Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is certainly a strong element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
You have a mechanism for this? In my experience both sides will rush to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall within the argument.
Requiring references is still key. Be that as it may, long and convoluted argments about such topics only make the average reader's eyes glaze over. Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
In reality, most scientists don't have the time to waste on researching such subjects. Admitting openly and honestly that this is the case is so much more believable than speculating about why the practice is so much nonsense, thereby looking just as foolish as the proponents. It seems that debunkers have this fear that whenever a screwball theory goes unchallenged the masses will immediately see it as true. Sometimes the most effective technique for debunking is a stone wall.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but we currently do not have an article about it.
Yes, exactly that. We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent discussion.
While I have no intention to spend time researching this subject, the term at least has enterred the vocabulary, and some individual is probably credited with its "discovery". Others are also likely to run across the term, and wonder what the hell it is. Such a topic may never result in more than a stub, and that's fine. The study of these dead ends of science is an important part of the history of science.