Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Do you mean that if most scientists believe something, that we should be careful not to even _mention_ alternatives that are actually held by significant critics?
Significant scientific critics do not hold opinions that are demonstrably false. We don't mention flat earthers in discussion of geology, because simply mentioning their alternative hypothesis lends it credence which it does not deserve. [[Solar system]] does not mention the various pre-Copernican theories as viable alternatives, because science has thoroughly discredited them. These are, however, quite rightly placed in their historical context. We do not attempt to weasel a fake NPOV by saying "some obscure religious orders still believe in the geocentric universe." Even if its true, these demonstrably false opinions do not belong in scientific arguments.
The opinions of SEPP are not scientifically motivated or justifiable. They do not belong with scientific discussions. I've not problem with their opinions appearing in the discussion of the beliefs of SEPP.