Garrett Lisi (the E8 guy, aka surferdude) and dare I say Stephen Wolfram (the mathematica guy) like types would fit the bill nicely, if they are ever proven right in their outlandish theories (which remains to be seen).
That's exactly the reason why nobody in the field will take them very seriously, if some outsider would come along with a working theory of the universe and en-passent come up with a GUT that would pass inspection a lot of people would look pretty silly.
I think the chances of that happening are very small, but every now and then one of these guys comes up with something that is not trivial to dispose of.
If there is one thing all great scientific discoveries had in common then it is that when they were first posited a number of people thought 'rubbish'.
That does not mean that all rubbish will eventually be accepted as the new established theory.
My view on a "New Kind of Science" (NKS): NKS is not a theory (at least not in the sense physicists used it pre-string theory), it's an idea (with a misleading, non-informative and sensationalist name). It's also not a discovery. Nevertheless, I think that it's a very interesting idea (nobody is saying it's rubbish) and I and many other physicists have, after reading the book been playing around with and talking about related ideas. I also think writing 1000+ pages about it was complete overkill, the relevant scientific result (the Turing-complete CA) could be presented in a 10 page paper while the more general argument in 100 pages.
I personally think S. Wolfram fits the bill in terms of being a fiercely independent thinker and being financially independent. I meant to write that he does not follow through with his ideas, but that would be untrue, as he has spent large amounts of time simulating his CAs and examining their output. So I won't say that, but I will say that he seems to prefer publicity and sensationalism ("New Kind of Science"), ie. short-term success over discourse with scientific peers and coming up with actual physical theories that withstand the test of time. (He has written physics paper when he was young, but not recently).
I fully agree with the sensationalist impression, he really is a sucker for attention (recognition?).
Also, to name your book 'a new kind of science' takes hubris to a whole new level.
It would have been a lot more classy if he would have simply written up his findings in a 2 or 300 page volume and left it to others to give it its place.
But that's what you get when you don't need an editor because you've already made it.
Still, if you cut all that out you're left with some pretty neat and insightful ideas about cellular automata and how some things could work.
That's exactly the reason why nobody in the field will take them very seriously, if some outsider would come along with a working theory of the universe and en-passent come up with a GUT that would pass inspection a lot of people would look pretty silly.
I think the chances of that happening are very small, but every now and then one of these guys comes up with something that is not trivial to dispose of.
If there is one thing all great scientific discoveries had in common then it is that when they were first posited a number of people thought 'rubbish'.
That does not mean that all rubbish will eventually be accepted as the new established theory.