tarquin wrote:
I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them.
Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles round us on purpose. I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough?
That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are kooks".
I wouldn't even say that these comments are harsh, Just offensive.
These terms don't advance any discussion of whatever is the topic. Applying them to the person rather than the ideas means that you're using ad hominem arguments, and that's offensive.
In discussing science what advantage is there to calling other views pseudoscientific just because they don't agree with yours or the majority opinion. It only shows that scientists are just as petty as anybody else. Offhanded dismissiveness does more to promote pseudoscience than to stop it.
Eclecticology