Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's not logical. If there are no views expressed that challenge the premise, it necessarily represents the Neutral Point of View. A rebutting argument that is not verifiable is as good as no argument at all.
...so if I claim that there are gigantic hyperintelligent aliens made of lime jello living on a giant pumpkin orbiting Alpha Centauri and that they have five hands and one foot, and no-one makes a verifiable rebuttal, then my claim, being the only published view on the subject, represents the Neutral Point of View about hyperintelligent aliens made of lime jello?
Theoretically yes, except that I would say any rebuttal rather than just a verifiable one. It is NPOV because it represents the average of all views that have been submitted until then. In practical terms that neutrality will cease as soon as one other person reads the article and challenges its contents, unless a visiting Beta Centaurian decides to get in on the act. A challenge to the system can be as simple as a polite request for sources to be cited.
Once a request has been made for verification, the original contributor has the primary burden of proof, but that does not prevent others from supplying proof if they so desire. If the original statement is as patently ridiculous as the one you hypothesize, any attempt at rebuttal implies that there was something there worth rebutting, and the very act of initiating a rebuttal gives credibility to the original statement.
Ec