Changes

'''FT2''': Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document. We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple sources of note. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists. FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''FT2''': Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document. We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple sources of note. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists. FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Flavius''': This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on [[Earth]]. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- ''because it is unsupported by science'' -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but ''equal'' coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. (User:Flavius vanillus|flavius) 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Flavius''': This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on [[Earth]]. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- ''because it is unsupported by science'' -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm]), or that the Earth is hollow (see [http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html]), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see [http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1]). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but ''equal'' coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. (User:Flavius vanillus|flavius) 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'''FT2''': The reasons that flat earth is not heavily represented here is as best I can work out:  

'''FT2''': The reasons that flat earth is not heavily represented here is as best I can work out: