Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + +
→To be taken seriously: to Joshua
: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::What source is unreliable? That sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike.
::We don't do that here, because [[scientific censorship]] is untrustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)