On 12/20/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods? Sounds like original research to me.
Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.
Exactly.
And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees it this way.
You're not.
-- Sam