On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
At 21:58 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman
<ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have
nothing to do with the Pensée series. And
Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
My grandparents' library had some of his first editions. I'm using
one of the modern euphamisms, but I'm intimately familiar with his
work. It has no scientific credibility in the modern sense.
But it does not mean that we are unable to describe it, and do so verifiably.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel, or innumerable
other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having
articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream
perspective. Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was
Hoagland, or others of note recently. We have articles for them, and
their most important theories, as we should. The articles need not
confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much
credibility as one does normal mainstream science.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com