[WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--]

Fri Sep 26 17:45:21 UTC 2003

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here.
>Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views
>are not mainstream?  Is there any helpful accomodation that could be
>made here?
>
I'll match my competence to deal with physics with Jimbo's at any time.

The fact is that these eccentric theories do exist, and more energy is 
spent trying to discredit them then the originator put into developing 
the theory.  In a similar way, what keeps trolls alive is the generous 
amount of nourishment supplied by their detractors.  The behaviour of 
some of the advocates of "science" in the preservation of their "bodily 
humors" is such that if ever there were a Pope of Science they would 
make fine candidates for that office.

There is a place for these theories, even as most of them (often 
deservedly) are cast aside in the history of science.  Some do lead 
somewhere, though it is not apparent at the time; an example here could 
be Alexander Bain's 1843 patent of the teleautograph, an early attempt 
at transmitting pictures by telegraph.

Allowing Mr. Royce's views at the appropriate place(s) is just fine. 
 There these views should fairly represent what the proponents are 
trying to say without the need to have those views interrupted by 
constant bickering about every tiny detail.  Later the after the 
proponent has finished his explanation, there will still be plenty of 
room to express disagreement.  Sometimes only a simple sentence like, 
"The above ideas have not been accepted by mainstream science," will be 
more than enough to fulfill all NPOV requirements.  Why should it be so 
easy for the supporters of "sciene" to forget that the primary burden of 
proof for any new theory lies with the proponents?  When they have 
failed to carry that burden, a simple remark to that effect is all that 
is needed.  There is no need to mount a thorough attack; there is no 
need to find an excuse (such as promoting one's own theories) for 
censoring out these articles.  If they begin to infect other more 
accepted concepts, it could be enough to say at the infected site, "An 
alternative view of this is expressed at [[...]]."  

Ec