> Especially for theoretical matters, such as that in which I trek (religion,
> philosophy, psychology, occultism, etc.) more often than not the basic
> questions about the subject are the bedrock from which everyone involved
> begins to formulate a knowledge-structure, and the way that these questions
> are addressed determines rather concretely and formulaically how the subject
> shall be viewed, too often giving newcomers to the subject a very skewed
> and biased introduction.
I edit the sci.skeptic FAQ, and I faced this problem when I started
writing it. My partial solution was to state my skeptical position in
the introduction and invite anyone who strongly disagreed with me to
write their own FAQ. Nobody else has done so, but I do point at other
FAQs (e.g alt.astrology) which put forward opinions that I disagree
with.
Paul.
-- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. | +44 245 473331 ext 3245 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ Work: <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved