|
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. Thanks for your note on the new user log. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp. Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page. Happy editing, Isomorphic 04:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||||||
|
The Brian Roberts page looks terrific. You've been paid accordingly (and I added your initialization amount, too -- everyone gets 20 wikis for just being a part of the community, pretty cool, huh?) -- Matty j 02:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC) Regarding Welteislehre. Simply being false is not enough reason to call something a pseudoscience. That would at least take some persistence in its defence after contradictory evidence has been presented. In Hörbiger's time the means for proving or disproving the theory were not available. The claim that something is a pseudoscience (usually BTW written in one word in English), is the positive assertion that needs evidence. How does one distinguish between pseudoscience and what is merely an unporoven or unproveable theory? Many theories have been put forth over the centuries, and were eventually dropped when required by the evidence. Most of us who object to the characterization of something as pseudoscience, do not go so far as to claim that the practice or study in question is a valid one. Eclecticology 21:16, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC) | ||||||||