I.e. it depends on how you define standard. But in this case I didn’t mean low-quality. It just turned out that’s how his work in that moment was judged by oth

I.e. it depends on how you define standard. But in this case I didn’t mean low-quality. It just turned out that’s how his work in that moment was judged by other experts in the field. Which is exactly why I brought it up, as I literally explained in my comment above - his history of non-standard ideas doesn’t have a great track record. I think that’s relevant. (But for some reason I’m here explaining it again.) Your point about less-than-useless (so harmful?) scientists is still absolutely ridiculous, as much scientific progress (and many scientific careers) comes from improving non-exceptional ideas in straightforward manners with expected results.