1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
no edit summary
:::I, personally, would tend to agree with both of you, Popper should be usable as a source for what is or is not science. But, I don’t make the rules here. See the comment I linked to above . Philosophers of science are not relevant sources when dealing with science. The views of philosophers are opinions when it comes to science (see here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Newton&diff=next&oldid=27318] ). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I, personally, would tend to agree with both of you, Popper should be usable as a source for what is or is not science. But, I don’t make the rules here. See the comment I linked to above . Philosophers of science are not relevant sources when dealing with science. The views of philosophers are opinions when it comes to science (see here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Newton&diff=next&oldid=27318] ). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Eh we make the rules on pages that have yet to be discovered and put through the CP intellectual downgrade. Let Schlafly come and say Popper doesn't know anything first, I don't want to proactively dumb down articles myself :).[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)