Barney the barney barney (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Barney the barney barney (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
To summarise then: |
To summarise then: |
||
* If an idea is directly contradicted by evidence, the idea is rejected. |
* If an idea is directly contradicted by evidence, the idea is rejected. |
||
[[WP:FRINGE]] deals with fringe theories in line with their mainstream academic acceptance. It is important that editors accurately assess the "theories" discussed. Within this framework it is acknowledged that many ideas are considered absurd. Wikipedia must treat them as such. |
|||
== Notes == |
== Notes == |
||
A |
A few further points for completeness sake: |
||
* Evidence is also considered sceptically, and may be rejected as anomalous if it is inconsistent with other evidence. |
* Evidence is also considered sceptically, and may be rejected as anomalous if it is inconsistent with other evidence. |
||
* In some cases, it may not be possible to tell which answer is right, in which case more research may be required (if that's possible). |
* In some cases, it may not be possible to tell which answer is right, in which case more research may be required (if that's possible), but some things will never be known. |
||
* [[Parsimony]] is also important. In general, explanations that are straightforward are preferred over those that are unnecessarily complex. |
|||
* If in doubt, consider any standard introductory text on the philosophy or sociology of academia. |
|||
[[WP:MAINSTREAM|Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia]], because it is |
|||
Many of the claims made by [[WP:FRINGE]] are academically absurd. Some people believe some really weird things. Think of the weirdest thing you can think of . Many of these things fail . |
Revision as of 19:48, 25 May 2014
Proponents of "fringe theories" often complain that Wikipedia is biased against their particular peculiar ideas. They often complain that editors are overly sceptical of claims made by fringe theorists.
Unfortunately for them, scepticism is academically mainstream. In academic disciplines, scepticism is used to determine whether or not an idea has any value. It is an inherent and fundamental part of the philosophy of academia (including philosophy of science, philosophy of history, philosophy of social science, etc), and therefore part of the sociology of academia (sociology of science, sociology of history, sociology of social science). If scepticism was unnecessary, then it wouldn't be practised by the mainstream academics, as it would be a hindrance not a help to the academic process.
To summarise then:
- If an idea is directly contradicted by evidence, the idea is rejected.
WP:FRINGE deals with fringe theories in line with their mainstream academic acceptance. It is important that editors accurately assess the "theories" discussed. Within this framework it is acknowledged that many ideas are considered absurd. Wikipedia must treat them as such.
Notes
A few further points for completeness sake:
- Evidence is also considered sceptically, and may be rejected as anomalous if it is inconsistent with other evidence.
- In some cases, it may not be possible to tell which answer is right, in which case more research may be required (if that's possible), but some things will never be known.
- Parsimony is also important. In general, explanations that are straightforward are preferred over those that are unnecessarily complex.
- If in doubt, consider any standard introductory text on the philosophy or sociology of academia.