Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
This becomes more and more difficult in controversial subjects, like water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who are the 'experts' on the subject?
It's "fluoridation".
I don't really see what the difficulty is. I'm not trying to be dense here, but to me this is quite simple.
Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for example, is quite bad. And the reason is precisely the lack of _credible_ sources. These exist, but the current article appears to be written by people who would prefer for these not to be named.
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles would be much better if the science lobby started to show some restraint. A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk concepts that have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an article full of sniping. The average reader does not choose to read the article to watch the sniping.
Credible sources for both sides of this argument are available, and it would be nice if they were chosen in a context of mutual respect..
Ec