[WikiEN-l] Nationality on the lead of articles

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/31/11 3:24 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> So, instead of working on the article, and adding something about
>> astrology, there has been a sterile POV conflict. Meanwhile the article
>> is piss poor with one of the POV warriors, now he's gotten rid of the
>> opposition, re-writing it and making it even worse.
>>
>> So big fight over nothing, while substantial work remains undone.
>>
>> "WikiProject Rational Skepticism High-importance)" Really?
> I don't think the article is skeptical enough.
>
> For instance, it says "In February, 2001, the science of vedic astrology,
> Jyotir Vigyan, was introduced into the curriculum of Indian universities".
> The reference shows the government of India saying that, but the government
> of India is not a reliable source for the claim that vedic astrology is a
> science or is being treated scientifically.  The words "the science of"
> should be removed, or described solely as someone else's words without
> implying that they are true, for instance "vedic astrology, described as a
> science by the Government of India, was...."

The Skeptics are notorious for using the term "reliable source" to mean 
anything that supports their Religious Point of View. Why shouldn't the 
government be treated as a reliable source?  Why should residents of 
Western countries be so arrogant as to hijack a word like "science" to 
their own purposes? Traditionally, science  always referred to any area 
of study; it could be gnostic as well as epistemic.  It did not depend 
on following a predetermined and restrictive set of rules, or even the 
ultimate truth of what was being studied.  Your proposed distortion is 
disrespectful of the Indian tradition..

Ec