[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

[Ray Saintonge]

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

>>Establishing the truth of a proposition, however obvious, as this is,
>>is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor the purpose of categories.
>>Categories are an aid to the reader to in finding information.
>>    
>>
>I don't understand the dichotomy you seem
>to be trying to uphold. Wikipedia provides
>information but not truth? What is truth?
>
>Here's the start of our article on the Eiffel Tower:
>
>"The Eiffel Tower ... is a metallic tower built
>on the Champ de Mars in Paris ... and is nowadays
>the most famous landmark and symbol of Paris."
>
>This is information. And truth.
>
>When we say "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience."
>we are also providing information by writing
>down a true statement. If I may paraphrase
>a couple of sentences from a certain sci-fi
>franchise:
>
One of the first things to be learned in critical (or scientific) 
thinking is to distinguish between statements of fact and statements of 
opinion.  To be most effective that approach must be applied with 
absolute rigour. Let's deal only with the Eiffel Tower statement, since 
it doesn't have the level of controversy that one might associate with 
homeopathy.   That the Eiffel Tower is a metallic tower is a statement 
of fact; that can be directly observed, but even that assumes that there 
is no controversy about the nature of metal.  That it is on the Champ de 
Mars in Paris is a statement of fact.  The naming of places is arbitrary.

That it is the most famous landmark in Paris is a statement of opinion.  
Fame is a question of opinion.  There is no way that you can go the 
Eiffel Tower and perform any physical test that will establish its 
fame.  It is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

It is information, and it may be true, but it is not a statement of fact.

Ec