Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I'm not
sure why that's necessary though. No reader who reads
[[creationism]] will come away with the idea that it is accepted in
scientific circles---the article itself does a good job of finessing the
issue. The category is sort of a blunt object that summarizes one
particular view of the issue (that of nearly all scientists) without
explanation or nuance. This is fine when no nuance is necessary and
pretty much all viewpoints agree on the categorization ([[United States
Democratic Party]] can go into [[Category:United States political
parties]] without objection), but IMO generally inappropriate when a
dispute exists between different viewpoints.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Would you
disagree with categorizing Christianity as a Religion?
Jack T. Chick does (see e.g. frame 38 in this tract:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1023/1023_01.asp).
How far are you willing to go in the name of NPOV?
How many Christian fundamentalists have to disagree
with a fact to make it too controversial for Wikipedia
to state in its unmarked voice? Our [[Earth]] article
currently states without attribution that "[t]he planet
formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago".
Do you think that sentence should be changed or qualified
to reflect the "different viewpoints" on this subject?
None of these are meant as rhetorical questions or
trick questions. I'm honestly interested in where
you want to draw the line.
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. 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.
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you
suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory? Saying that
Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they
are right. 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.
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.
Ec