Maybe some of the cranks aren't just regular cranks and are, instead, modern-day Herschel and Avery; the ideas of some Kahn eccentrics are simply victims of currently prevailing “obvious” and “self-evident” theories that are driven by “erroneous assumptions” (Sacks, 153) and will be found to be wrong – simply like “Newtonian optics and the Lockean sensationalism" (Sacks, 153) were - to make room for the more fundamentally profound and correct theories revolutionized by eccentrics - in the same way that Louis Verrey's theories on perception received credence after several decades of rejection and oppression. Or perhaps, parts of the ideas Cranks proposed might actually shed light on potential breakthroughs, even if the idea as a whole is flawed, much like how a series of Cranks' outdated ideas eventually evolved into a solid discovery scientific when modeled appropriately by the scientists in Miller's essay. It is worth considering the prospect that what is claimed to be known is really just another stage of failure waiting to be overturned by the revolutionary theories of those identified as eccentrics, or by more scientifically coherent theories drawn from their more radicals. Then again, maybe I'm just an eccentric