Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything
helpful to say here.
Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views
are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be
I'll match my competence to deal with physics with Jimbo's at any time.
The fact is that these eccentric theories do exist, and more energy is
spent trying to discredit them then the originator put into developing
the theory. In a similar way, what keeps trolls alive is the generous
amount of nourishment supplied by their detractors. The behaviour of
some of the advocates of "science" in the preservation of their "bodily
humors" is such that if ever there were a Pope of Science they would
make fine candidates for that office.
There is a place for these theories, even as most of them (often
deservedly) are cast aside in the history of science. Some do lead
somewhere, though it is not apparent at the time; an example here could
be Alexander Bain's 1843 patent of the teleautograph, an early attempt
at transmitting pictures by telegraph.
Allowing Mr. Royce's views at the appropriate place(s) is just fine.
There these views should fairly represent what the proponents are
trying to say without the need to have those views interrupted by
constant bickering about every tiny detail. Later the after the
proponent has finished his explanation, there will still be plenty of
room to express disagreement. Sometimes only a simple sentence like,
"The above ideas have not been accepted by mainstream science," will be
more than enough to fulfill all NPOV requirements. Why should it be so
easy for the supporters of "sciene" to forget that the primary burden of
proof for any new theory lies with the proponents? When they have
failed to carry that burden, a simple remark to that effect is all that
is needed. There is no need to mount a thorough attack; there is no
need to find an excuse (such as promoting one's own theories) for
censoring out these articles. If they begin to infect other more
accepted concepts, it could be enough to say at the infected site, "An
alternative view of this is expressed at [[...]]."