[Wikipedia-l] Note to the militia: Reciprocal System of Theory

Mon Sep 9 22:45:07 UTC 2002

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Speaking of kooks, it looks like Doug Bundy is back in
>force editing the development version of Reciprocal
>System of Theory article (he's logged-in now). I've
>already placed a criticism section at the end of that
>version but physics and mathematics are not my strong
>points so I fear my counter-arguments are at best weak
>(much of the last "paragraph" is a set of unfinished
>notes, so it may read strange). Could somebody
>knowledgeable in either physics or mathematics take a
>look at that article?  
>
I really don't think that articles of this sort can be adequately 
refuted by directly attacking all of its details.  If the premises that 
underlay such a system are questionable, then everything that follows 
from those premises is questionable.  The entire debate beyond those 
premises is GIGO.

The burden of proof for a new theory rests with its proponents. 
 Labelling it with the pejorative "pseudoscience" does not advance the 
discussion at all; it just shifts some of the burden to the opponents 
who now introduce a new claim in the form of a pejorative that also 
needs proving.  

The originator of theretical framework such as this one is the sole real 
authority about what he has said or meant, but that doesn't do him much 
good.  For most of us they remain unintelligible.  As long as articles 
of this sort don't spread out to infect other articles I would mostly 
let them be. Adding a paragraph or two explaining the fallacies in the 
premises for the sake of NPOV is a good idea, but I would stop there. 
 Such articles are Wikipedia's benign tumours; why prod them into 
malignancy?
Eclecticology