale at him. Some of these scorings, to note, are not exactly one-to-one correspondences, e.g. #19: Thims has never claimed that his work is on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift (but others have); #18: Thims has never compared himself to Einstein (but others have); #11: Thims has never "started out" his theory by stating how long he has been working on it, but does frequently comment that it did take him six years to crack the reverse engineering puzzle (see: Thims history), and eleven years to find Goethe and his human chemistry theory after asking a question about this in his undergraduate chemical engineering thermodynamics class (see: Goethe timeline), and so on, but in the name of sport, humor, and a grain of salt, each index point is given a maximal value if remote similarity can be found:
|-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|
In total, Thims scores 135 on the Baez crackpot scale, or crackpot index (CI) as Baez originally called it—nevertheless, crackpot or not, the theory, originated by Goethe, and carried forward by Thims, is “true” (as discussed below) as Goethe so rightly surmised over two hundred years ago, and those who do not see it as such are ignorant, pure and simple.
The following quote by German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, notable for having incorporated much of Goethe's human chemistry morality theory into his The World As Will and Representation (1818; 1844), seems to capture the gist of what is going on here:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
namely that the Goethean revolution is still in the ridicule state of truth. This is corroborated by Goethe himself who, in a circa 1810-32 scene reported by Heinrich Laube (1806-1884), had to answer to a women who told him his work was immoral (see: Goethe's collected works; section: best book): 
“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.”
Hence, then, to summarize, in the above sections we see a representative sampling of generic modern scientists, namely: Paul Samuelson (1972; economics), Stephen Lower (2007; physical chemistry), Philip Moriarty (2009; physics), Mitch Garcia (2010; nuclear chemistry), Marcin Borkowski (2010; analytical chemistry), overly pompous in their deflated view of reality, who each view Goethe, the smartest person ever (see: Genius IQs) (last universal genius), and his 1796 human chemical thermodynamics morality theory as “crackpot”, whereas in the correct sense, as Goethe viewed things (and as modern human chemical thermodynamics views things), his theory is true—thus, two centuries have passed and we are still in the ridicule stage of scientific truth, with many, such as Samuelson, Lower, Moriarty, Garcia, Borkowski, and a large percentage of the modern scientific body, existing in complete and blind ignorance of reality—and not just day-to-day ignorance, but two-century long delayed and regressed ignorance—a pitiful situation, to say the least—a state of affairs possibly akin to something like Hypatia must have experienced for promotion of heliocentrism, and being stoned-to-termination for this (415AD), some 1,128-years before it was even tentatively accepted as truth (Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, 1543), or some 1,218-years before it would be possible to give published public support for it as truth without being tried for “suspicion of heresy” and put under house arrest (Galileo, religion vs science legal cases, 1633); and some 2,420-years before one could get fired from their job for teaching it (religion vs science legal cases, 2005).
Newcomers to this subject would be wise to heed the following words of French physicist Sadi Carnot, from his "rules of conduct" personal notes: 
“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.”
1. Gruenberger, Fred J. (1962). “A Measure for Crackpots”, The RAND Corporation.
2. Crackpot Idea (2012) (link) – Kruptoons.com.
3. (a) Lower, Stephen. (2007). “List of Flim-flam, Pseudoscience, and Nonsense”, Online listings.
(b) Lower, Stephen. (2007). Chemistry One: Virtual Textbook (ch. 4: What is pseudoscience?). Chem1.com.
(c) Human chemistry (search) – Pseudoscience and Quackery, Swicki.com.
4. Samuelson, Paul. (1972). The Collected Scientific Papers (pg. 450). Vol. 3, ed. R. Merton. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
5. (a) Wieland, Christoph Martin. (1810). "Letter to Karl August Böttiger" July 16. Weimar. Quoted from Tantillo 2001, pg. 9-10.
(b) Tantillo, Astrida O. (2001). Goethe's Elective Affinities and the Critics. New York: Camden House.
6. Goethe, Johann and Lange, Victor. (1990). The Sufferings of Young Werther; and Elective Affinities, Vol. 19 of the German Library. (pg. 125). Continuum.
7. Winkelman, John. (1987). Goethe’s Elective Affinities: an Interpretation (pg. 30). P. Lang.
8. Deletion review (27 Aug 2010) – Wikipedia.
9. (a) John C. Baez – Wikipedia.
(b) Baez, John C. (1992). “The Crackpot Index”, Math.UCR.edu.
10. Should Human Chemistry be Taught in School (2010) – ChemicalForums.com.
11. Site messages to Libb Thims – (29 Sep 2010) ChemicalForums.com.
12. Lewisohn, Ludwig. (1949). Goethe: the Story of a Man: Being the Life of Johann Wolfgang Goethe as Told in his Own Words and the Words of his Contemporaries, Volume 2 (pg. 174). Farrar Straus and Co.
13. (a) Personal notes of Sadi Carnot (category: rules of conduct).
(b) In: Mendoza, E. (1960). “Introduction” (section) in Carnot, Sadi. (1824). “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and on Machines Fitted to Develop that Power.” Paris: Chez Bachelier, Libraire, Quai Des Augustins, No. 55. (1960, Dover edition).
14. Nisbet, John F. (1891). The Insanity of Genius (quote, pg. v). Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921.
15. Diggins, John P. (1995). The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and Authority (§2: Who Bore the Failure of the Light: Henry Adams, pgs. 55-107; §§: Science and the Fate of the Universe, pgs. 67-80; quote, pg. 84; thermodynamics, 9+ pgs). University of Chicago Press.
16. Gluckman, Max. (1965). Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society (pg. 16). Transaction Publishers.
17. Stark, Werner. (1962). The Fundamental Forms of Social Thought. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
18. Zencey, Eric. (1983). “Entropy as Root Metaphor”, Conference on Science, Technology, and Literature, Feb, Long Island University, New York; in: Beyond the Two Cultures: Essays on Science, Technology, and Literature (editors: Joseph Slade and Judith Lee) (§9:185-200), Iowa State University Press, 1900.
19. Zencey, Eric. (2013). “Energy as a Master Resource” (pdf), in: State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? (§7:##-; image, figure 1-2). Island Press, 2013.
20. Greenberg, Arthur. (2006). From Alchemy to Chemistry in Picture and Story (pg. 528). John Wiley & Sons.
● Crackpot index – Wikipedia.