Good point. Those actual scientists who crave fame have to be in there somewhere.
I can’t really argue one way or the other. I’m a recreational mathematician at best. There’s wanting to be recognised/known for good mathematical work and there’s wanting to be famous, and I didn’t really take that distinction into account. I wouldn’t mind the former - however unlikely - but the latter, no thanks.
It’s not clear what your narcissist associates (? or associates of associates) actually want out of the deal, but their crank level is clearly high even if they’re otherwise legit.
Maybe someone could write a paper involving the punnet square crank/non-crank versus pseudo-scientist/actual scientist, and how many of each there is in each square. Or could it be one of those 2D alignment charts. Throw in a third dimension and there’d be a fame/infamy axis too.
Hawking definitely had some crank about him - and not because of his disability - so he wouldn’t be at one of the corners.
Good point. Those actual scientists who crave fame have to be in there somewhere.
I can’t really argue one way or the other. I’m a recreational mathematician at best. There’s wanting to be recognised/known for good mathematical work and there’s wanting to be famous, and I didn’t really take that distinction into account. I wouldn’t mind the former - however unlikely - but the latter, no thanks.
It’s not clear what your narcissist associates (? or associates of associates) actually want out of the deal, but their crank level is clearly high even if they’re otherwise legit.
Maybe someone could write a paper involving the punnet square crank/non-crank versus pseudo-scientist/actual scientist, and how many of each there is in each square. Or could it be one of those 2D alignment charts. Throw in a third dimension and there’d be a fame/infamy axis too.
Hawking definitely had some crank about him - and not because of his disability - so he wouldn’t be at one of the corners.