The Mad Scientific Method

This line of thought is going to be stretched out over a few posts. Though it would seem more appropriate to simply charge head long into the mad scientific method, as I am not truly mad I am going to attempt to flesh out this idea using a bit more thought.

First, I think it's appropriate to talk about the need for a mad scientific method. A strong argument could be made that trying to determine a mad scientific method is a fool's game. Mad scientists rarely care for convention; Dr. Moreau, Dr. Jekyll, the Brain, Oppenheimer. (A joke people, a joke. Oppenheimer felt appropriately awed by his task.) As a point in fact, mad scientists actively fight convention; attempt to change convention or rage against a perceived injustice done to them. Often, they convince themselves that it is humanity that has been done the injustice and only their brilliant scheming can save us all.

No matter the reason for the raging, being a mad scientist comes with a disproportionate sense of self importance. Mad scientists often want to take over the world; a noble if somewhat misguided goal.

Take a small step to the side, I feel it important to differentiate between madness and insanity.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition)
mad: \mad'\ adj 1: disordered in mind: INSANE 2 a: completely unrestrained by reason and judgement b: incapable of being explained or accounted for 3: carried away by intense anger: FURIOUS 4: carried away by enthusiasm or desire 5: affected with rabies: RABID 6: marked by wild gaiety and merriment: HILARIOUS 7: intensly excited: FRANTIC 8: marked by intense and often chaotic activity: WILD

insane: \(,)in-'san\ adj 1: mentally disordered: exhibiting insanity 2: used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons 3: ABSURD

Note: Insane is used to define mad, yet mad is not used to define insane. The dictionary, obviously, cannot keep it's story straight. (I would call it mad because it's rationale is unreasoned.)
Don't be fooled by the seeming similarity of "disorderly in mind" and "mentally disordered" either. The first still shows capacity for reason, the reasoning is simply not abided by or given the benefit of the doubt. In madness, the reasoning is present but simply pushed aside like an animal that has accidentially gotten underfoot; or the reasoning is shuffled like a deck of cards so that a game of solitaire could straighten the mess out. But the mad scientist is more likely to opt for 54 card pickup where order is not a necessary outcome of the game. The second, "mentally disorderd", hints at something beyond the person's control for the true working of the mind is hindered at it's purest mental state. Reason does not come in to play here because the capacity to reason itself is disordered, not simply the reasoning.

So mad is not insane, but insanity certainly contains madness. (I'm sure there's a logic equation that could come out of that. Logic being a popular past time of those who are touched by or truly mad.)

To further my point about the differences between mad and insane, I offer the maxim "There's a method to my madness", which has existed since Shakesspeare, according to the UK site The Phrase Finder. The original sentence was from Hamlet; "Though this be madness yet there is method in it."

There is no method to insanity that I am aware of. So it ends there.

So, what is the method to madness? Mad scientist would ne'er stop to write such trivial matters down when world domination or some other genius scheme is in the making. So it is up to the unmad to disect this puzzle, define that which is the mad scientific method.

Step 1: Stating the Question