Eclecticology wrote in part:
The strongest adherent of the
scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is
absolutely true. He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some
bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by
allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis.
In defence of the poor scientist-in-real-life,
he (or she) may not feel /threatened/ by bizarre theories,
but he often feels /exhausted/ from constantly refuting them,
and even /annoyed/ when called upon to refute (IHO) really stupid ones.
But I think that our NPOV method can still deal with this.
In the cube example, we don't allow anything with no supporters
(that falls under Wikipedia's ban on original research),
and we don't feel the need to refute things with no arguments
(it's enough to state the fact that the position is a fringe one).
Then once the arguments for the cubical Earth are presented,
we only have to lay out the counter-arguments once, there in the article.
If the counter-counter-arguments etc get to be too long,
then we simply spin things off into [[Cubical Earth]].
People that don't want to deal with this inane crackpot nonsense
can rightly point its adherents to that article.