Perhaps some of the cranks aren't just average cranks but are more modern-day Herschels and Averys; the ideas of some of Kahn's eccentrics are simply victims of "obvious" and "obvious" theories that currently prevail and which are guided by "erroneous assumptions" (Sacks, 153) and which will prove false - period. as “Newtonian optics and Lockean sensationalism” (Sacks, 153) were – to make room for the more fundamentally profound and correct theories revolutionized by eccentrics – in the same way as Louis Verrey's theories of perception have received credit after several decades. of rejection and oppression. Or, perhaps, parts of ideas proposed by oddballs could actually shed light on potential discoveries, even if an idea as a whole is flawed - much like how a series of outdated ideas from oddballs has ultimately evolved into a solid scientific discovery when shaped correctly by the scientists in Miller's essay. It is worth considering the perspective that what claims to be known is in reality just another stage of failure waiting to be overturned by the revolutionary theories of those identified as eccentrics, or by theories more scientifically coherent extracts from their most radical theories. Then again, maybe I'm just a weirdo