553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: + +
→Newton’s theory invalid
Then write about [[Scientific method]]; [[History of science]] (or physics or astronomy); [[Epistemology]]; or [[Methodology]]. The matter you are addressing here might be beyond the scope of the present article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Then write about [[Scientific method]]; [[History of science]] (or physics or astronomy); [[Epistemology]]; or [[Methodology]]. The matter you are addressing here might be beyond the scope of the present article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:I’m not really interested in those fields, but I appreciate the offer. When I first got here this article was badly deficient, and I had some knowledge on the subject so I added what I knew and tried to move on (this particular example was a stock example when I was teaching and was pared with one about Darwin and I’m not touching Evolution with a 10-foot pole). What I added was deleted (I seem to recall the reason given was that it was heresy), I restored it. It was deleted again, I added more and better references and restored it. And then it was deleted because philosophers of science aren’t good sources for the sorts of claim I was using them to support. So, I moved on, no need to engage in an edit war. Then it turns out (see [[Freud]]) that philosophers of science ARE good sources for the types of claim I was using them to support, so I restored the claim—in a good faith attempt to make this article more closely reflect reality (and I hasten to add that throughout all this not a singe reference has been given for the claim contrary to the one I was making). And for my efforts to improve the site I get attacked. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)