At 21:58 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have nothing to do with the Pensée series. And Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
My grandparents' library had some of his first editions. I'm using one of the modern euphamisms, but I'm intimately familiar with his work. It has no scientific credibility in the modern sense.
But it does not mean that we are unable to describe it, and do so verifiably.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
At 21:58 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have nothing to do with the Pensée series. And Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
My grandparents' library had some of his first editions. I'm using one of the modern euphamisms, but I'm intimately familiar with his work. It has no scientific credibility in the modern sense.
But it does not mean that we are unable to describe it, and do so verifiably.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel, or innumerable other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream perspective. Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was Hoagland, or others of note recently. We have articles for them, and their most important theories, as we should. The articles need not confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much credibility as one does normal mainstream science.
George Herbert wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman wrote:
At 21:58 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ian Tresman wrote:
The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have nothing to do with the Pensée series. And Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
My grandparents' library had some of his first editions. I'm using one of the modern euphamisms, but I'm intimately familiar with his work. It has no scientific credibility in the modern sense.
But it does not mean that we are unable to describe it, and do so verifiably.
There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel, or innumerable other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream perspective.
That sounds like the very definition of POV. I make a distinction between a mainstream perspective, and making it clear that the mainstream does not endorse the theory at all.
Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was Hoagland, or others of note recently.
Then we avoid the use of the word "scientist" when it is subject to conflicting interpretations. By some definitions of the word they would be scientists.
We have articles for them, and their most important theories, as we should.
Absolutely.
The articles need not confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much credibility as one does normal mainstream science.
Nobody is saying that we should. But neither should we treat these people disparagingly, or by using pejorative language like "pseudoscience."
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org