Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
There is certainly a strong
element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can
be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
You have a mechanism for this? In my experience both sides will rush
to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of
wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall
within the argument.
Requiring references is still key. Be that as it may, long and
convoluted argments about such topics only make the average reader's
eyes glaze over. Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be
needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in
even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can
say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the
subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
In reality, most scientists don't have the time to waste on researching
such subjects. Admitting openly and honestly that this is the case is
so much more believable than speculating about why the practice is so
much nonsense, thereby looking just as foolish as the proponents. It
seems that debunkers have this fear that whenever a screwball theory
goes unchallenged the masses will immediately see it as true. Sometimes
the most effective technique for debunking is a stone wall.
It is not the
function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking
theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV
bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but
we currently do not have an article about it.
Yes, exactly that. We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments
because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent
discussion.
While I have no intention to spend time researching this subject, the
term at least has enterred the vocabulary, and some individual is
probably credited with its "discovery". Others are also likely to run
across the term, and wonder what the hell it is. Such a topic may never
result in more than a stub, and that's fine. The study of these dead
ends of science is an important part of the history of science.