Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
Do you mean that if most scientists believe something,
that we should be
careful not to even _mention_ alternatives that are actually held by
significant critics?
Significant scientific critics do not hold opinions that are demonstrably
false. We don't mention flat earthers in discussion of geology, because
simply mentioning their alternative hypothesis lends it credence which it does
not deserve. [[Solar system]] does not mention the various pre-Copernican
theories as viable alternatives, because science has thoroughly discredited
them. These are, however, quite rightly placed in their historical context.
We do not attempt to weasel a fake NPOV by saying "some obscure religious
orders still believe in the geocentric universe." Even if its true, these
demonstrably false opinions do not belong in scientific arguments.
The opinions of SEPP are not scientifically motivated or justifiable.
They do not belong with scientific discussions. I've not problem with their
opinions appearing in the discussion of the beliefs of SEPP.
--
Gareth Owen
"And Cunct, please stop being such a prick."
-- wikipedia-l gains a new mantra (Wed Nov 6 2002)