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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l