[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women

Wed Sep 11 14:42:34 UTC 2002

tarquin wrote:

> I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based 
> solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. 
> Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as 
> such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their 
> behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them.
>
> Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious 
> discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps 
> tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, 
> myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about 
> relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to 
> see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he 
> is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles 
> round us on purpose.
> I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for 
> the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or 
> pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough?
>
> That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are 
> kooks". 

I wouldn't even say that these comments are harsh, Just offensive.  

These terms don't advance any discussion of whatever is the topic. 
 Applying them to the person rather than the ideas means that you're 
using ad hominem arguments, and that's offensive.

In discussing science what advantage is there to calling other views 
pseudoscientific just because they don't agree with yours or the 
majority opinion.  It only shows that scientists are just as petty as 
anybody else.  Offhanded dismissiveness does more to promote 
pseudoscience than to stop it.

Eclecticology