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

Tue Sep 30 23:31:52 UTC 2003

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>Maybe we should make a section about crackpot theories
>on relativity. After all, there are so many of them
>and their existance is well-known. It wouldn't need to
>name specific points that they are making, only that
>crackpot theories exist. Possibly there could be an
>article on crackpot theories. We don't have to endorce
>them to acknowledge them. (Or do we, under NPOV?)
>
The term "crackpot" should really be avoided, because of the attitude 
that it carries.  I prefer "eccentric" as more reflective of the fact 
that these ideas are away from the center of physical thought.

A list of these theories is certainly valuable, but there would be room 
there ton go into much detail.  I support allowing each of them to have 
an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his 
ideas.  Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint, 
and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note 
at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this 
article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought."  The more 
outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you 
should say about it.  Engaging in a discussion on the merits of such a 
theory gives it an air of credibility that it might never otherwise have 
had.

I also think that the criterion of requiring that something has been 
previously published is not entirely sound, because that opens up a big 
question about what it means to have been published.  So when it comes 
to having one article of reasonable length on a subject I would give 
these proponents the benefit of the doubt.  Beyond that I would be more 
cautious.  

If I may make a somewhat irreverent analogy:  A zoo needs to keep its 
wild animals in cages where they can be seen.

Some interesting ideas in the history of science and technology have 
been forgotten when better more efficient ideas came along, It is 
perfectly encyclopedic to record these despite the fact that they mostly 
got nowhere.  We have no honest way of determining which of today's 
theories will bear future fruit.

As Napoleon is reported to have said when he met Robert Fulton: "What, 
Sir? Would you make a ship sail against the wind and currentsby lighting 
a bonfireunder her deck? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen 
to such nonsense."

Ec