[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

At 18:14 19/09/2007, you wrote:
>Ian Tresman wrote:
> > Jastrow had also noted that Velikovsky was "a man of extraordinary
> > talents" with "powers of scholarship and intellect", and his theory
> > as "radical, exciting, and potentially fruitful", and acknowledges
> > three correct predictions: "Venus is hot; Jupiter emits radio noise;
> > and the moon's rocks are magnetic" (and then notes seven false predictions)
>
>This points to an "all-or-nothing" approach that some take to
>information sources.  From the above they might say that because
>Velikovsky had a 70% error rate, none of what he said should be
>considered valid.  Similarly, if he had been 70% correct there would be
>pressure to accept everything he said as being correct.  The fact is
>that generally brilliant people sometimes jump from a cliff with a
>ridiculous theory; similarly, kooks can occasionally have amazing
>insights.


Could be indeed, which is why it's not good to over-generalize. And I 
have no doubt that many would disagree with Jastrow. I have quotes 
which consider Velikovsky's three "successful" predictions to be 
nothing of the sort, and other quotes which consider his "failed" 
predictions to be... nothing of the sort.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com