[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

At 20:21 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 9/17/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded
> > debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as
> > "pseudoscience".  Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually
> > failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from
> > public consciousness.  It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive
> > value judgements on these failed theories.  That these avenues were once
> > pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper
> > explanation.  Anyone reading old material will encounter literary
> > references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation
> > about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of
> > polemics.  The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in
> > one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
>
>Ray;
>
>With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never
>sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first
>place.

In which case we do not describe them as such.


>I do not believe in being so neutral and open minded that our brains
>fall out and we fail to distinguish between serious science that
>turned out in the end to be wrong on one side, and interplanetary
>billiards a la Velikovsky, creationism, and the like on the other.


The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have 
nothing to do with the Pensée series. And 
Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com