most of non-ideal scientists (I call them as scientist but not all of them exactly...) believe so.
but it is not realistic to believe that it would be just and worthy method to cite only most cited articles. not at all.
teherefore,I consider most of theoricians/professors as non-ideal,sure!.
Those Non-Ideal Scientists are what we call "Cranks" meaning they don't have ideas that are within the bounds of science but rather pseudoscience. Cranks are a very bad thing for science as they populate science with crackpottery which makes real science seem less creditable to the general population which does not know the difference. So, Cranks should be immediately pointed out and removed from the scientific picture as such, otherwise we risk having "False Science" believed by unsuspecting readers which are not scientists. That to say I completely disagree with your statements, "Real Scientists" STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF SCIENCE. what you are talking about is pseudo-scientists which should be removed from any access to their works being seen as they are False. Promoting "Pseudoscience" as "Real Science" has become a increasing problem in the scientific community.
Edited by VictorMedvil, 26 December 2019 - 09:49 PM.