On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 09:28:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
little longer in time. We have a pretty large group of people on Wikipedia who happen to believe that God created Man. The general scientific consensus is that this is nonsense (let's not get into the merits of this
There can be no "scientific" concensus on an issue that is not scientifically testable (falsifiable). Please read Karl Poppers works. There are a lot of scientists who DO believe in a creator God, but keep quiet so they can retain their jobs in academia. To say there is a "scientific concensus" on the issue of God-creation is ludicrous.
Wikipedia is not like a traditional encyclopedia. We do not try to get only the best information from (presumed or real) experts in the field. We
Is that how you see it? That is a problem then. I signed on to work on a real encyclopedia, not a grand story about our cultures current mythology.
Unfortunately, yes, historians have so far neglected the creation of bibliographical databases. There are some that can be used, however, and which are probably easily accessible to you.
If you had any clue you would realize how impossible such a project is, and appreciate how much historians have already done. Knowing where to find things, and then being able to get access to them is an art, and requires deep study and hard work. Hard work which you admit you haven't done, unlike Julie.
Journals are mostly specialized, and some only published for small local audiences. From my conversations with Erik, I gather that he rejects this. Moreover, he seems to believe, based only on a small selection of books that support his own viewpoint, out of the overwhelming majority that do not,
Please, no popularity arguments.
You were the one who made the popularity argument. I think you should take the consequences.
ancient lens, I try to take his plausible arguments seriously. For me, it is not enough to refer to someone's expertise to discount a particular argument. Neither the age of an interpretation nor the credentials of its
This is a straw man. Julie didn't expect people to believe her because of her expertise, but she is justified in expecting people to respect her good intentions, AND her expertise.
different historical tradition that needs to be presented. There have been very real and very provable attempts by the Catholic Church to create a new, apologist historical tradition. The existing, non-denominational
You have a chip on your shoulder about religion in general, and Catholicism in particular. Maybe you should reflect on the fact that your bias is severely impacting your work on the Wikipedia.
Jonathan