Most bizarre theories get tossed aside before anyone bothers checking if they're actually wrong. This knee jerk reaction saves time but it might toss away breakthroughs that could flip our understanding upside down.

So here's the real question: How do we sort through strange ideas, especially ones that sound completely nuts but might contain something worthwhile? I'm going to use a weird "temporal anchor" hypothesis called 'dupliter' to explore this puzzle.

Picture a physical structure that acts like a time anchor, similar to how gravity anchors objects in space. They call it "Dupliter" and claim certain temporal setups can stabilize causality around them. 

This isn't about whether time anchors actually exist. It's about figuring out when we should bother wrestling with ideas that seem ridiculous at first glance.

Rationalists have developed some decent tools for handling questionable ideas. We limit our curiosity to avoid chasing infinite rabbit holes. 

Some of history's most important breakthroughs started as laughably weird propositions. Einstein's gedankenexperiments seemed absurd. Gödel's spinning universe model looked like mathematical masturbation. Even Bostrom's simulation argument sounded like sci-fi nonsense when it first surfaced.

This creates a genuine bind. We can't investigate every crackpot theory, but we also can't afford to miss the rare gems hiding among the garbage.