Ok, I decided I'll reply to all comments on my comments that I consider to be good.

Can you summarize the difference?

The example was Ignaz Semmelweis. He had actual empirical data, he was a medical doctor, the hypothesis could have been easily tested by, you know, washing your hands.

What's about him that makes him an example of someone pattern matching to a crackpot? Just the opposition to his theory, and his reaction to the opposition, understandable for any moral person of his beliefs.

edit: Note that I did not look particularly close. If I look particularly close, that's when he would make no sense - cadaverous particles? Unknown cadaverous material? Dead matter makes people dead? Or had he gotten it right - little living things? How is that even possible? . Looking from too far, you only see that his view is not accepted. Looking very closely, you see that it doesn't make a lot of sense. But looking at the intermediate level, you see that he has data, and the theory is testable rather than a collection of excuses. You also see that the guy is for sure not merely doing this to make himself a living.