On 12/20/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)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