On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax
wrote:
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear
that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined
to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to
creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much
as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are
intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude
ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of
them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the
encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of
their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to
believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid
dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are.
Anything else ends up encouraging them.
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories
garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.
Please note that the terms I used here on this list are NOT appropriate for
in-wiki discussions or inclusion in pages. I know that and differentiate
how I approach the conversations. Those are biased and loaded terms, and
shut down any ability to rationally discuss the situation.
If an
alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a
following to make it
notable it needs to be dealt with fairly. That can involve diverting it
from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent
alternative theories. The introduction there can briefly describe what
the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is
controversial. We can then have a section where the theorists have a
relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying
to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the
critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach
conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Agreed.
When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the
possibility, however remote, that there may be an
element of sense in
the theory. We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may
ever be discovered at all. The burden of proof remains with the
proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a
proof that the theory is wrong. It's perhaps in that leap of faith
where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track.
Agreed.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com