At 10:56 18/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
The fact
that this obscure 'zine's mini-series is specifically about
somebody who earned his coin complaining that his totally
unscientific ideas weren't treated like, well, (giggle) science,
well.... that just adds to the irony.
You wrote that Pensée IVR was
self-published. It
was no more self published than any other student
newspaper,
Self published. Not a reliable source.
A source is quite different to the subject of an
article, which is why Pensée is not used as a
source in a science article. Pensée is more than
an adequate source to confirm, for example, it's
contributors, and many facts about itself.
or even local
newspaper,
My local newspaper has hundred of editors in its history, and has
existed for more than, oh a few years (over 100, FWIW).
So has Pravda.
The zine article series in question did not.
and we include hundred on Wikipedia.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
And I want the right to read about it and make up
my own mind, rather than you or me tell each
other what we personally think is rubbish.
And you called
Velikovsky a kook.
This would be an 'er, duh'. Failing the basics of elementary physics
courses, and writing books on "why my personal belief in ancient
mythos should trump all of human knowledge of a topic, because my
personal mythos is kool"?
And this is exactly why I want to read an article
for myself. I suspect that your "failing physics"
quip is based on your own personal assessment.
Wikipedia uses verifiable sources.
I recall Director of NASA's Goddard Space Center,
Columbia astronomer and Dartmouth earth
scientist, Robert Jastrow, criticizing part of
Carl Sagan's assessment of Worlds in Collision,
and concluded that "Here Velikovsky was the
better astronomer" [The New York Times (December 2, 1979)
If we lost 10% of our articles based on eliminating bad
science,
horrible research, and total ignorance, ya know, I can't say I'd be
sad. Or feel we lost all that much.
Ignorant ranting about topics that people *do not understand* isn't
exactly in short supply.
You do appear to be discriminated against this
particular magazine.
Nah, I'm pretty much anti-moron everywhere. This "debate" just seems
to be a fun example.
I hope we're not stooping to ad hominems here. A
good editor can describe good science as well as
bad science, and do so neutrally.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com