Good one. A lot of times when people get laughed at because of the absurdity of their ideas, they invoke Galileo or other initially ridiculed geniuses and portray themselves as victims. It is much rarer that somebody who is being laughed at is ahead of their times or in genius mode, than that they are plain nutcases. In fact, I will go a step further. It is the large number of nutcases with their crackpot theories, who tarnish the truly revolutionary geniuses, by tainting them with the "nutcase" moniker. IOW, if there weren't so many nutcases trying to push absurdities, then people would probably be much more receptive of genuine advancements.FWIW - One of my professor's famous remarks was, 'Sure, they laughed at Galileo, but they also (much more commonly) laughed at Bozo the Clown.' As I tell my students, just because someone claims that others are laughing at an idea does not make that theory true, especially if the theory is logically absurd... (claiming that "other men of science" are in reference makes no different ..
Chan Thomas work as you mentioned is just plain absurd..
If, as it is claimed, Chan Thomas referenced a large number of other "scientists" and that Chan Thomas was censored, then the question that naturally arises, is - were those large number of referenced "scientists" also censored? If not, then what is the point of censoring just Chan Thomas?
Statistics: Posted by sudarshan — 25 Jun 2024 05:21