The proposal might have been based on a desire to exclude significant
pseudoscience criticism of scientific theories, rather than to keep
them proportional. I agree that they are sometimes over-expansively
treated, but I also see where they are not treated adequately. I
consequently have suggested modifying the text to say
"this noticeboard is designed to deal...with fringe theories being
pushed onto existing articles, or with attempts to remove such
discussions when justified."
"and cases where those primarily working on a page try to exclude
appropriate mention of such theories. "
So far these modifications remain. Properly seen, the board might well
serve to attract the attention of those who are of both views, and
therefore diminish the effect of the small cliques that can form at
particular articles. DGG
On 7/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/07/07, Thomas Dalton
> Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how
Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates precisely why confirmatory instances do so much
less than disconfirmatory instances, and from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian
vs. frequentists interpretations of observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of
computer science's denotational semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
No, you need to be a bunch of Wikipedians down the pub boring any
non-encyclopedists unfortunate enough to be stuck at your table.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.