Yes, I agree, but in areas other than science, almost any contention can become the greater issue rather than the insignificant one--a very small group of violent extremists, for example, can disrupt things far beyond their representation. The point is that "original research" isnt really the issue, as much as rational versus irrational writing--of which writing skill is a substantial factor. Contrary to what some may say, its *not* POV to say that a view is considered "irrational" by most people, and putting things in that context helps to rectify the problems of marginal views promoting themselves out of their element (irrationality) even if they are
Using the Flat Earth example again, the FES's notions are generally unclear in terms of whether they are actually sincere (still), or that they might be speaking metaphorically, or IMHO from the POV of human experience. Thus it can rather ridiculous to talk in terms of science, without explaining what their actual point is, which might be something like: 'Thinking about the Earth as round is only a conceptual construct which also requires thinking along notions of complex relativity-- in real life, we intrinsically think of the world as Euclidian, and therefore, "flat." The FES might just be claiming that the religious view that all souls be on the same plane, or else that in personal terms, thinking in global terms is just a waste of precious time.
IOW: While its easy to call such people stupid, its hard to say exactly objectively what such group actually represents. Skpeptical "science" (ie. science POV) doesnt offer insight into this basic aspect. The articles talk about FES "models" of the Earth, assuming that models are the actual *point* of the group--the physical descriptions may be quite irrelevant.
SV
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
How many religious fundamentalists does it take to make a fact contentious? How actively do they have to argue? Where are you going to draw the line? And why should we privilege the points of view that happen to be held by people alive today?
Wikipedia would be a parody of an encyclopedia if it held that the approximately spherical shape of the Earth is contentious. People expect an encyclopedia to be written from a scientific point of view - and, for the most part, that's how Wikipedia is written.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com