The term Weinstein prefers for himself is "entertainer": https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric...

> The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast. This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author.

I don't think he much cares for labels, a form of gatekeeping, and so he's likely trolling if he calls himself an entertainer.

The same could be said in praise of every crank. Presumably if he's a crank about physics, he could also be one about Covid.

This isn't a great line of reasoning. We have evidence that even the smartest individuals can be exceptional in one field while being regarded as cranks in others. Failures and mistakes are inevitable as you try doing more things and branching out. Taking on this mindset forces brilliant individuals to remain in the safe lane without experimenting, potentially stifling progress. The expectation of perfection seems like an unreasonably high bar. Is it not better to try and fail than to have not tried at all? Perhaps the broader issue is that there's insufficient interdisciplinary communication and collaboration.

For example, the Nobel laureate Linus Pauling made outstanding contributions to chemistry in explaining the nature of the chemical bond. He also believed vitamin C could help cure or prevent cancer, for which there doesn't appear to be much evidence.

He has a PhD in physics from MIT....

There are many such types who reformulate various types of physics from a mathematical pov -- these attempts rarely have any deep upside... but it is a hobby of mathematical physicists.

Nothing "crank" about it.

His PhD is from Harvard.

So now you have to be 100% correct about every field of everything to have any opinion? I'd love for that standard to be applied to anyone religious.

There's no way I'd let that Christian doctor try to save my dying child, their beliefs about a zombie savior that flew to heaven are "crank" like so they're disqualified.

Seriously - a crank about physics? The majority of those people are crazy in some regard, that's why they love physics!

  "he could also be one about Covid."

It's not his video that was taken down, so even if true, it's irrelevant.

The same should be said for everyone who makes a good faith effort to contribute to human knowledge. Trying to contribute in a productive way is laudable.

As I understand it Eric has his theory, he wrote it up, and published it on his YouTube channel or a similar platform and a few interested people critiqued it. Great. It would be one thing if he was emailing the editors at Nature every week with a new crazy idea, that would be "crank" territory. That doesn't seem like what happened.

Regardless, this tweet is about Eric's brother who had a conversation with a doctor about possible use of ivermectin to treat Covid. Entirely separate from Eric Weinstein's physics credibility.

From the linked Wikipedia article:

* Eight years passed until Weinstein released a draft paper of Geometric Unity on April 1, 2021. The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer"*

By his own admission definitely more clown than physicist.