The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need
to "draw the
line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and
non-science.
I was not so much referring to the line between science
and non-science as the general line between *facts* which
Wikipedia can report in its own voice without attribution
("The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.") and *contested opinions*
which have to be attributed or qualified ("Some critics of
the Bush administration have suggested that oil interests
were an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq.").
Here are a few statements which I have been using as test
cases for where different people might want to draw this
line.
1. Christianity is a religion.
2. Creationism is pseudo-science.
3. Americans have landed on the moon.
4. The Nazis systematically exterminated
millions of Jews.
5. Human activities are significantly
affecting the average temperature on Earth.
My personal "line of unmarked narrative"
lies somewhere between statements 4 and 5.
This was the main point in Feyerabend's
arguments.
Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor
of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck
in the words of the Bible to brought together as religion should do. By
disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows
creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Excellent. Would you, then, object to Christianity
being included in a religion category on grounds of
the NPOV policy?
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth,
what would you
suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory?
Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I'm misunderstanding
you. I'm fine with the Earth being old. I'm not a geologist,
though, and I'm not familiar with the fine points of our
current status of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth.
Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is
just
as POV as saying that they are right.
I'm still not quite clear on your position here.
Do you object to the current lead of the [[Earth]]
article on grounds of the NPOV policy? If not then
why not?
There is no better way to promote creationism than to
argue
against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might
label as pseudoscience.
I happen to disagree with that but it's irrelevant
to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about
how best to combat pseudoscience, we're talking about
how the NPOV principle of Wikipedia applies to such
topics and, in particular, their categorization.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the
pseudoscience
list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be
credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
What's important is the consensus of the scientific
community. Not the opinion of me or you after a casual
look on a list. As with any other topic you have to do
substantial research to be able to write well on this.
Regards,
Haukur