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