On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.
Please note that the terms I used here on this list are NOT appropriate for in-wiki discussions or inclusion in pages. I know that and differentiate how I approach the conversations. Those are biased and loaded terms, and shut down any ability to rationally discuss the situation.
If an
alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a following to make it notable it needs to be dealt with fairly. That can involve diverting it from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent alternative theories. The introduction there can briefly describe what the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is controversial. We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Agreed.
When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the
possibility, however remote, that there may be an element of sense in the theory. We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may ever be discovered at all. The burden of proof remains with the proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a proof that the theory is wrong. It's perhaps in that leap of faith where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track.
Agreed.