h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fizzy

I don't find these beliefs offensive. Pitable, maybe, but not offensive. The problem I have with people presenting belief as fact is that it's a bit like having bishops and not rabbis or imams in the House of Lords. Once matters of faith gets debated here in PR, there will be somebody else who has an opposing view and wants to make sure that this view gets equal exposure. Then we end up debating, as has been done here, that certain tenets are and are not true, that psychic abilities do and do not exist, that there was or was not but one God and Mohammed was or was not his prophet....

Me, I tend to prefer dealing in matters of fact, and to people like me, evidence matters. It's a lot easier to restrict PR to such verifiable propositions and admit that certain modes of thinking - e.g. scientific thinking - are much more effective than others, such as magical thinking and therefore much more likely to produce propositions that are actually true at the end of the day. It may be anathema to some around here but claims of the effectiveness of crystal therapy and of the existence of psychic ability are *scientific claims*, in that they are susceptible to falsification through argument or experiment. Since I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary for either then I think I'm right in suggesting that we should not allow anhy more such fanciful thinking the indulgence that it has hitherto claimed up to now, stop wasting our time, and get on with reviewing entries that might actually have some value at the end of the day.

Stop wasting everyones time I shall then

Although I've been nothing but coperative in this thread

Why don't you try writing about something else for a change? I know a hell of a lot about science but I don't just write about that. You could always 'spread your wings' a bit and try approaching different subjects from a different angle for a change. You might find it liberating.

FM.

Do you really think it was worth kicking all this back up again?

Do you think it's worth it allowing non-factual entries on the front page of a factual journal?

It was the Eds decision and not anyone elses.

like my entries on clive barker, haemorrhoids, the cervical smear test, housemaids knee, the esther cox poltergeist case, resident resident evil games or the black annis legend?

So that makes it OK, then.

How many Eds have a science degree? Or any substantial training in it for that matter?

Hey hey hey- let's stop this! It has been sorted out. Seraphina has been nothing but helpful despite some abuse being hurled at her (in various forms), and continuing this thread is only going to cause more headaches. To all involved.

Can we just let it lie now, please?

and this entry is factual..in the sense its about a factual person and factual things that happened in her life..that she held personal beliefs that some may find questionable doesnt make her fiction does it?

It's been said before: Life, the Universe and *everything*. If it has been picked and edited, then don't abuse the author. You don't have to agree to every single word in the world, or even the guide. Diversity does the trick for me. (As you will recognise from a particular company's corporate B.S.) If this is not to your liking (mr FM as well as mr Gnomon) then stick to the scientific ones.

Would you not allow a mini-biography on a scientist who turned out to be wrong?

now.

This debate hasn't been about people being wrong. It's been about ideas being wrong, and still being accepted into the EG.

Here's an interesting little story about some belief versus fact:
"A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained about high-frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, transmitters and receivers, amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in
there, aren't there?"

Guess who used to tell that story? Douglas Adams, that's who. The person who set this site up. I wonder what he'd make of it now.