Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + +
Not sure why I'm bothering, but here it is anyway for the record
Yes, that sentence should be in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Yes, that sentence should be in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Oink, at the risk of being pig-headed, let me point out that "the scientific definition" is merely a viewpoint of [[physical science]]. We take a broader view of [[Science]] here, including the [[social sciences]]. [[Anthropology]], [[psychology]], [[economics]], [[political science]], [[history]] and so on need not adhere to the [[naturalism]], [[atheism]], or even the [[agnosticism]] of modern liberal science.
The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]).