|
To give an analogy from history, this would be a little like putting conspiracy theories of history on the history page as if they were just another variety of historical theory. They are interesting to many people, and we can concede that they're a kind of history, but golly, hardly any reputable historians have any truck with them. Similarly pseudoscience of all sorts. Maybe the most apt comparison is the "metaphysics" section you will see in many American bookstores. You won't find Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Leibniz there; you find stuff about transcendental meditation, ghosts, and all sorts of stuff that real metaphysicians know and care nothing about. Wikipedia should have long, detailed, fair articles about all such stuff; but that doesn't mean that it needs to be presented right alongside more clearly reputable scholarship. |
|
To give an analogy from history, this would be a little like putting conspiracy theories of history on the history page as if they were just another variety of historical theory. They are interesting to many people, and we can concede that they're a kind of history, but golly, hardly any reputable historians have any truck with them. Similarly pseudoscience of all sorts. Maybe the most apt comparison is the "metaphysics" section you will see in many American bookstores. You won't find Plato, Aristotle, *René Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz there; you find stuff about transcendental meditation, ghosts, and all sorts of stuff that real metaphysicians know and care nothing about. Wikipedia should have long, detailed, fair articles about all such stuff; but that doesn't mean that it needs to be presented right alongside more clearly reputable scholarship. |
|
|
|
Again, Lee, you've got an excellent point. --LMS |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)