Meeeeoooooowwwmmmm, incoming naive person alert
What's the problem of saying that creationsim is psuedoscience, and then just pointing to all the books by well-regarded scientists that state that as the reference? (I have one on my book shelf :-), and I'm sure there's more ).
Surely that's all that's required under WP:NPOV and WP:CS.
Dan
On 01/07/05, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
On Thursday 30 June 2005 21:56, Jtkiefer wrote:
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
As an aside: I find Perakh and Young's (2004) definition of pseudoscience to be useful:
[[ Results for 'Perakh and Young 2004' + Is intelligent design science? o ch=12 p=Rutgers University press bt=Why Intelligent Design Fails y=2004 e=Matt Young, Taner Edis a=New Brunswick r=20050209 o intelligent design is not bad science like cold fusion or wrong science like Lamarckian inheritance (Perakh and Young 2004:185) o some features of pseudoscience # denial of established fact (e.g., homeotherapy and young earth creationists) (Perakh and Young 2004:186) # untestable hypotheses: a theory that explains everything explains nothing (e.g., astrology) (Perakh and Young 2004:187) # tries to "prove that": "a pseudoscientist tries to prove that something is true; a good scientist tries to find out whether it is true." (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # everyone is wrong but us (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # other features: never admit to mistakes, made-up terms and vague concepts (Perakh and Young 2004:189) ]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l